South San Francisco City Council
September 27, 2023

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 1 we don't need more people coming to SSF........with more traffic.......why?...just for money?
Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 About Lindenville 2 Residential growth in the Lindenville Specific Plan (5,000+ units) is consistent with growth planned for in the City's General Plan, adopted in 2022, and Housing Element. No change recommended.

None
2 The City needs to steward this Plan because it is a great opportunity. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 About Lindenville 2 No change recommended. None 3 Would have been nicer to hear about this planning process earlier. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.2 Specific Plan Development
6 The planning process kicked off in May 2022. The City advertised the Plan through an interactive project website, signs and banners in Lindenville, email updates, presentations to boards and commission meetings, and advertisements on social media. No change recommended.

None
4 You need to have a long‐term perspective for this Plan. Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville

2.1 Vision for Lindenville 16 No change recommended. None 5 Wondering if there’s too much dreaming going on in this Plan. Can’t fault what’s going on here, but have serious doubts that this is going to happen.

Chapter 2: Vision for
Lindenville

2.1 Vision for Lindenville 16 The Specific Plan defines 20‐year vision for the future of Lindenville. The envisioned open spaces, blue‐green infrastructure, and arts district are transformative and will take years to implement. City staff will continually identify opportunities and partnerships to accelerate their implementation. No change recommended.

None
6 Wants to be cautious we don’t dump everything on Lindenville. We don’t want to accidentally create problems there in the future.

Chapter 2: Vision for
Lindenville

2.1 Vision for Lindenville 16 Changes will happen incrementally over time. The City will be able to carefully react to change and make adjustments over time. No change recommended.

None
7 Really excited about the Plan. Likes the open space, mixed use, bike lanes Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville

2.2 Major Strategies 17 No change recommended. None
8 When presenting on this and the GP, make sure to include how the plan addresses health, schools, childcare, other family services
Chapter 2: Vision for
Lindenville

2.2 Major Strategies 17 The South San Francisco General Plan has the Equitable Community Services Element that addresses many of the intersections between schools, childcare, and social services. It sets goals, policies, and actions for the entire city, including the Lindenville Sub‐Area. The future development and enhancement of these services and public facilities in Lindenville would reflect the community vision established in the General Plan. No change recommended.

None
9 How does the GP and LSP address care for elder veterans? Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville

2.2 Major Strategies 18 The City's General Plan establishes policies and actions that aim to improve all seniors' access to resources and services. As Lindenville develops and has residents, future senior programs and services in the Sub‐Area would reflect the vision established in the General Plan. No change recommended.

None
10 Update Figure 7 with the revised version of Figure 23 that incorporates the updates listed in the Comment Matrix.

Chapter 2: Vision for
Lindenville

2.2 Major Strategies 23 Update Figure 7 with the revised version of Figure 23: Parks and Open Space Framework Plan.

Make change
11 Update Figure 8 and 9 with the revised versions of Figures 29 and 28. Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville

2.2 Major Strategies 25 Update Figure 8 with the revised Figure 29: Transit Priority Streets, and update Figure 9 with the revised Figure 29: Bicycle Priority Streets.

Make change
12 Linden is situated between two Latinx neighborhoods Old Town and Mayfair village, industrial serving neighborhoods.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.1 Goals and Policies 28 No change recommended. None
13 There are 4 title Los Cerritos, SSFHS, Spruce, and Martin schools adjacent to South Linden / Lindenville.

TITLE 1: schools in which children from low‐income families make up at least 40 percent of enrollment.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.1 Goals and Policies 28 No change recommended. None
14 In terms of allocation for affordable housing, is there anything envisioned for policies that might prioritize certain populations, such as the arts population? Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.1 Goals and Policies 28 Policy LU‐1.2 establishes a goal for 20% affordable housing in Lindenville, rather than the City's overall inclusionary goal of 15%. Policy LU‐1.3 aims for a diversity of housing types for a variety of household sizes and types. Policy LU‐4.2 supports the creation of deed restricted affordable live‐work spaces by including these spaces as a priority in use of City affordable housing funds and partnering with nonprofit organizations focused on artists and makers. No change recommended.

None
15 It can be nice for existing businesses to operate according to code when the new residential uses come in.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.1 Goals and Policies 28 Businesses are required to operate under code under the City's existing code enforcement regulations. No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 16 Do we have enough public school infrastructure to support the families that will live in Lindenville?
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.1 Goals and Policies 28 Per analysis conducted during the General Plan Update and via its Environmental Impact Report, Lindenville has the infrastructure to support student population growth through the year 2040, the horizon year of the General Plan. No change recommended.

None
17 Changes proposed in this Plan will make this neighborhood more desirable place to live.

Can you talk about anti‐displacement strategies?
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.1 Goals and Policies 30 There are no residents currently living in Lindenville. From a business perspective, the Plan includes policies under Goal LU‐3 to provide services to help businesses stay in South San Francisco. No change recommended.

None
18 Our city council is not representing, nor protecting its residents. We have been sold out – big time!
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.1 Goals and Policies 30 See previous response. No change recommended. None 19 There was also the disclosure that existing businesses likely would be displaced but would receive help to do so even if outside the city limits. While one planning commissioner didn't want it to look this way, I believe they were more concerned with the optics than the reality.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.1 Goals and Policies 30 Goal LU‐3 prioritizes the City provide services to help businesses stay in South San Francisco. No change recommended.

None
20 Is it possible to incentivize the first artists/makers that move to the A&M District, as they are taking a risk
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.1 Goals and Policies 31 Policy LU‐4.2 supports the creation of deed restricted affordable live‐work spaces by including these spaces as a priority in use of City affordable housing funds and partnering with nonprofit organizations focused on artists and makers. The Specific Plan's Arts & Makers Overlay provides incentives for artists/makers. No change recommended.

None
21 Character areas: Are those based on current demands for those type of spaces? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.2 Land Use Vision 33 The Specific Plan establishes four different character areas in Lindenville. The character areas help to: ensure complete, walkable communities in the Mixed Use Neighborhood, South Spruce Avenue Corridor and along the South Linden Arts and Makers District; and to articulate unique design standards for each of the areas. No change recommended.

None
22 The main thing I want to make sure is that we evolve from an employment area to a new district, and that the change is made as best we can.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.2 Land Use Vision 33 No change recommended. None
23 To maintain consistency with existing zoning for a development project, revert parcels at 40 Airport Blvd, 20 Airport Blvd, and 10 Airport Blvd back to RH‐180.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.2 Land Use Vision 38 Add the following description for the Residential High (RH‐180) Land Use District after the description for Medium Density Residential (RM‐22):
"Residential High 180 (RH‐180)
RH‐180 district provides for a mix of residential development, allowing a variety of multifamily housing choices, including townhouses, condominiums, and apartment buildings. It also supports residential care facilities, group residential homes, service‐ enriched housing, parks and recreation facilities, and civic and institutional uses." Make change
24 Remove Medium Density Residential (RM‐22) designation and replace with the T3 Neighborhood (T3N) description.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.2 Land Use Vision 38 Remove the following "Medium Density Residential (RM‐22) The RM‐22 district provides for a transition between existing single family residentialneighborhoods and higher density neighborhoods in Lindenville. RM‐22 allows for attachedor detached single‐family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, andcondominiums. It also supports residential care facilities, service‐enriched housing, parkand recreation facilities, civic, and institutional uses."Add the following description for the T3N Land Use District after the Residential High description: "The T3N district is a low‐intensity neighborhood mixed‐use district. Residential in character, it supports cultural institutions and neighborhood‐serving commercial uses in a walkable context. Buildings reflect the scale of surrounding low‐density neighborhoods and frontages are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood." Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 25 Update HIO text for clarity. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.3 Land Use 39 Revise description for clarity: "Height Incentive Overlay (HIO) The Height Incentive Overlay allows for maximum building heights of up to ~150 160 feet, subject to consistency with the SFO ALUCP and FAA regulations, in exchange for affordable housing, open space dedication, and green buildings."
Make change
26 Colma Creek Greenbelt: This is great and an interesting concept; strongly recommend also adding a Sea Level Rise Overlay that extends beyond Colma Creek frontage More detailed suggested revisions to SSF's Ch. 20.180 Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay District were sent to Billy Gross on 7/16 can be a starting point for this.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 39 Existing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.180 (“Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay”) applies to all areas of the City that are within a FEMA flood zone map, identified as being in the 100‐ year flood plus 36 inches of sea level rise, or within BCDC's 100‐foot shoreline band. The standards within this Chapter are intended to protect areas projected to be impacted by sea level rise, mitigate the impacts of sea level rise, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents of the City. No change recommended.

None
27 Update the Medium Density Residential parcels to T3 Neighborhood land use district. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 Update the Medium Density Residential parcels to the T3 Neighborhood Land Use District, and add the new district as a legend item.

Make change
28 To maintain consistency with existing zoning for a development project, revert parcels at 40 Airport Blvd, 20 Airport Blvd, and 10 Airport Blvd back to RH‐180 and reflect that in the Land Use Districts Map.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 Update the symbology of parcels at 40 Airport Blvd, 20 Airport Blvd, and 10 Airport Blvd to be RH‐180 instead of T5 Lindenville, and add RH‐180 as a legend item.

Make change
29 To maintain consistency with the General Plan Land Use Map and the San Mateo County Assessor Map, revise the Land Use Districts Map so that the Navigable Slough parcel is included and is designated as Open Space. Revise 131 Terminal Court and 101 Terminal Court parcels to match the San Mateo County Assessor Map.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 Update the parcellation on the Land Use Districts Map so that the Navigable Slough parcel is included, matches the San Mateo County Assessor Map, and is designated as Open Space. Revise the 131 Terminal Court and 101 Terminal Court parcels to match the San Mateo County Assessor Map.

Make change
30 Makerspace / open space on either side of the canal instead ‐ why put housing on a traffic corridor?The canal is the most attractive area for shops / restaurants Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 40
Property owners will have the option of developing ground floor commercial and arts and makers uses on either side of Colma Creek, but it will not be required. Concentrating uses in specific locations will help to activate a portion of South Linden Avenue. Retail often works best on corridors with higher volume of people and vehicle movement, such as South Linden and South Spruce. No change recommended.

None
31 Lots of area allocated to commercial / arts / makers – maybe it should be mixed use Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 The underlying Zoning Districts in the Arts & Makers district allow for residential, commercial, and/or industrial uses, depending on location. No change recommended.

None
32 For building owners on Canal and Starlite, what are your plans? We very well may not be willing to sell. And if we are, how do you plan to purchase the property? Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 Landowners are not forced to redevelop their properties. Existing uses are allowed to continue into the future, consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance on non‐conforming uses. No change recommended.

None
33 I am concerned with the further reduction of industrial zoned properties in SSF. It started on the East side of the 101 now it's spread to a good portion of the West side. Industrial tenants continue to be pushed out, prices continue to increase and landlords have buildings that do not conform with new zoning.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 The City recognizes this concern. The Specific Plan maintains a core industrial area within Lindenville. Property owners within any area, including the mixed‐use residential area, will not be required to sell their properties, and industrial nonconforming uses will be allowed to continue for the structural life of the building. The Plan contains strategies to retain existing businesses in the city. No change recommended.

None
34 It is great when areas are up‐zoned for but not when it also eliminates the right for future tenants and landlords to use their industrial properties for an industrial use.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 Property owners within any area, including the mixed‐use residential area, will not be required to sell their properties, and industrial nonconforming uses will be allowed to continue for the structural life of the building. No change recommended.

None
35 No biotech corporations should be on the west side of the city near neighborhoods. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 The Specific Plan does not expand land available for life science uses in Lindenville beyond those previously identified in the 2040 General Plan. No change recommended.

None
36 The Plan Area starts just south of Railroad Avenue and there is a significant grade change at Spruce and Linden, I did see a slide with potential connections, can you speak to that? Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 The Specific Plan includes a pedestrian / bicycle connection between Railroad Avenue and the Neighborhood Park. Connections, such as this, will also be handled on a case by case basis as new development projects move forward. No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 37 Is there thinking of making connection from Lindenville to other neighborhoods? Looking at the graphic where you can go in 5 minutes, 15 minutes etc.…right now it’s hard to navigate from a pedestrian perspective.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 The Specific Plan builds off of the General Plan and existing bike and pedestrian plans. The City may prioritize some streets as capital improvements, such as South Spruce Avenue.

Whereas in other cases, developers will be required to provide some multi‐modal improvements as conditions of development approval. No change recommended.

None
38 I see there are lot of vacant spaces or spaces that were designated retail and didn’t succeed, so the use changed to residential for example. What’s your strategy? Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 Over 5,000 units are planned in Lindenville, and the Plan allocates areas for services that accommodate a new mixed‐use neighborhood. In the short‐term, before a critical mass of housing is constructed, the Specific Plan provides allowance for temporary uses within those spaces. No change recommended.

None
39 Southline area should have its own master plan; Phasing to get some development started sooner. Mix housing, office, retail.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3 Land Use 40 The Southline Specific Plan governs the Southline project area. It includes a mix of office, commercial, and open space. No change recommended.

None
40 What happened to the industrial City? As a general contractor, I saw all of my suppliers move to SSF. All came to Lindenville with auto body shops, welding shops, etc. Where are these people going to go? Are we going to knock down their warehouses and build up boxes? Need to think about this from the standpoint of workers? Do they have to go to San Mateo or Burlingame. This Plan is a little extreme, and more care should be had to the people who work there. Outside of architecture, I don’t like this Plan.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 41 The Specific Plan builds on the recently adopted General Plan's vision for the area. The Specific Plan defines the policies, development standards, and implementation actions to work towards that vision. No change recommended.

None
41 The draft specific plan places too many additional restrictions on industrial uses.

Specifically in the T4 and T5 districts industrial and R&D uses are subject to a minor use permit which is a multi month process and for all intensive purposes eliminates the feasibility of these uses. No Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution uses are allowed.

Many of the properties in these areas are smaller individually owned industrial condominium uses where there is no path to redevelopment due to the large ownership groups. These mixed use neighborhoods should allow for industrial uses to be allowed to continue as by right uses.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 41 To simplify the substitution of uses within existing buildings, the City is updating Chapter

20.320.005 (“Substitution of Nonconforming Uses”) to streamline and simplify the process.

See Zoning Ordinance update for more information.

None
42 Industrial, R&D, Warehouse, Distribution and Auto related uses should be allowed to continue in the mixed use districts as by right uses without the requirement of a minor use permit. These uses should receive a simple over the counter business license approval.Many of the properties in this area are small warehouse condo units owned by individuals as investments or owner/users. The restrictions on industrial uses makes it onerous on these small individual owners to continue to use their buildings for the intended use.

Since they are multi‐tenant buildings there is no path to development and they will remain warehouses. This area should allow for historical uses to continue to be permitted, but also allow for new multi family residential development. Making it a true mixed use district.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 41 To simplify the substitution of uses within existing buildings, the City is updating Chapter

20.320.005 (“Substitution of Nonconforming Uses”) to streamline and simplify the process.

See Zoning Ordinance update for more information.

None
43 There is a typo in the key at the top of Table 1 Use Regulations: “—” = Use Note Allowed Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Revise "“—” = Use Note Allowed " to say "“—” = Use Not Allowed " Make change 44 Remove the RM‐22 land use district column from Table 1. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Remove the RM‐22 land use district column from Table 1. Make change 45 Add the T3N district to Table 1 Use Regulations. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Add T3N as a column before T3ML. Uses will be the same as the uses in the City's Zoning Code for T3N.

Make change
46 District RH‐180 should be added to Table 1 Use Regulations as a column for consistency with existing zoning for a development project.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Add RH‐180 as a column after RM‐22. Uses are the same as the City's current Zoning Code for RH‐180.

Make change
47 Revise the allowed use in the T4L column for Dwelling, Single‐Unit, Attached to be consistent with the building types allowed in this district. Rowhouse is a building types allowed in this district and the City defines this typology as a Single‐Unit Dwelling.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Replace "‐" with "P" to the T4L column for the Dwelling, Single‐Unit, Attached row in Table 1: Use Regulations.

Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 48 Table 1: Use Regulations needs to be updated to be consistent with the existing Zoning Code and proposed updates to the Zoning Code.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Update Table 1: Use Regulations to incorporate the following changes: Ensuring existing use‐ based districts (RM‐22, BPO, BTP‐H, MIM, MIH, PQP) to be consistent with the existing Zoning Code; updating uses of transect zones to be consistent with updated zoning; fixing various typos; removing new uses introduced in the Public Draft Specific Plan for consistency with the Zoning Code (e.g., arts exhibition space); adding uses that were not included in the Draft Specific Plan table that are in the existing Zoning Code (e.g., cannabis uses); removing PQ from the table.

Make change
49 Opening my own small business, sustainable “refillery,” how are we as a community going to make this place more for families, artists, etc. I know this is a long‐term plan, but in the meantime, are there temporary uses that might help promote small businesses, especially craft/ boutique etc.?
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 The Plan allows for arts and makers uses in all districts except PQP, BPO, and RM‐22. It allows for general retail sales in all districts except PQP and RM‐22. The City is prepared a Public Arts Master Plan that will enhance arts and cultural identity citywide. No change recommended.

None
50 I completed the survey. The plan has too many restrictions on warehouse, distribution, R&D and industrial uses in the mixed use districts. These uses should be allow to continue as permitted uses by right without the requirement for a minor use permit or any other approvals. Many of the properties in this area are small warehouse condo units owned by individuals as investments or owner/users. The restrictions on industrial uses makes it onerous on these small individual owners to continue to use their buildings for the intended use. Since they are multi‐tenant buildings there is no path to development and they will remain warehouses. This area should allow for historical uses to continue to be permitted, but also allow for new multi family residential development. Making it a true mixed use district.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 To simplify the substitution of uses within existing buildings, the City is updating Chapter

20.320.005 (“Substitution of Nonconforming Uses”) to streamline and simplify the process.

See Zoning Ordinance update for more information.

None
51 Typo in Table 1 Use Regulations: "Hotel and Morel" Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 46 Revise "Hotel and Morel" to say "Hotel and Motel " Make change 52 Our city staff and the city council have sold out the residents by smoozing up to the biotech ‐‐ all the biotech cares about is themselves, and not the residents of SSF. Time for a change in "leadership."
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.3.3 Allowed Uses 47 The Specific Plan does not expand land available for life science uses in Lindenville beyond those previously identified in the 2040 General Plan. No change recommended.

None
53 Add a column that contains the total floor area ratio for residential and non‐residential for each district.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Add column and the following for each district:
"RH‐180: NA
T3N: 0.5 min, 2.25 max
T3ML: 0.5 min; 2.5 max
T4L: 1.25 min; 3.5 max
T5L: 1.5 min; 3.75 maxBPO: 2.5
BTP‐H: 2.0
MIM: 1.0MIH: 2.0
PQP: NA"
Make change
54 Discussion related to the Prologis site on South Spruce.

Consideration for lowering the minimum residential density on the site.

Suggestions to master plan the site, given its large size.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Prologis owns a large parcel along the South Spruce corridor. The Specific Plan splits the parcel between the T4 mixed use and BPO designations. The T4 zone requires a minimum residential density, which applies to the mixed‐use portion of the site only. The Specific Plan also identifies an open space and the Lindenville Linear Park, connecting to the Centennial Way Trail, on site.

Given the size and complexity of the site, the mix of uses, and the likely need to phase a project of this size, a master plan or similar would help ensure site redevelopment works toward the vision of the Specific Plan. No change recommended.

None
55 Table 2: Density and Intensity uses both "NA" and "‐" to show a district does not have a value assigned. Make the table consistent.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Replace "‐" with "NA" Make change
56 Remove RM‐22 row from Table 2: Density and Intensity. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Remove row RM‐22. Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 57 Add a row for T3N above the T3ML row. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Add a row for T3N and fill with the following information. Minimum density is 20 du/ac; maximum density is 60 du/ac; Base FAR is 0.5 maximum for non‐residential uses; Max FAR with Community Benefits is NA
Make change
58 To make consistent with the City's current General Plan and Zoning Code, update the Maximum FAR allowed for BTP‐H.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Revise the Maximum FAR with Community Benefits description for BTP‐H: "2.0 2.5 for Clean Technology, Office, and R&D"
Make change
59 To maintain consistency with existing zoning for a development project, add RH‐180 to Table 2: Density and Intensity
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Add a row for RH‐180. Minimum density is 80 du/ac, or existing density, whichever is greater; maximum density is 180 du/ac and footnote 1 applies. Add "NA" to Base Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio column and Maximum Floor Area Ratio with Community Benefits column.

Make change
60 To maintain consistency with the General Plan's High Density Mixed Use designation and max FAR, update the max FAR to 4.5.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Revise the Maximum FAR with Community Benefits description for T5L: "4.5 4.0" Make change 61 Revise the Max FAR with Community Benefits for MIH district to be 2.0 for consistency with Zoning Code Update.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Revise the Maximum FAR with Community Benefits descriptions for MIH: "2.0 2.5 for all permitted uses except Office and R&D"
Make change
62 Remove Note #3 from Table 2: Density and Intensity. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Delete note "3. Total Floor Area Maximum is total maximum for site, inclusive community benefits."
Make change
63 Remove Note #2 from Table 2: Density and Intensity on the MIM Base Non‐Residential Floor Area Ratio
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Delete note 2 next to MIM's base Non‐Residential Floor Area Ratio Make change 64 Add a footnote clarifying the additional density allowed under the Height Incentive Overlay for T5L.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4 DevelopmentIntensity
51 Add the following footnote to the Notes section and add new note 3 in superscript to "140" in row T5L, column Maximum Residential Capacity.
"3. Projects within the Height Incentive Overlay that comply with Height Incentive Overlay requirements are eligible for a maximum of 180 du/ac. See the Section 3.5 for more information."
Make change
65 Concern that the City will come forward with eminent domain procedures to force property owners to sell/redevelop.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4.3 Transfer of
Development Rights
53 The Specific Plan sets a long‐term vision for Lindenville's parks and open space. Landowners are not forced to redevelop their properties, and the Specific Plan does not use eminent domain to create open space. The Specific Plan relies on market‐based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. As redevelopment along Colma Creek starts to occur, the setbacks and transfer of development rights program becomes a greater incentive. No change recommended.

None
66 Happy not to see eminent domain Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.4.3 Transfer of
Development Rights
53 See previous response. None
67 What will happen to businesses / properties already in the Colma Creek Greenbelt? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.4.3 Transfer of
Development Rights
53 See previous response. None
68 Concern about the feasibility of transferring development rights to incentivize the development of a park along Colma Creek
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4.3 Transfer of
Development Rights
53 See previous response. None
69 Worry from property owners about losing property values when an area gets rezoned for greenspace
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.4.3 Transfer of
Development Rights
53 Property owners in Lindenville are eligible to use the Transfer of Development Rights Program. This program provides property owners an opportunity to capture value from their existing building square footage and/or potential development rights if they choose to sell their property. No change recommended.

None
70 The plan looks great, but how will current landowners be compensated? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.4.3 Transfer of
Development Rights
53 Landowners are not going to be forced to redevelop their properties and eminent domain is not a part of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan relies on market‐based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. No change recommended.

None
71 Place "Colma Creek Greenbelt" first on the list of TDR priorities for emphasis. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.4.3 Transfer of
Development Rights
54 Change "Colma Creek Greenbelt" from "3a. d" Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 72 Need to be thoughtful in transitions. Don’t want to put giant buildings next to existing single‐family residents.Recommend shifting taller buildings (85 feet +) further east, closer to US‐101 Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.5 Height 55 The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Shifting height and density east towards South Linden Avenue was considered. However, this change was not made due to parcel and right‐of‐way constraints in the corridor. No change recommended.

None
73 You also made mention of the possibility for construction of twelve story buildings on the site. While that might exceed current zoning, just the mention means it is as good as done as our city officials historically acquiesce to anything a developer puts in front of them.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.5 Height 55 The Height Incentive Overlay District is intended to incentivize higher levels of green building performance, affordable housing, and the provision of additional open space in excess of the amount required under existing City and Specific Plan regulations and fees in exchange for increased building heights. No change recommended.

None
74 You have even mentioned that plans for a residential project will be placed in front of [City Council] in the next few weeks for [their] approval. What a surprise. Might it be some high rise, high density housing project to satisfy our little socialist Council member? One thing is sure, if it gets built, there is no guarantee that any of the public amenities will follow.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.5 Height 55 No change recommended. None
75 Need for actual, strong setbacks to protect residential viewscapes Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.5 Height 55 The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. No change recommended.

None
76 Revise HIO description for clarity Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.5 Height 55 Revise description for clarity: "The Height Incentive Overlay allows for maximum building heights in excess of what is allowed under base zoning. In areas with this Height Incentive Overlay, building heights up to ~150 160 feet are permitted in exchange for additional affordable housing, green building development, and additional open space dedication." Make change
77 To avoid any potential ambiguity which may come from a project modifying the ground elevation, the Airport recommends the
following modifications to Section 3.5 of the LSP Draft (additions underlined; deletions in strikethrough; bold is original):

1. Allowed maximum height. Allowed maximum height is regulated by Figure 13 or the maximum height limits permissible under FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP Critical AeronauticalSurfaces requirements. For avoidance of doubt, the lower of the two three heights identified by Figure 13, the ALUCP, and the FAA shall be the controlling maximum height.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.5 Height 55 To avoid any potential ambiguity which may come from a project modifying the ground elevation, Revise:"1. Allowed maximum height. Allowed maximum height is regulated by Figure 13 or the maximum height limits permissible under FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP Critical AeronauticalSurfaces requirements. For avoidance of doubt, the lower of the two three heights identified by Figure 13, the ALUCP, and the FAA shall be the controlling maximum height." Make change
78 Because of the ambiguity between elevation AMSL and height AGL, the Airport recommends that the following underlined language be added to Section 3.5 of the LSP Draft:2. Height measurement. Building height measurement procedures are defined in Zoning Code Chapter 20.040.005 (“Measuring Height”). Only for purposes of determining the allowed maximum height, buildings are evaluated using their top elevation above meansea level as defined from the origin of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Thisincludes any antennas, machine rooms, architectural parapets, or other appurtenances.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.5 Height 55 To remove potential ambiguity, revise: "2. Height measurement. Building height measurement procedures are defined in Zoning Code Chapter 20.040.005 (“Measuring Height”). Only for purposes of determining the allowed maximum height, buildings are evaluated using their top elevation above mean sea level as defined from the origin of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. This includes any antennas, machine rooms, architectural parapets, or other appurtenances."
Make change
79 To avoid ambiguity, the Airport recommends that the following underlined language be added to Section 3.5 of the LSP Draft:

4. Development incentives for the Height Incentive Overlay. Projects that comply with the requirements for the Height Incentive Overlay are eligible for the following incentives. a. Building height. Within the overlay, the maximum primary building height is allowed to be up to 160 feet, allowing maximum primary building height in excess of maximum that is allowedunder a site’s base district. This allowance does not negate the need to comply with the maximum height limits permissible under FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP CriticalAeronautical Surfaces requirements, as described under Policy 1 of this section.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.5 Height 55 To avoid ambiguity, revise: "4a. Building height. Within the overlay, the maximum primary building height is allowed up to the maximum height allowances based on the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and FAA regulations, see Section

20.300.003 (“Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency”). to be up to 160 feet, allowing maximum primary building height in excess of maximum that is allowed under asite’s base district. This allowance does not negate the need to comply with the maximum height limits permissible under FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP Critical Aeronautical Surfaces requirements, as described under Policy 1 of this section." Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 80 Add a new standard to Standard 4. Development incentives for the Height Incentive Overlay about the maximum density allowed in HIO.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.5 Height 55 Add new standard: "4.b. Density bonus. Within the overlay, project maximum density allowed is 180 du/ac."
Make change
81 Add a new standard to Standard 4 to allow developers to build the Flex High‐Rise building type in the HIO.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.5 Height 55 Add new standard: "4.c. Flex High‐Rise. Within the overlay, projects may build the Flex High‐ Rise building type.

Make change
82 Likes the Height Incentive Overlay and its incentives for green buildings and open space.

Can there be an affordability incentive?
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.5 Height 55 All projects in Lindenville are required to provide 15% affordable units per the City's inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and affordable housing is priority community benefit.

To further incentivize additional affordable housing, revise the Height Incentive Overlay to add: "5.d.Affordable housing. Provide an additional 5% affordable housing beyond requirements in Chapter 20.380 (“Inclusionary Housing Requirements”)." Make change
83 Update parcellation on map to be consistent with the San Mateo County Assessor Map so that the Navigable Slough parcel is on the map and update the maximum height to be consistent with the Open Space district designation from Figure 11.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.5 Height 57 Update the maximum height allowed on the Navigable Slough parcel to be 0 ft. Make change 84 Where can a grocery store go in this Plan? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.6 Active Ground Floor
Uses
58 The is no grocery store planned for within the Specific Plan; however, they are not precluded from the Plan Area. The Safeway on El Camino Real is redeveloping. There are many potential locations for grocery stores, including in the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay on South Spruce Avenue. No change recommended.

None
85 Lindenville…we were promised an anchor store, Safeway, (years ago) and again that doesn’t look like it will happen. What is happening is that the biotech is moving into our neighborhoods on this side of the city. What is the danger? Plenty! Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.6 Active Ground FloorUses
58 The is no grocery store planned for within the Specific Plan; however, they are not precluded from the Plan Area. The Safeway on El Camino Real is redeveloping. There are many potential locations for grocery stores, including in the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay on South Spruce Avenue.

The Specific Plan does not expand land available for life science uses in Lindenville. No change recommended.

None
86 Art districts tend to organically evolve more than be planned out ahead of time. Admire the thought there, but in 9th Street Oakland, they built live/work spaces but nobody used them. This might be the same thing. Might need to accept the fact that other uses may move in there.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Plan includes language about the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District evolving over time, with the understanding that future planning efforts may need to be undertaken by the City depending on how it evolves. While many arts districts evolve organically, many require support and partnership with City, non‐profit, and other organizations. No change recommended.

None
87 line edits to paragraph 4
"The mix of land uses in the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District is critical to promoting pedestrian activity, thriving businesses, and creativity. new audiences for the arts. It importantly provides artists and other creatives with space to produce, perform, and exhibit their work. It also serves as a gathering space for artists and makers, empowering collaboration, creativity, innovation, and experimentation." Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 60 This change will be incorporated for consistency with the Public Arts Master Plan. "The mix of land uses in the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District is critical to promoting pedestrian activity, thriving businesses, and creativity. new audiences for the arts. It importantly provides artists and other creatives with space to produce, perform, and exhibit their work. It also serves as a gathering space for artists and makers, empowering collaboration, creativity, innovation, and experimentation." Make change
88 Design of Arts & Makers area should reflect the arts ‐ e.g., public art, murals, etc.

This designation should also make sure that it’s enabling small artists to use the space, like arts co‐op
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Plan contains strategies to employ public artists, create affordable arts spaces, and create community facilities. No change recommended.

None
89 The city should establish a maker space / arts training space for the public to use for free; The old fire station on Baden would make a great space for the public, job training for the arts & makers area
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Plan does not include a City‐owned art and maker space as an implementation action.

The City may evaluate such as option as part of the Park and Rec Master Plan update or Public Art Master Plan. The Specific Plan does include a Transfer of Development Rights program and community benefit options to incentivize creation of community facilities, including those used for the arts, by private developers. No change recommended.

None
90 How will we ensure that this area is actually used / accessed by artists & makers? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Specific Plan requires ground floor arts and makers uses in the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers Overlay that will encourage artists and makers to use this area. No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 91 Substantial interest in Arts & Makers zoning & how this designation can best open opportunities for small artists/makers
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Specific Plan requires ground floor arts and makers uses in the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers Overlay that will encourage artists and makers to use this area. No change recommended.

None
92 Is the City able to build/manage arts space? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Plan does not include a City‐owned art and maker space as an implementation action.

The City may evaluate such as option as part of the Park and Rec Master Plan update or Public Art Master Plan. The Specific Plan does include a Transfer of Development Rights program and community benefit options to incentivize creation of community facilities, including those used for the arts, by private developers. In addition, land use regulations do not preclude the City from opening a public facility in the Arts and Makers District. The City's ability to build/manage an arts‐based public facility will depend on the City's finances.

No change recommended.

None
93 How to include youth in arts/makers programs? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 60 This topic is covered in more detail in the Public Arts Master Plan. No change recommended.

None
94 Update the reference at the end of the page to be accurate to the section of Chapter 5 that contains additional information about arts and culture.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 61 Revise: "See Section 5.6 3.7 of Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space for information about arts and culture."
Make change
95 Extend the Arts and Makers Overlay north to Railroad Ave. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 62 Property owners will have the option of developing ground floor commercial and arts and makers uses on either side of Colma Creek, but it is not required. Concentrating uses in specific locations will help to activate a portion of South Linden Avenue. The City may consider expanding the Overlay north of Colma Creek in the future. No change recommended.

None
96 S Linden Ave should also be allowed to build high‐density housing, with arts and maker space on the ground floor, like the other mixed‐use residential areas.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 62 The T3ML district allows densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre. Projects that comply with the City's inclusionary housing requirements would receive a density bonus. Higher density/height is not proposed in this area due to site and roadway constraints. No change recommended.

None
97 Likes the Overlay. Wants to make sure these areas can accommodate performing arts, live music, performances, etc.

Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.7 Arts and Makers 62 The Overlay allows a range of arts and cultural uses and eases restrictions on outdoor events in this area. No change recommended.

None
98 Developments are going to try and maximize every square foot. Suppose the applicants don’t want to give up any space for open space or public realm improvements. Wouldn't this impact whether we can implement our plan?
Chapter 3: Land Use and
Housing

3.8 Dedication and
Easement Requirements
63 The Specific Plan has specific standards for new development, including those that support the health and safety of residents and employees. These include open space, tree canopy, and active mobility improvements. No change recommended.

None
99 Address fenestration in massing variation Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.1 Goals and Policies 66 Revise policy: "Policy DD‐2.3: Façade composition. Shape building massing and/or architectural fenestration to provide visual interest, scale, and rhythm through building and/or building façade design. Use material, color, and solar shading to create a shared vocabulary unique to Lindenville."
Make change
100 Address sustainability in architecture Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.1 Goals and Policies 66 Revise policy: "Policy DD‐2.4: High‐quality and sustainable architecture. Facilitate high‐ quality and sustainable architecture to create a coherent place, while allowing individual buildings to be unique."
Make change
101 Interested in incorporating greenery and open spaces on buildings (rooftops, patios, etc.) Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.1 Goals and Policies 67 Add policy: "Policy DD‐3.4: Ecological design. Design new development to support a healthy and biodiverse environment through landscape and planting design, reduction in impervious coverage, green roof, and other site and building design strategies. Support design strategies at grade, on the podium, and on the roof." Make change
102 Address sustainable development in the policy Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.1 Goals and Policies 67 Add policy: "Policy DD‐3.5: Sustainable development. Decarbonize new developments with low embodied carbon materials, renewable energy generation, and resource efficient design (energy, water, and waste) through development standards and incentives for higher performing new developments."
Make change
103 Should any goals/policies speak to safety or climate resilience? If appropriate, recommend referring to template goals/policies/actions in Chapter 2 of OneShoreline's Planning Policy Guidance (https://oneshoreline.org/wp‐content/uploads/2023/06/OneShoreline‐Planning‐ Policy‐Guidance‐Final‐Draft‐June‐21‐2023‐For‐Web.pdf)
Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.1 Goals and Policies 67 Add policy: "Policy DD‐3.6: Future conditions. Ensure that new and/or substantial construction is planned and designed to accommodate future conditions for the life of the project through implementation of the Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay (see Chapter

20.180)."
Make change
104 Remove this standalone section and incorporate graphics showing the intended design vision throughout the Chapter.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.2 Lindenville's DesignVision
68 Remove this section. Renumber all subsequent sections of this Chapter. Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 105 Being a new plan, it’s going to develop it’s own look and feel, would like to see aesthetic continuity.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.2 Lindenville's Design
Vision
68 No change recommended. None
106 excited about design standards that would encourage a bold and unique district character.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.2 Lindenville's DesignVision
68 No change recommended. None
107 People‐oriented elements need to be emphasized. A lot of the images don’t have spaces for people. No setbacks, no places for bike parking. Nothing showing bike lanes, nothing defining crosswalks.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3 DevelopmentStandards
69 Additional images will be added to the Specific Plan. Make change 108 Changing sample images will give developers something to look for/aspire towards. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.3 DevelopmentStandards
69 Additional images will be added to the Specific Plan. Make change 109 Add a sentence to the first paragraph in this section explaining its connection to the Plan's vision.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.1 Block Structure 69 Add sentence to the end of the paragraph: Development applicants shall implement the following connectivity improvements with associated standards to achieve the vision of the Specific Plan.

Make change
110 Remove the reference to RM‐22 land use district. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.3.2 Use‐Based Zone
Development Standards
70 Revise sentence to read: "..including for RM‐22, RH‐180, BPH, BPO, MIM, and MIH, the Zoning Code development standards apply."
Make change
111 This Plan is a gamechanger to create more housing. Need to listen to neighbor concerns about height transitions.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
70 The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. No change recommended.

None
112 Worry from residents about heights of new development adjacent to existing low‐rise residential areas
Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
70 The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. No change recommended.

None
113 Remove the reference to RM‐22 land use district. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
70 Revise sentence to read: "..including for RM‐22, T3N, RH‐180, BPH, BPO, MIM, and MIH." Make change 114 The headers of Table 6: Form‐Based Zone Development Standards can be clearer and consistent with the Zoning Code if re‐organized so the acronym of the district comes after the full name of the district.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
70 Revise "T3ML‐T3 MAKERS LINDENVILLE T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML)" Revise "T4L‐T4 LINDENVILLE T4 Lindenville (T4L)2"
Revise "T5L‐T5 LINDENVILLE T5 Lindenville (T5L)"
Make change
115 Update the Side Street text for T3ML to be consistent with revised Zoning Code. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
71 Change "10 0 ft min.; 15 ft max." Make change
116 Remove "(15‐20 ft planter is typical existing condition)," to match updated Zoning Code for Front as measured from back‐of sidewalk row, T4L column Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
71 Front as measured from back‐of sidewalk row, T4L column: "15 ft min. along Spruce Avenue and Railroad Avenue (15‐20 ft planter is typical existing condition), 10 ft min. along all other frontages; 20 ft max."
Make change
117 Remove "(15‐20 ft planter is typical existing condition)," to match updated Zoning Code for Front as measured from back‐of sidewalk row, T5L column Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
71 Front as measured from back‐of sidewalk row, T5L column: "15 ft min. along Spruce Avenue and Railroad Avenue (15‐20 ft planter is typical existing condition), 10 ft min. along all other frontages; 20 ft max."
Make change
118 To maintain consistency with updated Zoning Code, add Rowhouse as an allowed building type to section 6. Allowed Building Types for T4L.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
72 Add Rowhouse after Live/work for column T4L, move following three rows down. Make change 119 To clarify the reference to the Height Incentive Overlay. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
72 Replace: "(*May exceed maximum residential density
within Height Incentive Overlay)" with new note:
"3. For Height Incentive Overlay standards, see Section 3.5." Make change
120 Note that some non‐residential uses may be exempt from a project's total FAR. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
72 Add footnote: "4. Total FAR is the total of residential floor area, commercial and retail floor area, arts and makers space, and additional Transfer of Development Rights Program incentives. Ground floor nonresidential uses may be exempt from the maximum FAR, see Chapter 20.040.009 (“Determining Floor Area Ratio”). Ground floor nonresidential uses would count towards the minimum FAR."
Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 121 The Plan has 15’ setback front and back for housing development. That might be prohibitive for smaller sites including the site on Railroad Avenue. The project on Railroad cannot build with this restriction. Asking for exception to this rule for narrow sites.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
72 The referenced site along Railroad Avenue has unique site conditions and dimensions. For this project, a Planned Development district / permit is a better approach than changing the design standards for all projects within this zone. Planned Development provides flexibility by allowing diversification in regulations and allows for creative development projects that incorporate design features that are more sensitive to site conditions.

Add note to Table 6: "5. Development projects with unique site conditions, including a narrow parcel depth, may apply for a Planned Development District." Make change
122 Attached here is a PDF‐copy of some extracted pages from the Lindenville development standards; which is imposing more restrictive development standards (T4L) than current zoning (T4C). Both front and rear setback will be drastically increased from 0 feet to minimum 15 feet from back‐of‐sidewalk, etc. Although we are submitting as a Planned Development application, these proposed development standards are still concerning to the development team at Railroad Avenue residential project.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
72 The referenced site along Railroad Avenue has unique site conditions and dimensions. For this project, a Planned Development district / permit is a better approach than changing the design standards for all projects within this zone. Planned Development provides flexibility by allowing diversification in regulations and allows for creative development projects that incorporate design features that are more sensitive to site conditions.

Add note to Table 6: "5. Development projects with unique site conditions, including a narrow parcel depth, may apply for a Planned Development District." Make change
123 I have concerns on the proposed setback with 15ft min (front and back) for the entire Colma Creek area. By putting a blanket requirement on all potential development sites would decrease housing for certain sites that might have inherited physical challenges.

There should be exception where sites are small or narrow. For example, our site on Railroad Avenue where we are proposing to build 70 plus town homes there with 15% BMR would be impossible to meet the setback requirements due to the narrow depth (50 feet). The proposed setback requirement would put less housing to the community where we desperately need more housing. As such, there should be exception for sites that have narrow depth. Thank you for your consideration! Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
72 The purpose of the setbacks is to create a gradual transition between the public and private realms, provide opportunities for canopy, landscaping, and other greening, and to soften the edges. The intent was to create a unique look and feel to Lindenville, distinguished from other areas. See response above.

None
124 Clarify that the Flex High‐Rise Type is only allowed for development projects that meet the requirements of the Height Incentive Overlay.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
72 Under 6. Allowed Building Types, revise "Flex High‐Rise3" Add new note "6. The Flex High‐Rise type is only allowed for development projects that meet the requirements of the Height Incentive Overlay. See Section 3.5 for more details." Make change
125 For residential, the intention is to create a visual curve with regard to heights. What kinds of exceptions are we willing to make?
Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
73 The Specific Plan allows the tallest buildings within the center of the area and along the southern and eastern edges of the Plan Area. The intent is to provide a variety of building heights to enhance the district's character. Heights are also regulated by the ALUCP and FAA. No change recommended.

None
126 We are building Soviet books. The character applied is a shading element, which is no character.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
73 No change recommended. None
127 Other points made are good. Really dislike the thought that certain areas have to have certain character. Likes how in East of 101 there is a lot of architectural variety.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
73 No change recommended. None
128 Nothing about character or heart. These are same stucco boxes you see everywhere. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
73 No change recommended. None
129 Normative, prescriptive rules are just going to result in boxes Need to not result in sameness.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
73 California state laws, including Senate Bill No. 35 and Senate Bill No. 330, require housing development projects to be reviewed against objective design standards. Certain development projects may only be denied approval by the City if they do not adhere to these objective standards. Objective design standards must be verifiable and measurable.

No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 130 Can there be roofing standards? Paint roofs white to combat heat Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
73 In California, all new or replacement low‐slope roofs are required by the building energy efficiency standards (Title 24) to be cool roofs, as are steep‐slope roofs in several California climate zones. Guidelines for green roofs have been added to a new 4.6 Landscape Design section. No change recommended.

None
131 New Roem building – residents are saying they want more buildings like this rather than blocky buildings. We need to be more creative when it comes to architectural styles.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
73 The ROEM building adheres to the standards defined within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Lindenville Specific Plan includes different development (greater setbacks) and design standards (entryways, color/materials, shading) to emphasize it's unique character. No change recommended.

None
132 Add a new figure as Figure 16: Key Design Element in Lindenville Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
73 Add a new figure rending showing the standards in this section. Make change 133 Update Figure 16: Building Massing and Façade Composition to be Key Design Element in Lindenville.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
73 Update Figure image and title "Key Design Element in Lindenville" Make change 134 Update the first sentence in Standard 1. Applicability to clarify where these standards apply.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
73 Revise sentence: "This section applies to all multifamily and residential mixed use development in the Lindenville T3N, T3ML, T4L, and T5L transect zones." Make change
135 How are balconies handled on the residential masses? The way they are currently written (subtracting from the floorplate) is a problem.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
74 Revise for clarity to: "c. Façade articulation. Between major breaks, primary façades shall be a continuous plane or undulating or angular planes that do not exceed 4 feet in change of depth. Primary façades shall include additive articulation to meet passive shading requirements.i. Horizontally‐oriented façade articulation shall not exceed the façade height. ii. Building recesses are allowed up to 2 feet in depth. iii. Bay windows and other minor modulations that exceed 6 inches in depth projection that are not associated with passive shading are not allowed. iv. If balconies are provided, balconies shall be integrated with major breaks, be recessed a minimum 6 inches from primary façade, or be fully extended from the primary façade." Make change
136 Is there a way you can prevent just modern cubes? Things looking uninteresting? Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
74 See previous response. None
137 Think the design standards are over simplistic. The type of district that would result from them would be boring and drab. It's like Concord and a bunch of little Italies – manneristic attempts to be clever, but it dumbs down the efforts of the designers to be innovative or creative. It is a district of rule and destroys innovation. It's like Pruitt Igoe. Dated and boring and applique. Overuse of design standards.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
74 See previous response. None
138 Reorganize the building massing and façade composition section for clarity. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
74 Reorganize standards in section Make change
139 Add Figure 17: Unique Entry Elements and Facades to complement the revised standards. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
74 Add Figure 17: Unique Entry Elements and Facades and move the Primary Façade and Major Breaks Figure down to be Figure 18. Remove the Secondary Façade Figure image.

Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 140 Revise unique entry element standard for clarity. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
76 Revise standard to be: "3. Unique entry element. To provide opportunity for creativity and unique architectural expressions, each building shall have a unique entry element for the primary building entry used for accessing the upper floors of a building. Unique entry elements shall adhere only to the following standards, and shall be exempt from other standards in Section 4.4. a. Purpose. Unique entry element shall contain the primary shared building entrance for upper floors of the building.
b. Location. The unique entry element may occur at any point along a public facing façade. c. Dimensions. i. The unique entry element shall be a minimum 3 stories in height. ii. The unique entry element shall have a minimum width of 20 feet iii. Unique Entry element may include up to a maximum 25% of the public facing façade length and shall not exceed a linear dimension of equal length on any adjoining façade.
d. Material. No more than 25% of the unique entry element façade area shall be stucco or similar material.e. Perceived height. The roof and/or parapet of the unique entry element shall be a minimum of 4 feet above or below adjacent roof / parapet heights.
f. Building entry façade plane. A unique entry element’s façade plane shall be a minimum of 4 feet difference in depth from the adjoining façade. The unique entry element may project within the minimum front setback area up to 4 feet, including the ground floor." Make change
141 Add Figure 19: Unique Entry Elements to exemplify the revised standard. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
77 Add Figure 19: Unique Entry Elements images. Make change 142 Are the colors shown in buildings on the slides the colors required? Passive shading device is this for Lindenville specifically?
Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
78 Certain colors will not be required for buildings in Lindenville. The development standards are designed to give Lindenville its own unique look and feel. One of the standards is the passive shading standard, which can be performance based or based on specific requirements. No change recommended.

None
143 Add Standard 4. Character Areas Identity to clarify the material and color standards for each area.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
78 a. South Spruce Avenue Corridor
i. Primary façades shall be neutral or natural in color(examples: white, cream, beige, wood colors, light grays, concrete, etc.).white or have a HSB saturation level less than 10. ii. All primary façades shall be the same color and material. iii. Major breaks and secondary façades shall be a contrasting color and/or material. b. Mixed Use Neighborhood
i. Primary façades shall be a bright solid color with an HSB saturation level greater than 10 or a bright solid color with a mural.
ii. High‐rise masses may be any color bright or neutral.... c. South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District
i. Primary facades facing the street or north/south running publicly accessible pathways shall have a mural or similar artistic expression for a minimum 30% of the façade frontage." Make change
144 Move Standard 4. Ground floor residential units to 6. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
78 Renumber Make change
145 Agree with other comments about transitions to residential neighborhoods Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
79 The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. These standards exceed the setback and stepback standards in the current zoning code. A minor revision to screening is recommended.Revise standard to read: "7.d. Private alleys, pathways, and greenways Screening. If a private alley, pathway, or greenway is located along the property line bordering the RL district, a minimum 8 feet wide planting area shall be provided with a minimum average of 1 tree per 25 linear feet."
Shifting residential density eastward was considered but was determined to be less feasible due to parcel size and configuration along South Linden Avenue, as well as ROW of constraints.

Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 146 So glad to hear that Councilmembers have had concerns about height transitions. Not opposed to the rest of the Plan, just the transitions to Mayfair Village.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
79 See previous response. None
147 Make building heights lower near single family areas but higher near US‐101 (Victory and Maple)
Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
79 See previous response. None
148 Agree with comments about transitions from T4L to RL. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone
Development Standards
79 See previous response. None
149 Update Standards 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to have the numbering 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
80 Update the numbering of Standards 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to read 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 respectively.

Make change
150 Add an alternative to the design standards Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.4 Form‐Based Zone
Design Standards
80 Add new standard: "Projects that do not comply with these objective design standards will be subject to the City’s discretionary design review process." Make change
151 Remove extra paragraph break. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.5 Open Space 82 Revise: "ii. Required common open space shall be accessible to all living units on the development site by a stairway or other accessway qualifying as an egress facility iii. from a habitable room."
Make change
152 Add canopy cover to standard Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.5 Open Space 82 Revise standard: "1.b.vii. Common spaces within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour shall be designed for passive recreational uses, and may include seating areas, paths, open spaces, and other such amenities, subject to the approval of the Chief Planner. Spaces shall be designed to buffer noise using strategies, such as trees, landscaping materials, and water features."
Make change
153 Interested in incorporating greenery and open spaces on buildings (rooftops, patios, etc.) as part of development standards.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.6 Landscape Design 83 Add the following text for section 4.6 Landscape Design and move Environmental Effects to new section 4.7.
"Landscape Design
The purpose of the landscape design standards and guidelines is to create ecologically beneficial and resilient landscapes. Plant selection shall focus on native and climate‐ adapted species that require minimal water use and maintenance. Other factors that may influence plant selection include aesthetics, cultural significance, and habitat value. The standards and guidelines below apply to new construction and landscape renovations of both public and private developments."
Make change
154 Interested in incorporating greenery and open spaces on buildings (rooftops, patios, etc.) as part of development standards.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.6 Landscape Design 83 Add "STANDARDS

1. Existing site vegetation management. Design shall preserve portions of a lot largely occupied by native species. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during construction and subsequent site maintenance to manage and control invasive species found on site, except when the nonnative vegetation supports habitat particularly useful to native wildlife. BMPs may include clearing infested areas prior to construction, planting native seed from a local source, and avoiding seed dispersal through construction equipment use.

2. Native planting. Landscape area planting shall be comprised of a minimum of 50% native vegetation. Non‐native plants may only be used if they support habitat useful to native wildlife. Species locally native to San Mateo County should be prioritized.

3. Invasive species. Planting invasive species identified on the California Invasive Plant Council list is prohibited.

4. Trees. See Section 5.5.4 Urban Forest for information related to tree canopy cover, species, sizes, and placement.

5. Lawn areas. Lawn areas shall be minimized and used only in areas where passive or recreational uses require it."
Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 155 Interested in incorporating greenery and open spaces on buildings (rooftops, patios, etc.) as part of development standards.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.6 Landscape Design 83 Add: "LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES

1. Planting palette and structure. Plant selection should provide a coherent mixture of groundcover, shrub, and tree species that mimics plant assemblages in native landscapes.

2. Herbicide and pesticide use. Operational policies adopting integrated pest management and restricting herbicide and pesticide use are encouraged.

3. Maintenance equipment. Landscape maintenance practices should minimize leaf blowing (because decomposing leaf material builds soil) and in general minimize or eliminate the use of fossil‐fuel powered maintenance equipment.

GREEN ROOF GUIDELINES1. Green roofs. Green roofs are encouraged for any new development or development expansions.2. Green roof coordination. Green roof habitat should be coordinated with green wall and/or ground‐level habitat to create a larger‐scale connected ecological infrastructure that maximizes effective habitat patch size.

3. Green roof accessibility. Access to, and views of the green roofs should be maximized to create opportunities for building occupants and the public (where applicable) to connect with nature. Thoughtful spatial planning can balance human enjoyment with high‐quality urban habitat."
Make change
156 Should any development standards here speak to safety or climate resilience? If appropriate, recommend referring to template development standards in Chapter 3 of OneShoreline's Planning Policy Guidance (https://oneshoreline.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2023/06/OneShoreline‐Planning‐Policy‐Guidance‐Final‐Draft‐June‐21‐ 2023‐For‐Web.pdf)
More detailed suggested revisions to SSF's Ch. 20.180 Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay District were sent to Billy Gross on 7/16 that can be incorporated as well.

Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.6 EnvironmentalEffects
83 All development projects within the Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise District must adhere to Chapter 20.180 (“Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay”) to protect areas projected to be impacted by sea level rise, mitigate the impacts of sea level rise, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents of the City.

Add new standard referencing overlay: "1. Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise District. New development within the Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay shall implement regulations for addressing flooding and other hazards associated with sea level rise as defined in Chapter

20.180 (“Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay”)."
Make change
157 As someone who bikes, happy to see the expansion of biking; looking at industrial areas, wondering about whether potential pollution has been considered, especially in T4 zones? Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.6 EnvironmentalEffects
83 The Specific Plan included background analysis on environmental pollution in Lindenville.

The Specific Plan may require additional soil and groundwater analysis for development projects in order to implement mitigation measures at the project level. There are also standards for noise and air pollutions. No change recommended.

None
158 We need to think about contaminants and health impacts Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards

4.6 EnvironmentalEffects
83 The Specific Plan included background analysis on environmental pollution in Lindenville.

The Specific Plan may require additional soil and groundwater analysis for development projects in order to implement mitigation measures at the project level. There are also standards for noise and air pollutions. No change recommended.

None
159 Concern about the need for the inclusion of a rigorous plan for environmental remediation
Chapter 4: Design and
Development Standards

4.6 EnvironmentalEffects
83 See the response above. None
160 Excited about this vision. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.1 Vision 86 No change recommended. None
161 We need to connect green open space to get new families in this area. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.1 Vision 86 Pedestrian and bicycle networks, laneways/alleys, and linear parks are designed to connect open spaces throughout Lindenville, and to other parts of South San Francisco. No change recommended.

None
162 Some open space should taken into consideration So. Sf "cold wind" evenings, so innovative wind protective screens.

Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.1 Vision 86 No change recommended. None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 163 Goals in this chapter have signposts but goals in other chapters do not Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.1 Vision 89 Remove goal sign posts for consistency with other chapters. Make change 164 Language reads like a policy. Change to "Lindenville provides..." Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.2 Goals and Policies 90 Revise to "Goal 2: Lindenville provides Provide a diverse array of..." Make change 165 Existing Spruce business park of 88 Units in 4 buildings is in the middle where Neighborhood Park and the extension of Maple Ave is planned. Who will develop that, and how will existing unit owners be compensated for giving up their Units to create the new park and streets?
Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.3 Parks and Open
Space Framework
93 The Specific Plan sets a long‐term vision for Lindenville's parks and open space. Landowners are not forced to redevelop their properties, and the Specific Plan does not use eminent domain to create open space. The Specific Plan relies on market‐based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. No change recommended.

None
166 Per discussions with City Staff, the Infinite 101 project is subject to the existing General Plan and Zoning and will not be subject to the Lindenville Specific Plan policies. All exhibits should be removed and/or updated to remove references to the Infinite 101 project.

Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.3 Parks and Open
Space Framework
93 The Infinite 101 project is subject to the City's current General Plan and Zoning Code requirements, including 15% required landscaping and 10% open space.

Revise Figure 23 with a more generalized open space on the 101 and 131 project sites.

Make change
167 Don’t think Colma Creek widening can happen on this side of Linden Avenue. It might be more realistic further east where there are warehouses.

Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.4.1 Colma Creek
Greenbelt
95 The Specific Plan sets a long‐term vision for Lindenville's parks and open space. The Resiliency by Design project imagined a naturalized Colma Creek east of Linden Avenue and that vision was incorporated into the General Plan. The Specific Plan relies on market‐based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. No change recommended.

None
168 Plan is great, but far from where we’d like to be; with regard to the Creek, what I understand is we are hoping to take commercial property to expand the creek area. How is this possible, the incentives aren’t enough.

Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.4.1 Colma Creek
Greenbelt
95 The Specific Plan sets a long‐term vision for Lindenville's parks and open space. Landowners are not forced to redevelop their properties, and the Specific Plan does not use eminent domain to create open space. The Specific Plan relies on market‐based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. As redevelopment along Colma Creek starts to occur, the setbacks and transfer of development rights program becomes a greater incentive. No change recommended.

None
169 Likes the imagining of Colma Creek. A good, historic example is a daylighted river in Seoul (Cheong Gye Cheong) that is now a good public space
Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.4.1 Colma Creek
Greenbelt
95 No change recommended. None
170 Need to think about parks and recreation. Need to consider outdoor spaces and children, and not just a space along Colma Creek.

Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.4 Parks and Open
Space Types
98 Chapter 5: Parks and Open Spaces plans for a variety of park and open space types.

Sections 5.4 and 5.7 provide standards for park, recreation, and play spaces. No change recommended.

None
171 Typo in "Adjacent development will front these park" ‐ update "these" to "the" Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.4 Parks and OpenSpace Types
98 Revise typo: "Adjacent development will front these park" Make change 172 Supports bicycle infrastructure being proposed. Likes direction of Colma Creek, the Lindenville Linear Park
Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.4.3 Lindenville Linear
Park
100 No change recommended. None
173 Linear park – how do you plan to integrate parks into existing neighborhoods? Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.4.3 Lindenville Linear
Park
100 Lindenville's linear park, trails, and greenways connect to the Centennial Way Trail and Sister Cities Park, two parks that extend from Lindenville into other parts of the city.

Lindenville does not have any existing residential neighborhoods so the Lindenville Linear Park would, over time, connect to future mixed use neighborhoods via trails and greenways. No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 174 Very excited about the Lindenville Linear Park Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.4.3 Lindenville Linear
Park
100 No change recommended. None
175 Section 5.4.4 Mini Parks: 15% required minimum public open space for R&D open campus; user security concerns of public access
Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.4.4 Mini Parks 104 Overall, open space requirements are consistent with recently approved and constructed life science R&D projects in the East of 101 Area – see the Cove, Gateway of the Pacific, Kilroy Oyster Point, Southline and Genentech’s campus.

For Terminal 131, this project is approximately 17.6 acres and would be required to provide about 114,000 of landscaped area (15%) and about 76,000 of open space (10%), per the current Zoning requirement. The Specific Plan mini‐park standard for parcels above 1 acre is 15% of the parcel area, equivalent to the landscape area minimum area.

To address security concerns, add new standard: "7. Security and privacy. Allow a clear distinction between public, semi‐public, and private open space areas to preserve security and privacy. Define private spaces using planting beds, trellises, arcades, seating areas, and low landscape walls."
Make change
176 Allow combined open spaces across properties to support unified planning and design. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.4.4 Mini Parks 104 Add new standard: "8. Combining Mini Parks. Combine open spaces for multiple projects into a single open space area if the combined open spaces remain accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors."
Make change
177 Typo in "Key Feature: Centennial Way Trail: the 2.85‐mile trail links Lindenville to other neighborhoods and public transit riders to two BART stations." Remove the second colon and revise the statement to be a complete sentence.

Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.4.5 Greenways andTrails
105 Revise to "Key Feature: Centennial Way Trail: is the 2.85‐mile trail which links Lindenville to other neighborhoods and public transit riders to two BART stations." Make change
178 Concerns with specific development standards with greenway and trails. The proposed project has allocated a 5’ easement for a bicycle and pedestrian path along the Navigable Slough.

Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.4.5 Greenways andTrails
105 Caltrans’ trail design standards and the Active South City Bike and Pedestrian Plan identifies 10’ of width to facilitate shared bicycle and pedestrian travel on a Class I facility. This width will be necessary to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian demand across US‐101 for travel to/from the East of 101 area. No change recommended.

None
179 Typo in "Stormwater management, including grading and drainage, shall be provided in all parks, plazas, greenways, and open space areas to provide sufficient drainage, detention, conveyance, detention, and treatment of stormwater runoff... Where possible, multi‐ parcel and large projects shall look to comprehensive Stormwater management strategies at scale." The word "detention" is repeated and the "s" in "Stormwater" is capitalized.

Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.5.2 Stormwater
Management
108 Revise to "Stormwater management, including grading and drainage, shall be provided in all parks, plazas, greenways, and open space areas to provide sufficient drainage, detention, conveyance, detention, and treatment of stormwater runoff." Revise to "Where possible, multi‐parcel and large projects shall look to comprehensive Sstormwater management strategies at scale."
Make change
180 How to maintain permeable pavement in public ROW? Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.5.2 Stormwater
Management
108 The City is generally responsible for maintaining roadway paving and other features in the roadway, such as medians. Permeable pavement requires periodic maintenance to retain its infiltration capacity. Permeable pavement should be vacuumed once or twice annually.

The Specific Plan does not provide the level of detail of maintenance. No change recommended.

None
181 Add new guideline in section 5.5.3 to reflect modeling results of microclimate evaluation. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.5.3 RegenerativeLandscapes
108 Add new guideline "1. Microclimate considerations. The siting and species of regenerative landscapes in open spaces and streets should be determined in part by microclimate considerations, including impacts on air temperature and wind." Make change
182 Require silva cells with trees in paved areas in new development Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.5.4 Urban Forest 110 The standards drafted under the Urban Forest section call for the use of Silva cells for trees planted in the public rights‐of‐way and in private setbacks along publicly accessible areas.

No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 183 Add new guideline in section 5.5.4 to reflect modeling results of microclimate evaluation. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.5.4 Urban Forest 110 Add new guideline "3. Microclimate considerations. The siting and species of tree canopy should be determined in part by microclimate considerations, including impacts on air temperature and wind. "
Make change
184 This change will be incorporated for consistency with the Public Arts Master Plan. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.6 Arts and Culture 111 Revise paragraph 1: "Public art is essential to connecting communities with identity and place, celebrating an area’s unique history and culture, and enhancing the quality of life for all through cultural enrichment. The Lindenville Specific Plan intends to incorporate public art into all publicly accessible spaces. Public art may be incorporated within many facets of project delivery and implementation, including but not limited to stand‐alone works of art; features integrated in buildings, open spaces, infrastructure and public‐facing facilities; or even support functional elements such as seating, trash receptacles, and signage; and temporary installations."
Make change
185 Provide the link to the adopting ordinance in the 1% for Arts discussion in Section 5.6, page 118 of pdf. (The purpose of this comment is to direct readers to the ordinance section, SSFMC Chapter 8.76 Public Art Requirement, rather than state the specifics, as the city may adopt different requirements over time.)
https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_8‐ chapter_8_76
Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.6 Arts and Culture 112 Revise standard: "1. Public art. Projects are required to contribute public art with a value of at least 1% of the building permit valuation or make a public art contribution payment in an amount not less than 0.5% of construction costs into the public art fund, see Chapter 8.76 ("Public Art Requirement").

Make change
186 We have concerns that “Iconic” will be interpreted as large‐scale objects and “installations” as temporary exhibitions. We suggest using the wording Public Art Projects rather than Iconic Public Art leaving room for different types of public art opportunities.

Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.6 Arts and Culture 112 Revise standard: "3. Iconic pPublic art projects. Developers will work with the City to provide one or more significant public art projects iconic art installations within public parks, plazas of import, or the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District.

Make change
187 Line edits to Standard 4 for consistency with the Public Arts Master Plan. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.6 Arts and Culture 112 Revise standard "4. Local artists. Developers Implementation of public art shall prioritize opportunities for local artists and will also integrate work from nationally or internationally recognized as well as consider national and international artists." Make change
188 Typo "Materials for hardscape and pathways are strongly encouraged to embrace sustainability with minimal impacts on the environment, prioritize durability and be easy to maintain." Add a comma after "prioritize durability" Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.7.3 Hardscape
Materials
115 Revise "Materials for hardscape and pathways are strongly encouraged to embrace sustainability with minimal impacts on the environment, prioritize durability, and be easy to maintain."
Make change
189 Are there alternative ways to irrigate open space areas? Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space

5.7.6 Irrigation 118 The Specific Plan includes standards and guidelines that call for the open space network to use recycled water (such as greywater) and captured stormwater as irrigation sources in order to conserve water. These are in addition to the City's landscaping requirements. No change recommended.

None
190 In section 5.7.9 Exterior lighting, all lighting should comply with the best practices of the International Dark Sky Association to minimize glare and the destructive effects of excess nighttime lighting on human and animal health.

Chapter 5: Parks and Open
Space

5.7.9 Exterior Lighting 120 Add standard: "5. Dark sky. Light fixtures shall meet the Backlight‐Uplight‐Glare rating system requirements for the lighting zone corresponding to the land use where the light fixture is located (ex. residential, commercial, etc.) under the International Dark‐Sky Association’s model lighting ordinance."
Make change
191 Bike program, are there more plans for giving away scooters/ bikes to encourage micro‐ mobility
Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and
Policies
124 The City has a successful micro‐mobility program. The Plan improves connectivity and roadway conditions for non‐automobile travel, which should encourage travel via micromobility. No change recommended.

None
192 The proposed Southline Avenue should be renamed Sneath Lane to avoid unnecessary confusion.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and
Policies
124 The name is proposed in another planning project. No change recommended. None 193 When will new Southline street come in? Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies
124 It will be in place before Southline begins occupying the site. No change recommended. None 194 Who owns the road? [Southline street] Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies
124 At the very least, Southline Street will have a public easement. There will likely be an agreement between the City and the developer for roadway maintenance. No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 195 It’s hard to get in and out of Lindenville. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies
124 The bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and auto networks propose new roads and trails to facilitate easier movement into Lindenville and out to the rest of the city and region. No change recommended.

None
196 Cars are blocking sidewalks, it’s hard to walk around. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies
124 The pedestrian network proposes improvements along many of Lindenville's streets to create improved streetscapes and pedestrian access. No change recommended.

None
197 Update the goals to "Goal MOB‐X" to match the other goals in the Specific Plan. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies
125 Revise "Goal MOB GOAL‐2"
Revise "Goal MOB GOAL‐3"
Make change
198 Proposed Street/Trails legend item for Figures 27‐31 is hard to see, can you add a lightly colored backdrop behind the legend?
Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and
Policies
127 Add light gray backdrop to the legend for Figures 27‐31. Make change 199 Support the Plan’s prioritization of bikes and pedestrians but voiced some concern about the impact of development on South Spruce Avenue on traffic.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and
Policies
127 The proposed auto network maintains South Spruce Avenue as a route where local auto traffic is prioritized and the road configuration facilitates movement into Lindenville and out to the rest of the city and region. Additionally, the EIR addendum analyzes the effect increased development and traffic would have on South Spruce Avenue and contains mitigation actions. No change recommended.

None
200 When will the envisioned bike and ped networks happen? Seems nebulous Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The Specific Plan sets an ambitious vision and implementation of the envisioned networks may depend on funding and partnering with agencies and developers. Certain portions of the networks will become more viable over time. No change recommended.

None
201 I see a trail parallel to San Mateo Avenue. What is this? Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 It is a proposed pedestrian/bike trail, that Steelwave could incorporate into their redevelopment proposal. No change recommended.

None
202 Wants to make sure there are bike connections to trails shown on the mobility map Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 There will be bicycle connections to linear parks and regional trails, as shown in Figure 28.

No change recommended.

None
203 It would be nice to have bike/pedestrian access through this area, but it would be hard to do this based on the way it is currently built out.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 No change recommended. None 204 It would be nice to see how you can connect through Sister Cities Park via bike. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The Pedestrian Priority Streets map shows a proposed trail that would connect and extend Sister Cities Park into Lindenville. No change recommended.

None
205 Support connectivity from Centennial Way Trail into Lindenville Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The Lindenville Linear Park, among other bicycle and pedestrian trail connections, connects the Centennial Way Trail to Colma Creek. No change recommended.

None
206 Prioritize pedestrian access to connect the Lindenville district to other neighborhoods Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The proposed network of pedestrian paths connect to the Centennial Way Trail, Sister Cities Park, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and nearby neighborhoods. No change recommended.

None
207 Preference for protected bike lanes vs shared bike/vehicular lanes. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 No change recommended. None 208 Support for more protected and safe pedestrian and bicyclist paths, especially to connect Centennial Way Trail to the Bay Trail, Downtown, etc. Currently difficult to get to the Bay Trail, which has an entrance on S Airport Blvd
Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The proposed network of pedestrian paths connect to the Centennial Way Trail, Sister Cities Park, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and nearby neighborhoods. No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 209 Creating a walkable path to and from Downtown is crucial for our local business and city economy.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The proposed Neighborhood Park connects Downtown residents from Railroad Avenue to Colma Creek. In addition, streetscape improvements along South Spruce Avenue and Linden Avenue are designed to provide improved walking conditions for pedestrians. No change recommended.

None
210 North Linden and Spruce crosswalks into downtown aren't safe for elders or children.

Wide and friendly for walking including slower street from victory to Commercial and south Canal to linden into Grand Ave. downtown.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 Victory Avenue is identified for auto priority, but Canal Street and South Linden Avenue from Victory to Commercial are prioritized for the pedestrian network. There are also proposed pedestrian paths that connect South Spruce Avenue to South Linden Avenue, and South Spruce Avenue to Downtown. No change recommended.

None
211 Section 6.2 Mobility; pedestrian, bicycle, streets:
a.Bike, pedestrian and transit access as proposed by Applicant and approved by DRB.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The City will continue to work with Steelwave to ensure consistency between the intent of the Specific Plan and the I101/I131 projects as it nears Planning Commission and City Council approvals. No change recommended
None
212 Section 6.2 Mobility; pedestrian, bicycle, streets:
b.The Infinite 131 Project recommends, prioriƟzes and supports the Utah Flyover and its use to connect to a future bicycle/pedestrian path.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The Specific Plan identifies both the Utah extension and a bicycle/pedestrian trail bridge to improve connectivity across US‐101. The Utah extension will primarily function as an auto capacity and circulation improvement; while it will include bike lanes and sidewalks, it will not provide a direct low‐stress bikeway that will be attractive to all ages and abilities and would require a nearly one mile diversion to the Bay Trail. The trail crossing along the Navigable Slough will provide a more seamless connection between the Bay Trail and Shaw Road/Tanforan Avenue, which will eventually link to the South Linden Grade Separation and Centennial Way Trail. The Utah extension does not supplant the need for this trail crossing; the Specific Plan intends to advance both projects. No change recommended.

None
213 Additionally, the Infinite 101 Project recommends, prioritizes and supports the Utah Flyover and its use to connect to a future bicycle/pedestrian path.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 See previous comment. None 214 Clarify sidewalk and planting strip dimensions. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 Revise text: "These streets should emphasize a vibrant pedestrian realm with sidewalks and planting zones that are 12 to 15 feet wide where possible." Make change
215 Update Figures 27‐31 with revised basemap. No changes to the network. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 128 Update figure with new basemap template. No change to the networks. Make change 216 Likes the cross‐town bike path. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 128 No change recommended. None 217 Suggest continuing Victory avenue across Caltrain tracks to Lowrie and San Mateo Avenue. Connecting Victory could better connect this area.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 130 This would improve connectivity, but creating a vehicular grade separation would be a massive infrastructure investment. No change recommended.

None
218 Can the frontage on Linden be better used for besides parking? Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 130 Figure 27 identifies Linden Ave as a Pedestrian Priority Street and Figure 31 identifies it as street with parking/flex space, creating more options for future frontage improvements along Linden Ave. No change recommended.

None
219 Parking along Linden Avenue is already extremely challenging, and converting it into flex parking will exacerbate the issue. The City should prioritize purchasing at least one parcel to use as off‐street parking.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 131 See previous comment. No change recommended. None 220 Did the traffic modeling analyis show that the Utah Avenue overpass performed fine? Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 130 Traffic modeling showed major delays into/out of East of 101 with the Overpass, but more significant delays without the Overpass. Existing connections were never designed for the intensity of development that has happened in East of 101 and Lindenville, so new connections are needed to better serve these areas. No change recommended.

None
221 Wants language in the Plan focused on how to make this area more pedestrian friendly. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3 Complete Streets Guidance
132 The Chapter 6: Mobility proposes a layered transportation network, identifying improvements such as sidewalk widening, new connections, and streetscape improvements to improve walkability. In addition, Chapter 5: Parks and Open Spaces proposes a network of linear parks to better connect people in Lindenville. No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 222 6.3.1 Based on existing and planned industrially focused land uses, it is unrealistic to expect that South Spruce Ave. will ever be a comfortable or desirable cycle path. However, it will always remain a vital trucking corridor as well as a vital link for motorists traveling across South San Francisco. South Spruce must remain two lanes in each direction.

Cyclists should be routed toward off‐street or side street alternatives which are more compatible with cycling in every way. It is simply unrealistic to force a square peg (cycling) into a round hole (major arterial street). This approach works for no one.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.1 Street Layouts 132 The Specific Plan sets out a long‐term vision for the area's transition to a mixed use residential center. The proposed configuration for South Spruce Avenue as a neighborhood boulevard aligns with the vision for this corridor. Technical transportation analysis confirmed this transition works. No change recommended.

None
223 Figures 35 and 36 are swapped. Section with bike lanes should be Figure 36: Proposed Cross Section ‐ South Linden Avenue (North of colma creek) Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.1 Street Layouts 134 Switch Figures 35 and 36. Make change 224 Shared avenues – would this be two way traffic? Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.1 Street Layouts 137 Laneways/alleys would allow two‐way traffic. No change recommended. None 225 Likes the alleyways a lot Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.1 Street Layouts 137 No change recommended. None 226 Typo with an underlined letter "s" in paragraph 2. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.1 Street Layouts 137 Remove underlined "s" in the sentence and replace with "s." "The Mayfair green street will not contribute to the parks and open space acreage target but will offer significant benefits regarding connection of open space, access to nature, habitat, and stormwater management."
Make change
227 6.3.3. Lowering design or posted speeds to 25 MPH on arterial streets is counterproductive. It will lead people to find parallel alternatives, forcing traffic onto residential or side streets which are not designed to accommodate such volumes. Major arterials like South Spruce should be designed for a 35 MPH limit or better and should always be posted according to the 85th percentile speed.

Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.2 Other
Considerations
139 Research shows that slower street speeds positively correlate with safer streets for non‐ automobile modes of travel, and is a core element of Vision Zero (a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all). No change recommended.

None
228 We want a better environment for the future. The creek is a big problem with potential flooding.

Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
150 The Plan employs blue‐green infrastructure and bigger infrastructure projects to mitigate flooding. No change recommended.

None
229 How far has the City gone to find funding for extending greenway and flood control along Colma Creek? Would like to see more improvements along Northern part of Colma Creek where most pedestrian and active uses. These projects are expensive.

Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
150 The City has been in close coordination with One Shoreline in looking at the infrastructure and naturalization improvement options for Colma Creek. The northern portion (east of Linden Ave) is owned by the City and has been part of a study by Hassell to introduce flood mitigation pilot projects, including floodable parks. This visioning process and implementation actions in the Plan can help the City acquire grant funding and do more detailed studies. No change recommended.

None
230 Concern about the viability of integrating resilient infrastructure (floodable playgrounds, drought tolerant vegetation)
Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
150 The City has been in close coordination with One Shoreline in looking at the infrastructure and naturalization improvement options for Colma Creek. The northern portion (east of Linden Ave) is owned by the City and has been part of a study by Hassell to introduce flood mitigation pilot projects, including floodable parks. This visioning process and implementation actions in the Plan can help the City acquire grant funding and do more detailed studies. Additionally, the design standards for all new development include landscape design standards and guidelines that aim to create resilient landscapes throughout Lindenville that contribute to the blue‐green infrastructure network. No change recommended.
231 How does detention work? What controls that? Is it automated? Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding
150 Detention strategies hold water for a short period of time by capturing water and slowly releasing it. There are a number of ways to detain and release water, the automation route would work with the small pump station to monitor the capacity of Colma Creek, similar to the Orange Memorial Park project. No change recommended.

None
232 Recommend highlighting Lindenville in these Figure 43 and 44 for easier reference Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding
151 Add Lindenville boundary to figures. Make change
233 Concern about how flooding mitigation efforts along Colma Creek could be coordinated with the county
Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
152 The City of South San Francisco already coordinates with the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) to manage flood risk and flood control projects. Future flood mitigation projects along Colma Creek would be coordinated with OneShoreline. No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 234 Not sure what this means; recommend this states Colma Creek Channel's design capacity, which is a 50‐year storm with 2 feet of freeboard (see latest H&H report:
https://oneshoreline.org/wp‐content/uploads/2020/05/Colma_Creek_ModelingReport‐ FINAL‐12052019‐with‐appendix.pdf)
Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
152 Revise bullet point: "Flood Control Channel. A 70’ wide concrete channel most recently improved in 2006 that has a design capacity, which is a 50‐year storm with 2 feet of freeboard can hold up to an additional 3’ of water height in the channel." Make change
235 Recommend calling this "Navigable Slough" for consistency with other technical and planning documents for this water body (e.g. https://oneshoreline.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2020/06/Navigable‐Slough‐Flood‐Management‐Study.pdf) Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
152 Revise bullet point: "Navigable Slough tidal channel. The Navigable Slough tidal channel is a tributary to Colma Creek, passing under US‐101 and South Airport Boulevard as culverts." Make change
236 This is not correct; the author seems to have gotten Navigable Slough and San Bruno Creek mixed up; all these flood control elements relate to San Bruno Creek Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
152 Since San Bruno Creek is outside the Plan area, remove text: "The Navigable Slough also has several flood control elements established by OneShoreline, including:• Two pump stations. 2 pump‐stations maintained by OneShoreline.• Two open channels. 2 open channels of the creek in the lower portion of the watershed.• Tide gate structure. A tide gate structure designed for the 25‐year flow consisting of four,5’ diameter circular pipes with flap gates on the downstream side." Make change
237 Could detention facilities be greenfields? Likes the idea of detention facilities being greenfields.

Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
156 Water goes into detention facilities during extreme events and most of the time sits empty, so it could be an open space. No change recommended.

None
238 Section 7.4 (Figure 48) Stormwater and Flooding:
a.Floodwall ‐ Due to the nature of the riverine flooding, any sort of resiliency should be done concurrently on both the North and South banks of the creek fronting the project.

Schaaf & Wheeler recommends a 35‐ft buffer from the top of bank is left for a future project to be constructed together to protect all the existing and future properties along Navigable Slough. Protecting one bank of the creek at a time could have negative impacts to the properties on the other bank of the creek.
b.Flood detenƟon –With regards to the detenƟon storage, Schaaf & Wheeler recommends the site mitigate any increases in runoff from the site, but does not include any onsite detention or underground detention due to the location in the watershed. Detaining water in the lower watershed can have compounding issues if water is released at the peak from the upper watershed. Additionally, since the existing site condition is entirely surface parking, the proposed design will reduce runoff.

Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
157 Flooding on both sides of the creek needs to be managed, and the suggested approach is a combination of detention and raised walls that address both sides. Floodwalls alone would protect Lindenville at the expense of significant increased flooding in the area downstream of 101. Based on the modeling, flooding is much less severe north of the Slough than south. South of the Slough it was considered infeasible to expect that detention alone could be implemented to manage the flooding that results from larger storms (e.g., > 25‐yr) and so a partial floodwall (mainly to address a few low spill points) would be needed there as well. The approach proposed in the Specific Plan is conceptually acknowledging that some combination of raised bank height and detention will likely be necessary to manage the flooding in Lindenville while mitigating for additional flooding downstream. The detention storage was not considering runoff from any particular parcel, but rather was a general approach to managing the flooding originating from the Slough as observed in the model. A more detailed and iterative inflow and outflow analysis would necessary to fully understand the impacts of detention facilities and inform specific design details. With the 35' buffer, that would require additional modeling analysis, but furthermore would likely cause adjustments to proposed open spaces, given one of them is along Navigable Slough. No change recommended.

None
239 It would be very helpful if these recommendations were cross‐walked with recommendations already in previous reports (e.g. Colma Creek H&H Study and Navigable Slough Flood Management Study); can this section include such a cross‐walk or at least reference where these recommendations are seconded by these already‐existing studies? Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
157 The technical background reports provide details as to how these recommendatoins were evaluated relative to flood modeling conducted during the Lindenville Specific Plan process.

No change recommended.

None
240 Update maps to use updated base map template. Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding
157 Revised Figure 48 will use final updated base map template. Make change 241 Leader line to Neighborhood Park south of Railroad Ave should touch park Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding
157 Revised Figure 48 to that the leader line to Neighborhood Park south of Railroad Ave should touch park
Make change
242 San Bruno Creek is not on this map (Figure 48); this doesn't seem to be the correct label Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding
157 On Figure 48, relabel "San Bruno Canal" to "Navigable Slough" in the comment box label Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 243 Per discussions with City Staff, the Infinite 101 project is subject to the existing General Plan and Zoning and will not be subject to the Lindenville Specific Plan policies. All exhibits should be removed and/or updated to remove references to the Infinite 101 project.

Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and
Flooding
157 On Figure 48, revise location of flood detention facility north of Navigable Slough to west onto the property boundary.

Make change
244 These are great plans, but based on potential development, the economy is at a standstill and development is slowing down, so with this plan we aren’t anticipating much happening in the next few years.

Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation
Actions
159 The General Plan establishes a horizon year of 2040, so changes are expected to happen incrementally. No change recommended.

None
245 Market the A&M District / arts in general to attract developers/artists/public Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions
159 Chapter 8: Implementation includes strategies to brand and market the district. No change recommended.

None
246 Capital improvements will be big in this area. Have you been able to identify specific funding sources for capital improvements?
Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation
Actions
160 The Implementation Chapter identifies types of improvements and potential funding sources. Individual capital improvements, if approved, would need to further designed, costed, and incorporated in the CIP. No change recommended.

None
247 Can we partner with other agencies to help build the district? Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions
160 Yes, the Specific Plan includes a number of partnership opportunities as defined in the implementation actions. These include continued work with the County, OneShoreline, the arts community, BART, Caltrain, neighboring communities, and more. No change recommended.

None
248 Strongly recommend adding a sea level rise zoning overlay district; This is very important as implementation of sea level rise resiliency through zoning/private developments can begin today in parallel with long‐term capital improvements Please see detailed suggested revisions to SSF's Ch. 20.180 Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay District were sent to Billy Gross on 7/16 as a place to start Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation
Actions
160 Existing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.180 (“Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay”) applies to all areas of the City that are within a FEMA flood zone map, identified as being in the 100‐ year flood plus 36 inches of sea level rise, or within BCDC's 100‐foot shoreline band. The standards within this Chapter are intended to protect areas projected to be impacted by sea level rise, mitigate the impacts of sea level rise, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents of the City. No change recommended.

None
249 Does implementation prioritization take into account utility needs as well as road improvements?
Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation
Actions
160 The Specific Plan does not consolidate above ground and below ground needs within a specific corridor to prioritize future capital improvement projects. The Specific Plan improvements that would be incorporated into the City's Capital Improvement Program, an ongoing program, and coordinated at that time. No change recommended.

None
250 Recommend adding an implementation to continue studying flood control options for Colma Creek
Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation
Actions
160 Add new implementation action related to the continued evaluation of flood control measures on/around Colma Creek: Implementation Item "Colma Creek Flood Control Feasibility Study;" Description "Conduct a feasiblity study to identify the most impactful and cost‐effective strategies to reduce flooding from Colma Creek in order to better enable decision‐makers to make informed decisions on flood control options"; Time Frame "Medium‐Term"; Responsibility "Planning, Engineering, Public Works." Make change
251 Recommend adding an implementation to continue studying flood control options for Colma Creek
Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation
Actions
160 Add new implementation action related to funding and implementation of flood control measures on/around Colma Creek: Implementation Item "Colma Creek Flood Control Plan;" Description "Develop a plan identifying capital improvements, phasing, funding, and agencies responsible for implementing flood control measures"; Time Frame "Medium‐ Term"; Responsibility "Planning, Engineering, Public Works." Make change
252 Update Figure 49 with the revised version of Figure 23 that incorporates the updates listed in the Comment Matrix.

Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.1 Park and Open
Space Improvements
163 Update Figure 49 with the revised version of Figure 23. Make change 253 Will there be lights added? Alleyways and trails need to be safe. Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions
164 One of the implementation programs (Wayfinding, Signage and Furnishings Program) is meant to develop standards for amenities within the public right of way, including lighting.

Under Section 8.2.2 Mobility Improvements, create a new section for new streets reading:

New Streets 1. Create specific design standards for new streets and laneways.

Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 254 I am concerned that we are spending too much money in the wrong place. In particular, $136 million on the Utah overpass that continues to sneak into planning documents, despite plans stated goals of environmental justice, climate change etc. The overpass requires eminent domain, and will cost as much as implementing almost the entirety of the Active South City Plan. I understand this is a visionary and long‐range plan, but this means it requires prioritization and metrics to be effective. I urge City Council not to adopt plan if Lindenville doesn’t commit to prioritize stated goals (environmental justice, equity etc.) and evaluate based on cost effectiveness of reaching those stated goals. If they do, they will see that Utah overpass is not in line with stated goals.

Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.2 Mobility
Improvements
164 The City needs more east and west connections across US‐101, and the Specific Plan proposes connections other than the Utah Avenue Overpass. In addition, the Utah Avenue Overpass is being planned in a separate process. No change recommended.

None
255 I really like a lot of the aspects of the plan. The Utah Overpass – I don’t think the City should be spending money on this. City shouldn’t spend new money on roads that would add more traffic. Where is this idea coming from? I have a hunch that it is primarily biotech pushing this? It’s hard to endorse spending money on something that will only support biotech.

Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.2 Mobility
Improvements
164 See previous response. No change recommended. None
256 This Plan shows the Utah Overpass is included. Concerned that we are prioritizing this project when there are many bike/pedestrian projects we should prioritize.

Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.2 Mobility
Improvements
164 See previous response. No change recommended. None
257 Wants to second Councilmember Coleman’s concerns about the Utah Avenue overpass.

Urge Council not to prioritize Utah Avenue Overpass
Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.2 Mobility
Improvements
164 See previous response. No change recommended. None
258 Wants to third concerns regarding the Utah Avenue Overpass Prioritize bike/pedestrian connections
Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.2 Mobility
Improvements
164 See previous response. No change recommended. None
259 Update Figure 52 with the revised version of Figure 48 that incorporates the updates outlined in the Comment Matrix.

Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.3 Infrastructure and
Utility Improvements
167 Update Figure 52 with the revised version of Figure 48 Proposed Stormwater and Flood Infrastructure Improvements and Upgrades.

Make change
260 Businesses get flooded often near Navigable Slough. This may give them hope that something will happen. It will be important for the City to communicate next steps with business owners.

Chapter 8: Implementation 8.3 Funding and
Financing Strategies
168 The Implementation Chapter of the Plan outlines next steps for studying and securing funding for the flooding projects. Any project will require engagement with property owners. No change recommended.

None
261 Clarify the relationship between the Specific Plan and Zoning Code. Chapter 8: Implementation 8.4 Authority 173 Add new section: "8.4 Authority This Specific Plan implements the General Plan’s goals and policies for Lindenville and establishes the area’s land use and development regulations. The Lindenville Specific Plan guides land use and development decision‐making processes for the area. The Specific Plan does not replace or augment building safety codes or other non‐planning related codes. All applications for new development, substantial modifications or improvements to existing buildings, and changes in land use shall be reviewed for conformance with this Specific Plan. This Specific Plan is adopted under the authority of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Existing and previously entitled development may have their own approvals and requirements, which may supersede the requirements in this plan, unless additional approvals are required, or entitlements have expired."
Make change
262 Clarify the relationship between the Specific Plan and Zoning Code. Chapter 8: Implementation 8.4 Authority 173 Continue 8.4: "In the event of inconsistencies or conflict between the Lindenville Specific Plan and any other provision of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the provisions of the Lindenville Specific Plan take precedence, control, and govern in the Lindenville Specific Plan Area. Whenever the Lindenville Specific Plan document does not provide specific standards and/or procedures for the review, approval, and/or administration of development projects within the Lindenville Specific Plan district or for appeals concerning approvals or administration of development projects, the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code shall apply."
Make change

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 263 Update all figures to use updated basemap template that shows updates to the pedestrian and bicycle lanes.

General Comment NA NA Update all figures to use the updated basemap. Make change 264 New Figures in Chapter 4 changed the Figure numbering, update all Figures after it. General Comment NA NA Update the figure numbering in all chapters, beginning with Chapter 4. Make change 265 Update all instances of "mixed‐use" in the Specific Plan to "mixed use" for consistency throughout the plan.

General Comment NA NA Update all instances of "mixed‐use" in the Specific Plan to "mixed use" Make change 266 As a successful, well established business in South San Francisco for 45 years, and located at 205 Shaw Road for the past 30 years, I believe our company, through its Senior Directors, have established repeated communication with the City of South San Francisco of our disapproval of the plans you have presented to change the environment of this City. Improvements, asthetically, structurally, transportation‐wise, utilities improvements, public park and recreation land use, and some addition low income housing (if truly low‐ income) should be the primary focus of a City seeking improvement for it's citizens‐‐ residents/small businesses. This massive plan, however, speaks only to creating a myriad of problems while succumbing to the lofty images presented by the developers courting the City. I recall asking someone on your panel in one of your recent presentations, as to what point (if at all) the plan would be submitted to CEQA. My question was met with a vague, non‐ answer.

Frankly, it's futile to even comment and/or submit an opinion on this project as, it obviously has always been and will be a done deal. Why wouldn't South San Francisco follow the course of the rest of the Peninsula cities and communities too overrun the land with Tech and Biotech Industries, and the ensuing consequences? General Comment NA NA An Addendum will be prepared for the South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR to consider changes under the Lindenville Specific Plan and to document the conclusion that the changes will not result in new or significantly more severe effects. No change recommended.

None
267 Do you expect much turnover in Lindenville? General Comment NA NA Implementation can take a lot of time, but if a couple parcels redevelop, it may spur more development. No change recommended.

None
268 But, I’d like to know how many affordable housing or housing developments in general have been built nearby the biotech corporations on the east side.

General Comment NA NA Housing has not been allowed in East of 101 until the adoption of the General Plan in 2022.

Under the General Plan, housing is allowed in certain parts of East of 101, notably near the Caltrain Station and along South Airport Boulevard. Non‐residential development projects are required to pay fees to contribute to affordable housing development. No change recommended.

None
269 As Planning Commissioners would make pretty poor spies, they have revealed that Lindenville will likely end up in the hands of biotech/life science concerns and high density housing developers with twelve story "rat cage" dreams.

Still, as this plan that no resident asked for, joins many developments that have been put on pause, there was a mention of a housing project coming to the table in a few weeks. After viewing all the illustrations of the beautiful re‐imagined Lindenville, I'm curious, after all the mercenary developers build their "big ticket" projects, are you going to make them post a bond to guarantee they build the amenities they have promised? I think I know the answer. You can always hand out pictures of the "promised land" as impacted residents walk though another "rock garden" like the one created across from See's Candy. I know the residents were promised a new Safeway as Mr.

Addiego embarrassingly genuflected in appreciation to the developer for the inclusion of this grocery store in the project when the residents were misled, yet again, that the Safeway would be the anchor store for this project. Another day, another dollar, another lie. To paraphrase, if the residents express concern, simply say "let them eat rocks." A little sage advice to any of you with developers with business before you. Don't even accept a free paperclip as you don't want to be caught in a "Nuru." You are being watched! General Comment NA NA The Specific Plan does not expand land available for biotech uses in Lindenville previously identified in the 2040 General Plan. No change recommended.

None

Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment Matrix
Comment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken 270 After viewing several Planning Commission Meetings, it has become apparent that some of the commission members are attempting to use sleight of hand to deceive the public about the impact of this project that nobody asked for. Well nobody but those interests that are likely to profit. What stands out to me was one commissioner's mention that you can't let it look like all the small businesses operating in the area will be displaced. Seems, it's more about appearance than the reality. Fact is, another commissioner made mention that the "deep pocketed" life sciences concerns will likely be throwing big bucks in the till in competition for the properties. If the small business owner owns the property, he will sell as he will likely never see that much money again. If they lease, the property owner will sell for the same reason. End result, these businesses are doomed.

Need further proof? At the last meeting there was discussion of relocating the businesses, including outside SSF city limits. While that is easier said than done, you've shown your "hand" and civic pride by showing longtime SSF businesses the door.

General Comment NA NA No change recommended. None
271 Most troubling of all is the acknowledgement that this is a long term, twenty year vision.

You can even hide behind the economic uncertainties facing our country. That's code for any public amenities promised in this reborn Lindenville will be last to be built, if at all.

Long time residents have seen this act before.

General Comment NA NA No change recommended. None
272 Bottom line, you guys are an "easy read." Lindenville likely will be pockets of high rise buildings designed to improve large businesses bottom lines, not the quality of life of South San Franciscans. Know this, those of us who genuinely care about the direction this city has taken after mercenaries found their way into government are watching you, enlisting the appropriate government agencies for help in oversight, and will be vigilant in preventing further exploitation of our city for nefarious purposes. Understood? General Comment NA NA No change recommended. None