Title
Report regarding a Public Hearing for the 45-day comment period from June 20, 2024 to August 5, 2024 for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 131 Terminal development project for a new 1.7 million square feet research and development (R&D) campus at 131 Terminal Court. (Billy Gross, Principal Planner)
label
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and take public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and provide any additional comments to staff.
Body
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Infinite 131 Project Application Overview
The project applicant, US 131 Terminal Court Owner, LLC (Steelwave), has submitted an application for a new research and development (R&D) campus at 131 Terminal Court, which is within the Lindenville Specific Plan Area. The project site currently contains the existing Golden Gate Produce Terminal, consisting of approximately 126,750 square feet (sq. ft.) of industrial and operational uses, along with approximately 116,500 sq. ft. of open-air structures (e.g., loading docks, trash compactor areas), on a 17.67-acre site.
The Infinite 131 Project would construct approximately 1.7 million sq. ft. of office/ research and development (R&D) uses and amenities within seven buildings, ranging from one to six stories, along with two parking garages and additional surface parking. The Infinite 131 Project would require general plan, specific plan, and zoning code amendments to change the existing land use and zoning designations from Mixed Industrial High (MIH) to Business Technology Park High (BTP-H) and allow development of the R&D campus. In addition, five parcels north of the project site at 120 Terminal Court, 196 Produce Avenue, 160 Produce Avenue, and 140 Produce Avenue (off-site redesignation parcels), which are currently designated and zoned as MIH, would also seek general plan, specific plan and zoning code amendments to be redesignated as BTP-H. The proposed project would not include the construction of any new uses as part of redesignation of these parcels.
The Infinite 131 Project application includes the following entitlements:
• Lindenville Specific Plan Amendment
• General Plan Amendment
• Zoning Map Amendments
• Design Review
• Transportation Demand Management Program
• Vesting Tentative Map
• Development Agreement
• Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Each of these items will be discussed in more detail when the Planning Commission reviews and considers making a recommendation to the City Council on the project entitlements, likely later in 2024.
Previous Public Meetings
The application review process has included the following public meetings:
Design Review Board
The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the proposed Infinite 131 Project on July 18, 2023. The DRB supported the project, recommending approval with a comment to be addressed regarding landscaping. This comment will be included in the project’s proposed Conditions of Approval, which will be part of the future entitlement review hearing.
CEQA Scoping Meeting
The City hosted a CEQA Scoping Meeting for the EIR via Zoom on November 28, 2023. The purpose of the Scoping Meeting was to officially kick-off the CEQA process, and surrounding community members and agencies were invited to attend and provide input to help frame the EIR scope of analysis.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
The environmental consulting firm ICF prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the Infinite 131 Project. The purpose of an EIR is to disclose information to the public and to decision makers about the potential environmental effects of a proposed project. An EIR does not recommend either approval or denial of a proposed project; rather, it is intended to provide a source of independent and impartial analysis of the foreseeable environmental impacts of a proposed course of action.
Per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City circulated the DEIR on June 20, 2024, for a 45-day public review period. This Planning Commission meeting is intended to allow the public and the Planning Commission an opportunity to present oral comments on the DEIR, and also serves as a study session for the Planning Commission to provide comments on and ask questions about the Infinite 131 project. The public review period will conclude on August 5, 2024. The Planning Commission will not be taking action on the proposed project or the DEIR at this time; there will be additional Planning Commission and City Council public hearings to consider the project entitlements along with the Final EIR (FEIR).
The DEIR Executive Summary (Chapter 2 of the DEIR) provides a summary of potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures (see DEIR Table 2-1, Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures) and each subsequent DEIR chapter includes details on the analysis. The full DEIR document, as well as a link to the technical appendices, are attached to this staff report (Attachments 1 and 2).
Potentially Significant Impacts
The DEIR identifies a total of fourteen potentially significant impacts, as summarized in the document. A lead agency (here, the City of South San Francisco) may not approve a project that may result in significant environmental impacts unless the agency finds that changes or alterations that will avoid or substantially lessen the impacts have been required or incorporated into the project, that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another jurisdiction, or that specific considerations make mitigation of the impacts or alternatives to the project infeasible.
Of the fourteen potentially significant impacts, five are capable of being reduced to less-than-significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures. The following CEQA categories have impacts that can be reduced through mitigation:
- Cultural Resources (has two potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated)
- Noise
- Biological Resources
- Geology and Soils
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
For the remaining nine potentially significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures have either not been identified, have uncertain feasibility, or may not be effective in reducing the impacts to a less than significant level. These impacts, related to air quality, cultural resources and transportation, are designated as significant and unavoidable, as follows.
Air Quality
Operational impacts from the proposed project are primarily a result of area-source emissions (use of consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment), as well as stationary-source emissions (emergency diesel generators), mobile-source emissions (daily employee trips to and from the site) and laboratory operations. Together, all of these operational impacts result in daily reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the proposed project that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) allowed threshold (Impacts AQ-2 and C-AQ-2). This impact can be partially reduced through implementation of mitigation measures that require low-volatile organic compound (VOC) coatings, low-VOC cleaning supplies and use of zero-emission landscape equipment, but total ROG emissions would continue to be above the BAAQMD threshold and there are no additional measures to reduce these emissions further.
The project also could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Impacts AQ-3 and C-AQ-3), specifically with particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions from exhaust and fugitive dust sources that exceed the BAAQMD threshold for worker receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site. While a mitigation measure is proposed to reduce dust emissions during construction, no mitigation measure has been identified that would reduce exposure to PM2.5 concentrations during normal project operations (on-road vehicle trips to and from the site). Thus, these air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Cultural Resources
The existing Golden Gate Produce Terminal is recommended as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and is therefore considered a historical resource for CEQA compliance. Based on this, the demolition of Golden Gate Produce Terminal within the project site would result in a substantial adverse change to the historical resource (Impact CULT-1).
Two separate mitigation measures are proposed, the first requiring written and photographic documentation of the significant and character-defining features of the property and recordation of the historic and architectural characteristics, and the second requiring the design and installation of a public interpretation program on the project site. These mitigation measures would reduce adverse impacts to the greatest extent possible, but this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Transportation
The proposed project was not identified or studied in the General Plan Update or Lindenville Specific Plan, and the intensification of uses would occur in a location with insufficient access and circulation facilities, limited transportation options and challenging connectivity to the regional transportation network. Therefore, the project conflicts with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Lindenville Specific Plan (Impacts TRANS-1 and C-TR-1). As mitigation, the project would be required to implement various actions consistent with those identified in the General Plan, Lindenville Specific Plan and Active South City Plan. One of these actions is the construction of a Class IV separated bikeway along Airport Blvd and Produce Ave from Terminal Court to Baden Ave, connecting the site to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Plaza. The project would also fund engineering studies for a new trail crossing across US 101 south of the project site, and for a new southbound US 101 off-ramp connecting to a future Utah Ave Overpass. With implementation of these measures, the project would adequately address its effects. However, part of this right-of-way is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and another part is under the jurisdiction of the City of San Bruno, and neither jurisdiction has a mechanism for funding this mitigation. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable because the City of South San Francisco cannot ensure implementation of the mitigation measures.
The other potentially significant impact related to transportation is a substantial increase to hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses (Impacts TRANS-3 and C-TR-3). The project would increase vehicle trips at several streets and freeway ramps with unsignalized intersections adjacent to the project site. Implementation of new traffic signals along Produce Avenue and San Mateo Avenue would reduce the potential for conflicts and queueing at affected intersections. However, part of this right-of-way is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the jurisdiction of the City of San Bruno, and neither jurisdiction has a mechanism for funding this mitigation. Therefore, the impact due to design hazards would be significant and unavoidable because the City of South San Francisco cannot ensure full implementation of the mitigations.
As a result of the above, the Infinite 131 Project cannot ultimately be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) is adopted, which balances the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable air quality, cultural resources, and transportation impacts. The Planning Commission and the City Council will review the SOC during future entitlement hearings, when taking action to certify the EIR.
Alternatives Analysis
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an EIR must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which would feasibly attain most of the proposed project’s basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The DEIR evaluates three alternatives (detailed in DEIR Chapter 5):
• Alternative A-No Project Alternative. The existing land uses and site conditions at the project site would not change. The existing Golden Gate Produce Terminal on the project site would remain. Alternative A would not preclude potential future development of the project site with a range of land uses that are permitted within the Mixed Industrial High zoning designation.
• Alternative B-Business Technology Park-Medium (BTP-M) Density Alternative would develop the proposed project in accordance with the requirements for the BTP-M zoning designation, resulting in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 instead of a FAR of 2.0 as allowed under the BTP-H designation, reducing the total development area to 768,440 sq. ft. Consequently, there would be a reduction in the amount of floor area for R&D and amenity uses as well as the number of project-generated employees.
• Alternative C-Increased Office Space (80% Office/20% Lab) Alternative would involve developing the project site with the same total building area as the proposed project, but with a higher ratio of office uses (80 %) and lower ratio of lab uses (20 %). With the increase in office area, Alternative C would result in more total on-site employees
Alternatives Conclusion
While Alternative A, the No Project Alternative, would not have any CEQA impacts, it also does not meet any of the project objectives. CEQA requires the project EIR to identify another alternative that would be considered environmentally superior in the absence of the No Project Alternative.
Alternative C, the Increased Office Space Alternative, would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project, and the transportation related impacts would be increased in severity under this alternative. Therefore, Alternative C is not the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative C would achieve some of the project objectives but to a reduced degree.
Alternative B, the BTP-M Alternative, would reduce but not avoid all of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Alternative B also would not result in any additional significant and unavoidable impacts when compared with the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative B is the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative B would partially meet project objectives to create a dynamic gateway presence along U.S. 101 with high visibility, but does not maximize the site’s potential uses, would be less financially viable, and would generate fewer jobs and fewer taxes and fees.
Next Steps
The DEIR public comment period will close on August 5, 2024. After the comment period closes, staff and the CEQA consultant will prepare written responses to comments received on the DEIR and circulate a Final EIR (FEIR). Together the DEIR and FEIR will constitute the EIR for the Infinite 131 Project, which will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for certification prior to any formal action on the other Project entitlements.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public comments on the Infinite 131 DEIR, and offer any other comments regarding the proposed Infinite 131 Project.
Attachments
1. Infinite 131 Terminal Draft EIR
2. Infinite 131 Terminal Draft EIR Appendices, available online at
<https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=585606&dbid=0&repo=SSFDocs>
3. Project Rendering Package