HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix C 201 Haskins Way_LUCAnalysis_DEIR 10 12 18.pdfAPPENDIX C
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
201 HASKINS WAY PROJECT
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS
OCTOBER 12, 2018
91 R:: N •;
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
201 HASKINS WAY PROJECT
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS
Prepared for
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
330 Townsend Street, Suite 216
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415) 536 -2883
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 44270
October 12, 2018
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................. ............................... 1
Overview................................................................................................................. ............................... 1
ProjectLocation ...................................................................................................... ............................... 1
ExistingSetting ....................................................................................................... ............................... 1
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation ................................................... ............................... 3
Existing East of 101 Area Plan Designations ................................................... ............................... 5
Existing South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan Designation ..................... ............................... 5
Existing Zoning Designations ........................................................................... ............................... 5
ExistingHeight Limits ...................................................................................... ............................... 8
ProjectDescription ...................................................................................................... ............................... 9
ProposedProject Buildout ....................................................................................... ............................... 9
Phase1 Development ...................................................................................... ............................... 10
Phase2 Development ...................................................................................... ............................... 11
Transportation Demand Management Plan ........................................................... ............................... 13
Cityof South San Francisco Plans and Policies ........................................................ .............................13
GeneralPlan .......................................................................................................... ...............................
13
General Plan Consistency, Proposed Project .................................................. ...............................
14
Eastof 101 Area Plan ............................................................................................ ...............................
33
Consistency with East of 101 Area Plan, Proposed Project ............................ ...............................
34
Downtown /Central Redevelopment Plan .............................................................. ...............................
35
City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, 2017 .......................................... ...............................
35
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan — San Francisco International Airport ............
35
Proposed Project Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan .... ...............................
36
ClimateAction Plan .............................................................................................. ...............................
37
Consistency with Climate Action Plan, Proposed Project .............................. ...............................
38
OtherPlans And Policies ........................................................................................... ...............................
41
SanFrancisco Bay Plan ......................................................................................... ...............................
41
Appearance, Design, and Scenic View Policies ............................................. ...............................
41
Consistency with San Francisco Bay Plan, 400 -450 East Jamie Court .......... ...............................
42
Figures
Figure1. Existing Project Site ....................................................................................... ...............................
2
Figure 2. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations ............................ ...............................
4
Tables
Table 1: Existing Land Use and Development Standards by Zoning Designation ........ ............................... 7
Table 2: Proposed Business Technology Park Development under the Proposed Project ......................... 10
Table 3: Existing and Proposed Land Use and Development Standards by Zoning Designation .............. 16
Table 4: General Plan Consistency Analysis ............................................................... ............................... 18
Table 4.5.4: Analysis of Consistency with the CAP ................................................... ............................... 39
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
INTRODUCTION
Overview
This Land Use Compatibility Analysis was prepared to assess the consistency of the 201 Haskins Way
Project (herein referred to as the "proposed project ") with applicable local and regional land use planning
documents. This Land Use Compatibility Analysis includes a description of the existing land use on the
proposed project site, the surrounding land uses, and the various adopted policies that may apply to the
proposed project's land use.
Project Location
The proposed project encompasses approximately 18 acres on eight parcels of privately owned light
industrial and research and development (R &D) area (herein referred to as the "project site ") located in
the City of South San Francisco (the City). The City is located south of the City of Brisbane and north of
the City of San Bruno. The City is built on the San Francisco Bay plain and on the northern foothills of
the Coastal range. The City is located along major transportation routes, including U.S. 101, Interstate
380, Interstate 280, and the Union Pacific Railroad.
The project site is within the City's East of 101 Area. This area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land,
and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east side, U.S. 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of
Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco Bay and San Francisco International Airport (SFO) on the
south. The East of 101 Area is mostly developed and has a mix of land uses, including industrial,
warehousing, retail, office, hotel, marina, and bioscience R &D facilities.
Existing Setting
The project site is located in a light industrial and R &D area of the City's East of 101 Area. Figure 1:
Existing Project Site shows the project site location and regional vicinity. The project site is generally
bounded by East Grand Avenue to the north, Haskins Way to the west, the San Francisco Bay Trail and
shoreline to the south, and adjacent parcels containing a recycling center and portions of the Genentech
campus to the east. The project site is served by East Grand Avenue as the primary arterial road, fed by
Haskins Way running north to south, and East Jamie Court running east to west.
Surrounding the project site to the west of Haskins Way are several existing light industrial
manufacturing and distribution uses, generally containing one- to two -story buildings. To the north and
northwest, the land use shifts from industrial uses to biotechnology uses, most predominantly the
Genentech campus located north of East Grand Avenue. The Genentech campus creates a shift in land use
to three- to- six -story office and R &D buildings, plus additional amenities such as a 5 -story parking
garage, retail uses, and childcare. To the east of the project site are the South San Francisco Scavenger
Company and Blue Line Transfer buildings, which provide waste collection and recycling service uses.
To the south, the existing industrial development meets the San Francisco Bay shoreline and the San
Francisco Bay Trail.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Figure 1. Existing Project Site
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
The project site encompasses eight parcels divided into two development phase areas, as follows:
The Phase 1 area includes two parcels: the vacant 6.45 -acre 201 Haskins Way parcel (Assessor's
Parcel Number [APN] 015- 102 -230) on the north side of East Jamie Court, which was previously
occupied by a light industrial trucking terminal with a one -story terminal building, and the 6.13 -
acre 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel (APN 015- 102 -250), which is currently occupied by two
office/R &D buildings.
The Phase 2 area includes the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel (APN 015- 102 -250; also part of
the Phase 1 proposed project area), plus six additional parcels 101 and 151 Haskins Way, and
410 and 430 East Grand Avenue (APNs 015- 102 -210, 015- 102 -220, 015- 102 -180, 105 -102 -160),
and 451 East Jamie Court (APNs 015- 102 -240 and 015- 102 -290). Five of the six additional
parcels each contain one- to two -story light industrial buildings and the sixth contains a parking
lot.
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation
The project site is identified in the South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) as a combined
Coastal Commercial / Mixed Industrial (CC/MI) area, with the exception of one parcel in the Phase 2 area
(APN 015 -102 -290) which is designated as Coastal Commercial (CC) only.' The combined CC /MI
designation allows existing uses to remain consistent with the General Plan under the MI land use
designation whereas new R &D uses would be consistent with the CC land use designation. The existing
General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site and surrounding parcels are illustrated in
Figure 2: Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations.
The CC land use designation under the General Plan allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5
for retail, recreation facilities, R &D facilities, marinas, and eating and drinking establishments; 1.0 FAR
for offices; and 1.6 FAR for hotels .2 In addition, CC land uses allow incentive -based FAR bonuses for
implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and other specified design
standards, allowing up to a total of 1.0 FAR for retail, 1.6 FAR for office, and 2.2 FAR for hotel uses.3
The MI land use designation under the General Plan is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for
a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and
distribution, and service commercial uses up to 0.4 FAR.4 For uses with low employment intensity, such
as wholesaling, warehousing, and distribution, the maximum permitted FAR can be increased with
incentives and bonuses up to 0.6 FAR.S
' City of South San Francisco, General Plan ( "General Plan "). Chapter 2, Figure 2 -1 Land Use Diagram, p. 2 -6.
2 General Plan. Chapter 2, p. 2 -22.
3 General Plan. Chapter 2, Table 2.2 -2: Standards for Density and Development Intensity, p. 2 -13.
4 General Plan. Chapter 2, p. 2 -25.
5 General Plan. Chapter 2, Table 2.2 -2: Standards for Density and Development Intensity, p. 2 -13.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Figure 2. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Existing East of 101 Area Plan Designations
The East of 101 Area Plan, which amended the General Plan, originally was adopted as the policy
document to guide development in the area. Subsequent to adoption of the East of 101 Area Plan, the City
adopted a comprehensive General Plan update, including the area contained within the East of 101 Area
Plan. The City now interprets the East of 101 Area Plan as a design -level document. Development
standards and density determinations, specifically FAR, are established in the subsequently updated
General Plan, which guides implementation of the prior adopted East of 101 Area Plan and takes
precedence over the Area Plan.
The East of 101 Area Plan designates the entire project site as Light Industrial, except the 400 -450 East
Jamie Court parcel which is designated as combined Light Industrial /Coastal Commercial.6 The East of
101 Area Plan provides that mixed land use categories such as the Light Industrial /Coastal Commercial
designation here allow for the development of uses consistent with either of the two indicated categories.'
Although the 201 Haskins Way parcel is designated only Light Industrial on the East of 101 Area Plan,
the General Plan classifies the 201 Haskins Way parcel as combined CC/MI designation. Because the
General Plan was more recently adopted, the combined CC /MI designation for the 201 Haskins Way
parcel takes precedence over the sole Light Industrial designation found in the earlier adopted East of 101
Area Plan.
Existing South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan Designation
The 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel is located in the 1988 Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan
(Redevelopment Plan) area.8 The Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan was prepared by the former
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency to provide a process and a basic framework within which
specific redevelopment plans could be developed for areas of the city identified as having economic
disuse, stagnation, blight, and inadequately served by public utilities and services. As amended, the term
of the Redevelopment Plan extends until July 12, 2030, for purposes of land use controls, and until July
12, 2040, for receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness. The Redevelopment Plan provides
that permitted land uses in the Plan Area include commercial and industrial uses, and may include any use
permitted by the General Plan and City ordinances for that area.' Under the Redevelopment Plan, the
type, size, and height of buildings in the Plan area are limited by applicable federal, state and local
statutes and ordinances.10 The Redevelopment Plan provides that the Redevelopment Agency was
authorized to establish limits on height, land coverage, setbacks, design criteria, traffic, and parking
through adoption of subsequent resolutions, but the Redevelopment Plan does not impose additional
development standards for the Plan Area. 11
Existing Zoning Designations
The existing zoning designations of the project site and surrounding parcels are illustrated in Figure 2,
p. 4. The 101, 151, and 201 Haskins Way parcels; the 410 and 430 East Grand Avenue parcels; the 451
East Jamie Court parcel; and the adjacent parcel (APN 015- 102 -290) are zoned as MI. The 400 -450 East
6 East of 101 Area Plan, Land Use Map, pp. 53 -54.
7 East of 101 Area Plan, p. 61.
8 General Plan, Figure 2 -7 Specific and Area Plans and Redevelopment Areas, p. 2 -37.
' City of South San Francisco, Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan ( "Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan "), Section
402, p. 18.
to Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan, Section 413, p. 21.
11 Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan, Section 420, p. 22.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Jamie Court parcel is zoned Business Commercial (BC). The MI and BC districts are two of the City's
base employment districts. Table 1: Existing Land Use and Development Standards by Zoning
Designation outlines the development standards for the MI and BC districts for lot size, building height,
minimum setbacks, lot coverage, FAR, and landscaping coverage. 12 Of note, the City's current land use
regulations for base employment districts are set forth in Section 20.110.002 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code, which recognizes existing legally approved freight forwarding, customs brokering,
wholesale, warehousing, and distribution uses to be legal conforming uses in accordance with General
Plan Policy 3.5 -I -1 and Resolution 84 -97 (see note 10 of Table 20.110.002). However, such existing uses
may not expand, convert to, re- convert to, or establish a freight forwarding use. The purposes of the MI
and BC zoning districts as defined by the City are described below.
12 Section 20.110.004 provides additional district - specific regulations regarding outdoor employee eating areas; landscaped
setback of parking areas; access locations; limitations on curb cuts and driveways; and locations and screening of truck docks,
loading, and service areas.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Table 1: Existing Land Use and Development Standards by Zoning Designation
Notes:
1 Building heights east of 101 are allowed the maximum height limits permissible under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. General Plan Figure 2 -2
establishes a 161 -foot height limit in the project area, whereas Exhibit IV -13 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San
Francisco International Airport prepared in 2012 (2012 SFO LUCP) establishes a 163 -foot height limit.
2 Maximum FAR in the MI district is 0.4, but increases may be permitted up to a total of 0.6 for developments that meet specific design and green
building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Zoning Ordinance Section 20.110.003(C).
TDM Plans are required for nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic
Engineers trip generation rates.
3 Maximum FAR in the BC district is 0.5, but increases may be permitted up to a total of 1.0 for developments that meet specific TDM or design and
green building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Zoning Ordinance Section
20.110.003(C). TDM Plans are required for nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of
Traffic Engineers trip generation rates.
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, 2017. Table 20.110.003.
Mixed Industrial (MI)
Business Commercial (BC)
Lot Standards
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.)
43,560
Minimum Lot Width (feet)
50
Building Form and Location
Maximum Height
Up to 161 feet above sea level, subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part
77
Minimum Setbacks (feet from lot line)
Front
20
Interior Side
10; 0 if along MI district boundary
0; 10 along R district boundary
Street Side
10
Rear
10; 0 if along MI district boundary
0; 10 along R district boundary
Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot)
60
50
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
0.40/0.602
0.50/ 1.03
Minimum Amount of Landscaping (% of
site)
10
15
Notes:
1 Building heights east of 101 are allowed the maximum height limits permissible under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. General Plan Figure 2 -2
establishes a 161 -foot height limit in the project area, whereas Exhibit IV -13 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San
Francisco International Airport prepared in 2012 (2012 SFO LUCP) establishes a 163 -foot height limit.
2 Maximum FAR in the MI district is 0.4, but increases may be permitted up to a total of 0.6 for developments that meet specific design and green
building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Zoning Ordinance Section 20.110.003(C).
TDM Plans are required for nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic
Engineers trip generation rates.
3 Maximum FAR in the BC district is 0.5, but increases may be permitted up to a total of 1.0 for developments that meet specific TDM or design and
green building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Zoning Ordinance Section
20.110.003(C). TDM Plans are required for nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of
Traffic Engineers trip generation rates.
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, 2017. Table 20.110.003.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
The MI zoning district is intended to provide areas for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial
processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distribution, and service commercial uses and to
protect areas where such uses now exist. Industries that use or produce substantial amounts of hazardous
materials or generate noise, odor, or other pollutants are not to be permitted. Conventional residential
and/or group residential development are also prohibited, but live -work uses such as artists' studios are
allowed in designated areas. Small -scale retail and service uses serving local employees, residents, and
visitors may be permitted as secondary uses. This district is consistent with the General Plan's MI
designation. The maximum FAR is 0.4 with an increase up to 0.6 FAR for development meeting certain
design and green building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use
permit. 13
The BC zoning district is intended for business and professional offices, visitor service establishments,
and retail uses with an emphasis on larger and regional - serving uses west of U.S. 101. A wide range of
nonresidential uses is appropriate including administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and
public offices, and visitor - oriented and regional commercial activities such as warehouse clubs and other
large - format retail uses. The maximum base FAR is 0.5 but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR
of 1.0 for R &D establishments or development that meets specific TDM or design and green building
standards, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 14 The maximum FAR for hotels is 1.2 with
increases to a total of 2.0 FAR for development that meets specified criteria consistent with General Plan
policies. Section 20.110.004 also provides requirements for BC districts regarding the orientation of the
primary building entrance; building transparency and required openings; and building design features
including architectural articulation, entries, and materials.
Existing Height Limits
Development of office buildings on the project site and surroundings in the East of 101 area is not
restricted by height under the zoning ordinance or General Plan. In general, height limitations or
restrictions in the East of 101 Area are defined by the SFO sphere of influence. Whereas "office
buildings" are not subject to a height limit other than that by the City /County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County (C /CAG) Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the East of 101 Area Plan states
that retail, flex, and industrial buildings should not exceed 35 feet in height.
Otherwise, development east of U.S. 101 and south of East Grand Avenue is limited to 161 feet in height
by elevation according to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of
San Francisco International Airport prepared in 2012 (2012 SFO ALUCP) and the East of 101 Area Plan,
but may be further restricted based on notification and consultation with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) under Part 77.9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).15 Moreover, the East of
101 Area Plan provides that exceptions may be made if taller building heights are included in an approved
Master Plan or if warranted by a specific proposed use. 16
13 City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, 2017. Table 20.110.003(C). Applies to MI projects that include high quality,
innovative design and product type, and maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use or provision of green building
measures over and above the applicable green building compliance threshold requirements pursuant to Municipal Code Title 15.
14 City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, 2017. Table 20.110.003(C).
15 General Plan, Figure 2 -2, p. 2 -10
16 East of 101 Area Plan, Policy DE -43, p. 135 and Figure 5, p. 66.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Under the proposed project, ARE and the City propose a rezoning of eight parcels in the East of 101 Area
to allow for new development of office /R &D uses. The parcels are located at 101, 151, and 201 Haskins
Way (APNs 015 -102 -210, 015 -102 -220, and 015- 102 -230); 410 and 430 East Grand Avenue (APNs 015-
102 -160 and 105- 102 -180); 400 -450 and 451 East Jamie Court (APNs 015- 102 -250 and 015 -102 -240);
and one parcel without an address east of 451 East Jamie Court (APN 105 -102 -290). The eight parcels
encompass a total of approximately 18.2 acres of land. ARE and the City propose to rezone these eight
parcels to Business Technology Park (BTP) District. The EIR includes an analysis of the maximum
allowable development associated with the proposed rezoning of those affected parcels. The existing
General Plan designations of CC/MI would remain unchanged for all eight parcels.
ARE would seek a rezoning of two parcels, 201 Haskins Way and 400 -450 East Jamie Court, and is
proposing a specific development plan for these parcels (herein referred to as the Phase 1 development).
Currently, there is no site - specific development program proposed for the remaining six parcels, and the
City would initiate a rezoning of these six parcels. This analysis considers a conceptual Phase 2
development for buildout of these six parcels (herein referred to as the Phase 2 area) and assumes the
project would be constructed in two phases (Phase 1 and Phase 2).17
Proposed Project Buildout
The proposed project would rezone eight parcels in the East of 101 Area: seven parcels from a MI District
to a BTP District (101, 151, and 201 Haskins Way; 410 and 430 East Grand Avenue; and 451 East Jamie
Court and the parcel to its east [APN 105- 102 -290]) and one parcel from a BC District to a BTP District
(400 -450 East Jamie Court). The proposed newly rezoned BTP parcels would provide new BTP
development potential of 0.5 FAR, or up to 1.0 FAR with development and implementation of a TDM
Plan, and off -site improvement or design standards, subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
Under the proposed new BTP Districts, ARE also proposes a site - specific development program for Phase
1 of the proposed project, to remove existing light industrial uses and redevelop the parcels to support
new BTP uses, as discussed below. Phase 1 development would include approximately 305,765 square
feet (sq. ft.) of new BTP use by floor area. Phase 2 development is conceptual at this time as no specific
development is proposed, but buildout to a 1.0 FAR of the parcels in the Phase 2 area would add
approximately 329,031 sq. ft. of additional new BTP use by floor area, for a total of 634,796 sq. ft. of
BTP use by floor area, as shown in Table 2: Allowable BTP Use under the Proposed Project.
17 It is uncertain when or if development in the Phase 2 area would occur, or whether it would occur as a single redevelopment of
all parcels or as separate redevelopment of one or more parcels. Therefore, the proposed project could be constructed in more
than two development phases. However, this EIR assumes only two phases, Phase 1 and Phase 2.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Table 2: Proposed Business Technology Park Development under the Proposed Project
Parcel Address (APN)
Phase 1 Development Phase 2 Development
(sq. ft) (sq. ft.)
Project Buildout
(sq. ft)
201 Haskins Way (015- 102 -230)
400 -450 East Jamie Court (015- 102 -250)'
280,765 -
25,0002 85,0002
280,765
110,000'
101 Haskins Way (015- 102 -210)
- 24,535
24,535
151 Haskins Way (015- 102 -220)
- 28,602
28,602
410 East Grand Avenue (015- 102 -180)
- 40,384
40,384
430 East Grand Avenue (015- 102 -160)
- 72,076
72,076
451 East Jamie Court (015 -102 -240)
- 62,087
62,087
(015- 102 -290)3
- 16,347
16,347
Subtotal
- 329,031
329,031
Total
305,765 329,031
634,796
Notes:
Development activity would occur on 400 -450 E. Jamie Court (015- 102 -250) in both Phase 1 development and Phase 2 development.
2 A 25,000 sq. ft. building addition is being proposed in the proposed project. Under the Proposed Project, there would be a total of 110,000 sq. ft. of
Business Technology Park (BTP) development per City Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.110, leaving 85,000 sq. ft. remaining for future development for
which a specific project is not currently proposed.
3 APN 015 -102 -290 has no street address. It is currently used as a parking lot for the 451 East Jamie Court site.
Source: City Zoning Ordinance Table 20.110.003, ARE (2017)
Phase 1 Development
Phase 1 development encompasses the demolition of one one -story, 24,075- gross- sq. -ft. (gsf) former
trucking terminal building at the 201 Haskins Way parcel and the development of approximately 336,368
gsf of space at this parcel (one three- and five -story, 311,368 -gsf office/R &D building) and at the 400 -450
East Jamie Court parcel (one two -story, approximately 25,000- sq. -ft. addition to an existing office/R &D
building), as shown in Table 2, above.
201 HASKINS WAY
Under Phase 1 development, the proposed project would include demolition of the existing one -story,
24,075 sq. ft. terminal building at the 201 Haskins Way parcel, including all existing surface parking and
truck lots, in order to construct an approximately 280,765 sq. ft., three- and five -story office/R &D
building along the southern parcel boundary fronting East Jamie Court. 18 The new building would be
comprised of a five -story, 187,500 sq. ft. wing to the west; a three -story, 88,500 sq. ft. wing to the east;
and a 10,000 sq. ft. central building connector.
Phase 1 development also includes construction of 903 new parking spaces. A five - level, 700 -stall
parking structure would be constructed at the northeast corner of the site. Two new surface parking lots
would be constructed, one on the northwestern portion of the parcel fronting Haskins Way and a second
on the center east side of the parcel, for a total of 203 surface parking stalls. A central plaza would be
constructed between the surface parking lots to serve as a pedestrian connector between the parking lots,
18 Alexandria Real Estate, Inc., 2018. 201 Haskins Way, South San Francisco - Site Plan dated 2/7/18.
10
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
the parking garage, and the office building. Vehicle access to the site would be provided by two
driveways on Haskins Way and one driveway on East Jamie Court at the southeast corner of the parcel.
New sidewalks would be constructed along the southern parcel boundary at East Jamie Court and a
southern portion of Haskins Way adjacent to the western face of the office building.
400 -450 EAST JAMIE COURT
The existing use at 400 -450 East Jamie Court includes two three -story buildings containing a total of
approximately 157,000 sq. ft. of office/R &D use. The existing use was previously permitted up to a FAR
of 0.6 with implementation of an existing TDM Plan designed to achieve a 30 percent alternative mode
use, although the current BC zoning designation allows for development up to a total of 1.0 FAR with
implementation of TDM and pedestrian- and bicycle - serving design standards or other green building
measures over and above compliance thresholds of the California Green Building Code in Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations (CALGreen). 19, 20 The proposed rezoning of the 400 -450 East Jamie Court
parcel (BC to BTP) would maintain the maximum FAR of the parcel (1.0), which would require
development and implementation of an updated TDM Plan and on -site site design features. Phase 1
development includes construction of a 25,000- sq. -ft., two -story addition to the northern face of the
existing west building. Amenities within the addition are conceptual at this time, but it would include a
dedicated space that would be used as a caf6 for employees. Dedicated employee - serving retail /amenity
space would be excluded from FAR - determined square footage calculations. The 400 -450 East Jamie
Court parcel is also included in the Phase 2 area, as described below.
Phase 2 Development
At this time, no specific Phase 2 development is proposed and it is uncertain when or if such development
would occur. The proposed rezoning of the parcels in the Phase 2 area would allow the existing uses to
continue indefinitely, and alternatively would allow redevelopment at 1.0 FAR in accordance with the
BTP rezoning. The uses, buildings, and facilities discussed below are conceptual and reflect potential
development that could be constructed as a result of rezoning the parcels in the Phase 2 area.
Under the anticipated scope of Phase 2 development, the remaining balance of FAR - defined square
footage on the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel would be developed for office /R &D uses. It is assumed
that, under the rezoning proposed by the project, the Phase 2 development on the 400 -450 East Jamie
Court parcel would result in up to 85,000 sq. ft. of floor area .21 Development of the remaining BTP use on
the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel is conceptual at this time. Site - specific, project -level design of Phase
2 would be subject to a separate plan review and discretionary approval process.
The proposed project would also involve construction of a second new office /R &D building along East
Grand Avenue (referred to as the "East Grand Building "). In the conceptual plan, the East Grand Building
would contain approximately 244,031 sq. ft. of office /R &D use by floor area.
19 City of South San Francisco and Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., 2006. East Jamie Court Transportation Demand
Management Plan.
20 Notable features of the existing TDM plan include a 14.4 percent parking reduction from code requirements, shuttles, carpool
spaces, showers and bicycle facilities, and commuter incentives including the Guaranteed Ride Home program.
21 FAR - defined square footage excludes certain areas defined under Sections 20.040.008 and 20.040.009. For example, floor area
does not include areas such as mechanical, electrical, and communication equipment rooms; bay windows or other architectural
projections; usable open space; and areas used for off - street parking spaces or loading spaces, driveways, or ramps.
11
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
400 -450 EAST JAMIE COURT
The proposed rezoning would allow for an additional 110,000 sq. ft. of BTP office/R &D use to be
constructed on 400 -450 East Jamie Court at full buildout of the proposed project. The total floor area of
the building addition proposed to be constructed during Phase 1 development on 400 -450 East Jamie
Court is approximately 25,000 sq. ft. Therefore, for the purposes of plan -level analysis, it is assumed that
Phase 2 development would result in 85,000 sq. ft. total floor area of additional BTP use on 400 -450 East
Jamie Court. When the total floor area of the Phase 1 building addition is determined, the remaining
balance of floor area would be applied to the design of the BTP use under Phase 2 development. The
Phase 2 development on this parcel is conceptual at this time. Site - specific, project -level design of Phase
2 would be subject to a separate plan review and discretionary approval process.22
EAST GRAND BUILDING AND PARKING GARAGE
Five parcels in the Phase 2 area (101 and 151 Haskins Way, 410 and 430 East Grand Avenue, and 451
East Jamie Court) are currently occupied by a one- to two -story buildings used for light industrial uses,
including a kiteboarding equipment distribution warehouse, a packaging manufacturer, a van rental
service, audio and visual equipment rental services, and a janitorial equipment supplier. A small surface
parking lot serves each building. One parcel (APN 015- 102 -290) contains only a parking lot. In Phase 2
development, the five existing buildings would be demolished and the existing surface parking areas
would be removed.
In the conceptual plan for Phase 2 development, a new, approximately 244,031- sq. -ft. office/R &D
building (the East Grand Building) would be constructed. The East Grand Building would have a 3- story,
63- foot -tall wing to the west, a 5- story, 95- foot -tall wing to the east, and a center core building connector.
The main building entrance would be on the north side of the center core building, adjacent to the surface
parking lot and the Central Plaza. Under the conceptual plan, the center core building would also have a
building entrance on the south side, off East Jamie Court.
At completion of project buildout, the project site would contain a total of approximately 1,930 parking
stalls to serve Phases 1 and 2 of the project and to the existing office buildings at 400 -450 East Jamie
Court :23 446 new parking stalls in three surface parking lots (a northeast lot, a southeast lot, and a west
lot), 1,060 new parking stalls in a new, five- level, parking structure at the northeast corner of the site, and
424 existing parking stalls at 400 -450 East Jamie Court (140 stalls in basement garage and 284 stalls in
surface parking lot). During Phase 2 development, the parking structure constructed in Phase 1
development would be expanded into parcels to the east to accommodate 360 additional stalls for a total
of 1,060 parking garage stalls. In the conceptual plan for Phase 2 development, an additional 243 parking
stalls would also be provided in a new surface parking lot on the northeastern portion of the parcel
fronting East Grand Avenue and adjacent to the parking structure, and east of the 201 Haskins Way
Building, for a total of 446 new surface parking stalls.
At project buildout, a total of six driveways would be removed: three driveways on Haskins Way (one
during Phase 1 development and two during Phase 2 development), two driveways on East Grand Avenue
22 The final gross square footage of BTP use under Phase 2 development would be determined by future design. Future
development may also include FAR- excluded accessory uses such as dedicated retail space or child care, to be determined in
coordination with the City and upon completion of final design.
23 Required off - street vehicle parking is calculated at a rate of 1 stall per 350 sq. ft. of office and R &D uses. The Planning
Commission may approve a Conditional Use Permit to reduce onsite parking requirements if it finds that special conditions exist
that will reduce parking demand at the project site, including: (1) proximity to frequent transit service; (2) transportation
characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site; or (3) or because the applicant has undertaken a TDM Plan.
12
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
(both during Phase 2 development), and two driveways on East Jamie Court (one during Phase 1
development and one in Phase 2 development). Four new driveways would be constructed at project
buildout: two new driveways on Haskins Way (both during Phase 1 development), one new driveway on
East Jamie Court (during Phase 1 development), and one new driveway on East Grand Avenue (during
Phase 2 development). During Phase 2 development, a porte cochere would be provided on East Grand
Avenue serving the East Grand Building. New sidewalks would be constructed along the southern parcel
boundary at East Jamie Court, along the length of Haskins Way between East Grand Avenue and East
Jamie Court, and on East Grand Avenue fronting the parcels.
Transportation Demand Management Plan
Development of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 would require submittal of a TDM Plan to the Planning
Division for review and approval. The proposed TDM Plan may be refined during the planning review
process for project entitlements. The proposed TDM Plan would be designed to achieve three basic goals:
(1) convert single- occupant vehicle trips to an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., transit, carpools or
vanpools, bicycling), (2) provide technological solutions (e.g., compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid
vehicles, or other zero emission vehicles), and (3) eliminate trips (e.g., compressed work weeks,
telecommute), consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Efficacy of the TDM Plan is
subject to monitoring and enforcement through an annual commuter survey, annual summary report, and
a triennial report. If the required alternative mode use is still not achieved after the second triennial report,
the City may assess a penalty established by City Council resolution on the basis of the project size and
actual percentage alternative mode use as compared to the percent alternative mode use established in the
TDM Plan.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANS AND POLICIES
This Land Use Compatibility Analysis considers the following City planning documents:
• South San Francisco General Plan
• East of 101 Area Plan
• Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan
• City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, 2017
• Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan — San Francisco International Airport
• Climate Action Plan
General Plan
The General Plan, originally adopted in 1999 and as amended in 2011, provides a vision for the long -
range physical and economic development for the City, provides strategies and specific implementing
actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects
are consistent with the City's plans and policy standards. The General Plan contains the following
chapters:
• Land Use
13
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
• Planning Sub -Areas Element
• Transportation
• Parks, Public Facilities, and Services
• Economic Development
• Open Space and Conservation
• Health and Safety
• Noise
The General Plan chapters above cover six of the seven elements required by state law (land use, open
space, conservation, housing, circulation, noise, and safety) and optional elements (Planning Sub Areas
and Economic Development) that address local concerns and regional requirements. The seventh required
element is the Housing Element, which is updated on a more regular basis than the General Plan and
published under a separate volume.
The City is largely composed of single -use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of
the City and single - family homes to the north and west. The General Plan notes that business parks for
high- technology R &D are one of the City's highest priority land uses. Limited vacant land in the City
precipitates new growth to take the form of redevelopment and intensification.
The General Plan contains a Planning Sub -Area element. Policies in this element complement citywide
policies included in the Land Use and other elements. Some of these sub -areas have detailed area plans,
specific plans, or redevelopment plans. Where appropriate, the General Plan provides guidance as to how
these plans may need to be changed in order to conform to the policy direction provided by the General
Plan. The sub - areas, 14 in all, were collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban design
patterns and existing and needed planning efforts and activities. The project site is located within the East
of 101 Sub -Area.
The General Plan governs the amount and intensity of development within the East of 101 Sub -Area and
establishes specific policies and goals for the area, including the project site. The proposed project site is
CC /MI and CC districts in the General Plan. As shown in Figure 2, p. XX, General Plan land use
designations surrounding the project site include MI, BTP, CC, and Park and Recreation on the shore of
San Francisco Bay.
Table 3: Existing and Proposed Land Use and Development Standards by Zoning Designation
presents the existing and proposed General Plan land use and development standards by corresponding
zoning designation on the proposed project parcels.
General Plan Consistency, Proposed Project
Table 4: General Plan Consistency Analysis presents a list of relevant General Plan guiding and
implementing policies applicable to the proposed project in the Land Use; East of 101 Sub -Area;
Transportation; Parks, Public Facilities, and Services; Economic Development, Open Space and
Conservation; Health and Safety; and Noise chapters. Table 4 discusses whether the proposed project
would be consistent with the policy, or inconsistent with the policy. As shown, the proposed project
would not be inconsistent with most General Plan policies.
However, Policy 4.2 -G -13, directs the City to strive to maintain Level of Service (LOS) D or better on
arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the Congestion Management
14
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Plan during peak hours. Nonetheless, Policy 4.2 -G -14 instructs the City to Accept LOS E or F after
finding that: (1) there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and (2) the
uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
The EIR prepared for the proposed project identifies all feasible mitigation measures to maintain LOS D
or better at all intersections and freeway segments in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) during
peak hours that currently are operating at LOS D or better. With feasible mitigation incorporated, LOS D
would be maintained at two intersections in the CMP under existing plus project conditions: Littlefield
Avenue /East Grand Avenue during the AM peak hour and Gateway Boulevard/South Airport
Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue during the PM peak hour) and two intersections under year 2040 plus project
conditions (Harbor Way /Forbes Boulevard/East Grand Avenue in the AM peak hour and East Grand
Avenue /Grand Avenue Overcrossing in the PM peak hour (see Impact TR -1 and Impact TR -3 for more
information).
However, the existing plus project would cause one intersection in the CMP (Allerton Avenue/East Grand
Avenue in the PM peak hour) that is currently operating at LOS D to operate at LOS E or F (see Impact
TR -2). Under year 2040 conditions, the project would cause four intersections in the CMP that would be
operating at LOS D to operate at LOS E or F: Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way/East Grand Avenue and
Littlefield Avenue/East Grand Avenue in the AM peak hour (see Impact C -TR -7 and Impact C -TR -8) and
Dubuque Avenue /Grand Avenue Overcrossing and East Grand Avenue /Grand Avenue Overcrossing in
the PM peak hour (see Impact C -TR -4 and Impact C- TR -5).
For two intersections, Allerton Avenue /East Grand Avenue in the PM peak hour under existing plus
project conditions (Impact TR -2) and Littlefield Avenue/East Grand Avenue in the AM peak hour under
year 2040 conditions (Impact C- TR -8), there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate to LOS D at
these locations due to right of way constraints and impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. For three
intersections under year 2040 conditions (Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way /East Grand Avenue in the AM
peak hour, and Dubuque Avenue /Grand Avenue Overcrossing and East Grand Avenue /Grand Avenue
Overcrossing in the PM peak hour), the proposed mitigation measures could reduce the proposed
project's contribution to the cumulative traffic impact but these measures are not in the current Traffic
Impact Fee and Capital Improvement Program. Because the City has not yet completed the Transportation
Impact Fee and Capital Improvement Program updates to include or fund these measures, these impacts
would remain significant.
A TDM program would also be required to be prepared and implemented pursuant to South San Francisco
Municipal Code Chapter 20.400. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the Transportation Demand
Management program would reduce intersection traffic by the amount necessary to reduce the project's
contribution to a significant cumulative impact to a less - than - cumulatively considerable level and these
impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As part of its consideration of the project, the City will
consider a statement of overriding considerations that will explain the overriding public benefits of the
project. Therefore, the proposed project would generally be consistent with Policies 4.2 -G -13 and 4.2 -G-
14.
15
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Table 3: Existing and Proposed Land Use and Development Standards by Zoning Designation
Notes:
'Height limits of office buildings located in the East of 101 Area are established as the maximum height limits permissible under Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 77. General Plan Figure 2 -2 establishes a 161 -foot height limit in the project area, whereas Exhibit IV -13 of the 2012 Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (2012 SFO ALUCP) establishes a 163 -foot height limit.
2 The Maximum FAR in the MI district is 0.4 but increases may be permitted up to a total of 0.6 for developments that meet specific design and green
building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Zoning Ordinance Section 20.110.003(C).
TDM Plans are required for nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic
Engineers trip generation rates.
3 The Maximum FAR in the BC district is 0.5 but increases may be permitted up to a total of 1.0 FAR for developments that meet specific TDM, design
and green building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Zoning Ordinance Section
20.110.003(C). TDM Plans are required for nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of
Traffic Engineers trip generation rates.
° The Maximum FAR in the BTP district is 0.5 but increases may be permitted up to a total of 1.0 FAR for developments that meet specific TDM,
design and green building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Zoning Ordinance
Section 20.110.003(C). TDM Plans are required for nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the
Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation rates.
M
Existing
Proposed
Mixed Industrial (MI)
Business Commercial
BC
Business Technology
Park BTP
Lot Standards
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.)
43,560
Minimum Lot Width (feet)
50
Building Form and Location
Maximum Height
Up to 161 feet above sea level, subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part
77
Minimum Setbacks (feet from lot line)
Front
20
Interior Side
10; 0 if along MI district
boundary
0; 10 along R district
boundary
10
Street Side
10
Rear
10; 0 if along MI district
boundary
0; 10 along R district
boundary
0; 10 along R district
boundary
Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot)
60
50
60
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
0.40/0.602
0.50/ 1.03
0.50/1.04
Minimum Amount of Landscaping (% of
site)
10
15
15
Public Improvements
Sidewalks
Sidewalks shall be provided if none already exist, with features such as landscaping,
berming, and /or meandering where appropriate.
Street Trees
Fifteen - gallon trees shall be planted no more than 30 feet apart.
Parking
Required Spaces
1 per 350 sq. ft. for R &D uses 5,1 per 300 sq. ft. for Office uses
Location
Spaces shall be located on the same lot as the served use. Off -site facilities may be
approved with a Conditional Use Permit.6
Landscaping Setback
10 feet from between parking area and right -of way, and 5 feet from on -site buildings
Transportation Demand Management
Minimum Alternative Mode Use (% of total
trips)
N/A
35 for increased FAR of
1.0
35 for increased FAR of
1.0
Notes:
'Height limits of office buildings located in the East of 101 Area are established as the maximum height limits permissible under Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 77. General Plan Figure 2 -2 establishes a 161 -foot height limit in the project area, whereas Exhibit IV -13 of the 2012 Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (2012 SFO ALUCP) establishes a 163 -foot height limit.
2 The Maximum FAR in the MI district is 0.4 but increases may be permitted up to a total of 0.6 for developments that meet specific design and green
building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Zoning Ordinance Section 20.110.003(C).
TDM Plans are required for nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic
Engineers trip generation rates.
3 The Maximum FAR in the BC district is 0.5 but increases may be permitted up to a total of 1.0 FAR for developments that meet specific TDM, design
and green building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Zoning Ordinance Section
20.110.003(C). TDM Plans are required for nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of
Traffic Engineers trip generation rates.
° The Maximum FAR in the BTP district is 0.5 but increases may be permitted up to a total of 1.0 FAR for developments that meet specific TDM,
design and green building standards per the Incentives Program, subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Zoning Ordinance
Section 20.110.003(C). TDM Plans are required for nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the
Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation rates.
M
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
5 The Planning Commission may approve a Conditional Use Permit to reduce onsite parking requirements if it finds that special conditions exist that
would reduce parking demand at the project site, including: (1) proximity to frequent transit service; (2) transportation characteristics of persons
residing, working, or visiting the site; or (3) or because the applicant has undertaken a TDM Plan.
6 Off -site parking facilities must (1) be located within 400 feet, along a paved handicap accessible walk, of the principal entrance containing the use(s)
for which the parking is required, and (2) have an approved parking agreement as specified in Section 20.330.005 of the Municipal Code.
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, 2017. Table 20.110.003, Chapter 20.110, 20.300, 20.330, and 20.400
17
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Table 4: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Policy
Chapter 2. Land Use
Policy 2 -G -2. Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for
continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's
prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access.
Policy 2 -G -4. Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service commercial
businesses at specific locations.
Policy 2 -1 -4. Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-
2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. The requirements of the TDM
Program are detailed in the Zoning Ordinance. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-
2001, Adopted September 26, 200 1)
The requirements of the TDM program for projects seeking an FAR bonus are based on
the percentage trip reduction that is achieved.
Policy 2 -1 -22. Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height,
aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently
adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use
[Compatibility] Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport. (Amended by
City Council Resolution 19 -2010, Adopted February 10, 2010)
18
Consistency
Consistent. The proposed project would involve new office /R &D uses under the existing
CC /MI and CC land use designations for allowable development of up to 1.0 FAR through
a rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and implementation of a TDM Plan and incorporation
of off -site improvements, or design standards per the Municipal Code FAR -Bonus
Incentives Program. The proposed project is consistent with previous and ongoing
expansion of R &D uses in the East of 101 Area, including the Genentech Master Plan
area as well as other biotechnology campus sites.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve removal of an existing trucking terminal
use at 201 Haskins Way, and existing light industrial uses on 101 and 151 Haskins Way,
and 410 and 430 East Grand Avenue, and 451 East Jamie Court. The project site is not
designated for continual operation of older industrial and service commercial uses. The
existing light industrial uses on the proposed project site include a trucking terminal, a
kiteboarding equipment distribution warehouse, a packaging manufacturer, a van rental
service, audio and visual equipment rental services, and a janitorial equipment supplier.
These existing uses are relatively small scale, modern industrial uses that do not
represent a historic industrial use.
Consistent. The proposed project would seek a FAR bonus to allow development of up
to 1.0 FAR. Under the proposed project, the project applicant would develop and
implement a TDM Plan and pedestrian- and bicycle - serving design provisions to achieve
a 35 percent minimum alternative mode use as required by the Zoning Ordinance. TDM
Plan measures and design features would be subject to review and approval by the City
Council. The proposed project TDM Plan would be subject to an annual survey and
triennial report to monitor and enforce alternative mode use goals.
Consistent. The proposed project site is located in the SFO sphere of influence under 14
CFR Part 77. The proposed project site has an existing ground elevation between 12 -23
feet above mean sea level. The proposed project site is located within the imaginary
horizontal surface contour established at 163 feet above sea level as depicted in the 2012
SFO ALUCP Exhibit IV -4 and the 161 -foot height limit illustrated in General Plan Figure 2-
2. The proposed project would involve development of up to 99- foot -tall office buildings,
up to a total of 122 feet above mean sea level. The proposed project would not involve
construction of buildings taller than the horizontal surface.
To ensure compatibility, the project sponsor is required to file form 7460 -1 Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA to determine whether the project would
constitute a hazard to air navigation and must present the project to the C /CAG ALUC for
determination of consistency with the 2012 SFO ALUCP.
The proposed project is not located within noise or safety compatibility zones designated
by the 2012 SFO ALUCP.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy
Chapter 3. East of 101 Sub -Area
Policy 3.5 -G -3. Promote campus -style biotechnology, high- technology, and research and
development uses.
Policy 3.5 -1 -4. Unless otherwise stipulated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the
East of 101 area to the maximum limits permissible under Federal Aviation Regulations
Part 77.
Policy 3.5 -1-5. Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot -size.
Policy 3.5 -1-8. Encourage the development of employee- serving amenities with
restaurants, cafes, support commercial establishments such as dry- cleaners, to meet the
needs of the employees in the East of 101 area. Such uses could be located in
independent centers or integrated into office parks (o]r technology campuses.
Policy 3.5 -1 -11. Do not permit any new warehousing and distribution north of East Grand
Avenue or in areas designated Business Commercial.
Policy 3.5 -1 -13. Facilitate waterfront enhancement and accessibility by:
• Establishment of uses that would bring people to the waterfront (see policies 3.5 -1 -8 and
3.5 -1 -9);
• Establishment of a bayshore design review area as part of the Zoning Ordinance; and
• Ensuring that the Park Recreation and Open Space Master Plan include specific
improvements for shoreline enhancement and accessibility, as spelled out in the East of
101 Area Plan. See policy RE -3 in the plan.
Chapter 4. Transportation
Policy 4.2 -G -1. Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth
and emerging employment areas such as in the East of 101 area.
19
Consistency
Consistent. The proposed project would involve development of new office /R &D uses in
the East of 101 Sub -Area.
Consistent. The General Plan provides that height limitations or restrictions in the East of
101 Area are the maximum height limits permissible under Federal Aviation Regulations
Part 77, which is 161 feet in height by elevation (General Plan, Figure 2 -2.). The
proposed project would be developed consistent with this building height limit.
Consistent. Development intensity at the proposed project site would occur under the
existing CC /MI and CC land use designations. The proposed project would require
approval of a rezoning and FAR bonus under a Conditional Use Permit contingent upon
on implementation of an approved TDM Plan.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve a rezoning of the subject parcels under
the existing General Plan land use designation to construct new R &D office buildings.
Amenities within the proposed 25,000 sq. ft. building addition at 400 -450 East Jamie
Court are conceptual at this time, but would include an employee - serving cafe space.
Additional opportunities for employee - serving amenities to be included in the
development program would be determined in coordination with the City.
Consistent. The proposed project would not construct new warehousing or distribution
uses. The proposed project includes one parcel (400 -450 East Jamie Court) that is
currently designated BC. The proposed project would involve rezoning of the parcel to
BTP. The proposed project would remove one trucking distribution facility on the 201
Haskins Way site and five warehousing and distribution buildings at 101 and 151 Haskins
Way, 410 and 430 East Grand Avenue, and 451 East Jamie Court.
Consistent. The proposed project would intensify office /R &D uses in the East of 101
Area at the subject parcels. One parcel (400 -450 East Jamie Court) is adjacent to San
Francisco Bay and the San Francisco Bay Trail, and the existing site is designed to
provide access to the trail. Amenities within the proposed 25,000 sq. ft. building addition
at 400 -450 East Jamie Court are conceptual at this time, but would include an employee -
serving cafe space. Additional opportunities for employee - serving amenities such as
those that may encourage additional waterfront use would be determined in coordination
with the City.
Consistent. The proposed project would intensify office /R &D uses in the East of 101
Area at the subject parcels. The proposed project would construct off- street parking and
new sidewalks. The proposed project does not include off -site transportation
improvements (such as widening roads or adding travel lanes).
The proposed project would comply with payment of a traffic impact fee in accordance
with the adopted fee schedule as required by Chapter 20.300 of the zoning ordinance to
provide the proposed project's share of funding for new and expanded roadway and
intersection improvements.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy
Policy 4.2 -G -10. Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the
arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of
various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total
vehicle -miles traveled.
Policy 4.2 -G -13. Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all
intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours.
Policy 4.2 -G -14. Accept LOS E or F after finding that:
• There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
• The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit
20
Consistency
Regional efforts to enhance transportation capacity conducted by the City include the
Caltrain Station Improvement project and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
Consistent. The proposed project is located on an infill site in an existing transportation
network. The proposed new office /R &D uses would be consistent with past and ongoing
biotechnology development in the East of 101 Area. The proposed project would require
the design and implementation of a TDM Plan and pedestrian- and bicycle - serving
amenities to achieve a 35 percent alternative mode use and would be subject to annual
and triennial review for compliance.
Consistent. The EIR identifies all feasible mitigation measures to maintain LOS D on
arterial roads and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the
CMP during peak hours that currently are operating at LOS D or better. With feasible
mitigation incorporated, LOS D would be maintained on two intersections in the CMP that
currently are operating at LOS D or better. With feasible mitigation incorporated, LOS D
would be maintained at two intersections in the CMP under existing plus project
conditions: Littlefield Avenue /East Grand Avenue during the AM peak hour and Gateway
Boulevard /South Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue during the PM peak hour (see Impact
TR -1 and Impact TR -3 for further information).
However, the project would result in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts to five
intersections currently operating at LOS D or better. The existing plus project conditions
would cause one intersection in the CMP (Allerton Avenue /East Grand Avenue in the PM
peak hour) that is currently operating at LOS D to operate at LOS E or F (see Impact TR-
2). Under year 2040 conditions, the project would cause four intersections in the CMP
that would be operating at LOS D to operate at LOS E or F: Forbes Boulevard /Harbor
Way /East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue /East Grand Avenue in the AM peak hour
(see Impact C -TR -7 and Impact C -TR -8) and Dubuque Avenue /Grand Avenue
Overcrossing and East Grand Avenue /Grand Avenue Overcrossing in the PM peak hour
(see Impact C -TR -4 and Impact C- TR -5).
For two of the five intersections, Allerton Avenue /East Grand Avenue in the PM peak hour
under existing plus project conditions (Impact TR -2) and Littlefield Avenue /East Grand
Avenue in the AM peak hour under year 2040 conditions (Impact C- TR -8), there is no
practical and feasible way to mitigate to LOS D at these locations. Implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures would result in LOS D or better operations; however, the
revisions would remove portions of existing bicycle lanes and thereby disrupt existing
bicycle facilities. In order to avoid impacts on these bicycle facilities, additional right -of-
way would need to be acquired from the adjacent property owners. The acquisition of
property would require removal of parking spaces for properties that do not have
alternative locations for replacement parking, such that the associated buildings would not
be able to be occupied. Because the City of South San Francisco has determined that
acquisition of property for the additional right -of -way to widen East Grand Avenue would
economically affect existing businesses that need parking to remain viable, and that
funding for the acquisition is not assured, this mitigation measure is considered to be
infeasible. Therefore, while the mitigation measure could reduce the traffic impact to a
less- than - significant level, the overall impact at this intersection would remain significant.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy Consistency
Policy 4.2 -I -5. Establish accessibility requirements for all streets designated as arterial or
collector on Figure 4 -1. As part of development review of all projects along these streets,
ensure that access to individual sites does not impede through traffic flow.
Policy 4.2 -1 -7. Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of
street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and
impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for
improvements required in the Lindenville area. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-
2001, Adopted September 26, 200 1)
Policy 4.2 -1 -11. Implement, to the extent feasible, circulation system improvements
illustrated in Figures 4 -1, 4 -2 and 4 -3 prior to deterioration in levels of service below the
stated standard.
21
For three of the five intersections under year 2040 conditions (Forbes Boulevard /Harbor
Way /East Grand Avenue in the AM peak hour, and Dubuque Avenue /Grand Avenue
Overcrossing and East Grand Avenue /Grand Avenue Overcrossing in the PM peak hour).
The City is considering including the proposed mitigation measures in the updated Traffic
Impact Fee (TIF) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City is in the process of
updating its East of 101 Area TIF and CIP. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 project sponsors
will pay the applicable TIF in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Until TIF and
CIP updates are complete, however, the City does not have a mechanism for funding
these mitigation measures. At this time, the City therefore cannot guarantee that these
mitigation measures will be implemented. Thus, while the proposed mitigation measure
could reduce the traffic impact to a less- than - significant level, the City has not yet
completed the TIF and CIP updates to include or fund these mitigation measures, so the
overall impact would remain significant.
A Transportation Demand Management program would also be required to be prepared
and implemented pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400.
However, it cannot be guaranteed that the Transportation Demand Management program
would reduce intersection traffic by the amount necessary to reduce the project's
contribution to a significant cumulative impact to a less- than - cumulatively considerable
level and these impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As part of its consideration
of the project, the City will consider a statement of overriding considerations that will
explain the overriding public benefits of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would
generally be consistent with Policies 4.2 -G -13 and 4.2 -G -14 if the City makes the
requisite findings set forth in Policy 4.2 -G -14.
Consistent. The project site is served by East Grand Avenue and Haskins Way. In Figure
4 -1, East Grand Avenue is designated as a collector west of the project site, between
Grandview Drive and Haskins Way. The portion of East Grand Avenue adjacent to the
project is not designated as a collector or arterial. Haskins Way is designated as a
collector between Swift Avenue and East Grand Avenue. The project includes the 101
and 151 Haskins Way parcels, which each contain an existing driveway on Haskins Way
between Swift Avenue and East Grand Avenue. The project would remove these
driveways on Haskins Way between Swift Avenue and East Grand Avenue. Therefore,
the proposed project would not create new site access to a designated arterial or collector
that would cause impediments to traffic flow.
Consistent. The proposed project would be subject to all applicable cost - sharing
measures as established by the City. The proposed project site is not in the Lindenville
area.
In addition, the proposed project would comply with payment of a traffic impact fee in
accordance with the adopted fee schedule as required by Chapter 20.300 of the zoning
ordinance to provide the proposed project's share of funding for new and expanded
roadway and intersection improvements.
Consistent. The project site is not located adjacent to circulation system improvements
illustrated in Figure 4 -2. The proposed project does not include off -site transportation
improvements (such as widening roads or adding travel lanes). An EIR is being prepared
to identify any mitigation measures necessary to mitigate impact on levels of services.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy Consistency
In Figure 4 -1, the project site is served by East Grand Avenue and Haskins Way. East
Grand Avenue is designated as a collector west of the project site, between Grandview
Drive and Haskins Way. The portion of East Grand Avenue adjacent to the project is not
designated as a collector or arterial. Haskins Way is designated as a collector between
Swift Avenue and East Grand Avenue. The proposed project is not anticipated to include
off -site transportation improvements (such as widening roads or adding travel lanes).
However, the project includes the 101 and 151 Haskins Way parcels, which each contain
an existing driveway from Haskins Way between Swift Avenue and East Grand Avenue.
Under the proposed project, the two existing driveways at 101 and 151 Haskins Way
would be eliminated, the easternmost driveway on East Grand Avenue would be rebuilt,
and the westernmost driveway on East Grand Avenue would be removed. The proposed
project would reduce the overall number of driveways and would improve circulation.
Figure 4 -3 designates each of the road segments adjacent to the project site (East Grand
Avenue, Haskins Way, and East Jamie Court) as third priority sidewalk gap segments.
The proposed project would construct new sidewalks on East Grand Avenue, Haskins
Way, and East Jamie Court.
Policy 4.3 -G -1. Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that
Consistent. The proposed project would be accessible by bicycle through existing Class I
promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation.
bike lanes on East Grand Avenue. The proposed project would require the design and
implementation of a TDM Plan and pedestrian- and bicycle - serving amenities to achieve a
35 percent alternative mode use.
Policy 4.3 -G -2. Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and
Consistent. The proposed project would construct new sidewalks on East Grand
through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
Avenue, Haskins Way, and East Jamie Court. The proposed project would be accessible
by bicycle through existing Class I bike lanes on East Grand Avenue. The proposed
project would require the design and implementation of a TDM Plan and pedestrian- and
bicycle - serving amenities to achieve a 35 percent alternative mode use.
Policy 4.3 -G -5. In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle
Consistent. The existing R &D use at 400 -450 East Jamie Court is served under the
operations.
Commute.org shuttle program. Under the proposed project, the project sponsor would
coordinate with the City and other private landowners to continue and expand the
program to serve employees of the new R &D uses. The proposed project would also
require the design and implementation of a TDM Plan to achieve a 35 percent alternative
mode use. The TDM Plan may include additional measures related to the enhancement
of commuter shuttle service serving the proposed project site as determined in
coordination with the City.
Policy 4.3 -G -6. In partnership with the local business community, develop a
Consistent. The proposed project would involve new office /R &D uses and would require
transportation systems management plan with identified trip- reduction goals, while
the design and implementation of a TDM Plan to achieve a 35 percent alternative mode
continuing to maintain a positive and supportive business environment.
use.
Policy 4.3 -I -4. Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and
Consistent. Under the proposed project, the project applicant would develop and
future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office /institutional uses.
implement a TDM Plan and pedestrian- and bicycle - serving design provisions to achieve
a 35 percent minimum alternative mode use as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Design
features would include secure covered bicycle parking proportional to development as
required by City bicycle parking standards.
Policy 4.3 -1 -6. Expand pedestrian facilities in new development, using the PMP for
Consistent. The proposed project would construct new sidewalks on East Grand
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy
pedestrian design guidelines and to identify other improvements that should be
considered for projects proposed in areas that are identified in PMP concept plans.
(Amended by City Council Resolution 26 -2014, Adopted February 26, 2014)
Policy 4.3 -1 -11. As part of any development in Lindenville or East of 101, require project
proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for
new development and redevelopment projects.
Policy 4.3 -1-16. Favor Transportation Systems Management programs that limit vehicle
use over those that extend the commute hour.
Policy 4.3 -1 -18. Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by:
- Allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction
methods, such as paid parking, and for mixed use development.
- Requiring projects larger than 25 employees to provide preferential parking for carpools
and vanpools.
Policy 4.4 -G -1. Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco.
Policy 4.4 -G -2. Explore mechanisms to integrate various forms of transit.
Chapter 5. Parks, Public Facilities, and Services.
Policy 5.1 -G -1. Develop additional parkland in the city, particularly in areas lacking these
facilities, to meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents and
employees.
Policy 5.1 -G -2. Improve bayfront access along its entire length and endorse the
prominence of this important natural asset.
Policy 5.1 -G -3. Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and open
space; improve access to existing facilities where feasible.
Policy 5.1 -1 -2. Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood
parks per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees, to
23
Consistency
Avenue, Haskins Way, and East Jamie Court. Under the proposed project, the project
applicant would develop and implement a TDM Plan and pedestrian- and bicycle - serving
design provisions to achieve a 35 percent minimum alternative mode use as required by
the Zoning Ordinance.
Consistent. The proposed project would construct new sidewalks and plant street trees
on East Grand Avenue, Haskins Way, and East Jamie Court subject to design review
pursuant to zoning ordinance Section 20.300.009.
Consistent. Under the proposed project, the project applicant would develop and
implement a TDM Plan and pedestrian- and bicycle - serving design provisions to achieve
a 35 percent minimum alternative mode use as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Consistent. Under the proposed project, the project applicant would develop and
implement a TDM Plan and pedestrian- and bicycle- serving design provisions to achieve
a 35 percent minimum alternative mode use as required by the Zoning Ordinance, which
may include a parking reduction from the standard 1 space per 350 sq. ft. of office use
per the zoning ordinance. The proposed project would also include carpool and vanpool
amenities.
Consistent. The existing R &D use at 400 -450 East Jamie Court is served under the
Commute.org shuttle program. Under the proposed project, the project sponsor would
coordinate with the City and other private landowners to continue and expand the
program to serve employees of the new R &D uses. The proposed project would also
require the design and implementation of a TDM Plan to achieve a 35 percent alternative
mode use. The TDM Plan may include additional measures to enhance commuter shuttle
service serving the proposed project site as determined in coordination with the City.
Consistent. See discussion of Policy 4.4 -G -1, above.
Consistent. The proposed project would be subject to the City's parks and recreation
impact fee, which requires payment of a parkland acquisition fee and a park construction
fee for non - residential developments, subject to the requirements of Chapter 8.67 of the
zoning ordinance, which would be used to provide adequate parks and recreational
services and facilities to residents of the City.
Consistent. The proposed project would intensify office /R &D uses in the East of 101
Area at the subject parcels. One parcel (400 -450 East Jamie Court) is adjacent to San
Francisco Bay and the San Francisco Bay Trail, and the existing site is designed to
provide access to the trail.
Consistent. One parcel (400 -450 East Jamie Court) within the proposed project is
adjacent to San Francisco Bay and the San Francisco Bay Trail, and the existing site plan
is designed to continue to provide access to the trail. The proposed project would also
improve access by constructing new sidewalks on East Grand Avenue, Haskins Way, and
East Jamie Court, subject to design review.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve new R &D use and would introduce new
employees to the area. Although the proposed project would not construct new parkland,
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy Consistency
be located in employment areas. one parcel (400 -450 East Jamie Court) of the proposed project is adjacent to San
Francisco Bay and the San Francisco Bay Trail, and the existing site plan is designed to
continue to provide access to the trail. The proposed project would also be subject to the
City's parks and recreation impact fee, which requires payment of a parkland acquisition
fee and a park construction fee for non - residential developments, subject to the
requirements of Chapter 8.67 of the zoning ordinance.
Policy 5.1 -I -9. Improve the accessibility and visibility of Sign Hill Park and the bayfront.
[The General Plan proposes three solutions for increased Bayfront access, including the
location of activities on the bayfront, such as a Campus Center and park that will draw
people to the shoreline (policies 3.5 -1 -8, 3.5 -1-9)]
Policy 5.3 -G -1. Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the water
supply system to meet projected needs.
Policy 5.3 -G -2. Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed
development.
Policy 5.3 -G -3. Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing
water service to new development.
Policy 5.3 -1 -1. Work with California Water Service Company and Westborough County
Water District to ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and
timing of growth.
24
Consistent. One parcel (400 -450 East Jamie Court) of the proposed project is adjacent
to San Francisco Bay and the San Francisco Bay Trail, and the existing site plan is
designed to continue to provide access to the trail. The proposed project would involve
the potential for buildout of additional office /R &D use to a total of 1.0 FAR on the 400 -450
East Jamie Court parcel. Although new uses would likely be sited on the north side of the
parcel, design and siting of new uses on the parcel are subject to Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) review and the City design review process to ensure
preservation of views of and access to the bayfront. On other parcels, the proposed
project would improve adjacent sidewalks, indirectly improving access to the bayfront.
According to Figure 2 -4 of the General Plan, the project site is visible from the south face
of Sign Hill, the base of San Bruno Mountain, and the east face of Point San Bruno Knoll.
However, the project site is located in a low -lying location of the East of 101 Area and
views from the project site to Sign Hill Park are background views. Existing visibility of
Sign Hill Park is obscured by existing topography, street trees, and industrial and
commercial buildings. Development of the proposed project site would not diminish
existing views or accessibility of Sign Hill Park.
Consistent. The proposed project site is served by existing water utility service lines and
would not require expanded capacity or extension of existing utility lines
A water supply assessment is required for commercial office projects greater than
250,000 sq. ft. of floor space, or greater than 1,000 employees, unless the growth is
covered under the Urban Water Management Plan. The Water Supply Assessment
provided by Cal Water determined that existing water supplies can accommodate the
demand generated under the proposed project.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve new office /R &D uses that would be
subject to applicable water conservation measures in CALGreen, including water
conserving plumbing and fixture standards (Section 5.303), outdoor water use limitations
(Section 5.304), and water reuse systems (Section 5.305).
Consistent. The proposed project site is served by existing water utility service lines.
Nonetheless, the proposed project would be subject to all applicable cost - sharing
measures for new developments as established by the City.
Consistent. The proposed project site is served by existing water utility service lines and
would not require expanded capacity or extension of existing utility lines.
A water supply assessment is required for commercial office projects greater than
250,000 sq. ft. of floor space, or greater than 1,000 employees, unless the growth is
covered under the Urban Water Management Plan. The Water Supply Assessment
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy
Consistency
provided by Cal Water determined that existing water supplies can accommodate the
demand generated under the proposed project.
Policy 5.3 -1 -2. Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively
Consistent. The proposed project would involve new office /R &D uses that would be
promote the use of water - conserving devices and practices in both new construction and
subject to applicable water conservation measures in CALGreen.
major alterations and additions to existing buildings.
Policy 5.3 -1 -3. Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs
Consistent. The proposed project site is served by existing water utility service lines and
associated with providing water service to new development in South San Francisco.
would not require expanded capacity or extension of existing utility lines.
A water supply assessment is required for commercial office projects greater than
250,000 sq. ft. of floor space, or greater than 1,000 employees, unless the growth is
covered under the Urban Water Management Plan. The Water Supply Assessment
provided by Cal Water determined that existing water supplies can accommodate the
demand generated under the proposed project.
Policy 5.3 -G -4. Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the
Consistent. The proposed project site is served by existing wastewater utility service
wastewater system to meet projected needs.
lines and would not require expanded capacity or extension of existing utility lines.
Policy 5.3 -G -5. Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing
Consistent. The proposed project site is served by existing wastewater utility service
wastewater service to new development.
lines and would not require expanded capacity or extension of existing utility lines.
Policy 5.3 -G -6. Maintain environmentally appropriate wastewater management practices.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve new office /R &D uses that would be
subject to applicable water conservation and recycling measures in CALGreen.
Policy 5.3 -1 -4. Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and
Consistent. The proposed project site is served by existing utility service lines and would
timing of growth.
not require expanded capacity or extension of existing utility lines.
Policy 5.3 -1-5. Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs
Consistent. The proposed project site is served by existing wastewater utility service
associated with providing wastewater service to new development in South San
lines and would not require expanded capacity or extension of existing utility lines.
Francisco.
Policy 5.3 -1 -7. Encourage new projects in East of 101 area that are likely to generate
Consistent. The proposed project would involve new office /R &D uses that would be
large quantities of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling, pretreatment,
subject to applicable water recycling measures in CALGreen.
or other means as necessary.
Chapter 6. Economic Development
Policy 6 -G -5. Establish land use priorities based on economic criteria and sound fiscal
Consistent. The proposed project would involve new office /R &D uses through the
planning; reserve sites for designated uses rather than accepting any development.
existing CC /MI and CC land use designations. The proposed project is consistent with
previous and ongoing expansion of office /R &D uses in the East of 101 Area.
Policy 6 -1 -6. Create a task force of biotech /R &D industry leaders to work toward the
Consistent. See discussion of Policy 6 -G -5, above. The proposed project would expand
creation of a campus environment in the East of 101 area, and to promote the area as a
opportunities for a campus environment in the East of 101 area.
high amenity growth -based industrial activity center.
Policy 6 -1 -7. Undertake a streetscape and signage improvement program in the East of
Consistent. The proposed project would be subject to design review of signage and
101 area to promote a unified, campus -like environment in the area.
streetscape features by the City.
Chapter 7. Open Space and Conservation
Policy 7.1 -G -1. Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San
Consistent. The proposed project is located on existing developed industrial and office
25
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy
Consistency
Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened,
sites and would not result in the conversion of special status species - supporting habitat.
or Rare.
The proposed project would involve the removal and replanting of on -site and streetscape
trees and on -site landscaping. Construction activities would be subject to the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act of 1918 to protect nesting birds prior to and during construction.
Policy 7.1-1 -1. Cooperate with State and federal agencies to ensure that development
Consistent. See discussion of Policy 7.1 -G -1, above.
does not substantially affect special status species appearing on any State or federal list
for any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assessments of biological
resources prior to approval of any development on sites with ecologically sensitive
habitat, as depicted in Figure 7 -1.
Policy 7.1 -G -2. Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes and
Consistent. The proposed project is located on existing developed industrial and office
wetlands.
sites and would not result in the conversion or disturbance of existing saltmarshes or
wetlands.
Policy 7.1 -1 -3. As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically
Consistent. The proposed project is located on existing developed industrial and office
sensitive habitat designated in Figure 7 -2, require institution of an on -going program to
sites and would not occur within ecologically sensitive habitat designated in Figure 7 -2.
remove and prevent the re- establishment of the invasive species and restore the native
species.
Policy 7.1 -1 -4. Require development on the wetlands delineated in Figure 7 -1 to complete
The proposed project is located on existing developed industrial and office sites and
assessments of biological resources.
would not occur within wetlands delineated in Figure 7 -1.
Policy 7.2 -G -1. Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards Consistent. The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of new
to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources. office /R &D uses. The proposed project would involve ground disturbance activities
(excavation, minor grading and resurfacing) of greater than 1 acre in area. Under the
proposed project, the project sponsor would be required to obtain coverage under the
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit General Construction Permit) issued by
the SWRCB. Coverage under this permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) for review and approval by the City, and evidence of approval
of the SWPPP by the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). At a minimum,
the SWPPP must include a description of construction materials, practices, and
equipment storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater; a list
of provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; best
management practices; and an inspection and monitoring program. Per standard
procedures, compliance with SWPPP requirements would be verified during the
construction permitting process.
Policy 7.2 -G -3. Discourage use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances
within the city.
Policy 7.24-1. Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the
implementation of the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP for the protection of
surface water and groundwater quality.
M
Consistent. The proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local
regulations related to the use of hazardous chemicals and handling procedures to prevent
polluted runoff.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of new
office /R &D uses within the existing San Francisco Bay Area Municipal Regional Permit
area that serves as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
for all San Francisco Bay Area municipalities, which includes Provision C.3. The C.3
requirements are intended to protect water quality by minimizing pollutants in runoff, and
to prevent downstream erosion by: designing each project site to minimize
imperviousness, detain runoff, and infiltrate runoff where feasible; treating runoff prior to
discharge from the site; ensuring runoff does not exceed pre - project peaks and durations;
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy Consistency
and maintaining treatment facilities. Application of the NPDES permit requirements are
administered by the City Environmental Compliance Program.
Policy 7.3 -G -1. Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national Consistent. The proposed project would involve activities resulting in air quality impacts
and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants in two categories: short-term impacts that would occur during construction and long -term
both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. impacts due to operation. During construction, the project applicant would demonstrate
compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of
demolition, building, or grading permits, including implementation of Bay Area Air Quality
Management District ( BAAQMD) Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.
Policy 7.3 -G -2. Mitigate the community of South San Francisco's impact on climate
change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with state guidance.
Policy 7.3 -G -3. Reduce energy use in the built environment.
Policy 7.3 -G -4. Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of
alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and
carpooling.
Policy 7.3 -G -5. Promote clean and alternative fuel combustion in mobile equipment and
vehicles.
Policy 7.3 -G -6. Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators
by distancing them from one another.
27
During operation, the proposed project would generate emissions that may include
emissions from natural gas consumption for space and water heating, utilities operations
(including diesel - powered emergency generators), an increase in toxic air contaminant
JAC) emissions associated with R &D activities (such as fume hoods and chemical
storage), new landscaping maintenance activities, and consumer products. The
BAAQMD's New Source Review Rule, Regulation 2, Rule 2, requires that new or modified
stationary sources of air pollutants constructed and operated undergo permit review for
Best Available Control Technology and /or Best Available Control Technology for Toxics
where certain thresholds are exceeded. To minimize the emissions of TACs, the
BAAQMD also requires laboratory facilities to either demonstrate that the health risk
resulting from emissions of TACs is less than one additional cancer risk in one million or
follow Responsible Laboratory Management Practices.
In addition, the project applicant would develop and implement a TDM Plan to achieve a
35 percent minimum alternative mode use as required by the Zoning Ordinance, which
would reduce air emissions generated from single- occupancy vehicles.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve new office /R &D uses that would be
subject to applicable energy conservation measures of CALGreen and the City's Climate
Action Plan (CAP). A detailed discussion of the Climate Action Plan is provided below
under "Climate Action Plan ".
Consistent. The proposed project would involve new office /R &D uses that would be
subject to applicable energy conservation measures of CALGreen and the CAP. A
detailed discussion of the Climate Action Plan is provided below under "Climate Action
Plan ".
Consistent. Under the proposed project, the project applicant would develop and
implement a TDM Plan and pedestrian- and bicycle - serving design provisions to achieve
a 35 percent minimum alternative mode use as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed project would also include carpool and vanpool amenities.
Consistent. The proposed project would include electric vehicle charging stations serving
the new office /R &D uses.
Consistent. The proposed project would result in new office /R &D uses in the East of 101
Area. Surrounding uses include light industrial uses and other office /R &D uses.
The project site is located within 0.25 mile of two daycare centers, the existing Early
Years preschool at 371 Allerton Avenue, and the proposed Genentech Childcare Facility
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy
Policy 7.3 -1 -1. Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve
emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon
monoxide, ozone, and PM -10, by implementation of air pollution control measures as
required by State and federal statutes.
Policy 7.3 -1 -2. Use the City's development review process and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and
cumulative effects of new development on air quality and GHG emissions. (Amended by
Resolution 26 -2014. Adopted on February 12, 2014.)
Policy 7.3 -1 -3. Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in
BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines.
Policy 7.3 -1 -7. Adopt and implement the City of South San Francisco's CAP, which will
identify a GHG emissions reduction target and measures and actions to achieve the
reduction target.
Policy 7.3 -1-9. Promote land uses that facilitate alternative transit use, including high -
density housing, mixed uses, and affordable housing served by alternative transit
infrastructure.
Policy 7.3 -1 -10. Facilitate energy efficiency in building regulations and streamlined review
processes, providing flexibility to achieve specified energy performance levels and
requiring energy efficiency measures as appropriate.
Policy 7.3 -1 -11. Coordinate with the business community to encourage energy efficiency
in the City's largest energy users while supporting economic growth objectives.
Policy 7.3 -1 -13. Encourage efficient, clean energy and fuel use through collaborative
programs, award programs, and incentives, while removing barriers to the expansion of
28
Consistency
at 342 Allerton Avenue currently under construction. The proposed project would involve
activities resulting in air quality impacts in two categories: short -term impacts that would
occur during construction and long -term impacts due to operation. During construction,
the project applicant would demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations and
operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building, or grading permits,
including implementation of BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.
However, the operation of office /R &D uses is comparable to existing land uses in the
vicinity of the daycare centers and would not introduce new sources of air emissions from
a substantially new land use. The proposed project would comply with all applicable
regulations and provisions for the storage, use, and handling of hazardous substances
during demolition, site preparation, construction, and operation of office /R &D uses.
There are no residential land uses or other sensitive receptors within 1 mile of the project
site.
Consistent. See discussion of Policy 7.3 -G -1, above.
Consistent. The proposed project is subject to CEQA regulations in the CEQA
Guidelines and the City's review process will include the evaluation of air quality effects
and greenhouse gas emissions.
Consistent. See discussion of Policy 7.3 -G -1, above.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve coordination with City staff to review and
identify applicable CAP Measures for New Development, or for Additions, Alterations, and
Tenant Improvements, to be incorporated into the proposed project as project features,
mitigation of environmental effects, or mandatory conditions of approval commensurate
with the project's intensity of use and site - specific conditions. A detailed discussion of the
CAP is provided below under "Climate Action Plan ".
Consistent. The proposed project would require the design and implementation of a TDM
Plan to achieve a 35 percent alternative mode use. The proposed project would not
involve housing or mixed use, uses which would generally be incompatible with existing
industrial uses west of Haskins Way and recycling center use east of the project site.
Consistent. The proposed project would be subject to applicable energy conservation
measures in CALGreen, and design review by the City.
Consistent. The proposed project would be subject to applicable energy conservation
measures in CALGreen, and design review by the City.
Consistent. The proposed project would be designed to enhance resources as well as
reduce energy consumption. The project would be designed to meet the standards of the
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy Consistency
alternative fuel facilities and infrastructure. City municipal code and CALGreen building requirements. Accordingly, parking spaces
with charging facilities would also be provided for electric vehicles.
Policy 7.5 -G -1. Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the Consistent. The proposed project site does not contain any known historic architectural
aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San resources, and the proposed project would not remove or have significant impacts on
Francisco's identity and quality of life. known historic architectural resources.
Policy 7.5 -1 -3. Explore mechanisms to incorporate South San Francisco's industrial
heritage in historic and cultural preservation..
Policy 7.5 -1 -4. Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the city by
requiring a records review for any development proposed areas of known resources.
Policy 7.5 -1 -5. In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource
mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that
archaeological resources are uncovered.
Chapter 8. Health and Safety
Policy 8.1 -G -1. Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic
hazards in South San Francisco.
Policy 8.2 -G -1. Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San
Francisco.
As discussed in EIR Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, the results of the CHRIS records
search indicate the presence of one archaeological site (P -41- 000042) which is assumed
to be a shell mound. Although the identified shellmound resource (P -41- 00042) is poorly
documented and is not likely to be accurately mapped, it is possible that excavation
activities in the project site at depths below fill may encounter this resource. In addition,
previously unknown archaeological resources could be inadvertently unearthed during
ground- disturbing activities. Impacts of the proposed project on archaeological resources
would be reduced through the implementation of MM- CR -2a: Cultural Resources Worker
Environmental Awareness Program), MM- CR -2b: Cultural Resources Monitoring During
Ground Disturbing Activities, and MM- CR -2c: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find
and Implement Mitigation. Through implementation of these mitigation measures, the
educational and scientific contribution of any sensitive archaeological resources
encountered would be evaluated and documented.
Consistent. The proposed project site does not contain any known historic architectural
resources. The existing on -site light industrial buildings were constructed in the 1980s
and are not historic industrial resources.
Consistent. See discussion of Policy 7.5 -G -1, above.
Consistent. See discussion of Policy 7.5 -G -1, above.
Consistent. The proposed project site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Seismic Hazard
Zone and does not traverse any known active or potentially active faults. The site is in a
seismically active region and could be subject to ground shaking and seismic - related
ground failure (liquefaction) and lateral spreading. The project sponsor would prepare a
geotechnical report and implement design and construction recommendations based on
site soil analysis.
Consistent. The proposed project site has an existing ground elevation between 12 -23
feet above mean sea level. The proposed project site is not located in a Federal
Emergency Management Agency- designated 100 year flood zone and would not consist
of housing or present a risk for flooding or redirection of flood flows. However, according
to San Mateo County Adapting to Rising Tides data, when the effects of a 100 -year storm
surge are combined with sea level rises of 24 inches (anticipated by 2050) or 66 inches
(anticipated by 2100), the southwestern corner of the project site would be partially
inundated by 0 to 2 feet and 0 to 6 feet, respectively, as shown in Figure 4.6.1 and Figure
4.6.2 of the EIR.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy Consistency
Policy 8.2 -/ -2. Use the City's development review process to ensure that proposed
development subject to the 100 -year flood provides adequate protection from flood
hazards, in areas identified in Figure 8 -3.
Policy 8.3 -G -1. Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and
recycle those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in
accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
Policy 8.3 -G -2. Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and
transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all
applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use and handling of hazardous
substances as established by federal (EPA), State (DISC, RWQCB, Cal OSHA, Cal
EPA), and local (County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco) regulations.
Policy 8.3 -1-1. Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and
complying with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan.
Policy 8.4 -G -1. Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South San
Francisco.
Policy 8.4 -G -2. Provide fire protection that is responsive to citizens' needs.
El
The areas that would be inundated under the 24 -inch projection in 2050 include
landscaping and parking areas on the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel. No Phase 1
development is planned in this area. Further, it is unlikely that project buildout associated
with Phase 2 would occur in the inundation areas, since the majority of that anticipated
flooded area either lies within the 10 -foot street - facing setback or is located within the
access way into the existing building garage.
The areas that would be inundated under the 66 -inch projection in 2100 include
landscaping, parking areas, and the southwestern portion of the existing building at 400
East Jamie Court. The proposed Phase 1 office /R &D uses at the 25,000- square -foot
building addition at 400 East Jamie Court would be outside the effects of a 100 -year
storm surge in combination with projected sea level rise. Similarly, it is unlikely that
project buildout associated with Phase 2 would occur in the inundation areas, since the
majority of that anticipated flooded area either lies within the 10 -foot street - facing setback
or is located within the access way into the existing building garage.
Future review and approval of site - specific design and sea level rise adaptability at the
time when a specific design is proposed would ensure compatibility with the General Plan
and with CAP Adaptation Measure 3, Action 2, "During the development review process,
consider possible impacts of climate change on the project or plan area" (CAP p. 67).
Consistent. The proposed project site is not located within Federal Emergency
Management Agency- designated 100 -year flood hazard zones.
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to recycle construction debris,
where possible, in conformance with CALGreen construction waste reduction, disposal,
and recycling requirements. Operation of the proposed project would also be subject to
CALGreen occupant recycling standards.
Consistent. The proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations and
provisions for the storage, use, and handling of hazardous substances during demolition,
site preparation, construction, and operation of office /R &D uses.
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to recycle construction debris,
where possible, in conformance with CALGreen construction waste reduction, disposal,
and recycling requirements. Operation of the proposed project would also be subject to
CALGreen occupant recycling standards.
Consistent. The proposed project site is not located in or near wildland areas with high or
very high fire hazards. The site is served by existing City fire protection services. New
office /R &D uses would be subject to fire code review.
Consistent. The proposed project site is located within areas served by existing City fire
protection services. The proposed project would not substantially impact existing service
ratios or performance measures.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy Consistency
Policy 8.4 -1-4. Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and Consistent. The proposed project site is not located in or near wildland areas with high or
adequate access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce very high fire hazards. The site is served by existing City fire protection services. New
the risk of fire within the City. office /R &D uses would be subject to fire code review.
Policy 8.5 -G -1. Provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a Consistent. The proposed project site is located within areas served by existing City
safe and secure environment for people and property in the community. police protection services. The proposed project would not substantially impact existing
service ratios or performance measures.
Policy 8.5 -1 -1. Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all Consistent. See discussion of Policy 8.5 -G -1, above.
emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times.
Policy 8.6 -G -1. Use the City's Emergency Response Plan as the guide for emergency
management in South San Francisco.
Policy 8.7 -G -1. Minimize the risk of life and property from aircraft accidents in South San
Francisco.
Consistent. The proposed project sites would have access to East Grand Avenue and
Haskins Way for ingress and egress, which are of adequate width pursuant to City
standards. The proposed project sites would not conflict with the City's Emergency
Response Plan.
Consistent. The proposed project site is located in the SFO sphere of influence under 14
CFR Part 77. The proposed project site has an existing ground elevation between 12 -23
feet above mean sea level. The proposed project site is located within the imaginary
horizontal surface contour established at 163 feet above sea level as depicted in the 2012
SFO ALUCP Exhibit IV -4 and the 161 -foot height limit illustrated in General Plan Figure 2-
2. The proposed project would involve development of up to 99- foot -tall office buildings,
up to a total of 122 feet above mean sea level. The proposed project would not involve
construction of buildings taller than the horizontal surface.
To ensure compatibility, the project sponsor is required to file form 7460 -1 Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA to determine whether the project would
constitute a hazard to air navigation and the City must present the project to the C /CAG
ALUC for determination of consistency with the 2012 SFO ALUCP.
Policy 8.7 -1 -1. Do not permit land uses that pose potential hazards to air navigation in the Consistent. See discussion of Policy 8.7 -G -1, above.
vicinity of SFO. These land uses include the following:
• Any use that would direct a steady or flashing light of white, red, green or amber color
towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward a
landing, other than FAA- approved navigational lights;
• Any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft engaged in an initial
straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach
toward a landing;
• Any use that would generate smoke or rising columns of air;
• Any use that would attract large concentrations of birds within approach and climbout
areas; and
• Any use that would engage electrical interference that may interfere with aircraft
communications or aircraft instrumentation.
Chapter 9. Noise
Policy 9 -G -1. Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of Consistent. The proposed project site is not within 2012 SFO ALUCP noise safety
existing noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future. zones. One parcel (400 -450 East Jamie Court) in the proposed project site is adjacent to
San Francisco Bay and the San Francisco Bay Trail.
31
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy Consistency
The project site is located within 0.25 mile of two daycare centers, the existing Early
Years preschool at 371 Allerton Avenue, and the proposed Genentech Childcare Facility
at 342 Allerton Avenue currently under construction. The proposed project would involve
activities resulting in noise impacts in two categories: short-term impacts that would occur
during construction and long -term impacts due to operation.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Section
8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on
weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and
holidays. During project operation, noise levels on the 400 -450 East Jamie Court site
would be similar to existing office /R &D uses. This ordinance also limits noise generation
of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line.
Construction activities would comply with the Noise Ordinance.
The operation of office /R &D uses is comparable to existing biotechnology land uses in the
vicinity of the daycare centers and would not introduce new sources of noise from a
substantially new land use.
There are no residences or other sensitive receptors within 1 mile of the proposed project
sites.
Policy 9 -G -2. Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning Consistent. The proposed project would involve new office /R &D uses within the East of
decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the 101 Area where several existing light industrial and office /R &D uses are currently
effects of noise on adjacent land uses. operating. The proposed project would be consistent with existing surrounding land use
activities, minimizing the effects of noise on other sensitive land uses.
Policy 9 -1 -8. Require the control of noise at source through site design, building design, Consistent. The proposed project would construct new office /R &D uses and would be
landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments deemed to subject to design review building permitting by the City. The proposed project would be
be noise generators. required to comply with the Noise Ordinance.
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999, as amended in 2011), ARE (2018)
Note: Policies with "X -G -X" codes are Guiding policies, and policies with "X -I -X" codes are Implementing policies.
32
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
East of 101 Area Plan
The East 101 Area Plan sets forth additional and more specific land use policies for the East 101 Area, in
addition to those in the General Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan, which was adopted by the City Council
in 1994 and most recently amended in 2016,24 contains a Land Use Element that designates the East of
101 Area as Planned Commercial, Light Industrial, Coastal Commercial, Airport- Related, Mixed -Use
Categories, and Planned Industrial.
The City interprets the East of 101 Area Plan as a design -level document. Development standards and
density determinations, including FAR, are established in the General Plan, which was updated after the
adoption of the East of 101 Area Plan and takes precedence where inconsistent with the Area Plan.
Accordingly, where the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan conflict, land use policies and
designations of the General Plan supersede those outlined in the East of 101 Area Plan.
Applicable policies from the Land Use Element are as follows":
Policy LU -6c. Parking structures serving off -site uses may exceed the Floor Area Ratio allowed
in the Light Industrial category, provided they meet the following requirements:
• The number of peak hour trips generated by the parking structure must be less than or
equal to the minimum number of peak hour trips that would be expected from any other
use allowed in the light industrial category.
• The parking structure shall meet all other applicable City regulations, including all other
policies of this plan.
• The parking structure and its design shall not create traffic safety problems or circulation
conflicts on public streets.
Policy LU -24. Retail and personal services shall be encouraged throughout the area to serve the
employees of the East of 101 Area. In the Light Industrial and Planned Industrial categories,
dedicated retail space may be included in a development without being applied to the allowed
FAR, provided that such development includes adequate parking and does not exceed 10 percent
of the building square footage of a project.
Policy LU -26. Child care facilities may be built as part of a commercial or industrial
development and shall not be counted as part of the Floor Area Ratio of the project.
Policy LU -31. No new above - ground bulk fuel tanks are permitted after July 25 1994. Above-
ground fuel tanks which are lawfully existing prior to July 1994 may be maintained but may not
be replaced or expanded.
24 The 2016 amendments to the East of 101 Area Plan primarily relate to ensuring consistency between the General Plan, the
zoning ordinance, and the 2015 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The project site is not within the Downtown Station Area.
25 E -mail correspondence from Naree Chan, City Legal Counsel, on June 22, 2018.
33
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Consistency with East of 101 Area Plan, Proposed Project
The proposed project site is designated Light Industrial in the East of 101 Area Plan. 26 The 400 -450 East
Jamie Court parcel is also designated with a Coastal Commercial district overlay. Because the General
Plan was more recently adopted, the development standards and density determinations like FAR guides
implementation of the East of 101 Area Plan. Accordingly, the General Plan's land use designations of
CC and dual CC /MI designations for the project site take precedence over the sole Coastal Commercial
and Light Industrial designation for the parcels found in the earlier adopted East of 101 Area Plan.
Existing light industrial uses remain consistent with the General Plan under the MI land use designation
whereas existing and new R &D uses would be consistent with the CC land use designation. The proposed
zoning text amendment would amend Table 20.110.002 "Land Use Regulations — Employment Districts"
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to clarify that, for parcels with a dual General Plan
designation of Coastal Commercial (CC) and Mixed Industrial (MI), the new BTP development would be
considered consistent with, and would be subject to the development standards applicable to, the CC
designation. In contract, the continuation of pre- existing freight forwarding, customs brokering,
wholesale, warehousing, and distribution uses would be considered consistent with, and would be subject
to the development standards applicable to, the MI designation. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with the policies of the General Plan with respect to density determinations.
Further, the proposed project would be consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan policies listed above.
The proposed project would construct a parking structure on the 201 Haskins Way parcel during Phase 1
development, which would be expanded east during development of the conceptual Phase 2 site plan at
project buildout. In the conceptual Phase 2 development plan, this parking structure would serve as a
campus -wide parking resource for the project site (totaling eight parcels), but would not serve off -site
uses. The parking structure would be provided to serve office/R &D uses which are typical of other similar
developments. At project buildout, with the conceptual Phase 2 development plans, the parking structure
would be accessed from driveways on Haskins Way, East Grand Avenue, and East Jamie Court and
would not create traffic safety problems or circulation conflicts. A detailed discussion of traffic safety and
circulation impacts is provided in Section 4.8, Transportation and Circulation. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with Policy LU -6c.
The proposed project would provide employee - serving amenities, such as retail. These uses would not
exceed 10 percent of the building square footage of the project, and would not be applied to the allowable
FAR. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with LU -24.
The proposed uses would not require installation of new underground fuel tanks, which are prohibited
under Policy LU -31.
The analysis does not include discussion of Design Element policies, which relate to specific design
features related to the project's buildings, parking and circulation features, landscaping, signage, and
lighting. Consistency with the Design Element policies would be determined during project design
review.
26 City of South San Francisco, 1994. East of 101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994, pp. 56 -61. Available online at:
http: / /www. ssf. net /departments/ economic - community - development /planning- division /pl anning- documents /approved - policy-
documents. Accessed September 1, 2017.
34
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Downtown /Central Redevelopment Plan
400 -450 East Jamie Court is located in the Downtown /Central Redevelopment Plan ( "Redevelopment
Plan ") area.27 As amended, the term of the Redevelopment Plan extends until July 12, 2030, for purposes
of land use controls, and until July 12, 2040, for receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness.
The Redevelopment Plan provides that permitted land uses in the plan area include commercial and
industrial uses, and may include any use permitted by the General Plan and City ordinances for that
area. 28 Under the Redevelopment Plan, the type, size, and height of buildings in the plan area are limited
by applicable federal, state and local statutes and ordinances .2' The Redevelopment Plan provides that
the Redevelopment Agency was authorized to establish limits on height, land coverage, setbacks, design
criteria, traffic, and parking through adoption of subsequent resolutions, but the Redevelopment Plan does
not impose additional development standards for the plan area."
City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, 2017
The existing zoning designations of the project site and surrounding parcels are illustrated in Figure 2,
p. 4. Existing zoning on the parcels is MI with the exception of the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel,
which is zoned BC. The MI and BC districts are two of the City's base employment districts. Table 1, p.
7, outlines the development standards for the MI and BC districts for lot size, building height, minimum
setbacks, lot coverage, FAR, and landscaping coverage.
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan —
San Francisco International Airport
State law requires ALUCs to prepare and adopt an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for
each public use and military airport within their jurisdiction. Further, they are required to review the
plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and airport operators. Based on state law and
guidance provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the 2012 SFO ALUCP has
four primary areas of concern:
• Aircraft Noise Impact Reduction — To reduce the potential number of future airport area residents
who could be exposed to noise impacts from airport and aircraft operations.
• Safety of Persons on the Ground and in Aircraft in Flight — To minimize the potential number of
future residents and land use occupants exposed to hazards related to aircraft operations and
accidents.
• Height Restrictions /Airspace Protection — To protect the navigable airspace around the Airport
for the safe and efficient operation of aircraft in flight.
27 General Plan, Figure 2 -7, p. 2 -37.
28 City of South San Francisco, Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan ( "Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan "), Section
402, p. 18.
29 Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan, Section 413, p. 21.
30 Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan, Section 420, p. 22.
35
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
• Overflight Notification — To establish an area within which aircraft flights to and from the Airport
occur frequently enough and at a low enough altitude to be noticeable by sensitive residents.
Within this area, real estate disclosure notices shall be required, pursuant to State law.
The 2012 SFO ALUCP contains airport/land use compatibility policies and criteria that apply to all land
uses except those considered as existing land uses. Airport land use commissions were given authority to
(1) specify how land near airports is to be used, based on safety and noise compatibility considerations;
(2) develop height restrictions for new development to protect airspace in the vicinity of the airport; and
(3) establish construction standards for new buildings near airports, including sound insulation
requirements.
After an ALUC has adopted its ALUCP, affected local governments must update their general plans,
specific plans, and land use regulations to be consistent with the ALUCP. Even if the local government
has amended its plans to be consistent with the ALUCP, it must still submit proposed new and amended
general plans, specific plans, land use ordinances (including rezoning), regulations, and facility master
plans to the ALUC for review. The C /CAG ALUC reviews local land use policy actions and administrates
consistency review and submits recommendations to the C /CAG Commission.
Code of Federal Regulations Part 77
The 2012 SFO ALUCP incorporates the provisions in Title 14 of CFR Part 77, "Objects Affecting
Navigable Airspace," as amended, to establish height restrictions and federal notification requirements
related to proposed development within the 14 CFR Part 77 airspace boundaries .3 1 The regulations
contain three key elements: (1) standards for determining obstructions in the navigable airspace and
designation of imaginary surfaces for airspace protection, (2) requirements for project sponsors to provide
notice to the FAA of certain proposed construction or alteration of structures that may affect the navigable
airspace, and (3) the initiation of aeronautical studies, by the FAA, to determine the potential effect(s), if
any, of proposed construction or alterations of structures on the subject airspace.
As identified in the 2012 SFO ALUCP, the project site is located within the Federal Aviation Regulation
Part 77 sphere of influence, which is the boundary established to regulate obstructions to airspace
navigation, including building heights. 32 The City is located inside the 14 CFR Part 77 horizontal, conical,
primary, approach and transitional imaginary surface contour areas. The parcels for the proposed project
are located within the horizontal surface contour area.
Proposed Project Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan
Because the proposed project would involve a rezoning, the project would be required to refer to the
Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the relevant policies of the 2012
SFO ALUCP. Based on the existing and ongoing development of office /R &D uses in the East of 101
Area, no substantial inconsistencies with safety policies are anticipated. There are three airport/land use
compatibility issues addressed in the 2012 SFO ALUCP that relate to the proposed project: (a)
consistency with noise compatibility policies, (b) safety criteria, and (c) airspace compatibility criteria.
31 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter I, Subchapter E, Part 77.
32 2012 SFO ALUCP, Exhibit W -2, p. IV -5.
36
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
NOISE POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The 2012 SFO ALUCP uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level 65 dB noise contour for determining
land use compatibility. The proposed project site is located outside of the Community Noise Equivalent
Level 65 dB noise contour.33 Based upon this analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with
2012 SFO ALUCP noise policies.
SAFETY POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook requires ALUCPs to include safety zones for each
runway end. The 2012 SFO LUCP includes five safety zones and related land use compatibility criteria.
The proposed project site is located outside of all safety zones established for the 2012 SFO LUCP.
Therefore, the safety policy is not applicable to the proposed project.
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES, USE OF AIRSPACE, AND AIRSPACE COMPATIBILITY
The City is located inside the 14 CFR Part 77 horizontal, conical, primary, approach and transitional
imaginary surface contours. The parcels for the proposed project are located within the horizontal surface
contour. The height for the imaginary surface established for the horizontal surface at the site location is
163.2 feet above mean sea level. The proposed project parcels are located at between 12 and 23 feet
above mean sea level. The proposed buildings under the proposed project are designed to be constructed
at a maximum building height of 99 feet above ground level. The existing project site is at a ground level
between 12 and 23 feet, and maximum structure heights would be approximately 110 to 122 feet above
mean sea level. A structure built at a maximum of 122 feet above mean sea level would be well below the
imaginary surface height established.
Under federal law, the project sponsor is required to comply with all notifications and other requirements
described in 14 CFR Part 77. The project sponsor of the proposed project is required to file Form 7460 -1,
Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA to determine whether the project would
constitute a hazard to air navigation. Based on the proposed project's maximum height of 122 feet above
mean sea level, no additional safety requirements are anticipated. Therefore, the proposed project would
be consistent with the airspace policies as established in the adopted 2012 SFO ALUCP.
Climate Action Plan
The purpose of the South San Francisco Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in 2014, is to demonstrate
the City's continued commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while protecting unique
resources in the City. The CAP provides goals, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to
climate change, and support the goals of Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 743. Measures and standards
identified in the CAP allow the City to simplify the development review process and determine whether
projects are eligible for streamlining incentives. The CAP meets the requirements of a Qualified GHG
Reduction Strategy and, consistent with the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, presents a target
reduction of 15 percent below baseline 2005 GHG emissions levels by 2020.
The CAP provides guidance for a scientific and regulatory framework, a GHG emissions inventory, a
GHG reduction strategy, adaptation and resiliency, and implementation. In particular, the CAP includes a
Development Checklist for City staff to use to identify applicable CAP measures for discretionary
projects and required mitigation standards. The Development Checklist serves as the summary of project-
33 2012 SFO ALUCP, Exhibit W -2, p. IV -5.
37
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
level standards from the CAP. For discretionary projects seeking to use CEQA streamlining provisions,
the City may require CAP measures as mandatory conditions of approval or as mitigation of identified
GHG emission impacts. Relevant criteria include, but are not limited to, the following questions:
• Does the project include bicycle facilities (e.g., bicycle lanes, parking, lockers)?
• Will the project support bike sharing /rental programs?
• Will there be a commute shuttle or public transit stop on -site or within 500 feet?
• Will the project provide traffic calming treatments?
• Is the project paying a traffic impact fee to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements?
• Will the project provide designated parking spaces for electric vehicles, carpool vehicles, or other
low- emissions vehicles?
• Will certification of the building be sought under LEED or other green building criteria?
• Will any renewable energy system be installed as part of this project?
• Will any water features exceed CALGreen standards?
• Will the project incorporate low- impact development practices?
• Will any xeriscaping be installed?
• Will captured rainwater or graywater be used for irrigation?
Consistency with Climate Action Plan, Proposed Project
The proposed project would include alternative transportation- related amenities (bicycle facilities, bike
sharing, commute shuttle, electric vehicle and carpool vehicle parking spaces); a contribution to the City
traffic impact fee; adherence to LEED, City, and NPDES conservation measures (water conservation, low
impact development, and landscaping); and photovoltaic solar panels on new office/R &D buildings. A
detailed description of the proposed project's design features in relation to each CAP criteria, is discussed
below in Table 5, Analysis of Consistency with the CAP.
38
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Table 4.5.4: Analysis of Consistency with the CAP
CAP Measures and Actions
Consistency Analysis
Measure 1.1: Expand active transportation alternatives by
The proposed project would involve construction of new
providing infrastructure and enhancing connectivity for bicycle
sidewalks, walkways, and bicycle amenities (bicycle parking
and pedestrian access;
spaces, showers, lockers, etc.). The project sponsor would also
contribute to the Commute.org shuttle program and coordinate
with other program participants to expand shuttle service.
Measure 1.2: Support expansion of public and private transit
The proposed project would involve preparation and
programs to reduce employee commutes.
implementation of a TDM Plan, subject to review by the Chief
Work with businesses to support and expand shuttle
Planner and approval by the Planning Commission. The TDM
connections to transit.
Plan would include various measures to promote alternative
Continue to enforce the City's Transportation Demand
transportation, including contribution to the Commute.org shuttle
Management (TDM) program to require employers to
program and coordination with other program participants to
demonstrate achieved mode share and to continually adjust
expand shuttle service.
their programs to meet the requisite goals.
Partner with local businesses to expand private shuttle
programs for employee commutes, share local lessons learned,
and connect businesses to shuttle resources.
Implement programs and encourage employers to provide
additional voluntary subsidies or incentives
Measure 1.3: Integrate higher- density development and mixed-
The project site is not located near a major transit hub or
use development near transit facilities and community facilities,
community facility. However, the proposed project would involve
and reduce dependence on autos through smart parking
contribution to the Commute.org shuttle program, which
practices.
provides connectivity to Bay Area Rapid Transit, Caltrain, and
Revise the existing traffic impact fee for development east of US
ferry services.
Route 101 to fund the bicycle and pedestrian improvements for
In addition to paying into the traffic impact fee, the proposed
the portions of the city identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian
project would involve construction of new sidewalks and bicycle
Master Plans.
amenities (bicycle parking spaces, showers, lockers, etc.) to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity.
Measure 2.1: Expand the use of alternative -fuel vehicles.
The proposed project would provide off - street parking spaces,
• Revise parking design guidelines to include
including designated spaces for electric vehicles, carpool,
designated spaces for electric vehicles, carpool
vanpool, and other shared vehicle uses.
vehicles, and other low- emissions vehicles.
• Require new large -scale nonresidential developments
to provide a conduit for future electric vehicle charging
installations, and encourage the installation of
conduits or electric vehicle charging stations for all
new development.
Measure 2.2: Reduce emissions from off -road vehicles and
The proposed project would contribute construction - period
equipment.
emissions from off -road vehicles and equipment during the
• Work with applicants through the CEQA review
construction period. As a condition of approval, the City will
process to reduce construction equipment emissions
require the construction contractor to use alternatively powered
by encouraging the use of alternatively powered or
or electrically- driven construction vehicles and equipment when
grid- connected equipment.
feasible.
Measure 3.1: Maximize energy efficiency in the built
The proposed project would be designed to enhance resource
environment through standards and the plan review process.
efficiency and ensure good indoor environmental quality, as well
• Encourage the use of CALGreen energy efficiency
as reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and waste.
measures as a preferred mitigation for CAP
The project would be designed to meet the standards of the City
streamlining.
municipal code and CALGreen building requirements, as well as
LEED v4 "Gold" design standards. The project would be
designed to meet International WELL and FITWELL Building
Institute Standards and may also be certified thereto.
Measure 3.3: Encourage energy efficiency retrofits to the
The proposed project would not involve retrofits to existing
existing nonresidential building stock that reduce operating costs
nonresidential buildings. However, the proposed project would
and increase industry competitiveness.
be designed to enhance resource efficiency and reduce energy
• Encourage all nonresidential properties to provide
consumption per CALGreen building requirements, LEED v4
buyers or tenants with the previous year's energy use
"Gold" design standards and International WELL Building
by documenting use through the EPA's EnergyStar
Institute Standards.
Portfolio Manager.
• Require nonresidential alterations or additions of at
least 5,000 square feet or greater in size to comply
39
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
with minimum CALGreen requirements.
• Encourage the use of smart grid, energy- efficient, or
Energy Star appliances in new development.
Measure 3.4: Address heat island issues and expand the urban The proposed project would involve planting of approximately
forest. 263 new trees, including street trees and on -site landscaping.
• Encourage the use of high albedo surfaces and
technologies as appropriate, as identified in the
voluntary CALGreen standards.
• Continue to require tree planting in new development
in accordance with Chapter 13.30 of the Zoning Code,
and encourage tree placement to maximize building
shading.
Measure 4.1: Promote installation of alternative energy facilities.
• Require the construction of any new nonresidential
conditioned space 5,000 square feet or more, or the
conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet
or more, to comply with one of the following
standards:
• Meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building
electricity needs with on -site renewable energy
sources. To calculate 50% of building electricity
needs for the new conditioned space, the
applicant shall calculate building electricity use
as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Total
electricity use shall include total use for the new
conditioned space excluding process energy.
• Participate in a power purchase agreement to
offset a minimum of 50% of modeled building
electricity use. Building electricity use shall be
calculated using the method identified above.
• Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency
requirements to exceed mandatory energy
efficiency requirements by 20% or more. For
additions to existing development of 5,000
square feet or more, CALGreen Tier 2 shall be
calculated as part of the Title 24 compliance
process. Existing building space already
permitted shall not be subject to CALGreen Tier
2 requirements.
• Require all new development to install conduit to
accommodate wiring for solar.
Measure 5.1: Develop a waste reduction strategy to increase
recycling and reuse of materials to achieve a 75% diversion of
landfilled waste by 2020.
• Continue to enforce the existing construction and
demolition recycling ordinance, requiring 100% of inert
waste and 65% of noninert waste to be recycled from
all eligible projects.
Measure 6.1: Reduce water demand.
• Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking
the following:
• Establishing a variable -speed pump exchange
for water features.
• Limiting turf area in commercial and large multi-
family projects.
• Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between
3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise.
• Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
• Landscaping with native, water - efficient plants.
• Installing drip irrigation systems.
• Reducing impervious surfaces.
We
The proposed project would be designed to meet the standards
of the City municipal code and CALGreen Tier 2 energy
efficiency requirements, as well as LEED v4 "Gold" design
standards and International WELL Building Institute Standards.
This would include construction of rooftop solar photovoltaic
panel connectivity located on the parking garage.
The proposed project would be designed to reduce waste. The
project would be designed to meet the standards of the City
municipal code and CALGreen building requirements, as well as
LEED v4 "Gold" design standards and International WELL
Building Institute Standards.
For construction and demolition, 100 percent of all inert solids
(building materials) and 65 percent of non -inert solids (all other
materials) would be recycled as required by the City under
Chapter 15.60 of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the project
sponsor would submit a Waste Management Plan.
The proposed project would be designed to reduce water
consumption. The project would not involve construction of new
on -site turf areas or water features. Landscaping and irrigation
would be designed to meet the standards of the City municipal
code and CALGreen building requirements, as well as LEED v4
"Gold" design standards.
The proposed project would also be designed to conserve
resources and protect water quality through the management of
stormwater runoff as part of green infrastructure through low -
impact development (LID). This approach implements
engineered controls to allow stormwater filtering, storage, and
flood control.
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Measure 6.2: Provide alternative water resources for irrigation. The proposed project would be designed to conserve water
• Create water policies for the stormwater management resources including controlled stormwater flows through paved
strategy that seek to capture storm runoff (e.g., areas into designated bioretention areas or storm drains.
bioswale, rainwater collection, and irrigation Portions of roof areas would also be designed as green roofs
programs). that would provide filtration. Stormwater received through all
• Continue to implement the City's Water Efficient proposed roof areas would be routed to the ground level through
Landscape Guidelines. downspouts and conveyed to bioretention areas. The proposed
new office /R &D uses would adhere to LEED, City, and NPDES
conservation measures applicable to water conservation, LID,
and landscaping requirements.
The project sponsor, in coordination with City staff, would perform ongoing review and identification of
applicable CAP Measures for New Development, or for Additions, Alterations, and Tenant
Improvements, to be incorporated into the proposed project as project features, mitigation of
environmental effects, or mandatory conditions of approval commensurate with the project's intensity of
use and site - specific conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the CAP.
OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES
San Francisco Bay Plan
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), created by the McAteer -
Petris Act (California Government Code Sections 66600 - 66682), functions as the State's coastal
management agency for San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) was prepared by
BCDC from 1965 through 1969 and amended through 2007 in accordance with the McAteer - Petris Act.
The Bay Plan guides the protection and use of the San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. BCDC has permit
jurisdiction for the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties with San Francisco Bay frontage over areas
subject to tidal action up to the mean high tide line and including all sloughs, tidelands, submerged lands,
and marshlands lying between the mean high tide and 5 feet above mean sea level, and the land lying
between the San Francisco Bay shoreline and a line drawn parallel to, and 100 feet from, the San
Francisco Bay shoreline, known as the 100 -foot shoreline band. Under the McAteer - Petris Act, BCDC
has permit authority for the placement of fill, extraction of materials, or substantial changes in use of land,
water, or structures within its jurisdiction, and to enforce policies aimed at protecting the San Francisco
Bay and its shoreline, as well as maximizing public access to the San Francisco Bay.
One parcel within the project site, the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel, is adjacent to the San Francisco
Bay Trail and is within 100 feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline. As described above, the parcel is
currently developed with existing office/R &D uses. Under the proposed project, additional office /R &D
use on this parcel would be allowed through rezoning of the parcel. The remaining project parcels are not
within 100 feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline and are not subject to BCDC jurisdiction. The
proposed Phase 1 construction is outside of the 100 -foot shoreline band. Site - specific, project -level
design of Phase 2 is not currently proposed and would be subject to a separate plan review and
discretionary approval process. If Phase 2 development were proposed within the 100 -foot shoreline
band, that development would be subject to BCDC review and approval.
Appearance, Design, and Scenic View Policies
Several policies of the Bay Plan are aimed at protecting the San Francisco Bay's scenic views, and the
appearance and design of the Bayfront and adjacent developments. The Bay Plan policies that are most
relevant to the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel with respect to appearance, design, and scenic views are
as follows:
41
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Policy 1. To enhance the visual quality of development around the Bay and to take maximum
advantage of the attractive setting it provides, the shores of the Bay should be developed in
accordance with the Public Access Design Guidelines.
Policy 2. All bayfront development should be designed to enhance the pleasure of the user or
viewer of the Bay. Maximum efforts should be made to provide, enhance, or preserve views of
the Bay and shoreline, especially from public areas, from the Bay itself, and from the opposite
shore. To this end, planning of waterfront development should include participation by
professionals who are knowledgeable of the Commission's concerns, such as landscape
architects, urban designers, or architects, in conjunction with engineers and professionals in other
fields.
Policy 4. Structures and facilities that do not take advantage of or visually complement the Bay
should be located and designed so as not to impact visually on the Bay and shoreline. In
particular, parking areas should be located away from the shoreline. However, some small
parking areas for fishing access and Bay viewing may be allowed in exposed locations.
Policy 8. Shoreline developments should be built in clusters, leaving areas open around them to
permit more frequent views of the Bay. Developments along the shores of tributary waterways
should be Bay- related and should be designed to preserve and enhance views along the waterway,
so as to provide maximum visual contact with the Bay.
Policy 12. In order to achieve a high level of design quality, the Commission's Design Review
Board, composed of design and planning professionals, should review, evaluate, and advise the
Commission on the proposed design of developments that affect the appearance of the Bay in
accordance with the Bay Plan findings and policies on Public Access; on Appearance, Design,
and Scenic Views; and the Public Access Design Guidelines. City, county, regional, state, and
federal agencies should be guided in their evaluation of Bayfront projects by the above
guidelines.
Policy 14. Views of the Bay from vista points and from roads should be maintained by
appropriate arrangements and heights of all developments and landscaping between the view
areas and the water. In this regard, particular attention should be given to all waterfront locations,
areas below vista points, and areas along roads that provide good views of the Bay for travelers,
particularly areas below roads coming over ridges and providing a "first view" of the Bay (shown
in Bay Plan Map No. 8, Natural Resources of the Bay). 14
Consistency with San Francisco Bay Plan, 400 -450 East Jamie Court
For the proposed project, BCDC's jurisdiction includes the San Francisco Bay and areas within 100 feet
inland of the mean high tide line. A portion of the existing 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel is under
BCDC's jurisdiction. Outside the shoreline band, the parcel and contains two existing office/R &D
buildings and access to the San Francisco Bay Trail. The proposed Phase 1 development of the parcel also
would be outside the shoreline band. Inside the shoreline band, the parcel contains a portion of parking
lot, asphalt walking paths, viewing and seating area, concrete plaza, and landscaping.35 Views of the San
34 Bay Plan Map No. 8 has been removed from the Bay Plan. Bay Plan Map No. 5 provides current information on scenic and
sensitive resources in the Central Bay.
35 In 2003, BCDC issued a permit (BCDC Permit No. M02 -70, originally issued on July 17, 2003, and currently consisting of
Corrected Permit No. M02 -70 dated October 30, 2003, and Amendment No. Two dated June 26, 2006; as corrected and
amended, the "BCDC Permit ") regarding the use of certain portions of the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel for public Bayshore
42
201 Haskins Way Project
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
October 12, 2018
Francisco Bay from local roads or from the project site may change with additional development of
office /R &D uses at 400 -450 East Jamie Court, such as new additions to existing buildings, new or taller
buildings, or reduced open surface parking area. However, the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel is not
located on a site designated as a vista point, wildlife refuge, or waterfront park under Bay Plan Map 5
(Central Bay). The existing site and surrounding land uses include light industrial uses, office /R &D uses,
and a recycling center use. Additional office /R &D use on the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel would be
consistent with the character of these existing uses. Nonetheless, new development or changes to the
existing site plan at the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel under either the proposed project would be
designed to maintain compatibility with appearance, design, and scenic view policies established by the
Bay Plan and site development would require BCDC review. Any future changes to trail access would be
also be designed in consideration of BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines, including site furnishings,
signage, and other public access improvements. BCDC would make the final determination of
consistency with Bay Plan policies for the portions of the project site that are within its permit
jurisdiction.
The BCDC Design Review Board also reviews and makes recommendations to the Commission on the
appearance and design of proposed projects, evaluating them in light of the policies for Appearance,
Design, and Scenic Views. However, its recommendations are advisory only and are not of themselves
grounds for denying a permit. Outside the area of the Commission's jurisdiction where permits for
development from the Commission are not required, the McAteer - Petris Act specifies that the provisions
of the Bay Plan pertaining to such areas are simply advisory to the applicant.
access. Development of Phase 1 of the proposed project would not impact the portion of the 400 -450 East Jamie Court parcel
affected by the BCDC Permit. Phase 2 of the proposed project would be reviewed for consistency with the BCDC Permit.
43