The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Meeting 01-16-20 (Reso 2850-2020) - Gateway of Pacific DAA RESOLUTION NO. 2850-2020 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT THE PROPOSED FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DAA19- 0003) TO THE GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND BETWEEN BMR-700 GATEWAY LP, BMR-750, 800, 850 GATEWAY LP, BMR-900 GATEWAY LP, AND BMR-1000 GATEWAY LP CONTINUES TO COMPLY WITH AND BE SUBJECT TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED EIR AND ADDENDUM, AND NO SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WOULD BE NECESSARY PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 15162 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO MAKE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO AMEND PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHILDCARE FACILITIES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. WHEREAS, in 2010 the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted (1) Resolution No. 18- 2010 certifying the 2009 Environmental Impact Report (“2009 EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008062059), (2) Resolution No. 19-2010 approving a general plan amendment and transportation demand management (TDM) program, (3) Ordinance No. 1422-2010 amending Chapters 20.57 and 20.120 of the Zoning Ordinance, and (4) Ordinance No. 1423-2010 approving a development agreement with Chamberlin Associates, for the construction of five to six R&D/ Office buildings, two to four parking structures, and related improvements on an approximately 22.6-acre site located at 700-1000 Gateway Boulevard; and WHEREAS, in 2013 the City adopted (1) Resolution No. 43-2013 making findings and relying on the previously certified 2009 EIR; (2) an Addendum to the 2009 EIR; (3) Resolution No. 44- 2013 approving modifications to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan, a new Phase 1 Precise Plan, and modifications to the TDM program, and (4) Ordinance No. 1471-2013 adopting a First Amended and Restated Development Agreement with Gateway of Pacific LP (“BioMed Realty”); and WHEREAS, in 2018 the City adopted Ordinance No. 1559-2018 adopting a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement with BMR-700 Gateway LP, BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway LP, BMR-900 Gateway LP, and BMR-1000 Gateway LP to allow for minor modifications to the agreement, including acknowledgement of the transfer and assignment of the separate parcels to the respective affiliates, acknowledgement of lot line adjustment between Phases 1 and 2, and confirmation that each property owner holds the compliance burdens, obligations, and responsibilities for its respective parcel of property under the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, BioMed Realty (“Owner” or “Applicant”) submitted an application requesting a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement to allow for a minor modification to the agreement related to the replacement childcare obligation; and WHEREAS, the 2009 EIR was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, the modifications contemplated in the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement relate only to modifying one existing obligation under the previously approved development agreement, and the approval of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the 2009 EIR certified by City Council, nor does the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement constitute a change in the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on January 16, 2020, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the proposed First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement, as well as supporting documents, prior to the Planning Commission making its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW THEREFORE, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; 2009 EIR, 2013 Addendum to the 2009 EIR, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 16, 2020 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Exhibit attached to this Resolution, the proposed First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Exhibit A), is incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. B. CEQA Findings 1. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 [Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations], and for reasons stated in this Resolution, there is not substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that approval of the First Amendment will result in significant environmental effects beyond those adequately evaluated and addressed by the 2009 EIR and the 2013 Addendum to the 2009 EIR, nor would the proposed amendment require any new mitigation measures because: a. The Project does not propose substantial changes to Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement, and continues to comply with and be governed by the 2009 EIR and 2013 Addendum to the 2009 EIR, and previously identified mitigation measures set forth in the 2009 EIR and 2013 Addendum continue to apply; b. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the First Amendment is proposed which will require major revisions of the 2009 EIR and 2013 Addendum to the 2009 EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; c. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time when the 2009 EIR was certified as complete and when the 2013 Addendum was adopted, shows any of the following: i. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the 2009 EIR and 2013 Addendum to the 2009 EIR; ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous 2009 EIR and 2013 Addendum to the 2009 EIR; iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2009 EIR and 2013 Addendum to the 2009 EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 2. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review and consideration of the environmental documentation provided, the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that the proposed First Amendment falls within the environmental parameters analyzed in the 2009 EIR and 2013 Addendum to the 2009 EIR, and further finds that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the 2009 EIR and 2013 Addendum to the 2009 EIR certified/adopted by City Council nor would new mitigation be required by the Project, and the prior Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would continue to apply. The Project would not result in any new impacts not adequately evaluated and addressed by the 2009 EIR and 2013 Addendum to the 2009 EIR. C. Development Agreement Findings 1. The Owner and City have negotiated a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq. The First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, sets forth the duration, property, project criteria, and other required information identified in Government Code Section 65865.2. Based on the findings in support of the Project, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement would continue to effectuate the vesting of a project for a campus-style development of office and R&D buildings, and would remain consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan, the Gateway Specific Plan, and any applicable zoning regulations. 2. The First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located. 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. 3. The First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice because the modifications are minor in nature. 4. The First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare because the amendment preserves a campus-like environment. 5. The First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property valued because the amendment improves the property’s campus-like environment and is consistent with surrounding R&D and office uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and determines that no subsequent environmental document would be necessary pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA19-0003) for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project attached as Exhibit A. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of January, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice-Chair Wong, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner Shihadeh, Commissioner Evans, Commissioner Tzang, Commissioner Bernardo NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________ Secretary to the Planning Commission