Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 03-03-16 (Reso 2786-2016) - 475 Eccles - Entitlements RESOLUTION NO._2786-2016_ PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 6.1 ACRE SITE FOR THE 475 ECCLES AVENUE OFFICE/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS PROJECT. WHEREAS, BioMed Realty Trust (“Applicant”) owns property consisting of approximately six and one-tenth (6.1) acres located at 475 Eccles Avenue of the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, (“Project Site”); and, WHEREAS, Applicant desires to develop the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/Research and Development Campus Project (“Project”) with an office/research and development (R&D) campus and recreational open space uses; and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of Use Permit, Design Review, Alternative Landscape Plan, a Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan, and a Development Agreement which would authorize the construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0 with up to a total of 262,287 square feet, subject to the terms of the Project entitlements including the proposed Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and, WHEREAS, on March 3, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the EIR and the proposed entitlements, take public testimony, conditionally approve elements of the Project and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), and by separate resolution, recommends the City Council adopt the EIR, including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project’s environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 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 EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the 475 Eccles Avenue Project Plans, as prepared by CAS Architects, Inc., dated September 19, 2014; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by Fehr & Peers, dated January 2016; the 477 Eccles Avenue EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed March 3, 2016 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. 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A), the 475 Eccles Project Plans (attached as Exhibit B), the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (attached as Exhibit C), and the Development Agreement (attached as Exhibit D) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, 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 Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra. 4. By Resolution No. ________, the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has recommended that the City Council find that an EIR was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which EIR adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts, its growth inducing impacts, and its cumulative impacts, and analyzed alternatives to the Project. For those impacts that could potentially exceed CEQA thresholds of significance, where feasible the City has identified and imposed mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less- than-significant. The Planning Commission has further recommended that the City Council find that the benefits of approving the Project outweigh the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. B. Use Permit 1. The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Project meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the Business and Technology Park Zoning District, with the exception of parking, for which a reduced parking standard of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet is proposed rather than the typical parking standard of 2.86 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and with the exception of floor area ratio, for which a maximum ratio of 1.0 rather than 0.5 is proposed. The exceptions for parking and increased floor area ratio are permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance because the Project incorporates a robust Transportation Demand Management Program designed to encourage future employees to rely on alternatives forms of transportation and incorporates high quality, innovative design and product type, and maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use as well as expanded sustainability measures beyond what is required under Title 15 of the City’s Municipal Code. 2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. The 1999 General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to encourage the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 Area, allow for employee-serving services, and requires the preparation of a Traffic Demand Management plan to reduce congestion impacts. Consistent with these policies, the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/R&D Project provides for the construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0. The Project includes employee-serving amenities in accordance with a preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan and meets specific design standards established for the East of 101 Area. Further, approval of the Project, including the proposed Development Agreement, will not impede achievement of, and is consistent with, applicable General Plan policies. 3. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the proposed use is consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the site, including the office/R&D uses. The project proposes Office/R&D uses on a site located in the City’s East of 101 area, which is intended for this type of use. The East of 101 Area Plan and General Plan have analyzed this type of use in the East of 101 area, and concluded that office/R&D uses in the East of 101 area are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is consistent with surrounding office/R&D uses in the vicinity, approval of the Project will not be detrimental to the nearby properties. 4. The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of landscaping and parking requirements, which are permissible and warranted by the Zoning Ordinance. The Alternative Landscape Plan is allowable under the City’s Municipal Code Section 20.300.007(D)(2). The exception for the number of parking spaces is allowable under the City’s Municipal Code Section 20.330.006(D), and warranted based on the following findings: i. The parking reduction will serve to support and promote the Project’s TDM program. ii. The Project provides 87% of the required parking spaces and is required, through the TDM program, to achieve an alternative mode use of 35%. The use will be adequately served by the proposed on-site parking and the site is not anticipated to result in a shortfall of on-site parking or create the need for overflow parking off-site. iii. The proposed parking standard of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet will be adequate for the proposed use because of the offered alternative solutions for providing and managing parking. The Project is required to implement a TDM Program on an on- going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%. The TDM requirements applicable to the Project, the fact that similar reduced standards have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several large developments in the City, including the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, the Gateway Specific Plan District, Britannia East Grand and the Genentech Campus, and the studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) all support a reduced parking standard. iv. The reduced parking rate reinforces the overall efforts of the City’s General Plan and the TDM Ordinance, which encourage reduced parking standards as an effective tool in encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. v. The parking demand generated by the Project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental effect on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding areas because the Project provides sufficient on-site parking and is implementing a TDM Program on an on-going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%. vi. The number of parking spaces provided by the reduced standard will serve all existing, proposed and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would the standard number of parking spaces required by Chapter 20.210 and Chapter 20.330. As described above, there is ample evidence to support the proposed parking reduction, and there is added concern that an overabundance of parking could have a deleterious effect on the goals and objectives of the City’s TDM efforts since such would serve as a disincentive to use of alternative modes of transportation. 5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the Project proposes office/R&D uses in the East of 101 Area, which is specifically intended for such uses. 6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the office/R&D uses will benefit from being located in the East of 101 Area, and the size and development is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land use and zoning standards. 7. The Project complies with CEQA for the reasons stated in Finding A.4 above. C. Design Review 1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a high quality, energy efficient, contemporary, office/R&D campus which will provide open spaces and a pedestrian- friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated. Subject to approval of the Alternative Landscape Plan, the project meets or exceeds all general development standards and all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed office/R&D buildings are consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Business and Technology Park land use designation by encouraging the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 Area. 3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Employment District Standards included in Chapter 20.110. 4. The 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. D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan 1. The proposed trip reduction measures contained in the TDM (attached hereto as Exhibit F) are feasible and appropriate for the Project, considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project’s location, size, and hours of operation. Appropriate and feasible measures have been included in the TDM plan to achieve a projected 35% alternative mode usage, as required. The TDM provides incentives for employees to use modes of transportation other than single-occupancy vehicle trips, such as secure bicycle storage, shower facilities, preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, and an employee TDM contact, among others. The TDM also uses a lower parking ratio to increase ridership on BART, Caltrain and other transit services. Further, pedestrian walkways linking the Project to adjacent shuttle stops will help encourage alternative forms of transportation. 2. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target 35% alternative mode use established for the Project by Chapter 20.400 will be achieved and maintained. Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and triennial reports. E. Development Agreement 1. The Owner and City have negotiated a Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq. The Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, sets for 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 Development Agreement, vesting a project for a campus- style development of office and R&D buildings, is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and any applicable zoning regulations. 2. 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. The subject site is 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 Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice in that the project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the General Plan and the Business and Technology Park Zoning District which have planned for campus-style development of office and R&D buildings at this location. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare because the project will proceed in compliance with all of the policies and programs specified in the General Plan and in compliance with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations of the City of South San Francisco. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and conditionally approves the Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, the Preliminary TDM Plan (attached as Exhibit C), and Design Review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and BioMed Realty Trust (attached as Exhibit D). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approvals stated herein are conditioned upon the City Council’s approval of the Development Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and BioMed Realty Trust. 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 the regular meeting held on the 3rd day of March, 2016 by the following vote: AYES:___Chairperson Khalfin, Vice Chairperson Faria, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Nagales, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Wong.__ NOES:________________________________________________________________ ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________ ABSENT:______________________________________________________________ Attest:______/s/Sailesh Mehra_________________ Sailesh Mehra Secretary to the Planning Commission Exhibit A Conditions of Approval Exhibit B 457 Eccles Avenue Project Plans Exhibit C Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan Exhibit D Development Agreement 2613329.1