HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 10-04-12 (Reso 2721-2012) - Entitlements 328 Roebling - REVISED final with conditions updateRESOLUTION NO. 2721-2012
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
A USE PERMIT, PARCEL MAP, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, MASTER SIGN PERMIT, PRELIMINARY
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN,
AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT AND OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT 328
ROEBLING ROAD
WHEREAS, Bayside Area Development, LLC (“Owner” or “Applicant”) has proposed to
demolish existing buildings on the Project Site totaling 79,504 square feet, and construct two
new 2-story office/R&D buildings totaling 105,536 square feet, with a combination of at-grade
and subterranean parking at a ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet (“Project”) on an
approximately 2.97 acre site, located at 328 Roebling Road (“Project Site”) in the City of South
San Francisco (“City”); and,
WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Parcel Map, Development
Agreement, Master Sign Permit, Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”)
Plan, and Design Review; and,
WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”);
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the
information in the IS/MND, and by separate resolution, recommends the City Council adopt the
IS/MND, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project’s environmental impacts; and,
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2012 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
IS/MND and the proposed entitlements, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to
the City Council on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan
Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project; all reports, minutes,
and public testimony submitted as part of the Design Review Board meeting held on December
15, 2009; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission’s meeting held on October 4, 2012; and any other evidence (within the meaning of
Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of
South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
I. General Findings
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
B. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Conditions of Project
Approval (Exhibit A), the proposed Development Agreement (Exhibit B), and the preliminary
TDM plan (Exhibit C) are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if each
were set forth fully herein.
C. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
II. Use Permit
A. The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the
City's Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Business Technology Park (“BTP”)
Zoning District. The Project meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the
BTP Zoning District, with the exception of parking, on-site loading, and on-site retail. The
exceptions for parking, on-site loading and on-site retail are permissible and warranted by the
City’s Zoning Ordinance.
B. The proposed Project, including the Use Permit, Parcel Map, Development
Agreement, Master Sign Permit, Preliminary TDM Plan, and Design Review, are consistent and
compatible with all elements in the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The General Plan
includes policies and programs that are designed to encourage the development of research and
development and office uses in the East of 101 Area. Further, the land uses, development
standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the
goals, policies, and land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov’t Code,
§ 65860), and none of the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings
and structures will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals,
policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
Specifically, the project site is designated Business and Technology Park and zoned Business
Technology Park (“BTP”). This designation and zoning district accommodates R&D uses,
subject to certain development and FAR restrictions. The proposed Project complies with
development restrictions and proposes a FAR of 0.81, which conforms to the maximum
allowable FAR in the Business and Technology Park General Plan designation with an
acceptable TDM plan and meeting high design standards.
C. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because
the proposed use is consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the site, which is
predominantly office/research and development (“R&D”). The Project proposes Office/R&D use
on a site located in the City's East of 101 Area, which is intended for this type of use. The East of
101 Area Plan and General Plan have analyzed this type of use in the East of 101 Area, and
concluded that office and R&D uses in the East of 101 Area are not adverse to the public health,
safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is consistent with surrounding land uses, approval of
the Project will not be detrimental to the nearby properties.
D. The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the
City's Zoning Code, with the exception of parking, on-site loading, and on-site retail
requirements. The exceptions for parking, on-site loading and on-site retail are permissible and
warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project is located in the BTP zoning
district, and meets the minimum standards and requirements for that district.
The exception for the number of parking spaces is allowable under the City's Municipal Code
Section 20.330.006(D), and warranted based on the following findings:
1. The parking reduction will serve to support and promote the Project’s
TDM program.
2. The Project provides 94% of the required parking spaces and is required,
through the TDM program, to achieve an alternative mode use of 35%. The site is not
anticipated to result in a shortfall of on-site parking or create the need for overflow parking off-
site.
3. The proposed parking standard of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet will be
adequate for the proposed use because of the offered alternative solutions for providing and
managing parking. The Project is required to implement a Transportation Demand Management
Program on an on-going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift
of 35%. The TDM requirements required of the Project, the fact that similar reduced standards
have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several large developments in the City,
including the Gateway Specific Plan District, Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, Britannia
East Grand and the Genentech Campus, and the studies from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) all support a reduced parking standard.
4. The reduced parking rate reinforces the overall efforts of the City’s
General Plan and the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, which encourage reduced
parking standards as an effective tool in encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation
other than single occupancy vehicles.
5. The number of parking spaces provided by the reduced standard will serve
all existing, proposed and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would the standard
number of parking spaces required by Chapter 20.330. As described above, there is ample
evidence to support the proposed parking reduction, and there is added concern that an
overabundance of parking could have a deleterious effect on the goals and objectives of the
City’s TDM efforts since such would serve as a disincentive to use of alternative modes of
transportation.
The exception for on-site loading is allowable and warranted based on the City’s Municipal Code
Section 20.330.009(B)(1), which allows the Chief Planner and City Engineer to waive the
loading space requirement upon a finding by the Chief Planner and City Engineer that the
applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that due to the nature of the proposed use, such loading
space will not be needed. Based on written materials submitted by the Applicant, and based on
the nature of the research and development use and previously approved projects, which receive
minimal deliveries, the Chief Planner and City Engineer find that the on-site loading requirement
will not be required.
The exception for on-site retail is allowable and warranted based on the City’s Municipal Code
Section 20.110.004(J)(1), which only requires the on-site retail where feasible. The Applicant
has submitted a satisfactory written explanation as to why meeting this requirement is not
feasible for a small-scale R&D project such as this Project. Based on the size of the Project,
surrounding employer density, size of potential tenants, and lack of any other retail uses in the
area, on-site retail for this Project would be infeasible.
E. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project
are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity
because the Project proposes office and research and development uses in the East of 101 Area,
which is specifically intended for such uses.
F. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed,
as the research and development and office uses will benefit from being located in East of 101
Area, and the size of the development is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land
use and zoning standards.
G. By Resolution No. ___, the Planning Commission, exercising its independent
judgment, has found that an IS/MND was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA,
which adequately analyzes the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts. The Planning
Commission has further found that the Project, with mitigation proposed in the IS/MND, will not
exceed established CEQA thresholds of significance.
III. Development Agreement
A. The Owner and City have negotiated a Development Agreement pursuant to
Government Code section 65864 et seq. The Development Agreement, attached hereto as
Exhibit B, sets for the duration, property, project criteria, and other required information
identified in Government Code section 65865.2. Based on the findings in support of the Project,
the Planning Commission finds that the Development Agreement, vesting a project for an
office/R&D development, is consistent with the General Plan and consistent with the applicable
zoning regulations.
IV. Master Sign Permit
A. The proposed signs are compatible in style and character with the buildings to
which the signs are to be attached, any surrounding structures and any adjoining signage on the
site because the proposed signs were designed to be in keeping with the architectural design of
the buildings, using similar materials and colors.
B. Future tenants will be provided with adequate opportunities to construct, erect or
maintain a sign for identification in that the proposed sign program allows for individual tenant
signs and campus monument signs.
C. Directional signage and building addressing has been incorporated throughout the
development and is adequate for pedestrian and vehicular circulation and emergency vehicle
access.
V. Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan
A. The Project proposes increasing the allowable Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) for the
site to 0.81, and is requesting approval of a Preliminary TDM Plan.
B. As required under State law, the South San Francisco General Plan, and the South
San Francisco Municipal Code, in support of the requested TDM Plan (TDM07-0004), the
Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. The proposed TDM measures are feasible and appropriate for the Project,
considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the Project’s location, size and hours of
operation. Sufficient measures have been included in the plan to achieve a projected 35%
alternative mode usage, as required.
2. The performance guarantees provided in the plan will ensure that the
target 35% alternative mode use will be achieved and maintained. Conditions of approval have
been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be submitted for review and
approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going
monitoring including annual surveys and annual reports.
VI. Design Review
A. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code for the reasons set forth in Findings II.A and II.D, above.
B. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan
because the proposed Research and Development buildings are consistent with the policies and
design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the BTP land use
designation.
C. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the design guidelines
adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Employment
District Standards included in Chapter 20.110.
D. The Project is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the City Council
in that the proposed use is consistent with the Business and Technology Park District
Development Standards and Supplemental Regulations included in Sections 20.110.003 and
20.110.004.
E. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section
20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated against, and
found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design
Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Use Permit, Parcel Map, Master Sign
Permit, Preliminary TDM Plan, and Design Review for the Project, subject to the Conditions of
Approval attached as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the City
Council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed Development Agreement, attached as
Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 4th day of October, 2012 by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Gupta, Commissioner Martin,
Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and
Chairperson Zemke
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Attest: /s/Susy Kalkin
SusyKalkin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Exhibit A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
P07-0012: UP07-0011, DR07-0050, SIGNS09-0034, DA12-0001, TDM07-0004, ND07-
0002 & PM12-0001
USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND TDM
328 ROEBLING ROAD
(As recommended by City Staff October 4, 2012)
A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows:
1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Division’s standard Conditions and
Limitations for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-family Residential Projects.
2. The project shall be completed and operated substantially as indicated in the plans
prepared by DES Architects, dated April 26, 2012.
3. All equipment (either roof or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view through
the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and
landscape screening. Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to
match the building.
4. TDM
a. Transportation Demand Management. Owner shall prepare and implement a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan in compliance with the
requirements of SSFMC Chapter 20.400 as in effect on the Effective Date (the
“TDM Ordinance”). As part of such compliance, Owner shall prepare (i) annual
TDM surveys and (ii) triennial TDM reports, each meeting the applicable
requirements of the TDM Ordinance, and shall submit same to the City, to
document the effectiveness of Owner’s TDM Plan in achieving the goal of thirty-
five percent (35%) alternative mode usage by employees within the Project. The
annual surveys will be prepared by a TDM consultant pre-qualified with or
approved by the City and retained, directed and paid for by Owner, and the
triennial reports will be prepared by an independent TDM consultant retained by
the City and paid for by Owner. Both the annual surveys and the triennial reports
will include a determination of historical employee commute methods, which
information shall be obtained by survey of all employees working in the buildings
on the Property. If the response rate on which a triennial report is based is below
51 percent, additional responses needed to reach a 51 percent response rate will be
counted as drive alone trips.
b. TDM Surveys and Reports: The initial TDM survey for each building on the
Property will be submitted two (2) years after the granting of a Certificate of
Occupancy with respect to such building. The initial triennial TDM report for
each building on the Property will be submitted three (3) years after the granting
of a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to such building. The second and all
later annual surveys and triennial reports (when applicable) with respect to each
building shall be included in an annual comprehensive TDM submission to the
City covering all of the buildings on the Property that are submitting their second
or later TDM surveys or reports.
c. (A) Triennial Report Requirements: The goal of the TDM program is to
encourage alternative mode usage, as defined in Chapter 20.400 of the Municipal
Code. The initial triennial TDM report shall either: (A) state that the applicable
building or buildings have achieved thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode
usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the
goal; or (B) state that the applicable building or buildings have not achieved
thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of
how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional
measures that will be adopted in the coming year to try to ensure attaining the
TDM goal of thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage.
(B) Penalty for Non-Compliance: If, after the initial triennial TDM report,
subsequent triennial reports indicate that, in spite of the changes in the TDM
Plan, thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage is still not being
achieved, or if Owner fails to submit such a triennial TDM report at the times
required under SSFMC Chapter 20.400, the City may assess Owner a penalty
in the amount of up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per year for each
full percentage point by which the Property falls below the minimum thirty-
five percent (35%) alternative mode usage goal.
(i) In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, the City may
consider whether Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM
goals.
(ii) If the City determines that Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the
TDM goals but a penalty is still imposed, and such penalty is imposed
within the first three (3) years in which a penalty could be imposed in
connection with the TDM Plan, the City in its sole discretion may agree to
allow Owner to apply such penalty sums toward the implementation of the
TDM Plan instead of requiring them to be paid to the City. If the penalty
sums are used to implement the TDM Plan, an Implementation Plan shall
be prepared by Owner and reviewed and approved by the City prior to
Owner’s expending any penalty funds.
(iii) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amount of any penalty shall bear the
same relationship to the maximum penalty as the completed construction
to which the penalty applies bears to the maximum amount of square feet
of Office, Commercial, Retail (if any) and Research and Development use
permitted to be constructed on the Property. For example, if there is
100,000 square feet of completed construction on the Property included
within the TDM report with respect to which the penalty is imposed, the
maximum penalty would be determined by multiplying fifteen thousand
dollars ($15,000.00) times a fraction, the numerator of which is 100,000
square feet and the denominator of which is the maximum amount of
square feet of construction permitted on the Property (subtracting the
square footage of the parking facilities); this amount would then be
multiplied by the number of full percentage points by which the Project
has fallen below the thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage goal
for the applicable period.
d. Owner shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in maintaining and enforcing
the trip reduction program for the Project.
5. Prior to the final occupancy of each building, the developer shall pay Childcare
Impact Fee in effect at the time as required by SSFMC Section 20.310 for the
Office/Research and Development space. The current fee per square foot is $0.57.
The total fee for both buildings is estimated to be $17,223.16 (($0.57/sf x 105, 536) -
($0.54/sf x 79,504 sf)).
6. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation monitoring measures and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program associated with Mitigated Negative Declaration
ND07-0002.
7. Prior to the issuance of any sign permits for the project, a revised Master Sign
Program, which includes maximum sign areas allowed and allowed sign illumination,
shall be submitted for Chief Planner review and approval. The revised sign program
shall substantially comply with the “Britannia Modular Lab III Master Signage
Program”, submitted by HCP Life Sciences.
8. The applicant shall submit the location and proposed screening (if applicable) for all
required utilities. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner prior to
submittal for building permits.
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence in a form
acceptable to the Chief Planner that future leases will assure that balconies on each
building shall remain accessible as an outdoor amenity space generally available to all
employees of the facility.
10. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the Lot Merger and Lot Line Adjustment
shall be recorded at the County of San Mateo.
Planning Division contact Linda Ajello, Associate Planner, (650) 877-8353
B. Fire Department conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Fire sprinkler system shall be installed per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under
separate fire plan check and permit for overhead and underground.
2. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code
section 1003.3.
3. A standpipe system shall be installed per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under
separate fire plan check and permit.
4. An exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device shall be installed, not a bell.
5. Elevator if provided shall not contain shunt-trips.
6. At least one elevator shall be sized for a gurney the minimum size shall be in
accordance with the CFC.
7. Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code.
8. Plans are to conform to Building codes and the City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code. Section 15.24.130.
9. Fire extinguishers shall be provided throughout the building.
10. All Non parking space curbs shall be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications
11. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load
of 75,000 pounds.
12. Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined.
13. Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 400 feet between hydrants.
14. The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3000 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure for duration of 4 hours.
15. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal
code section 15.24.100.
16. A Knox key box shall be provided for each building with access keys to entry doors,
electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined.
17. The minimum road width shall be 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
18. Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at
http://www.ssf.net/depts/fire/prevention/fire_permits.asp
19. All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in
compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
Fire Department contact, Luis Da Silva, (650) 829-6645
C. Engineering Division conditions of approval are as follows:
I. STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. The developer shall comply with the applicable conditions of approval for
commercial projects, as detailed in the Engineering Division’s “Standard Conditions
for Commercial and Industrial Developments”, contained in our “Standard
Development Conditions” booklet, dated January 2009. This booklet is available at no
cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division and can be downloaded from the
City’s web site.
II. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. The developer shall obtain a demolition permit to demolish the existing buildings.
The demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division and the
developer shall pay all fees and deposits for the permit. The developer shall
submit an erosion and stormwater pollution control plan for the demolition work
and cleared site. The developer shall provide letters from all public utilities stating
all utility services have been properly disconnected from the existing buildings.
B. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division. The developer
will be responsible for paying for all fees, bonds, plan checking and all associated
fees for the grading permit. The developer will also place a cash deposit of
$30,000 to pay for all onsite, SWPPP compliance, grading compliance and dust
control inspections.
C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted,
reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. The developer shall place a
$5,000 cash deposit with the City for the peer review of the Geotechnical Report.
D. The developer shall remove and replace all sidewalks fronting the project. The
new sidewalk shall comply with the City standard detail and shall provide the
minimum ADA width. The developer shall also install all necessary ADA
handicap ramps, where needed. All work shall be done at no cost to the City.
E. The driveway located on East Grand Avenue shall be right-turn in and out of the
site. A R1 “Stop” sign with a “Right Turn Only” sign shall be placed at this
driveway. All other exit driveways shall be posted with an R1 “Stop” sign
mounted on a steel pole.
F. The developer shall remove any existing railroad tracks and appurtenances at the
end of Roebling Road that are located within the landscaped area as shown on
sheet L-1 of the plans dated April 26, 2012. All work shall be done at no cost to
the City.
G. The developer shall incorporate bio-grassy swales and other Best Management
Practices as stormwater measures within the project. Plans for these improvements
shall be approved by the Engineering Division and the Environmental Compliance
Manager.
H. One sewer lateral with a minimum size of 6” shall service each building. A
sanitary sewer manhole shall be installed onsite, near the property line, to serve as
a cleanout for the lateral as it connects to the City’s sanitary sewer system.
I. The developer shall coordinate with the California Water Service for all water
utility work.
J. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit for all work to be performed
within the City’s street rights-of-way and pay all associated fees, deposit and/or
bonds. The developer shall submit an Engineer’s estimate for all work performed
within the City’s rights-of-way and submit a bond or cash deposit equal to the
value of the improvements to secure said work.
K. The applicant shall underground the existing utilities along the entire East Grand
Avenue & Roebling Road frontage of the property at no cost to the City. The
undergrounding of existing electrical utilities on the said frontages of the Project
shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the second
of the two buildings to be constructed as part of the Project; provided, however,
that so long as Owner has initiated the undergrounding process with PG&E a
reasonable time in advance of the anticipated completion date for the second of
the two buildings to be constructed as part of the Project and has pursued such
process (to the extent within Owner’s control) with reasonable diligence, any
failure of PG&E to complete such undergrounding by the time construction of
such second building is complete shall not delay the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for such building. A phased plan shall be submitted to the
Engineering Division showing the undergrounding of the utilities in a joint trench.
The Developer shall provide an engineer’s estimate and a surety bond in the
amount of the engineer’s estimate for all said work. The bond shall be released
upon satisfactory completion of all said work.
L. All project signage shall be located entirely within the applicant’s property and
shall not encroach into the public street right-of-way.
M. The developer shall replace and install all lighting along the East Grand Avenue &
Roebling Road frontage of the subject property within the City’s right-of-way
with the approved light standard for the East of 101 Area at no cost to the City.
N. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project, the applicant shall pay
various infrastructure mitigation fees as detailed below.
III. OYSTER POINT OVERPASS CONTRIBUTION FEE
Prior to receiving a Building Permit for the proposed new office/R&D development, the
applicant shall pay the Oyster Point Overpass fee, as determined by the City Engineer, in
accordance with City Council Resolutions 102-96 and 152-96. The fee will be calculated
upon reviewing the information shown on the applicant's construction plans and the latest
Engineering News Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index at the time of payment.
The estimated fee for the entire subject 105,536 GSF office and R&D development is
calculated below. (The number in the calculation, "10,364.34", is the September 2012
Engineering News Record San Francisco construction cost index, which is revised each
month to reflect local inflation changes in the construction industry.)
Oyster Point Overpass Fee - $214,368.29
105,536 gsf Office/R&D use @ 12.3 trips per 1000 gsf = 1,298 new vehicle trips
Less credit for an existing 71,786 gsf Warehouse @ 4.5 trips per 1000 gsf = 323 trips
Less credit for an existing 7,715 gsf Office @ 12.3 trips per 1000 gsf = 95 trips
Total existing trips = 323 + 95 = 418 trips
Total new trips = 1,298 - 418 = 880 new vehicle trips
Contribution Calculation: 880 X $154 X (10,364.34/6552.16) = $214,368.29
IV. EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any building within the proposed
project, the applicant shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee, In accordance with
the resolution adopted by the City Council at their meeting of May 23, 2007, or as the
fee may be amended in the future.
Fee Calculation (effective July 1, 2012)
105,536 gsf Office/R&D @ $5.22 per each square foot =$550,897.92
Credit for existing trips:
71,786 gsf Warehouse @ 0.54 trip per 1000 gsf x $4950/trip = $191,883.98
7,715 gsf Office @ .90 trips per 1000 gsf x $4950/trip = $34,370.33
Traffic Impact Fee = $ 324,643.61
V. SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY STUDY AND IMPROVEMENT FEE
The applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee, as
adopted by the City Council at their meeting of October 23, 2002. The adopted fee is
$3.19 per gallon of discharge per day. The new fee effective July 1, 2012 is $4.25. It
is determined that Office/R&D generates 400 gallons per day per 1000 square feet of
development. Based upon this calculation, the potential fee would be, if paid this
year:
0.4 g/sf (400 gpd/1000 sq. ft.) x $4.25 per gallon x 105,536 sq. ft. = $179,411.20
Credit for existing building office portion given if more than 25% of facility, no credit
given for warehouse.
The sewer contribution shall be due and payable prior to receiving a building permit for
each phase of the development.
Total estimated fees:
Oyster Point Overpass Fee $ 214,368.29
East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee $ 324,643.61
East of 101 Sewer Improvements Fee $ 179,411.20
Total $ 718,423.10
Engineering Division Contact, Sam Bautista, (650) 877-6652
D. Water Quality Control Plant
The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and/or
Pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a permit:
1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted.
2. Encourage the use of pervious pavement where possible.
3. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide
Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
4. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be installed. A combination of
landscape based controls (e.g., vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter/tree
boxes, and ponds) and manufactured controls (vault based separators, vault
based media filters, and other removal devices) are required. Existing catch
basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalent. These devices must
be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit.
If possible, incorporate the following:
• vegetated/grass swale along perimeter
• catch basin runoff directed to infiltration area
• notched curb to direct runoff from parking area into swale
• roof drainage directed to landscape
• use of planter boxes instead of tree grates for stormwater treatment
Manufactured drain inserts alone are not acceptable they must be part of a treatment train.
One of the following must be used in series with each manufactured unit: swales, detention
basins, media (sand) filters, bioretention areas, or vegetated buffer strips.
Treatment devices must be sized according to the WEF Method or the Start at the Source
Design. Please state what method is used to calculate sizing.
The entire project must be included in the treatment system design (i.e. stormwater
treatment systems must be designed and sized to treat stormwater runoff from the
entire redevelopment project). Per Order R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No.
CAS612008
5. The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for
Stormwater Treatment Measures form for the stormwater pollution prevention devices
installed.
6. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater pollution
prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the inclusion of
the following exhibits:
a. A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the treatment
measures that will be subject to the agreement.
b. A legal description of the property.
c. A maintenance plan, including specific long-term maintenance tasks and a
schedule. It is recommended that each property owner be required to develop its
own maintenance plan, subject to the municipality’s approval. Resources that
may assist property owners in developing their maintenance plans include:
i. The operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by the
property owner.
7. Applicant must complete the Project Applicant Checklist for NPDES Permit
Requirements prior to issuance of a permit and return to the Technical Services
Supervisor at the WQCP.
8. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use
on the project site:
a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater
runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In
areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil
conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified.
b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such
as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing
winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and
plant interactions to ensure successful establishment.
c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and
incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the
responsibility of the property owner.
e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be
encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent
practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the
site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants
reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected
plants.
iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from
affecting the entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial
insects.
Landscaping must comply with the City of South San Francisco’s Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
9. Roof condensate must be routed to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to
issuance of a permit.
10. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This
must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit.
11. Loading dock area must be covered and any drain must be connected to the sanitary
sewer system. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit.
12. Install separate water meters for the process, domestic, landscape, and any food service
facility.
13. Install a separate non-pressurized process line for sample monitoring if necessary before
mixing with domestic waste in the sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior
to the issuance of a permit.
14. Install a flow meter to measure process flow.
15. Fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve should be plumbed into the sanitary sewer
system. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit.
16. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved
prior to the issuance of a permit.
17. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of entrance/outlet of
tire wash.
18. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted.
19. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted.
20. Applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, BOD
and TSS calculations.
21. Must file a Notice of Termination with the WQCP when the project is completed.
Water Quality Control Division Contact, Cassie Prudhel (650) 829-3840.
E. Police Department
1. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal
Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The
Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety
conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed / revised building plans.
Police Department contact: Sergeant Scott Campbell (650) 877-8927
Exhibit B
Development Agreement
Exhibit C
Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan
1974968.1