Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 114-2008RESOLUTION NO. 114-2008 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF C'ALIFGRNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A USE P:EF:MIT (UP07-0017), DESIGN REVIEW (DR07-0065), AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (TDM07-0005) TO ALLOW REDEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 7.027- ACRE SITE FOR AN OFFICE/R1~SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 213-221 EAST GRAND AVENUE IN THE P-I PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE :DISTRICT WHEREAS, the applicant seeks entitlements far a dE;velopment agreement, use permit, design review, and transportation demand management (TDM;i program for the demolition of four existing one- and two-story buildings, and construction of a single nine-story building, afive-level parking garage, surface parking lot, and related improvements on an approximately 7.027-acre site located at 213-221 East Grand Avenue ("Project" or "213 East Grand Avenue Project"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, § § 21000 et seq., the City prepared and circulated for public review an environmental impact report (EIR) evaluating potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found the final EI]E~ to be adequate and certified the EIR and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project's one significant and unavoidable impact; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on June 19, 2008, October 2, 2008, and October 16, 2008; and WHEREAS, as required by the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the City Council makes the findings contained herein in support of the request to approve a Use Permit, Design Review, and draft TDM Plan for an office and R&D Project consisting of 291,634 square feet of research (laboratory) and office space, and parking garage on a 7.027 acre site located at 213-221 East Grand Avenue, and which includes requested exceptions for the number of parking spaces. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the South San Francisco General Plan; the Project application and plans, including site plans, floor plans, building and garage elevations and landscape plans dated September, 2008, prepared by Dowler-Gruman Architects; "Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program", dated March 10, 2008, prepared by The Hoyt Company; 213-217 East Grand Avenue Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR and Final EIR. Response to Comments); minutes of the Design Review Board meeting, and Planning Commission Study Session minutes dated June 19, 2008, Planning Commission staff reports dated June 19, 2008, October 2, 2008, and October 16, 2008; and testimony received at the June 19, 2008, Study Session, the October 2, 2008, and October 16, 2008, Planning Commission Public Hearings; testimony received at the November 12, 2008, City Council meeting, and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council hereby finds as follows: General Findings. The City Council makes the following findings in support of the proposed Project: (a) The Owner and City have negotiated a Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et.seq. The Development Agreement 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 public art and trail improvements, and funds for CalTrain improvements. Based on the findings in support of the Use Permit, the City Council 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. (b) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The General Plan specifically contemplates the proposed type of project and the suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the Project. (c) Subject to minor modifications, included as conditions of approval, the proposal complies with the City's Design Guidelines. (d) By Resolution No. 113-2008, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which EIR adequately analyzes the proposed Proj ect's potentially significant environmental impacts. The City Council has further found that the benefits of approving the Project outweigh the Project's significant and unavoidable traffic impact. 2. Use Permit. As required by the "Use Permit Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.81), the City Council makes the following findings in support of the request to approve a Use Permit (UP07-0017): (a) The proposed Project will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. 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 near-by properties. (b) The proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The Project site is designated Business and Technology Park, and zoned Planned Industrial. This designation and zoning district accommodate office and R&D uses, subject to certain development and FAR restrictions. The proposed Project, an office/R&D use, complies with development restrictions and ]pr~~poses an FAR of 0.953, which is below the maximum allowable FAR in the Business and Technology Park General Plan designation. (c) The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the City's zoning code, with the exception of parking requirements. The proposed Project is located in the Planned Industrial zoning district, and meets or exceeds the minimum standards and requirements for that di;~trict. The exception for the number of parking spaces is allowable under the City's Municipal Code, and warranted based on the following: (i) The Project is of a superior quality which offsets any potential adverse impacts of the requested parking space: rE;duction. The Design Review Board and the Planning Commission have found the proposal to be of very high quality in terms of architecture, building materials, site design and provision of landscaped pedestrian walkways acid public art. (ii) The parking exception will serve to support and promote the TDM program required of the Project. (iii) The Project provides 90% 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. Tlie parking ratio of~2.83 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet 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 off ce ~sp;ace, and which support a lower ratio for research and development use based on its lower employment densities. (iv) 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 b~~sis over the life of the Proj ect with a required alternative mode shift of 35°io. The aggressive 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 acid the Genentech Campus, and the studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) all support a reduced parking standard. (v) The reduced parking rate reinforces t]he 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. (vi) The number of parking spaces provided by the reduced standard will serve all existing, proposed and potential uses a.s 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 rind objectives of the City's TDM efforts since such would serve as a disincentive to use of alternative modes of transportation. 3. Transportation Demand Mana eg ment• As require-d by the Transportation Demand Management Procedures [SSFMC Section 20.120.07()], the following findings are made in approval of the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM07-0005): (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 inchuded in the plan to achieve a projected ?5°,/o alternative mode usage, as required. (b) 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 arulual 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves a Use Permit, Design Review, and draft TDM Plan for the 213 East Grand Avenue Project subject t the Conditions of Approval attached as 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 regularly introduced. and adopted by the City Council of the City of South. San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of December, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Pedro Gonzalez, Richard A.. C~arbarino, and Kevin Mullin, Vice Mayor Mark Addie~o and Mayor Karyl Matsumoto NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None AT'T'EST: r' ity C1 Exhibit A Conditions of Approval PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF A.PI?ROVAL 213 East Grand Office/R&D Project P07-0106 (As recommended by City Staff on October 16, 2008) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: EXHIBIT t 1. The project shall be constructed substantially as indicated on the attached 213 East Grand development plans, including building elevations and landscaping, dated September 2008 and October 16, 2008, prepared by Dowler-Gruman Architects, except as otherwise modified by the following conditions: 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation :measures identified in the 213 East Grand Avenue Project EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring; and Reporting Program (MMRP). --Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall prepare a checklist outlining mitigation measures and status of implementation. 3. Child care - In accordance with South San Francisco M=uriicipal Code Chapter 20.115, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall pay a c;hildcare fee estimated to be $97,478.91 based on the following calculation [291,634 sfx $0.50/sf. _ $145,817.00, less credit for existing sf warehouse 102,847 sfx $0.47/sf = -~'~48,338 = $97,478.91]. 4. Site development plans shall designate short term parking areas within the surface parking lots to accommodate visitors. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide appropriate evidence to ensure that buildings are designed so that the calculated. hourly average noise levels during the daytime does not exceed an Leq of 45dB, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 ~tB. 6. The applicant shall cooperate with the City in the development/implementation of a regional shuttle service if such is considered by the City. 7. TDM a. In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.120.070, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan for review and approval by the Chief Planner. The Final TDM Plan shall substantially reflect the "213-217 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan", prepared by The Hoyt Company, dated March 2008. The Plan shall be designed to achieve a minimum 35% alternative mode use over the life of the project. b. The Final TDM Plan shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and triennual reports as ou~ained in the Development Agreement, and as specified below: 1) Transportation Demand Mana eg ment: Owner shall prepare an annual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) :report, and submit same to City, to document the effectiveness of the TDM plan in ~rchieving the goal of 35% Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 2 of 15 alternative mode usage by employees within the project. The TDM report will be prepared by an independent consultant, retained 1-y City with the approval of Owner (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) and paid for by Owner, which consultant will work in concE;rt with Owners TDM coordinator. The 'TDM report will include a determination of historical employee commute m.;thods, which information shall be obtained by survey of all employees working in the buildings on the Property. All nonresponses to the employee commute survey will be counted as a drive alone trip. 2) TDM Reports: The initial TDM report for each building on the Property will be submitted two (2) years after the granting of a certificate of occupancy with respect to the building, and this requirement will apply to all buildings on the Property except the parking structure. The second and all later reports with respect to each building shall be included in an annual comprehensive TDM report submitted to City covering all of the buildings on the Prope~~ty which are submitting their second or later TDM reports. 3) Report Requirements: The goal of the TDM program is to encourage alternative mode usage, as defined in Chapter 20.120 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The initial TDM report shall either: (1) st;~te that the applicable property has achieved 35% alternative mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not achieved the 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 attain the TDM goal of 35% alternative mode usage. 4) Penalty for Non-Compliance: If after the initial TDM report, subsequent annual reports indicate that, in spite of the changes in the TDM plan, the 35% alternative mode usage is still not being achieved, or if O~wrier fails to submit such a TDM report at the times described above, City may ~as;~ess Owner a penalty in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) per year for each percentage point below the minimum 35% alternative mode usage goad. i. In determining whether a financial pE;nalty is appropriate, City may consider whether Owner has made a ,good faith effort to meet the TDM goals. ii. If 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 of the 'TI)M plan (commencing with the first year in which a penalty could be unposed), such penalty sums, in the Proposed Conditions Of Approval 21.3 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page3of15 City's sole discretion, maybe used by Owner toward the implementation of the TDM plan instead of being paid t~~ City. If the penalty is used to implement the TDM Plan, an Implementation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to 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 Research and Development use permitted to be constructed on the Property. For example, if there is 20C-,000 square feet of completed construction on the Property included within the TDM report with respect to which the penalty is imposed, the penalty would be determined by multiplying Fifteen Thousand Dollars (~> 15,000.00) times a fraction, the numerator of which is 200,000 square; ff;et 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 percentage points below the 35% alternative mode usage goal. The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program. costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM program. Prior to approval of the building permit, the developer shall submit a building signage and monument package, consistent with the approved Master Sign Program for the 213 East Grand Avenue Project, for approval by the City's Chief~Planner. All roof-mounted equipment shall be contained in scree;nE;d enclosures, subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. 10. The applicant shall comply with all standard conditions a;~ outlined in the "Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial Industrial anti Multi-Family Residential Projects", dated Revised February 1999. Accordingly, minor changes or deviations from the approved plans maybe approved by the Chief Planner; significant changes shall require approval of the Planning Commission. (Planning Divis~_on contact: Michael Lappen, Economic De-vE;lopment Coordinator (650) 877- 8535) B. Engineering Division requirements shall be as follo`~: L STANDARD CONDITIONS Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 4 of 15 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 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division. II. SPECIAL CONDITIONS a. The developer shall obtain a demolition permit: t~~ demolish the existing buildings. The demolition permit shall be obtained from the- B~~uilding Division and the developer shall pay all fees and deposits for the permit. The developer shall provide letters from all public utilities stating all said utilities have been properly disconnected from the existing buildings. b. The developer shall submit a traffic study to evaluate how the project will affect the Roebling Road/East Grand Avenue Intersection and the Harbor/Forbes/East Grand Avenue Intersection. The traffic study should also identify any off-site related improvements to ensure safe ingress/egress to the I~roj ect. c. 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, gi•acling compliance and dust control inspections. d. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Engineering Divi;~ion. The developer shall place a $5,000 cash deposit with the City for the peer review of the Geotechnical Report. e. The developer shall remove and replace all sidev~~alk fronting the project. The new sidewalk shall comply with the City standard detail and shall provide the minimum ADA width around the existing power poles. All work shall be done at no cost to the City. f. 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 s11a11 be placed at this driveway. g. The developer shall remove the existing railroad tracks and appurtenances at the en '. of Roebling. The developer shall replace the railroad crossing with a new pavement structural section in accordance with plans approved by the City. All work shall be done at not cost to the City. Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 5 of 15 h. The developer shall incorporate bio-grassy s~vales and other Best Management Practices as stormwater measures within the project and shall be approved by the Engineering Division and the Environmental Compliance Manager.. i. One correctly sized sewer lateral shall be insta led to service this site. 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 sE;wer system. j. The developer shall coordinate work with California Water Service for all water utility work. k. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit for any work performed in the City's :right-of--way and pay all associated fees, deposit and/or bonds. The developer shall submit an Engineer's estimate for all work performed in the City's right-of--way and place a bond or cash deposit for said work. 1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the various 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 infi~rmation shown on the applicant's construction plans and the latest Engineering News Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index at the time of payrr.~ent. The estimated fee for the entire subject 291,000 GSF office and R&D development is calculated below. (The number in the calculation, "9071.91 ", is the October 2007 Engineering Nevi- ; Record San Francisco construction cost inde~c, which is revised each month to reflect local inflation. changes in the construction industry.) Trip Calculation 291,000 gsf Office/E&D use @ 12.3 trips per 1000 s:E = 3,579 new vehicle trips Contribution Calculation. 3,579 trips X $154 X (9071.91/6552.16) _ $ 763,12,6.72 IV. EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 6 of 15 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any building within the proposed project, the applicant shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Im~~act fee, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council at their meeting of May 23, 2007. Fee Calculation (effective September 24, 2007) 291,000 gsf Office/R&D ~ $4.57 per each sc~ire foot =$ 1,329,870.00 Traffic Impact Fee = $ 1,325,870.00 V. SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY STUDY AND IIvIPROVEMENT FEE The City of South San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and capacity of the sewer system within the East of 101 area, downstream of the proposed office/R&D development. The existing sewer collection system was originally designed many years ago to accommodate warehouse and industrial use and is now proposed to accommodate uses, such as offices and biotech facilities, with a much gr~ea.ter sewage flow. These additionr'. flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing sewers, due to ground settlement and the age of the system, have rf~sulted in pumping and collection capacity constraints. A study and flow mode-l is proposed to analyze the problem and recommend solutions and improvements,. 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 dav. It is determined that Office/R&D generate 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 $3.19 per gallon x 291,000 sq. ft. _ $371,316.00 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 $ 763,126.72 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee $ 1,329,870.00 East of 101 Sewer Improvements Fee $ 134,663.94 Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 7 of 15 Total $ 2,227,660.66 NOTE: At the time these fees were generated, the applicant did not submit existing square footages for the existing buildings. When the applicant submits the existing square footages, the fees will be re-calculated to reflect the proper credits and. the estimated fees maybe less. [Engineering Division contact: Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer (650) 829-6652] C. Police Department requirements shall be as follow: A. Munic~al Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Crtapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance ~re`~ised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. B. Building Security 1. Doors a. The jamb on all aluminum frame-swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 lbs. of~pressure in both a vertical distance of three (3) inches and a horizontal dist~~nce of one (1) inch each side of the strike. b . Glass doors shall be secured with a deanbolt lock' with minimum throw of one (1) inch. The outside ring should bE; free moving and case hardened. c. Employee/pedestrian doors shall be o~f :solid core wood or hollow sheet metal with a minimum thickness of 1-3!4 inches and shall be secured by a 1 1'hc locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/turnpicce. !~ double-cylinder deadbolt lock or asingle-cylinder deadboli lock without a Lurnpiece may be used in "Group B" occupancies as delined by the Unilorm Building Code. When used, there must be a readily visible durable sign on or adjacent to the door stating "This door to remain unlocked during business hours", employing letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. The locking device must be of type that will be readily distinguishable as locked, and its use may be revoked by the Building Official for due cause. Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page$of15 deadbolt locks with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbol~: and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside knob, handle, or turn piece. d. Outside hinges on all exterior doors shall be provided with non-removable pins when pin.-type hinges are used or shall be provided with hinge studs, to prevent removal of the door. e. Doors with glass panels and doors with ,glass panels adjacent to the doorframe shall be secured with burglary-resistant glazing2 or the equivalent, ifdouble-cylinder deadbolt locks are not installed. f. Doors with panic bars will have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed on panic- equipped doors, and no exterior surface--mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astragal shall be installed on the door exterior to protect the latch. No surface-mounted exterior hardware need be used on panic-equipped doors. g. On pairs of doors, the active leaf shal]i be secured with the type of lock required for single doors in this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with automatic flush extension bolts protected by hardened material with a minimum throw of three;-fourths inch at head and foot and shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware. Multiple point locks, cylinder activated from the active; leaf and satisfying the requirements, maybe used instead of flush bolts. h. Any single or pair of doors requiring locking at the bottom or top rail shall have locks with a minimum of one th~ro~w bolt at both the top and bottom rails. 2. Windows a . Louvered windows shall not be used .as they pose a significant security problem. b . Accessible rear and side windows not; viewable from the street shall consist of rated burglary resistant gla:~irig or its equivalent. Such windows that are capable of being opened shalli be secured on the inside with a 25/16" security laminate, 1/4" polycarbonate, or approved security film treatment, minimum. Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 9 of 15 locking device capable of withstanding a force of two hundred- (200) lbs. applied in any direction. c . Secondary locking devices are recommended on all accessible windows that open. 3. Roof Openings a. All glass skylights on the roof of any lbuilding shall be provided with: 1) Rated burglary-resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material. or: or: 2) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or• one by one-fourth inch flat steel material spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened. 3) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh under skylight and securely fastened. b. All hatchway openings on the roof of arty building shall be secured as follows: 1) If the hatchway is of wooden ~m~~terial, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. 2) The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non-removable pins when using pin-type hinges. c. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the fcllowing: 1) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material, spaced no more than five inches apart and securely fastened. or: 2) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh and securely Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 10 of 15 fastened and 3) If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at ]least 3/8" diameter on the outside. 4. Lighting a. All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises a.nd provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. b. The premises, while closed for business after dark, must be sufficiently lighted by use of interior night-lights. c . Exterior door, perimeter, parking area, and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. 5. Numbering of Buildings a. The address number of every commer~ci;al building shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four to six inches in height and of a color contrasting with the background. b . In addition, any business, which affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot, shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. 6. Alarms a . The business shall be equipped with at least a central station silent intrusion alarm system. NOTE: To avoid delays in occupancy, alarm installation steps should be taken well in advance of the final inspection. 7. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan a. Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly sign posted. Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 11 of 15 NOTE: For additional. details, contact the Trai:fi~~ Bureau Sergeant at (650) 829- 934. 8. Security Camera System Building entrance, lobby and garage areas must be monitored by a closed circuit television camera system. Recordings must be maintained for a period of no less than 30 days. These cameras will be part of a digital surveillance system, which will be monitored on-site and accessible on the World Wide Web. This system must be of adequate resolution anti color rendition to readily identify any person or vehicle in the event a crime is committed, anywhere on the premises. 9. Misc. Security Measures Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in an approved type money safe with a minimum rating of TL-15. (Police Department contact person: Sgt. John Kallas, 877-8927) D. Fire Prevention Division requirements. shall be as foalo~w: All buildings require fire sprinklers. Please submit. separate plans. 2. Plans shall conform to NFPA 13 and City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 15.24.110. 3. Exterior canopies and overhangs require fire sprinklers. 4. All fire sprinklers piping in the parking garage shall be corrosion resistant, either painted or galvanized. 5. All buildings require fire alarms. Please submit separate plans. 6. Provide ahorn/strobe at the front of the building, which will activate upon fire sprinkler or alarm notification. Plans shall conform to NFPA 72 and City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 15.24.150. Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 12 of 15 7. All buildings require fire extinguishers. 8. Provide adequate premise identification (address) on the building per the City c,l~ South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 15.24.100. 9. Provide smoke control management system for 1:hE; high rise building in accordance with California Fire Code (CFC). 10. These buildings will be equipped with a fire cornmunicatior_ system. Due to the nature of the construction in most high rise and parking structure type buildings communications between fire crews, incident commanders and county communication is difficult and sometimes even non-existent. (Contact: Luis DeSilva, Fire Marshal: 650 829-6645) E. Water Quality Control Department requirements shalll be as follow: The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and/or Pretreatment programs: 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 swale~s, 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 the~,~ 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. Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 1.3 of 15 Treatment devices must be sized according to the WEF Method or the Start at the Source Desi .Please state what method is used to calculate :sizing. The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for Stormwater Treatment Measures form for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. 5. 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 t:he locations of the treatment measures that will be subject to the agreement. b. A legal description of the property. A maintenance plan, including specific long-terrri maintenance tasks and a schedule. It is recommended that each property owner bE; required to develop its own maintenance plan, subject to the municipality':; 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. 6. The owner or his representative must file this agreement with the County of San Mateo and documentation that the County received it must be sent to the Technical Services Supervisor. 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. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: 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 ~th~~t are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water ~sh~all 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, ec~~logical consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. Proposed Conditions Of Approval 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 14 of 15 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 s,uri and shade conditions at the site. In making these selections, consider fi~tiire 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-resist:arit 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. 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 sarriple 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. Proposed Conditions Of Approval. 213 East Grand P07-0106 October 2, 2008 Page 15 of 15 14. Install a flow measuring device for process flow 15. Fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve should be plwnbed 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 an~~ 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. 22. Please have applicant contact Cassie Prudhel at Water Quality Control with any questions. (650) 829-3840. (Contact: Cassie Prudhel, Environmental Compliance C©ordinator (650) 829-3840) 1157385.1