Loading...
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