HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 158-1981RESOLUTION NO, ' 158-81
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF AN OWNER
PARTICIPATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO, THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, HOMART
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND~ GENENTECH, ' INC,
that:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
1. Execution.
Execution of the amendment of an owner participation and development
agreement by and among the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Fran-
cisco, the City of South San Francisco, Homart Development Company and Genentech,
Inc., which amendment is attached as Exhibit "A" hereto and is incorporated by
reference herein, is hereby authorized.
2. Signature.
The Mayor is authorized to execute said amendment, and the City Clerk
is authorized to attest his signature thereto.
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
special meeting held on the~ 30th day of 'December , 1981
·
by the following vote'
AYES'
NOES'
ABSENT'
Councilmem'bers Emanuele N. Damonte, Ronald G. Acosta, Roberta Cerri
Teglia, Mark N. Addi ego- and Gus ~Nicolopulos ·
None ......
None ........................
ATTEST: ~' Clerk~
City
e
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
OWNER PARTICIPATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to Owner Participation and Develop-
ment Agreement is made as of this ~0'4~ day of ~C~~'~ ,
1981, by and among. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal
corporation (hereinafter called "City"), REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE' CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a public body, corporate and
politic (which, together with any successor public body or.officer
hereafter designated by or pursuant to law is hereinafter called
"Agency"), duly created, established and authorized to transact
business and to exercise its powers, all under and pursuant to
the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Part 1
of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code) and having
its office at the City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, in the City of
South San Francisco, California, and HOMART DEVELOPMENT. CO. (here-
inafter called "Developer") and GENENTECH, INC.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, City, Agency and Developer have entered that
certain Owner Participation and Development Agreement (hereinafter
called the "OPA") dated as of March 19, 1981 in connection with
the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway
Redevelopment Project which provides for the redevelopment of an
area located in the City of South. San Francisco (hereinafter called
the "Project Area");
-1-
Revised: 12/30/81
WHEREAS, Paragraph 3.2 of the OPA provides that the
Property shall be developed in accordance with all of the other
terms, covenants and conditions of the OPA and in accordance with
the proposed Scope of Development attached to the OPA as Exhibits
E-1 and E-2; and
WHEREAS, the parties to the OPA desire to amend the
proposed Scope of Development in certain respects;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
i. Effective as of the date of this Amendment,
Paragraph 3.2 of the OPA is hereby amended by substituting
Exhibits E-1-A and E-2-A attached hereto as Exhibit A in place
of Exhibit E-1 and Exhibit E-2 attached to the OPA with one
result that the permitted density on Parcel A is increased to
500,000 gross square feet of building floor area.
2. When development on Parcel A is Proposed to
exceed 248,000 gross square feet, it is the prerogative of the
Agency to asseSs the then existing and. projected environmental
impacts of the development of Parcel A beyond 248,000 gross
square feet as permitted by this Amendment for compatibility
with the final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the
Gateway Project, and, in particular, with respect to peak hour
traffic generated by the anticipated use of 500,000 gross square
feet on Parcel A. The basis for establishing compatibility and
compliance with the peak hour traffic impacts set forth in .the
EIR shall be that the "peak hour" traffic emanating from the
parcel will not exceed 470 trips per day. "Peak hour" for this
purpose shall be the period between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m.
-2-
Revised: 12/30/81
r ,,
3. If such assessment results in a determination that
sUch peak hoUr traffic will exceed 470 trips, then the Agency may
require the owner of Parcel A to engage in mitigation efforts as
a condition to the development beyond 248,000 and up to 500,000
square feet.
4. With respect to environmental impacts caused in
part by the development of any portion of the Project, no owner
of such portion of the project shall be required as a condition
to such development to contribute to mitigation efforts, including
the Oyster Point Grade Separation Project, to an extent which is
disproportionately greater'than the extent to which such develop-
ment causes the impact.
5. No further amendment of the OPA which reduces the
density allowed in this amendment or changes the R & D use of
Parcel A shall be effective without the prior agreement of the
Owner of Parcel A. With respect to any further amendment of the
OPA which increases, the intensity of development now permitted
under the OPA, the environmental assessment associated~with said
amendment shall be predicated upon the development of Parcel A
with up to 500,000 square feet of building area.
6. This amendment to 500,000 square feet is based
upon an environmental assessment of the proposed Research and
Development Genentech use of Parcel A, attached hereto as Exhibit
.B and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set
forth herein. Any use of Parcel A other than the proposed
Research and Development use (with Genentech operational charac-
-3- Revised: 12/30/81
teristics) must be submitted to and approved by the Agency/City
with the express condition that Agency/City reserves the right to
assess the effect of such other use with respect to any building
density in excess of the aforesaid 248,000 square feet and limit
added development based upon the assessment, to the extent
required due to increased adverse environmental impacts caused by
such other use.
7. To the extent, as determined by consultants
employed by City and Agency that~ the increased traffic generated
by a development to 500,000 gross square feet as aforesaid impacts
the Oyster Point Grade Separation, Developer and the Agency/City
shall consider such impact in their negotiations pursuant to
paragraph 2.2.2. of the OPA.
8. It is further agreed that in consideration of the
mutual promises herein, Developer and the Agency/City agree to
change the date of July 1, 1984 as set forth in ParagraPh 2.2.3.
of the OPA to July 1, 1983.
9. Except as amended in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 &
8 hereof, the OPA shall remain in full force and effect.
-4-
Revised: 12/30/81
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this First
Amendment to Owner Participation and Development Agreement to be
duly executed on or as of the date first above written.
ATTEST:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Secretary
"Chairman
ATTEST:
ATTEST -
HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
GENENTECH, INC.
VICE-PRESIDENT
-5- Revised: 12/30/81
MAP CODE / USE
A RESEARCH I~ DEVELOPMENT
B ' RETAIL COMMERCIAL
LAN O BUILDING RENTABLE
-AREA AREA AREA
(ACRES) GROSS SF NET SF ,
22.7 500,000 425,000
8.0 60,000
ESTIMATED
COMPLETION ..
DATE BY USE/PHASE
-_
1984- 1990
1984-1986
o ~3
·
MIDRISE OFFICE
PHASE I
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
PHASE . 4
PHASE 5
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL FLOOR AREA
HOTEL
,i
·
I $. 2 460,000 $91,000
13.~ 460,000 391
·
15,2 460,000 $91,000
13.2 460,000 $91,000
! I. ! 395,00D 336,000
63.9 2,255,000 1,900,000
I
!
I · t,?s ,ooo
I.
8.0' 400 ROOMS
200 ROOMS
NET USABLE LAND (ACRES)102~.6
. STREETS 6 OPEN SPACE . 14.5"
GRANO TOTAL/LAND AREA .! | .7..I.
1984
1986
1987'
1988
1989
1965
1987
LEGEND
NOTE,AFYER THE. DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE I OF MIDRISE OFFICE THE ORDER OF
FUTURE PHASE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE DETERMINED BY MARKET*' ·
CONDITIONS AS THEY EXIST AT THAT TIME, .
·
...
DATE: 12-16-8!
THE GATEWAY'
Wi/se), & Haml[ E-I -A'
P~OPO$£D
OF DEVELOPMENT
%
' ~'1- EGENO
,
HOMART 0EVELOPMEHT CO
Dote: 12-16-81 . .
OFF,CE OFF, CE
~q0SI 410,~1~ t~011 410,000 I.f.
KT Ill,~0 I.[ k(T ~11,000 t K
,-
I
THE
' "'°'"' EXHIBIT
Wilsey & E'~.'A
GATEWAY '
PROPOSED SCOPE OF
· DEVELOPMENT
TO:
PRC Voorhees
MEMORANDUM
C. Walter Birkelow
Louis De~l'Angela
DATE: December 18., 1981
FROM:
Juergen Fehr~~
JOB: 355-565
SUBJECT: Traffic Implications of Proposed Genentech Project
In response to your request, we have analyzed the
traffic implications resulting from increased
development densities of the R~D Parcel "A" o£
the Gateway Project. The current proposal calls
for 500',000 gross square ~eet of research and
development oriented uses (new headquarters for
Genen'tech Inc.) as compared to the 224,000 gross
square feet of general office uses assumed and
refIected in the traffic impact, section of the
Gateway Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
This analysis is aimed at .answering two principal
quest ions:
1. Would .the proposed 'R&D use and higher density
generate greater daily and peak hour traffic
volumes than those determined in the EIRo If
so, would this affect the traffic service
level and conclusions identified in the EIR?
2. To what extent would the implementation phasing
of the proposed Genentech project necessitate
an. ~arlier re-construction of the Oyster Point!
-'Route 101/S.P. interchange. The EIR concluded
that major improvements to the Oyster Point
interchange complex would be required by
1988/89.
In order to compare the development proposal' on
its own merit, all other planning assumptions
were kept the same as in the EIR.
The Genentech building program on the 22.7 acre
Gateway site is currently ~een as having the
following characteristics:
1, Administrative Draft EIR, dated September 29, 1980,
and Final EIR, dated June 1981.
·
2. From memorandum by Reimer Associates, dated
December 9, 1981.
Exhibit B, Page 1 of 10
December 18, 1981
C. Walter Birkelow
Louis Dell'Angels
Page 2, Memorandum
Office & Services (33~.) - 165,000 gross sq'. ft.
Consisting of:
............ Ad~ninistrat ive Office
-100,000 gross sq. ft.
Cafeteria
Auditor ium
Conference Areas
Product Storage
Laboratories. (67%)
65,000 gross sq. ft.
.
- 335,000 gross sq. f.t.
Consists of:
..
Research Offices
Laboratories
.... Total 'Buildin~ Area
..
· .
~ .
- 55,000 gross sq. ft.
- 280,000 gross sq. ft.
-
500,000 gross sq. ft.
The maximum number of employees on the site i~
estimated by Genentech at 2,000 resulting in a
ratio of 250 gross.~sq, ft. per employee. If a
ratio of 340 sq, ft. per employee is use~, which
is~.more typical for ~other. R~D industries as well
as the existing .Genentech building, th~'pr6P6s'e'd
500,000 'sq.. ft. building area would 'support
approximately 1,500 employees. Because the
pending project application is expressed in
terms of building area rather than employment
level and because the EIR trip generation was
based on gross floor area, the current analysis,
too, ~tilizes trip generation rates based on
projected square footages rather than on the
estimated number of employees.
1. Implications on Vehicle Trip. Generation
Daily Vehicle Trips
·
Table 1 shows the Comparison of daily generated
vehicle trips between the EIR-assumed density;
1. According to studies by Caltrans and the Institute
of Transportation Engineers.
Exhibit.B, Page 2 of 10
December 1S,' 1981
C. Walter Birkelow
Louis Dell'Angela
page S, Memorandum
land use type and the current proposal. The trip
rate used in the EIR was purposely h.eld on the _
conservative (high) side since no information was
available .at. that..time on the .specific uses of
the site. "General OffiCe'' uses average 14 trips/
1000 sq. ft. while "Industrial Administration"
and "Research Development/Laboratories" typically
range between 7-14 trips/1000 sq. ft. and 7-9 '
trips/1000 sq..ft, respectively.
Based on Genentech's description of their current
and future mode of operation (headquarter office,
strong research orientation, no prolduction fac-
ilities and no product testing on the proposed
site) it is concluded .that the proposed develop-
ment would generate 11 trips/1000 sq. ft. for
administrative office space and 8.5 trips/1000
sq. ft. for the research offices;laboratories.
·
The proposed density and use would, therefore,
produce about 3,950 vehicle trips per day versus
3,140 for the same parcel in the EIR, or about
25Y. more.'- '-'(It" should be' noted, that these trip
generations are prior to any adjustments due to
'"' traffic'reduction measures such as carpooling
and .transit use since these measures were treated
in the EIR as required mitigation measures.
Indications are that Genentech employees would be
receptive to increased carpooling--currently '
about 13Y. of Genentech employees share rides--'
and travel by SamTrans and S.P. Commuter Rail
if feeder service were available in the Gateway
project. We do not. foresee any difference in
the project's ability to' comply with a suggested -
traffic~reduction.of 20-25~., as specified in
the. EIRz to achieve acceptable peak hour traffic
service levels.)
Peak Hour Vehicle Trips
In terms of traffic impact, the peak'hour,
specifically the afternoon peak hour, is the
most crucial time period for analysis.
1. According to Genentech Transportation Survey, taken.
in 1980.
2. Final EIR, Pages D-37 and D-41.
Exhibit B, Page 3 of 10
December 18, 1981
. --
C. Walter Birkelow
Louis Dell'Angela
Page 4, ~emorandum
It has been suggested that Genentech's type of
employment and work hour policies (high proportion
of R&D/scientific staff with no established work
hours, flexible work hours for administrative
staff) result in lower peak hour travel than is
normally associated with 8.~.a.m.-5"p-.m: general
offices uses as was assumed in the ~IR. To verify
these claims, we conducted a survey of the after-
noon departure times of employees, at the existing
Genentech site. at 460 Point San Brun° Boulevard.
in. South San Francisco. This survey confirmed
a very low departure rate of Genentech during
the afternoon peak period. Specifically we found
that:
'0'
The peak hour (4:30'5:30 p.m.) percentage
· of total daily cars traveling to or from
the facility..was a rather low 6Y. (5.5Y.
out and 0.5~ in). .This compares to
about 15-20'/,. observed at other trip
generator, such as general offices, indus-
trial parks, etc.
o Of-the 142 cars parked at Genentech at
.... about 3:30 p.m., 91 Cars (or 64Y.) were
still parked at 6:00 p.m. indicating a
'rather late departure time of Genentech's
'employees.
O '
The parking utilization (parked cars as
of total spaces available)'was 54Y. at
3:30 p.m. and 35~. at 6:00 p.m., .again
indicating only a moderate departure
during the typical peak ~ravel period.
However, since the projected increase in Genentech
employment may also result in an increased proportion
of peak-hour travel, a 10Y. peak hour factor was-
conservatively estimated to apply to the proposed
new Genentech project. Thus, about 400 vehicle_
trips would be generated by the 500,000 sq. £'t.' -'
Genentech project during the 4:30-5:30 p.m. peak
1. Taken on Tuesday, December 15, 1951.
Exhibit B, Page 4 of 10
December 18, 1981
C. Walter Birkelow
Louis Dell ' Angela
Page 5, Memorandum
hour as compared to about 470 trips that would be
produced by 224,000 sq. ft. of gener'~l offices -
uses (see Table 2).
In conclusion, the two alternative uses of the site
would be almost identical in terms of critical
outbound vehicle trips generated during the af.ter-
noon peak period.- In terms of total (in-out)
Peak hour travel, the proposed Genentech use
would actually produce 15~ fewer trips than analyze.d
in the EIR.
Impact on Traffic Service Levels
Because the afternoon peak was used as a basis
for determining intersection service level and
mitigation measures, the EIR findings and recom-
mendations are st il l . ~al id for the proposed
.increased densities on Parcel A provided that. uses
that are similar to the current Genentech operation
would be implemented. The share of Parcel A
traffic in relation to the total Gateway Project is
on order of under
2. '-'Implic~ations on Timing of Oyster Point Inter-
change Reconstruction
The estimated phasing (move-in targets) f~r.the
proposed Genentech project is as follows:
Phase I
1984 1986
Phase I I
19~88- 1990
Total
Off ice, sq. ft.
.Service, sq. ft.
Laboratories
sq. ft.
Research Office
sq. ft
P.M. 'Peak Hour
V-ehible Trips
Generated
Employees (max.
est imate )
25,000 25,000
35,000
65,000 70,000
13,750 13,750
25,000 25,000
30,000
70,000 75,000
13,750 13,750
100 100 100 100
, 500 500 500 500
100,O00
65,000
280,000
55,000
400
2,000
1. From Memorandum by Reimer Associates, dated December
9, 19S1.
Exhibit Bt Page 5 of. 10
December 18, 1981
C. Walter Birkelow.
Louis Dell ' Angela
Page 6, MemorandUm
As is 'shown in Table S, the proposed..implementatign
schedule would not result in significant differences
from the project phasing assumed in the. EIR. This
means that the timing of proposed improvements,
including the re-construction of the Oyster Point
Interchange and Grade Separation scheduled for
1988/89 .in the EIR, remains valid with the density
modification of the Genentech site.
o ..
SUMMARY
· o
'The proposed 500,000 gross sq. ft. of Genentech-
type research and development (R&D) uses on
the Parcel A site would generate approximately
the same level of peak-hour traffic as the
224,000 gross sq. ft. of general office use
assumed in the EIR.
The lower peak h~ur trip generation rate of
R~D usage is due to the significantly lower
proportion of Genentech employees that arrive
~and depart from work-during the typical street
peak hour. This pattern was confirmed by a
survey by us at .the existing Genentech facility.
The total daily trip generation would b.e about
25$.higher for the proposed R&D use than for
general office us.e (EIR).. The traffic impacts
analyzed in the EIR, however, are on the basis
of peak hour rather than total-daily traffic
volumes. The Parcel A site total traffic.
generation would be less than 10Y. of the entire
Gateway Project as evaluated in the EIR.
The findings and conclusions of the EIR relative
to traffic impacts and ·proposed 'mitigation
measures are still valid even with the proposed'
density change. Traffic system management
measures recommended in the EIR may be easier
to implement and enforce under a single~ tenant-'
arrangement than under multiple-tenant occupancy.
The proposed phasing schedule for the subject
site does not vary significantly from that
assumed in. the. E!R. Therefore, re-construction
Exhibit B, Page. 6 of 10
December 18, 1981
C. Walter Birkelow
Louis Dell'Angela
Page 7, ~lemorandum
of the Oyster Point' Interchange/Grade Separat_ion
(scheduled in the EIR for 1988/89) would not' '
have to 'be advanced as a consequence of the
proposed density: and land use change or the
proposed development schedule. -
Exhibit B, Page ~ of 10
SIR
Land Use
General Off ice
Table 1
COMPARISON OF DAILY TRIP GENERATION
. .
Gross Floor Area Daily Veh.
(Sq. Ft.) Trip Rate
224,000
(900 employees)
14/1000
sq.. fi.
(3.5/emp.)
Daily
Veh. Trips
3,140
Current
Proposal
(Genentech)
In dus. A dmin.
Office
Cafeteria,
Auditorium,
Conference
area, Stor-
age
Research Off.
Laboratories
TOTAL
100,000
65,000
55,000
280,000
500,000
11.0/1000~
~ sq. ft.l
02.
8.5/1000
3
sq. ft.
8.511000 3
sq. ft.
1,100
470
2, 380
3,950
(Max. 2000 employees)
Ratio' (Proposal/EIR ) -' '
1.25
Notes:
1. Rate reflects average of "General. Office" (14.0 trips/1000
sq. ft.) and "Industrial Administrative Office" (7.0.tripslt000
sq. ft.) 14.0 + 7.0 = I1 trips/1000, sq. ft.
2
2. Support services, do not generate additional external vehicle
trips. ~
3. Reflects "Industrial Research an~ Development" uses (average
of ITE and Caltrans data).
Exhibit B, Page 8 of .i0
EIR
~. Table 2
.-
COMPARISON OF PEAK HOUR (4: SO-§: SO p.m. ) TRIP' GENERATION ....
Land Use
General Office
VehiCle Trips
3,140 3% 12% 15%1
..
Peak Hour Percent
In Out Total
Peak Hour, Veh. Trips
In Out Total
94 376 470
Current '
Proposal
(Genentech)
In dus. Admin.
Office
Cafeteria.,
Auditorium,
conference
Areas, Storage
Research Offices
Laboratories
1~100
470
2,380
TOTAL 3,950
l% 9% lo .2
' 40 360 400
O
Ratio
(Proposed/EIR)
0.42 0.96
0.85
Notes:
.
1. Reflects typical 8 ~,m.-§ .p.m. working hours.
2. Reflects composite estimate of. Genentech employee survey results (taken by PRC Voorhees)
and studies by Caltrans and Institute of Transportation Engineers,'
Completion &
Occupancy
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
Table 3
COMPARISON OF PHASING SCHEDULES
EIR
% of Total1 P.M. Peak
Employment Hr. ?rips
26~
31~
59~
63%
90%
lOOY,
122
146
277
296
423
470
. ..
Genentech Proposal
~hasing P.M. Peak-
Hr. Trips
5O%
75~
75~
100%
- 100
200
200
300
300
400
1. From Final EIR, pg. D-33.
2. From Memorandum by Reimer A~sociates, dated December
9, 1981.
Exhibit B, Page 10 of 10