HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 06-04-20 (Reso 2855-2020) - Roebling 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2855-2020
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(DAA20-0001) BETWEEN BAYSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT LLC AND THE CITY,
AND (2) ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION
(DR20-0016) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 233 EAST GRAND AVENUE / 328-340
ROEBLING ROAD IN THE BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PARK (BTP) ZONING
DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
WHEREAS, in 2012 the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted (1) Resolution No. 94-2012
certifying the 2012 Recirculated Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (“2012
Recirculated IS/MND”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2009022013), (2) Resolution No. 93-2012
approving a use permit, parcel map, master sign permit, preliminary transportation demand
management (TDM) plan, and design review, and (3) Ordinance No. 1460-2012 approving a
development agreement with Bayside Area Development, LLC, for the construction of two new
2-story office/ R&D buildings totaling 105,536 square feet, with a combination of at-grade and
subterranean parking at a ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet (“Entitled Project”) on an
approximately 2.97-acre site located at 233 East Grand Avenue / 328-340 Roebling Road (“Project
Site”) in the City of South San Francisco; and
WHEREAS, Bayside Area Development LLC (“Owner” or “Applicant”) submitted an application
requesting approval of a Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment
to increase the entitled square footage to 129,919 square feet of office/R&D space, increasing the
density of development on the site from a Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 0.81 to a 1.0 FAR, and
revise the site plan to have a five-story stand-along office/R&D building with a three-story parking
structure (“Revised Project”); and
WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s Revised Project is considered a “project” for purposes of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND 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 Revised Project;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, an addendum to the 2012
Recirculated IS/MND was prepared for the Revised Project (“2020 Addendum”) which evaluates
whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required;
and
WHEREAS, the 2020 Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code §
21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162, the implementation of the Revised Project will not cause
significant impacts, that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in
the previously certified 2012 Recirculated IS/MND, that no substantial changes in the project nor
circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous MND have occurred, and that no new
information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was
certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts nor shows new, different or more
feasible mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2020, at
which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to consider the Design Review
Modification and Development Agreement Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and
considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the
Revised 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; 2012 Recirculated IS/MND, and associated Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Programs; 2020 Addendum to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND; the Revised Project
applications; the 233 East Grand Ave / 328-340 Roebling Ave Project Plans, as prepared by Flad
Architects, dated March 23, 2020; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony
submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 4, 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 Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Draft City Council Ordinance regarding
the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (Exhibit A), Conditions of Project
Approval (Exhibit B) and the 233 East Grand / 328-340 Roebling Revised Project Plans
(Exhibit C) are each incorporated by reference as if they were each 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. Design Review
1. The Revised Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the standards and
requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Business
Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District because the Project has been designed as a high
quality, energy efficient, contemporary, office/life science campus which will provide open
spaces and a pedestrian-friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability
elements incorporated.
2. The Revised Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because
the proposed research and development building and campus are consistent with the policies
and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan by encouraging the
development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 Area. Further, the land uses,
development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are
compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations in the General Plan.
Specifically, the project site is designated Business and Technology Park. This designation
accommodates R&D uses, subject to certain development and FAR restrictions. The proposed
Revised Project complies with development restrictions and proposes a FAR or 1.0, which
conforms to the maximum allowable FAR in the Business and Technology Park General Plan
designation, with an acceptable TDM plan and meeting high design standards.
3. The Revised Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with projects
in the East of 101 Area and remains a campus-style development that provides on-site
amenities and is consistent with the Business and Technology Park District Development
Standards and Supplemental Regulations included in Section 20.110.003 and 20.110.004.
4. The Revised Project is consistent with the Use Permit as approved as part of the Entitled
Project, which granted a parking reduction to a ratio of 2.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet, based on the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan on
an on-going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%.
The Revised Project would continue to be subject to the reduced parking ratio and the TDM
implementation requirement.
5. The Revised Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section
20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated against, and
found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design
Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance.
C. Development Agreement Findings
1. The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable
specific plan because the proposed project is an Office/ R&D facility that meets the Business
and Technology Park general plan land use provisions and programs;
2. The proposed Amendment to the 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 because the project provides an office/ R&D facility with a campus-style
environment;
3. The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement is in conformity with public
convenience, general welfare and good land use practice because the amendment enhances the
site plan and further improves the pedestrian environment from the public right-of-way;
4. The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare because the amendment preserves a campus-like environment and
creates a rails-to-trails connection for employees and visitors;
5. The proposed Amendment to the 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, that subject to the Conditions of Approval,
attached as Exhibit B to this resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and recommends that the City
Council take the following actions: (1) adopt an ordinance approving the First Amendment to the
Development Agreement (DAA20-0001) attached as Exhibit A, and (2) adopt a resolution
approving a Design Review Modification (DR20-0016) for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
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 4th day of June, 2020 by the following
vote:
AYES: Chair Wong, Vice-Chair Evans, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner Shihadeh,
Commissioner Murphy, Commissioner Bernardo, Commissioner Tzang
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
RECUSE: Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________
Secretary to the Planning Commission