AgdaPkt 2004-04-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-� �-�- � , there was concem that the FAR limits would not fulfiil their purpose if exemptions were readily availabie. Since FARs were new for the City, the approach was to "wait and see" if there are unintended negative consequences. If there are, then staff was instructed to bring amendments forward to accommodate special circumstances. In conducting the research for establ;:hing Red��ood City's FAR limits, many other cities FAR standards were con: idered. O�hsr cities allow for special exemptions to FAR limits, which include a range of amenities, such as cafeterias, . gyms, and in several cases, child care facilities. At severai study sessions before the Planning Commission, the concept of FAR exemptions for child care facilities has been discussed and the Planning Commission encouraged staff to pursue the concept. The Abbott project appears to offer a context from which there is an excellent opportunity to establish such a new standard. In addition to consideration of the provisions of other Bay Area cities, there is also State Code that provides advisory language to cities and counties for child care FAR exemptions associated with commercial and industrial development. The staff proposal is guided by the State language. The exemption would apply in all commercial and industrial zones with FAR limits. The exemption as proposed would be "one-to-one." That is, for each square foot �f child care facility provided, one additional square foot over the FAR limit may be added to the commercial or industriai floor area of the main project. The proposal includes a minimum size for the child care facility to accommodate at least 40 children. Similar to the applicanYs proposal, the maximum FAR exemption would be 15,000 square feet or 2% of the lot area, whichever is less. The exemption would apply to projects with minimum floor areas of at teast 50,000 square feet, which is ten times smaller than the Abbott campus project. As proposed, the exemption would be granted by the Planning Commission for projects with Planned Development Permit or Precise Plans. This would generally apply to new projects. The Zoning Administrator could grant exemptions through a Use Permit review for smaller projects that do not require Planning Commission review. The staff proposed Zoning Text Amendment for FAR exemptions for child care facilities could result in a small reduction in the total building floor area for the project. For example, a child care center for up to 100 children, which is anticipated to be approximately the size that Abbott will need, will not take up 10,000 square feet of floor area. For example, if the child care center occupies only 7,000 square feet, and if the MSI building is 10,000 square feet, Abbott's proposed build-out will be 3,000 square feet over the 70% FAR limit. Thus, one of the campus buildings, assumed to be the Phase 3 building in this example, would need to be reduced in floor area by 3,000 square feet. A 3,000 square foot reduction in the Phase 3 building (proposed to be 165,000 sq. ft.) would amount to a 1.8% reduction of the proposed floor area for that building or a total building area of 162,000 square feet. Assuming that the 7,000 square foot child care facility is located within the Phase 3 building, 155,000 square feet of floor area would remain in the Phase 3 building for R&D use. OTHER PLANNING ACTIONS: Although the EIR Certification, Zoning Map and Zoning Text Amendments are ail necessary for the Abbott Laboratories project to be approved, these actions do not represent project approval. Project approval is