Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 07-07-11 (Reso 2711-2011) - Gimbal's entitlement reso RESOLUTION NO. 2711-2011 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN RESOLUTOIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, USE PERMIT, AND DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE GIMBAL’S FINE CANDIES FACILITY AT 250 HILLSIDE BOULEVARD WHEREAS, Gimbal’s Fine Candies (“Applicant”) seeks approval of a General Plan Amendment, Use Permit, and Design Review, to collectively authorize an expansion of their facility, consisting of the construction of an 8,810 square-foot addition to the existing 28,902 square-foot food preparation facility, and approval of a parking reduction, at the 1.73-acre site, located at 250 Hillside Boulevard (APN 012-070-360) (“Project”); and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. [“CEQA”]) and the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared and circulated for public review, and Initial Study and Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”), which analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project, and concluded that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment, as more fully described and set forth therein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the IS/ND and by separate Resolution, recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/ND as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly notice public hearing at its regular meeting of July 7, 2011, to accept input from interested parties and consider 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 Negative Declaration prepared for the 250 Hillside Boulevard—Gimbal’s Candy Project, including all written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed public hearing on July 7, 2011; 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 does hereby find 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), and the proposed General Plan Amendment (Exhibit B), are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution. C. By separate Resolution, the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/ND as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts. D. 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. General Plan Amendment A. The proposed Project is consistent and compatible with all elements in the City of South San Francisco General Plan (as proposed for amendment) and any applicable specific plans, because the proposed Project will further a number of Guiding and Implementing Policies in the General Plan. Specifically, by allowing the continued operation and expansion of the one of the City’s older, large industrial uses, the proposed Project is consistent with Guiding Policy 2-G-4: “Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service commercial businesses at specific locations.” The proposed Project’s General Plan Amendment is also consistent with how the City has treated other older industrial uses; for example, regarding the See’s Candy facility in the El Camino Real Planning Sub-Area, Policy 3.4-1-20 provides, “Recognize See’s Candies as a transitional use; permit it as a conforming use, allowing for expansion or contraction as necessary. Require any redevelopment of the site to be non-industrial and sensitive to the residential uses to the north.” B. The proposed Project is consistent with the South San Francisco Municipal Code, including specifically, Chapter 20.540 (“Amendments to the General Plan”), because as further documented in the Record, the Project has complied with the application and review procedures, has been considered at a noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission, and is proposed to be considered for action at a noticed public hearing of the City Council. III. Use Permit A. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, because the Project site is located within the Community Commercial (CC) District, and subject to the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Project site would be considered a transitional and conforming use. Further, the existing building and proposed addition are in general compliance with current City development standards, such as floor area ratio, lot coverage, setbacks, building height, and landscaping. The Applicant has sought approval of a parking reduction, consistent with the procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (as proposed for amendment) and any applicable specific plan, for the reasons set forth in Finding II.A, above. 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 Project proposes expansion of an existing use that has operated among the surrounding properties without significant issue. The proposed development will be constructed consistent with the City’s zoning regulations, health and safety requirements, and design and development standards, which will minimize adverse impacts on surrounding properties. An IS/ND was prepared to evaluate any potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, and concluded that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A neighborhood meeting was held to consider and address concerns of the surrounding property owners, and the majority of those in attendance expressed support for the proposed expansion. D. The proposed use complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning district or the use in question as may be adopted by a resolution of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council, because the proposed Project was favorably reviewed by the City’s Design Review Board in July of 2010, and would otherwise meet minimum site development requirements, including floor area ratio, lot coverage, setbacks, building height, and landscaping, and the Applicant has sought approval of a parking reduction, consistent with the procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. E. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity, because the Project proposes expansion of an existing facility, which, subject to the proposed General Plan Amendment, would be recognized as an important transitional use. F. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints because the existing facility already has access to utilities, and the proposed expansion can be accommodated on-site with access to utilities, while still meeting minimum site development standards. G. An environmental determination has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, because the City prepared and circulated an IS/ND, which analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project, and concluded that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment. H. “Special Conditions,” as that term is used in Section 20.330.006 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, exist that will reduce parking demand at the Project Site, because the existing nonconforming parking along the north side of the building has been used in its current configuration since the 1960s, and the parking is accessed only by employees, not the general public; therefore the Applicant is better able to manage the parking configuration. Further, the Applicant is also proposing to implement Trip Reduction measures based on elements included in the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance. These measures are intended to reduce single occupant auto travel to the site, and include financial incentives to all employees who choose to use public transportation or carpool to work, as well as those who drive a hybrid or clean air vehicle; provision of shower facilities for those bicycling or walking to work; and implementation of a “guaranteed ride home” program for all commuters, which provides the cost for a taxi ride if a transit option is not available when an employee is ready to leave. Further, the Project site is within 1/3 mile of two SamTrans bus stops that serve five separate routes. I. The use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking, because operations at the site are conducted in two shifts and the maximum number of employees on-site at any one time is approximately 27. The expansion would allow Gimbal’s to operate a full second shift, but the maximum number of employees on-site would not increase. Further, through the implementation of the Trip Reduction measures based on the City’s TDM ordinance, including financial incentives to use public transportation and carpools, shower facilities for those bicycling or walking to work, and a “guaranteed ride home” program, the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site will be reduced, and consequently parking demand at the site will be reduced. The proposed on-site parking, therefore, will adequately serve the use with implementation of the these measures. J. Parking demand generated by the Project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area, because the proposed expansion will not increase the maximum number of employees on-site at any one time. Furthermore, the Trip Reduction measures will reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site, which will minimize the demand for parking spaces on-site. Parking demand generated by the project, therefore, will not exceed the proposed capacity or have a detrimental impacts on the supply of on-street parking the area. V. 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 Finding III.A above. B. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan for the reasons set forth in Finding II.A, above. C. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the design guidelines contained in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, for the reasons set forth in Findings Finding II.A and III.A above; however, there are no specific Design Guidelines adopted for this particular site or facility. D. There is no tentative map or variance for the Project; however the Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan Amendment and the Use Permit proposed for the Project, for the reasons set forth in Findings II.A and III.A through III.J, above. E. The Project is consistent with the Design Review Criteria, because the Project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at the Board’s July 20, 2010 meeting, and the Applicant has revised site plans to incorporate the comments of the Design Review Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve a General Plan Amendment (Exhibit B), Use Permit, and Design Review to allow the expansion of the Gimbal’s Fine Candies Facility at 250 Hillside Boulevard, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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 7th day of July, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim and Vice Chairperson Zemke NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chairperson Gupta ATTEST: Susy Kalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission Exhibit A Conditions of Approval Exhibit B General Plan Amendment 1670730.2