Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-23 e-packetStaff Report DATE: June 24, 2015 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING AMENDMENT, TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (PHASE III), TERRABAY PRECISE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ADDENDUM TO THE 1998/99 AND 2005 CERTIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS FOR A RE- ENTITLEMENT OF THE CENTENNIAL TOWERS PROJECT TO ALLOW RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AS A PERMITTED USE AT ONE AND TWO TOWER PLACE IN THE TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 20.240, 20.310, 20.330, 20.380, 20.400, 20.460, 20.480, 20.530, 20.540 & 20.550. Owner/Applicant: Myers Development Co, LLC Address: One and Two Tower Place (APNs 007-650-190, -180, -170) Case No.: P06-0073: PPM15-0001, GPA15-0003, ZA15-0005& SPA15-0002 Env. Doc.: Addendum to the 1998/99 and 2005/06 Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and considering the 2015 Addendum as the appropriate environmental document for the Project; 2. Introduce an Ordinance making findings and approving Zoning Amendment ZA15- 0005 amending Chapter 20.240 “Terrabay Specific Plan District”, and waive further reading; 3. Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving Planning Project P06-0073, including General Plan Amendment GPA15-0003, Specific Plan Amendment SPA15-0002, and Precise Plan Modification PPM15-0001, based on the attached Draft Findings and subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval. Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Date: June 24, 2015 Page 2 of 10 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION (A complete discussion of the proposed project is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated June 4, 2015.) Site History The Terrabay project has an extensive planning history spanning 33 years. In brief, Terrabay was envisioned to be built in three phases, with Phase III the most challenging portion. Prior to 1999, the Terrabay Specific Plan noted Phase III as “Terrabay Commercial”, with no details or specifications as to the type or location of land use (see Figure 1). In 2000, the property was purchased by the current Applicant, Myers Development. Myers worked with community and environmental groups and the City to resolve the challenges of developing the site including the presence of wetlands, butterfly habitat and cultural resources and concerns surrounding grading, landslides, rockslides and architectural massing. In 2000, the project received approval for a performing arts center, child care facility, preservation of wetlands, habitat and cultural resources and an entitled 665,000 square foot office tower. The Applicant also requested a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the Phase III parcels to Office Commercial. FIGURE 1: TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT –PLANNING AREAS In October 2006, the City approved what is known as the 2006 Project - Terrabay Phase III. The 2006 Project approved the precise plan, specific plan and zoning text amendments that permit construction of 665,000 total square feet of Class A office in two towers on the Phase III site. The entitlements include up to 25,000 square feet of retail use with a minimum of one quality restaurant, a shared use 200-seat performing arts center, a 100-child day care facility and a public art program. The City also certified the 2005/06 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005/06 SEIR) and considered a 2006 Addendum with the 2006 Mitigation Monitoring and Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Date: June 24, 2015 Page 3 of 10 Reporting Program (MMRP) as the appropriate and legally adequate environmental documentation for the 2006 Project. Figure 1 illustrates the property boundaries and the proposed general plan and zoning designation amendments to “Terrabay Mixed Use” for the North and South Tower parcels. Note that the “Buffer Parcel” is designated as open space and pursuant to the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District permits surface roads. In 2008, the Terrabay Phase III Specific Plan was amended again to permit a 15,007 square foot “Product Design Studio” (Studio) above the North Tower ground floor retail concourse. The Studio would be used as technology research support to the office component in the North Tower and not be open to the public. In December 2012, the City approved an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan to allow retail use on the second floor of the South Tower in an area consisting of 5,800 interior square feet and an outdoor public and private amenity area consisting of 7,500 square feet. The second floor retail use replaces what was approved for a day care center and outdoor play area. The 2012 Project approvals stipulate a payment schedule for child care in lieu fees. The sum of these three amendments constitutes the existing approvals for the Phase III site (2012 Project). Table 1, below illustrates the approved development for Centennial Towers. TABLE 1 2012 APPROVED TERRABAY PROJECT (shaded areas indicate required amenities) Gross Square Feet SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 Commercial 11,544 Second Floor Retail 5,794 Outdoor Public Amenity 7,500 Performing Arts 4,432 Sub Total 324,773 Parking 962 spaces NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 Commercial 12,465 Product Design Studio 15,007 Sub Total 379,486 Parking 990 spaces TOTALS Office 665,028 Commercial 24,009 Second Floor Retail 5,794 Performing Arts 4,432 Product Design Studio 15,007 Total 714,271 Total Parking 1,952 spaces Recreational Opportunities 1,500 linear foot trail to overlook area on Buffer and South Tower Parcels with seating and landscaping Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Date: June 24, 2015 Page 4 of 10 Project Overview The Phase III Centennial Tower Project (“2015 R&D Project”) is intended to complete the development of the Terrabay Specific Plan. The Applicant’s request entails the following legislative actions to add a second development alternative consisting of Research and Development (R&D) on the Phase III site. The proposed project would: 1. Amend the South San Francisco General Plan (1999) text (pg. 116 and Table 3.8-1) to provide for mixed use on the Phase III site consisting of research and development (R&D), with lab use and office; Business Commercial Office (currently permitted); and Retail (currently permitted). NOTE: The existing language in the General Plan text references Business and Technology Park (which permits R&D with lab use). However, the General Plan land use amendment approved by the City in 2000 (Resolution 1279- 2000) amended the Phase III site use to Office Commercial as requested by Applicant. 2. Amend the South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate the Phase III portion of Terrabay as “Terrabay Mixed Use” to accommodate the land use options identified above. 3. Amend the Terrabay Zoning Map (page 215) SSFMC to identify the Terrabay Phase III portion of Terrabay to “Terrabay Mixed Use.” 4. Amend the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District, permitted uses SSFMC Chapter 20.240.003 B to conform to and implement the land uses in #1, above. The requested R&D land use would be conducted within the approved site layout and building plans, and would not change the appearance or building envelope of the North Tower, or add overall permitted square footage to the buildings. Additionally, the approved 2012 TDM Program or the design review approvals do not require any modification. SSFMC Table 20.400.003: Minimum Alternative Mode Use requires a 32% mode shift for both Office Commercial and Business and Technology Park with a 0.80 FAR. The approved 2012 TDM program already targets a 32% mode shift. In summary, the request for approval of R&D as a permitted use would allow Commercial Office, R&D or a combination of the two not to exceed the currently entitled 665,028 square feet of office use in both the South and North Towers. The ground floor and second floor retail, shared performing arts facility, 7,500 square foot outdoor public amenity, public arts program and 1,500 linear foot trail to the overlook area are requirements of the project. Figure 2 shows the existing conditions on the Phase III site. The North Tower would be constructed, the garage completed and the North Access Road (at the northern property boundary) would be completed with a fire turn around. Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Date: June 24, 2015 Page 5 of 10 FIGURE 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS General Plan and Zoning Map and Text Amendments Figure 1 illustrates the proposed General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments related to Terrabay Phase III. Both the North and South Tower parcels on the Phase III site would be designated as Terrabay Mixed Use District. The Buffer Parcel would remain as open space. The proposed General Plan text is recommended to be amended to read as shown in Attachment 3, Exhibit B. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The Project site is designated Office Commercial within the General Plan and is located within the Terrabay Specific Plan District, which provides zoning for the coordinated development of planning areas with various residential and commercial uses. The proposed 2015 R&D Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan as demonstrated in the resolution recommending approval of the General Plan amendment. The Mixed Use designation would be synergistic with the City’s Downtown Station Area Specific Plan visions to increase Downtown density and vitality, provide a walkable community and move the CalTrain station closer to the Downtown. A fully occupied Terrabay Phase III site would increase transit use, as demonstrated in the current TDM Program, jump start more retail services on the site, and is within bicycling and walking distance of Downtown. The 2015 R&D Project would require amendments to the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the Terrabay Specific Plan to allow R&D uses on the Terrabay Phase III site. Subject to approval of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan amendments, the 2015 R&D Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Date: June 24, 2015 Page 6 of 10 Project would remain consistent with the intent and purpose of the Terrabay Specific Plan and comply with all development standards of the District. A more detailed review of the General Plan and Zoning consistency is contained in the attached June 4, 2015 Planning Commission staff report. SPECIFIC PLAN AND PRECISE PLAN CONFORMITY The proposed amendments to the Terrabay Phase II and III Final Specific Plan and Precise Plan would not alter the specific plan findings made by City Council on November 21, 2000 and subsequently on October 11, 2006, July 23, 2008 and December 12, 2012 (see Attachment 3 Exhibit C). The Terrabay Precise Plan would not change from those approved in 2006/08/12. R&D operations would likely require venting on the building and the emplacement of emergency generators pursuant to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requirements and likely California Fire Code and Building Code requirements. A recommended condition of project approval is: Prior to issuance of a building permit and after BAAQMD and Fire Department review of R&D operations and building requirements building elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Building elevations shall indicate the location and screening of venting, stacks, generators and any other mechanical and emergency equipment required for R&D operations. The Chief Planner, or designee, may refer the elevations to the City’s Design Review Board for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Additional screening may be required. The recommended conditions of approval in Attachment 3 Exhibit A include those from 2000, 2006, 2008 and 2012 as well as ones identified and recommended for the 2015 Amendments. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The 2015 R&D Project involves a change of use only; the addition of an R&D/Office use as a permitted use on the Phase III site. The 2015 R&D Project does not deviate from the 2006/08/12 site planning entitlements. No additional square footage is proposed. The 2.91-acre North Tower site is graded and a drilled piers and a foundation is in place as shown in Figure 2. Changes in the North Tower placement are not proposed. The curtain walls and structural steel matching the South Tower have been constructed and are in storage for the North Tower. Changes to the North Tower architecture, height and massing are not proposed. The foundation and retaining wall for the North Tower parking garage, adjacent to and connected to the South Tower parking, are constructed. The pedestrian tunnels leading from the parking structure to the North Tower are in place. An environmental analysis based upon the change in use was conducted and incorporates the certified 1982 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the 1996, 1998/99 and 2005/06 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Date: June 24, 2015 Page 7 of 10 Supplemental EIRs (SEIR) by reference. The change in use required CEQA review with respect to hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, greenhouse gas and health risk assessments. New evaluations of hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, and greenhouse gas were prepared to document any changes in potential impacts associated with the more intense land use alternative. Noise and vibration was also thoroughly revisited because the North Tower would be constructed while the South Tower is occupied with office uses. A discussion of traffic and circulation is also included to document the reduction in vehicle trips associated with a change from commercial office to R&D use. The existing (2012 approved) TDM Program would continue to apply to the R&D development option. All other resource areas identified in Appendix G, including aesthetics, agriculture & timber, biology, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, minerals, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and circulation, utilities and water systems, would not be altered as a result in the requested change in use on the Phase III site. The 2015 R&D Project would not result in any increases in identified impacts or new impacts from those identified in the 1982 EIR and the 1998/99 and 2005/06 SEIRs. The Adopted 2006 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (City Council Resolution # 82-2006) contains all the mitigation measures required of the Terrabay Phase III Project, including the 20 15 R&D Project. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Commission reviewed the proposed project at the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 2015 (see Draft Planning Commission minutes, Attachment 4). No members of the public spoke on the project. The Commission had concerns related to traffic impacts in general and relating to recent and anticipated projects in the East of 101 and the Downtown Station Area. A discussion on the East of 101 Traffic Model and traffic improvements was held after the Planning Commission reviewed the Terrabay Phase III Project. Staff noted that the R&D option would result in the generation of less traffic trips as shown in the environmental document. Concern was expressed regarding the proximity of R&D uses to existing residential and open space uses. Staff described some of the fire code provisions, San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) permitting requirements and the Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQMD) permitting requirements. Staff noted that while zoning, per se, does not specifically identify setbacks or other development regulations with respect to R&D and residential uses the hazard risk assessments required by the BAAQMD, the California Fire and Building Codes and SMCDEH do influence protection of sensitive receptors. APPLICANT REQUEST On June 18, 2015, Applicant submitted a letter to the City requesting that additional conditions of approval be added to the project to address any outstanding obligations from the 2006 Approvals. Applicant’s letter is attached to this Staff Report; note that any impact fee amount listed in the letter are estimates only and the final amount shall be paid at the rates prescribed in the resolution or ordinance adopting and implementing the fee. Staff supports these additional Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Date: June 24, 2015 Page 8 of 10 conditions of approval and have included with the proposed conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission on June 4, 2015. These additional conditions of approval are proposed Conditions A.5, A.6, and B.16. CONCLUSION Based on the information included in the public record, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the required findings and adopt the attached resolutions considering the 2015 CEQA Addendum and 2015 R&D Project entitlements and legislative actions for Terrabay Phase III Project. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council waive reading and introduce an Ordinance to modify Chapter 20.240 “Terrabay Specific Plan District”. By: Approved: Alex Greenwood Director of Economic and Community Development Mike Futrell City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft CEQA Resolution Exhibit A: 2015 Addendum 2. Draft Ordinance amending SSFMC Chapter 20.240 including Map 3. Draft Entitlements Resolution Exhibit A: General Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Terrabay Paradise Valley General Plan Map and Text Amendment Exhibit C: Terrabay Specific Plan Text Amendment Exhibit D: Precise Plan 4. Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Minutes a. Meetings of June 4, 2015 5. Planning Commission Resolutions a. Resolution 2768- 2015 – CEQA Resolution (no attachments) b. Resolution 2769- 2015 – Entitlements Resolution (no attachments) 6. Letter from Myers Development dated June 18, 2015 7. Powerpoint Presentation 2456281.1 Staff Report DATE: May 13, 2015 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE SUBSTITUTION OF A LEGALLY ESTABLISHED NONCONFORMING USE (AUTO REPAIR) WITH ANOTHER NONCONFORMING USE (SERVICE STATION CONVENIENCE MARKET) WITHIN AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 221 AIRPORT BLVD IN THE GRAND AVENUE CORE (“GAC”) ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SSFMC CHAPTERS 20.280, 20.320, 20.330. 20.350, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490. Address: 221 Airport Blvd (APN 012-319-020) Owner: Russell Skrable Applicant: Zareh Samurkashian Case No.: P14-0078: UP14-0007 & DR14-0046 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution upholding the Planning Commission decision to deny application P14-0078 (UP14-0007 & DR14- 0046), and deny the appeal, based on the City Council Findings of Denial. BACKGROUND (A complete discussion of the proposed Project as well as the Planning Commission meeting is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes dated January 15, 2015.) Project Description/Application On September 19, 2014, Zareh Samurkashian (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a use permit and design review for 221 Airport Blvd, the site of the 76 gas station, to allow the following:  Allow the substitution of the legally established nonconforming auto repair use with another nonconforming use, a service station convenience market of approximately 700 square feet.  Allow the expansion of the service station to install a new underground diesel tank to provide diesel fueling, with no increase in the total number of fueling stations on the site.  Exterior modifications including an updated façade along both the Airport Blvd and Grand Ave frontages and the addition of new landscape areas throughout the project site. Planning Commission – January 15, 2015 Meeting On January 15, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the Applicant’s request for a use permit. The Commission indicated some support for the Project’s proposed exterior Staff Report Subject: 221 Airport Blvd - Appeal Page 2 of 6 modifications. However, because the proposed use was not permitted within the zoning district, the Planning Commission was not able to make the specific findings required in the City’s nonconforming use regulations (SSFMC § 20.320.005.C) to allow the substitution of one nonconforming use with another nonconforming use. Accordingly, the Planning Commission denied the Use Permit by a vote of 4-2. Specifically, the Planning Commission found that the following findings could not be made in the affirmative:  The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.  The proposed new use would not preclude or interfere with implementation of the General Plan or any applicable adopted specific, area, or community plan.  The proposed new use will not result in an average daily trip increase of more than five percent of the current use based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, or the unique operational characteristics.  The proposed new use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of adjacent properties, the surrounding area, or the neighborhood because of noise, odors, dust, glare, vibrations, or other effects. Appeal On January 29, 2015, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was submitted by the Applicant. The appeal was on the overall denial of the Planning Commission and did not specify bases for the appeal; a copy of the appeal letter is attached to this staff report. DISCUSSION As part of the appeal hearing, the City’s Zoning Ordinance gives the City Council the authority to:  Uphold the decision.  Deny the decision.  Remand the decision back to the Planning Commission for a new public hearing. Since the submittal of the appeal, changes in the regulatory setting for the subject site have taken place. Following is a summary of these changes and their impacts on the planning application. Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Adoption The subject property’s zoning under the Zoning Ordinance regulations in effect at the time of the Planning Commission meeting was Downtown Core (“DC”). Under this zoning, all Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services use classifications, including Service Stations and Repair uses, were not permitted uses within the DC zone district. In January and February of 2015, the City Council adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”), as well as amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, adding Chapter 20.280 “Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District” to implement the policies and goals in the DSASP. The DSASP covers properties within 0.5 miles of the City’s Caltrain Station, which includes the subject property. The DSASP includes the following principles: Staff Report Subject: 221 Airport Blvd - Appeal Page 3 of 6  Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco as a citywide destination that is economically vital, diverse, active, and that encompasses a variety of uses.  Promote new residential, mixed-use and employment uses so as to add a “critical mass” of business patrons and residents to the Downtown, while maintaining a scale and character that is complementary.  Focus increases in residential and mixed-use densities within ¼ mile of the Caltrain Station and in areas proximate to Grand Avenue to increase patronage of Caltrain as well as Grand Avenue businesses.  Require pedestrian-oriented ground level retail and service uses on Grand Avenue. In general, the DSASP envisions a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use Downtown with a variety of higher density residential types and densities. It also envisions a revitalization of Downtown by planning for the redevelopment of underutilized land resources within the area. As part of the adoption of the DSASP, the subject property’s zoning was changed to Grand Avenue Core (“GAC”). The GAC district is intended to be the main street of the Downtown, providing a nearly continuous retail frontage with high density residential above. In keeping with the overall vision of the DSASP, Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services use classifications are not permitted uses within the entire DSASP area. Therefore, the existing use at the subject property remains a legal nonconforming use. The existing nonconforming uses on the site are allowed to continue, provided that there is no expansion of the nonconforming use (SSFMC § 20.320.006). One non-conforming use may be substituted for another non-conforming use subject to a Use Permit if certain specific findings can be made in the affirmative, including that the substituted non-conforming use is consistent with the General Plan. (SSFMC § 20.320.005C.) As stated above, in addition to any other findings required for a Use Permit, approval of a nonconforming use substitution also requires that additional specific findings be made. Following is a listing of specific findings to allow substitution of a nonconforming use and staff’s analysis related to the proposed project’s nonconformance with each specific finding. These findings have been updated based on the adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan:  The proposed new use would not preclude or interfere with implementation of the General Plan or any applicable adopted specific, area, or community plan; The proposed project, including the expansion of the convenience market and the expansion of the gasoline service to include diesel fueling, is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. The City’s General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Grand Avenue Core, a nd the subject site is also located within the Downtown Planning Subarea, which includes guiding policies promoting Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being and its presence as the city’s center, encouraging development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center, and calls for infill development, intensification and reuse of currently underused sites. The Downtown Planning Subarea policies also state that the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan should be used as a guide for General Plan policies for the Downtown Station Area. The Staff Report Subject: 221 Airport Blvd - Appeal Page 4 of 6 existing service station use on the site consists of primarily vehicular circulation and parking areas, with a small building footprint, resulting in a vehicle-oriented, under-utilized site, not in keeping with the City’s goals for the Downtown. The subject site is a strategic location that serves as a gateway to the Downtown, located directly across Airport Blvd from the planned Caltrain Plaza, which would lead to the anticipated pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing to the extended Caltrain platform. The proposed expansion of the convenience market as a replacement of the service bays will result in an increase in the amount of vehicular traffic to the site, while the installation of a new underground diesel fuel storage tank would constitute an expansion of the existing nonconforming service station. Each of the proposed improvements constitutes an investment that will tend to prolong the nonconforming use of the site, thereby impeding the implementation of the General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plans goals to develop the Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center.  The proposed new use will not depress the value of nearby properties or create conditions that would impede their redevelopment or use in compliance with the General Plan; The proposed improvements to the building and site, including the substitution of the auto repair use with the convenience market and the new underground diesel storage tank will impede the implementation of the General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan by prolonging the nonconforming use of a site that is a strategic location within the overall vision to develop the Downtown as a vibrant pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center.  The proposed new use will be no less compatible with the purposes of the district and surrounding uses that comply with the requirements of this Ordinance than the nonconforming use it replaces; The City’s Zoning District for the site is Grand Avenue Core, which is intended to be the “main street” of the Downtown, providing a nearly continuous retail frontage with high density residential above. Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services use classifications are not permitted uses within the Grand Avenue Core district. The proposed replacement of the service bays with a convenience market will result in an increase in the amount of vehicular traffic to the site, while the installation of a new underground diesel fuel storage tank would constitute an expansion of the existing nonconforming service station. Both improvements will result in a use that will be less compatible with the purposes of the district and surrounding uses by increasing vehicular traffic to the site, resulting in a use that is less compatible with the purposed of the district to develop Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center.  The proposed new use will not result in an average daily trip increase of more than fiv e percent of the current use based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, or the unique operational characteristics; Staff Report Subject: 221 Airport Blvd - Appeal Page 5 of 6 The existing use has approximately 240 square feet of retail area and 840 square feet of auto service area in a building with a total size of approximately 1,200 square feet. Customers to the site are predominately there to purchase gasoline, not for the convenience market. According to Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, a Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market is defined as a place where the primary business is the fueling of motor vehicles, with ancillary facilities for servicing and repairing motor vehicles. The average trip generation rates for a Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market are as follows:  Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate – 163 trips per vehicle fueling position  Average AM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 10.56 trips per vehicle fueling position  Average PM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 13.57 trips per vehicle fueling position The proposed use would increase the retail area to approximately 750 square feet, with no auto service area. In this scenario, customers to the site might not predominately be there to purchase gasoline. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, defines Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps as places where the primary business is the selling of convenience items, not the fueling of motor vehicles. The average trip generation rates for a Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps are as follows:  Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate – 543 trips per vehicle fueling position  Average AM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 17.03 trips per vehicle fueling position  Average PM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 19.98 trips per vehicle fueling position For all comparable trip generation rates, the proposed use increases the rates by more than five percent.  The proposed new use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of adjacent properties, the surrounding area, or the neighborhood because of noise, odors, dust, glare, vibrations, or other effects; and The proposed new use has the potential to be detrimental to the surrounding properties and improvements by expanding a use that will result in additional vehicular traffic to the site, in opposition to improvements intended to encourage the development of Downtown as a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use activity center. CONCLUSION The proposed project would result in aesthetic improvements to the existing site, but the proposal to substitute the existing Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair use with an expanded Convenience Market use and expanded service station with the installation of a new underground diesel fuel storage tank will impede implementation of the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, will result in increased vehicular traffic to the project site, and consequently will result in a use that is less compatible with the purposes of the Grand Avenue Core district , as described above and in the attached Planning Commission staff report. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission Staff Report Subject: 221 Airport Blvd - Appeal Page 6 of 6 decision to deny Planning Application P14-0078, including UP14-0007. However, should the City Council desire to approve the subject Use Permit, staff would recommend that Council either remand the matter back to the Planning Commission or continue the item off-calendar to allow staff and the Applicant to determine the appropriate CEQA process and to develop appropriate findings and conditions. By: Approved: Alex Greenwood Director of Economic and Community Development Mike Futrell City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution, including draft City Council Findings of Denial 2. Appeal Letter 3. Planning Commission a. Staff Report of January 15, 2015 b. Minutes of January 15, 2015 c. Minutes of October 18, 2001 4. Project Narrative 5. Project Plans dated August 12, 2014 6. PowerPoint Presentation MF/JS/JR/AG/bg She unveiled the slogan "Every Drop Counts" and stated it would be used on posters and City communications. She advised that water conservation tips and resources would be presented on the City's website and in promotional materials, including door hangers and fliers. The Campaign would kick-off in June. Recess: 8:59 P.M. Meeting resumed: 9:07 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 16. Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of use permit and design review to allow the substitution of a legally established nonconforming use (auto repair) with another nonconforming use (service station convenience market) within an existing service station at 221 Airport Blvd in the Downtown Core (DC) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.280, 20.320, 20.330, 20.350, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner). CONTINUED FROM THE REGULAR MEETING ON APRIL 8, 2015. Public Hearing opened: 9:09 P.M. Senior Planner Billy Gross presented the staff report detailing the history of the 221 Airport Boulevard Gas Station Site, its current state, proposed renderings, functions and required findings. He explained how the proposed changes to the property would impact zoning as a potential nonconforming use. George Corey, attorney for the applicants that own the gas station, discussed the complexity of the situation. Since the twenty year lease of the property is not being terminated, the applicants are choosing to focus attention on aesthetic improvements, the proposed mini-mart, removal of the service bays and the addition of a diesel pump to the existing station. Michael Keinuth, an air quality practitioner and chemical engineer consultant, provided background information on his involvement with environmental work, state regulations and obligations under AB32 related to the advantages of diesel fuel. He explained the efficiency of clean diesel powered engines to highlight the potential use and benefit that this addition to the station could bring to the City. Public Hearing closed: 9:31 P.M. Councilman Gupta raised questions about the production impact and overall usefulness of clean diesel in addition to the zoning and aesthetic challenges posed by the diesel tanks. Councilwoman Matsumoto proposed a compromise, in which the diesel pump could be permitted but the mini-mart portion of the application would be denied. Mayor Garbarino expressed his support for the renovations because they would simply enhance the property with business improvements and a more attractive space. Mr. Corey emphasized removal of the car service bays to better compliment the changing appearance of Grand Avenue. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13,2015 MINUTES PAGE 4 Mayor Garbarino noted that the proposed improvements were significantly better than what was currently on the site. Councilman Gupta advised that he did not support the diesel tank installation due to possible leakage and nonconforming use. Councilwoman Normandy concurred with Councilman Gupta. At the request of Council, staff agreed to study options with the applicant for proposal at a later date. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion approving the Minutes of meetings of April 22, 2015. 2. Motion confirming payment registers for May 13, 2015. 3. Motion to waive reading and adopt an Ordinance 15-2015 making modifications to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.360 (Signs) to revise regulations and permitting for Signs Citywide in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.550. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner). 4. Motion to accept the South Airport Boulevard Storm Pump Station Upgrade (Project No. sd1301) as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. (Total construction cost $129,089.27). (Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer). 5. Resolution No. 35-2015 authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Turbo Data Systems, Inc. for Parking Citation Processing and adjudication services, for a five (5) year term expiring June 30, 2020. (Jeff Azzopardi, Chief of Police and Richard Lee, Finance Director). 6. Resolution No. 36-2015 awarding the construction contract to Anderson Pacific, of Santa Clara, California for the Pump Station No. 4 Jib Crane Repair Project (Project No. ss1505) in an amount not to exceed $82,750. (Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer). 7. Resolution No. 37-2015 authorizing a joint application by the City of South San Francisco and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) for Transportation Investment General Economic Recovery Round 7 (TIGER VII) grant funding for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Access and Improvement Project. (Brian McMinn, Public Works Director). 8. Resolution No. 38-2015 awarding the construction contract to State Roofing Systems, Inc. of San Leandro, California, for the Fire Station 62 Roof Replacement Project (Project No. pfl 503) in an amount not to exceed $142,685 and amending the 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Program to appropriate an additional $60,000 from General Fund reserves to Project No. pfl 503. (Robert Hahn, Senior Civil Engineer). 9. Resolution No. 39-2015 authorizing the appropriation of up to $20,000 in Police Seizure Funds to be used as reward for information that leads to the capture and prosecution of those responsible for homicides in South San Francisco. (Jeff Azzopardi, Chief of Police). 10. Resolution No. 40-2015 amending the Consultant Services Agreement with Deborah Glasser, LLC, in an amount of $40,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $120,000 for REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13,2015 MINUTES PAGE 5