HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 04-04-02 (Reso 2617-2002) - PUD-01-006 and DA PCreso 4-4-02 Rev RESOLUTION NO. 2617-2002
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PUD-01-006,
UP-01-006 AND DR-01-006 TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 26.9 ACRE
OFFICE/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS ON A SITE LOCATED AT
THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF EAST GRAND AVENUE IN THE P-I PLANNED
INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-01-006 RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public
hearings on March 7, 2002 and April 4, 2002; and
WHEREAS, as required by the “Use Permit Procedure” (SSFMC Chapter 20.81), the
“Planned Unit Development Procedure” (SSFMC Chapter 20.84), and the “Design Review
Procedure” (SSFMC Chapter 20.85) the Planning Commission makes the following findings in
support of the request to approve a Master Plan for a 758,533 square foot office/R&D campus
with ancillary childcare center, fitness center and retail/restaurant space on a 26.9 acre site
located at the easterly terminus of East Grand Avenue, and which includes requested exceptions
for number of parking spaces. These findings are based on public testimony and the materials
submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not
limited to: “Master Site Plan” and the “Site Plan, Phase 1 and Phase 2”, Sheet No. A1.1,
“Conceptual Building Design Guidelines”, “Schematic Landscape Plan”, and preliminary
grading and utility plans dated May 4, 2001, prepared by DES Architects/Engineers; Floor plans
and elevations for Buildings 1 & 2, and Parking Garage A dated 8-3-01, floor plans and
elevations for Building 3 dated September 7, 2001, and floor plans and elevations for Buildings
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 dated October 5, 2001, prepared by DES Architects/Engineers; “Preliminary
Transportation Demand Management Program”, dated March 7, 2002, prepared by Sequoia
Solutions Consulting; Britannia East Grand Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR,
Recirculation Draft EIR and Final EIR Response to Comments); minutes of the August 21, 2001,
September 18, 2001 and October 16, 2001 Design Review Board meetings; Planning
Commission staff reports dated November 15, December 20, 2001, and January 17, March 7 and
April 4, 2002; and testimony received at the November 15, December 20, 2001, and January 17,
March 7 and April 4, 2002 Planning Commission meetings:
1. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use
being proposed. The suitability of the site for development was analyzed
thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the project.
2. Subject to approval of General Plan Amendment GP-01-006, the project is
consistent with the General Plan which designates the property for a mix of
Business and Technology Park and Coastal Commercial. Office/R&D use is
considered an appropriate use under this designation. Additionally, the category
provides for a floor area ratio (FAR) of .50, with permissible increases to a
maximum FAR of 1.0 based on implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program as outlined in the City’s TDM Ordinance. The
proposed FAR of .67 requires that the applicant prepare, implement and maintain
a TDM Plan designed to achieve a 30% shift to alternative modes of travel other
than single occupant vehicles. The following policies specifically support the
proposed project:
a. Guiding Policy 3.5-G-3 - Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-
technology, and research and development uses.
b. 3.5-I-8 – Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with
restaurants, cafes, support commercial establishments…
3. The proposed project is consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan which the
General Plan identifies as the guide for detailed implementation of General Plan
policies. Policy LU-16 supports development of campus settings and promotes
the concept of “Master Plans”, including facility wide development standards, for
sites of 20+ acres. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the Design
Policies of the East of 101 Area Plan, and specifically with Policy DE-22, which
specifies that on-site open space should serve as a unifying element, by
connecting separate buildings and providing usable employee spaces.
4. With the exception of parking, the proposed project meets or exceeds the
minimum standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance which
designates the site P-I Planned Industrial. The exception for the number of
parking spaces is warranted based on the following:
a. The planned unit development is of a superior quality which offsets any
potential adverse impacts of the requested parking space reduction. The
Design Review Board and the Planning Commission find the proposal of
very high quality in terms of architecture, building materials, site design
and provision of on-site amenities including a childcare facility, retail and
restaurant space and a health club.
b. The parking exception will result in a project of superior design or will
otherwise be of general benefit to the community. The parking exception
will serve to support and promote the TDM program required of the
project.
c. The parking exception will not be unreasonably detrimental to the health,
safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of persons working in the vicinity
of the project. The proposed parking supply of 3.1 spaces per 1,000 sf for
all uses on the site is not anticipated to result in a shortfall of on-site
parking or create the need for overflow parking off-site. The parking ratio
is identical to standards in operation within the Gateway Specific Plan
District where no parking deficiencies have been identified. In addition,
the parking ratio is supported by studies from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers which identify an average need of 2.79 parking
spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, and which support a lower
ratio for research and development use based on its lower employment
densities.
d. The parking standards proposed will be adequate for the proposed uses
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 30%. The aggressive TDM
requirements required of the project, the fact that similar reduced
standards have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several
large campus developments in the city, including the Gateway Specific
Plan District, Bay West Cove Specific Plan District and the Genentech
Campus, and the studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) all support a reduced parking standard.
e. 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.
f. 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 20.74.
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.
5. Transportation Demand Management
a. 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 30% alternative mode usage, as required.
b. The performance guarantees provided in the plan will ensure that the
target 30% 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 triennual reports. Additionally,
the applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs
associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM program.
6. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Redevelopment Program for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area,
and specifically with the following:
a. To create and develop local job opportunities and to preserve the area’s
existing employment base.
b. To replan, redesign and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly
used.
7. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in accordance
with the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into
the project which will reduce all but two identified impacts to a less than
significant level. The City Council must adopt the required findings of Section
15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines for two of the Project’s significant
environmental effects, which effects cannot be reduced to an acceptable level,
with regard to air quality and transportation impacts.
8. The proposal will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or
improvements.
9. Subject to minor modifications, included as conditions of approval, the proposal
complies with the City's Design Guidelines.
10. 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 forth the duration, property, project criteria and other
required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2.
Additionally, the Agreement requires the Owner to provide an on-site childcare
facility or, if construction on-site is not feasible due to environmental constraints,
to construct an off-site facility in the East of 101 Plan Area or alternative site
approved by the City. Owner will also pay its fair share of infrastructure
improvements, including traffic mitigation, and include public art on the project
site. Based on the findings in support of the Planned Unit Development Permit,
the Commission finds that the Development Agreement, vesting a project for a
campus style development of nine Research and Development buildings, is
consistent with the General Plan, as proposed to be amended, and consistent with
the applicable zoning regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve PUD-01-006, UP-01-006 and
DR-01-006 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit A, and Development
Agreement DA-01-006 as contained in Exhibit B.
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 4th of April, 2002 by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner
Sim,
Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
Commission Secretary
Thomas C. Sparks