Title
Report regarding consideration of applications for a Zoning Map Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, Use Permit, Parking Reduction, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Environmental Impact Report with Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations to construct a 25,000 sq. ft. building (400-450 East Jamie Court), a 311,368 sq. ft. office/ R&D building and a five-level parking garage on a 6.45-acre site (201 Haskins Way) by Alexandria Real Estate Equities (ARE). (Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner)
label
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR18-0002), including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and,
2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve the Planning Project (P17-0096), including Zoning Map Amendment (RZ18-0001), Zoning Text Amendment (ZA18-0002), Use Permit (UP18-0001), Design Review (DR19-0004), and Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM18-0001), based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval.
Body
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Site Overview
The 201 Haskins Way site is approximately 6.45 net acres (280,765 square feet [sq. ft.]) and sits at the northeast corner of the intersection of Haskins Way and East Jamie Court (E. Jamie Ct.), with a combined General Plan designation of Coastal Commercial (CC) and Mixed Industrial (MI). The property is abutted by three properties to the north, including 151 Haskins, 410 East Grand Ave, and 430 East Grand Avenue, and one property to the east, 451 E. Jamie Ct. Except for 400-450 E. Jamie Ct., which is currently zoned Business Commercial (BC), all of the properties adjacent to 201 Haskins are zoned MI. Until recently, the 201 Haskins site was occupied by YRC Freight an LTL trucking company which utilized a one-story building of approximately 24,075 sq. ft. The one story building will be demolished as a part of the project.
The 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. site is approximately 6.13 acres (267,000 sq. ft.) and sits at the southern end of E. Jamie Ct. and to the east of Haskins Way. As with 201 Haskins Way, the General Plan designation of 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. is combined CC/MI but is currently zoned BC under the City’s Municipal Code. The 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. parcel is currently developed with two existing three-story buildings with an approximate total of 157,000 sq. ft. of office/R&D use. In the early 2000s, the 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. parcel was developed into a business and technology office use at approximately 0.60 floor area ratio (FAR)under a previous project (P02-0042), which included the construction of a new segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail.
Project Description
The proposed 201 Haskins Way Project site encompasses approximately 18.2 acres on eight parcels of privately owned light industrial and R&D land in the City of South San Francisco’s East of 101 area. The proposed project would involve redevelopment of existing light industrial uses into office/R&D uses and intensifying the buildout of existing office/R&D to create an integrated life sciences campus. More specifically, the proposed project would involve rezoning seven parcels (APN 015-102-160; 015-102-180; 015-102-210; 015-102-220; 015-102-230; 015-102-240; 015-102-290) from the MI zoning district to the Business Technology Park (BTP) zoning district. One parcel, 400-450 E. Jamie Court (APN 015-102-250), would be rezoned from the BC zoning district to the BTP zoning district. The rezoning would allow for development at a FAR of up to 1.0, or a total of approximately 634,796 sq. ft. (677,600 gross sq. ft.) of new BTP office/R&D space.
The developer, Alexandria Real Estate Equities (ARE), has proposed that the additional office/R&D space would be built out in two phases as Phase 1 and Phase 2. At this time, ARE is proposing a specific development application for the Phase 1 area site plan; however, there is no site-specific development program proposed for the Phase 2 area. All site plans are attached as Exhibit D to the Entitlements Resolution.
Phase 1 (under review)
In the Phase 1 area, ARE proposes to construct approximately 336,368 gross sq. ft. of new BTP office use on 201 Haskins Way and 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. The Phase 1 project would demolish a 24,075 gross sq. ft. building at 201 Haskins Way, which previously contained a light industrial trucking use, and construct a new 311,368 gross sq. ft. office building (201 Haskins Way Building). The 201 Haskins Way building would include a three-story (63 ft. in height) and a five-story wing (95 ft. in height), and the site would also contain a five-level parking structure (up to 48 ft. in height) with 720-stalls and 183 surface parking spaces. The building has been designed to be both pedestrian oriented, linking the existing buildings across E. Jamie Ct., and to take advantage of the views of the bay to the south. On the 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. parcel, ARE would construct an approximately 25,000 gross sq. ft. two-story addition to the existing western building. Construction in the Phase 1 area would begin in 2019 and occur over approximately 18 months with an anticipated completion in 2021.
Phase 2 (future development)
At a later date, should ARE acquire parcels adjacent to Phase 1, a Phase 2 project could potentially be developed to provide for expansion opportunities. The plan set and EIR identify a conceptual Phase 2 area that includes the 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. parcel (owned by ARE), plus six additional parcels (unowned by ARE): 101 and 151 Haskins Way, 410 and 430 E. Grand Avenue, 451 E. Jamie Ct., and an unaddressed parcel (APN 015-102-290). Rezoning for the Phase 2 project would allow up to a total of 341,232 gross sq. ft. of new BTP office use on 101 and 151 Haskins Way, 410 and 430 E. Grand Avenue, 451 E. Jamie Ct., and an unaddressed parcel (APN 015-102-290). For conceptual purposes only, Phase 2 shows construction of a new 256,232 gross sq. ft. five-story building (up to 95 ft. in height), as well as an expansion of the parking garage on two parcels to the east at 451 East Jamie Court (APN 015-102-240 and APN 015-102-290) to accommodate a total of 1,060 stalls (340 additional stalls) and a total of 243 additional surface parking stalls. Further, after completion of the 25,000 gross sq. ft. building on the 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. parcel (as part of Phase 1), Phase 2 could also allow future development potential on the same parcel of up to 85,000 gross sq. ft. based on the remaining balance of FAR.
Building Architecture
With a contemporary design, the 201 Haskins Way building has been created to take advantage of and augment the particular conditions of the site. The building has been situated with its long axis along E. Jamie Ct. and has been split into two distinct masses by a three story central atrium that aligns with the open space between the buildings at 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. Public spaces (conference rooms, open areas, etc.) are expected to occupy a “bridge” element that crosses the atrium at the third floor and will see through the atrium to the bay beyond. The proposed materials consist primarily of limestone, precast concrete, aluminum and glass. The ground plane around the building consists of a riprap stone meant to emulate the rockiness of the nearby shore. The stone is utilized in a more refined and modern way on the building’s ground floor as if the stone were rolling up the building from the ground, which is intended to create a distinction between the building’s base and upper floors. To contrast the stone of the base, the upper portion of the building has a metal panel frame within which a curtain wall of grey solar glass sits.
Behind the 201 Haskins Way building, the five-story parking garage emulates that of the lab/office building by creating a strong base with a lighter fabric on the levels above. The west facade of the garage is angled to both form a backdrop to the central open space as well as to work with the geometries of the atrium space. In order to tie the garage and office building together, the garage has a strong heavy base of cast in place concrete that has a series of openings allowing pedestrian access to the central open space. The cast in place concrete walls form a rhythm of open and closed that emulates the stone base of the lab/office building. Above the base, the sides of the garage are clad in a woven stainless steel mesh that provides a visually compelling and unique design.
South of the 201 Haskins building, the two-story building addition at 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. would be developed on the existing western building. The addition would be situated directly north of the existing building and bounded by the existing extent of the building’s east-west massing. Its location was designed to maintain the central visual and pedestrian line between the 201 Haskins Way parcel and the Bay. The complementary materials would include glass, bronze anodized aluminum, board-formed concrete, and wood panels. Architectural renderings are included on Sheets G-401 to G-405 in the project plan set (Exhibit D - Entitlements Resolution).
Landscaping and Open Space
The project provides landscaping and private open space in the form of plazas, seating enclaves with gas fire pits, active sport courts, and a generous rooftop terrace. North of the 201 Haskins Way building, the placement of the parking garage to the east and the sports court to the west creates a centralized plaza and campus spine that leads to advantageous views of the bay to the south. Additionally, the central spine is on axis with the split between the buildings at 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. and runs through the 201 Haskins Way building’s three-story atrium linking the proposed project with the water’s edge. The improvements at the 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. parcel include a revamped and centralized plaza between the two existing buildings, providing new areas for outdoor seating and entertaining. Illustrative plans and landscape plans are included on Sheets L-002 to L-200 in the project plan set (Exhibit D - Entitlements Resolution).
Circulation
For Phase 1, three separate vehicular access points are proposed for the 201 Haskins Way development, including two on the western side of the parcel (Haskins Way), as well as one to the east of the proposed 201 Haskins Way building on E. Jamie Ct. These three access points lead to surface and garage parking. Additionally, a porte-cochere is centrally proposed on the southern side of the 201 Haskins Way building, which allows for additional pickup, drop-off, and connections to transit. The creation of the centralized plaza within the atrium complex also serves as a transit hub with its pedestrian connector between the surface parking lot, the parking garage, and the office/R&D building at 201 Haskins Way. This hub will not only facilitate and encourage the use of multi-modal transportation options, but it will be a key place-making element for the new Phase 1 campus. The hub will maximize opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, shuttles, and shared rides, as well as become a natural setting where people want to gather. Access to the 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. complex remains mostly unchanged.
Entitlements Request
The Project is seeking the following entitlements:
• Zoning Map Amendment (to rezone parcels to BTP)
• Zoning Text Amendment (to add a new footnote)
• Use Permit (increase in FAR to 1.0 and Parking Reduction)
• Design Review
• Certification of EIR, including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC)
Each of these items is discussed in more detail below.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The General Plan Land Use Designation for all project parcels located within Phase 1 and Phase 2 have a dual designation of Coastal Commercial (CC) and Mixed-Industrial (MI). The CC designation primarily allows for offices and R&D facilities with a maximum FAR of 1.0, whereas the MI designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, and warehousing and distribution uses. The proposed office/R&D project is consistent with the dual land use designation, which promotes office/R&D facilities and supplementary uses.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Chapter 20.100)
The primary objective of the proposed zoning map amendments would be to amend the existing zoning for eight parcels to the BTP district, which would allow for a potential flexible buildout of existing office/R&D uses and an integrated life-sciences campus. The following eight parcels are proposed to be rezoned to the BTP zoning district:
1. 101 Haskins Way- currently zoned MI (conceptually part of Phase 2)
2. 151 Haskins Way - currently zoned MI (conceptually part of Phase 2)
3. 201 Haskins Way - currently zoned MI (Phase 1 - ARE owned property)
4. 410 East Grand Avenue - currently zoned MI (conceptually part of Phase 2)
5. 430 East Grand Avenue - currently zoned MI (conceptually part of Phase 2)
6. 451 East Jamie Court - currently zoned MI (conceptually part of Phase 2)
7. APN # 015-102-290 (no address) - currently zoned MI (conceptually part of Phase 2)
8. 400-450 East Jamie Court - currently zoned BC (Phase 1- ARE owned property)
Of the eight parcels above, two are currently owned by ARE and consist of approximately 12.7-acres, while the other six parcels are owned by different landowners (consisting of approximately 5.5-acres). For the six parcels that surround the 201 Haskins property and are owned by different landowners, staff has analyzed the feasibility of rezoning these additional parcels in conjunction with ARE’s request to rezone 201 Haskins Way and 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. to BTP. The Zoning Map, as currently adopted, displays a varied mix of zoning districts consisting of MI, BC, and BTP within a small geographic area. In addition, the 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. parcel is the only parcel in the area zoned BC, which remains isolated and inconsistent with adjacent MI and BTP Zoning Districts. To further consistency of the zoning districts, staff recommends rezoning all of the above parcels to create a continuous section of BTP zoning from the parcels north of E. Grand Avenue down to the Bay Trail. The rezoning substantially simplifies the Zoning Map and corrects past zoning inconsistencies or irregularities. See Exhibit A of the Entitlements Resolution for rezoning maps.
For purposes of analyzing development, the rezoning of all eight parcels from MI and BC would allow for a FAR of up to 1.0, or a total maximum buildout of approximately 634,796 sq. ft. (677,600 gross sq. ft.) of new BTP office/R&D space. Currently, the MI Zoning District allows up to a maximum FAR of 0.60 for all permissible uses, whereas the BC Zoning District allows up to a 1.0 FAR for permitted uses, for a total maximum buildout of approximately 424,877 sq. ft. for all eight parcels. Compared to the existing MI and BC zoning, rezoning the eight parcels to BTP could allow for an additional 209,922 sq. ft. of buildable office/R&D space.
While the flexibility in increased FAR may be vital to create more compact and efficient office/R&D campuses East of 101, the proposed rezoning of the parcels in the Phase 2 area would allow the existing uses to continue in perpetuity, as well as redevelopment of permitted uses at an FAR of 1.0 (in accordance with the BTP Zoning District). In addition to the Zoning Map Amendment, a Zoning Text Amendment is proposed to clarify Table 20.110.002 of the SSFMC. Specifically, the Zoning Text will be amended to update Table 20.110.002 “Land Use Regulations - Employment Districts,” to codify the combined General Plan designation of CC / MI and clarify permitted new and existing uses. Under the “Limitations” section under Table 20.110.002, a new footnote 12 will be added to three uses in the BTP category: (a) freight/truck terminals and warehouses (P in MI), (b) indoor warehousing and storage (P in MI), and (c) light fleet-based (C in MI) that states:
Legally established and pre-existing freight forwarding, warehousing, and light fleet-based uses are legal conforming uses permitted or permitted with a conditional use permit on parcels and may expand or convert to other freight forwarding, warehousing, and light fleet-based uses with a combined General Plan designation of Coastal Commercial (CC) and Mixed Industrial (MI) as depicted in the General Plan Figure 2-1 Land Use Diagram; however, these uses shall be developed in accordance with the development standards and supplemental regulations for the MI Zoning District.
Wholesale and distribution are already permitted in BTP, and customs brokering would be permitted office, indoor warehousing, or wholesaling and distribution. These uses located within the combined CC / MI General Plan designation but now re-zoned as BTP can continue to exist and expand in perpetuity.
The proposed amendments include updates to all relevant maps and figures to accurately illustrate the eight parcels being rezoned to BTP, as well as a new footnote to Table 20.110.002 of the SSFMC. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Entitlements Resolution.
General Development Standards
Per the development criteria outlined in Table 20.110.003 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), the proposed project for Phase 1 meets the development standards listed under the BTP zoning district (see below).
201 Haskins Parcel*
• Max. FAR Permitted: 0.50; or 1.0 w/incentives Proposed: 1.0 FAR
• Lot Coverage Permitted: 60 percent Proposed: 43 percent
• Height Permitted: 161 ft. (as required by FAA) Proposed: 80 ft.
• Landscaping Required: 15 percent Proposed: 16 percent
400-450 E. Jamie Court Parcel*
• Max. FAR Permitted: 0.50; or 1.0 w/incentives Proposed: 0.67 FAR
• Lot Coverage Permitted: 60 percent Proposed: 25.5 percent
• Height Permitted: 161 ft. (as required by FAA) Proposed: 32 ft. (new structure)
• Landscaping Required: 15 percent Proposed: 25.3 percent
*For all other development standards not listed above, please view Sheet G-001 of the plan set (Exhibit D - Entitlements Resolution).
Use Permit
Increase in FAR
Per Section 20.100.003(C) of the SSFMC, an increase in density up to a maximum of 1.0 FAR may be permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Incorporating high quality and innovative design may allow for an additional FAR of 0.10, whereas the implementation of a robust TDM program may permit an additional 0.40 FAR, for a combined maximum FAR up to 1.0 in the BTP District. The developer has included high quality materials and innovative architecture on both the 201 Haskins Way and 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. parcels and has submitted an extensive TDM Plan that is further discussed below (Attachment C - Entitlements Resolution).
Request for Parking Reduction
According to SSFMC Table 20.330.004 “Required On-Site Parking Spaces,” office and R&D uses must adhere to the following parking requirements:
• Office: one (1) space per 350 sq. ft. over 100,000 sq. ft.
• R&D: one (1) space per 350 sq. ft.
Required Parking for Project:
• 1,415 spaces (at a ratio of 2.86 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Proposed Parking for Project:
• 1,327 spaces (at a ratio of 2.68 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Based on the proposed building square footage of 495,315 gross sq. ft. for 201 Haskins and 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. (Phase 1), 1,415 parking spaces are required by the Municipal Code. The developer is proposing to provide a total of 1,327 parking stalls as a campus strategy between the two sites, with 903 stalls located at 201 Haskins Way and 424 stalls at 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. Therefore, the developer is seeking a parking reduction of 88 spaces, or 6 percent, for an overall parking ratio of 2.68 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
Pursuant to Section 20.330.006(D) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission may grant a Conditional Use Permit for reduced parking if it finds the following:
a. Special conditions-including but not limited to the nature of the proposed operation; proximity to frequent transit service; transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site; or because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program-exist that will reduce parking demand at the site;
b. The use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking; and
c. Parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area.
The proposed Phase 1 Project will provide approximately 94 percent of the required parking spaces at a ratio of 2.68 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Across the East of 101 area similar reduced parking standards have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several large developments, such as ARE’s Merck and Verily campuses located on E. Grand. With parking ratios hovering around 2.20 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/R&D space, ARE’s campuses have achieved on average a 35 to 45 percent alternative mode split in employee travel behavior. Based on studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as well as annual TDM reporting, the proposed parking standard of 2.68 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. is not anticipated to result in a shortfall of on-site parking or create the need for overflow parking off-site. Furthermore, ARE is required by the Zoning Ordinance to implement a TDM Plan that must achieve a minimum alternative mode shift of 35 percent as discussed below.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project would incorporate a TDM Plan pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, which contains the City’s TDM requirements. The TDM requirements apply to all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips. The minimum requirements are to achieve 28 percent alternative mode usage (compared to solo driving) with additional density bonuses allowed for higher use of alternative modes. In order to achieve a FAR of 1.0, as required for development of the project, the TDM Plan implemented in connection with the project must achieve 35 percent alternative mode usage.
The TDM measures and programs proposed in this Plan support the above TDM goals and will meet a proposed goal of 35 percent of peak hour trips being made by non-single occupant vehicle modes for Phase 1. As proposed, the 35 percent mode split target would be implemented upon occupancy of the Phase 1 project site. The annual and triennial reporting requirements for the Phase 1 project will evaluate this TDM Plan for compliance with the 35 percent minimum alternative mode usage as required under the City’s TDM Ordinance.
Ultimately, ARE will strive to reach a goal of 40 percent, which demonstrates ARE’s commitment to TDM for the project site. The existing TDM requirement for 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. is a 28 percent alternative mode split. The 2017 alternative mode split goal for 400-450 E. Jamie Ct.’s current work force is over 50 percent. This TDM Plan commits to a permanent 35 percent alternative mode split for the Phase 1 project which includes 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. Because the eventual tenant(s) of the Phase 1 project are likely to be similar in nature to the existing tenant mix, ARE anticipates that the expanded Phase 1 campus site will continue to achieve or exceed this TDM goal. However, because it is also likely a new tenant(s) will come from an SOV-oriented environment, the developer recognizes that it may take time to shift behavior to reach the higher aspirational mode split target.
SUSTAINABILITY / CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) in February 2014; the CAP serves as South San Francisco’s greenhouse gas reduction strategy. The CAP includes requirements applicable to new development projects; following are the specific requirements applicable to the proposed project.
• Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
• Encourage the use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the voluntary CALGreen standards.
• Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following:
- Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features.
- Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise.
- Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
- Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants.
- Installing drip irrigation systems.
- Reducing impervious surfaces.
In addition to the requirements listed above, the CAP includes additional measures that are encouraged in order to help with the City’s greenhouse gas reduction efforts:
• Integrate higher-density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities and community facilities, and reduce dependence on autos through smart parking practices.
• Encourage the use of CALGreen energy efficiency measures as a preferred mitigation for CAP streamlining.
• Promote on-site renewable energy or distributed generation energy systems in new and existing residential and nonresidential projects. Encourage developers of multi-family and mixed-use projects to provide options for on-site renewable electricity or install distributed generation energy systems, similar to the statewide Homebuyer Solar program.
As currently designed, the proposed project will comply with many of the standards above and has the potential to achieve higher levels of sustainability as the project is utilizing several design strategies focused on enhancing resource efficiency and ensuring indoor environmental quality. These strategies will ultimately reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and waste. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to incorporate as many sustainable features beyond those required by the CAP as possible into the project. Further, a Condition of Approval has been added to state that the project drawings will need to include the CAP requirements stated above, which are subject to Chief Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The South San Francisco Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the proposed project on February 20, 2018, and May 15, 2018. After the May 15, 2018 meeting, the Board was supportive of the project and recommended approval with the following recommendations:
1. For the Landscape Plan, consider making the following modifications:
a. Replace the Acacia tree with a more appropriate tree species that will better acclimate to local weather and soil types.
b. Add more trees to the parking lot area to increase the tree canopy.
c. Next to the basketball court, add a berm or hedge to buffer the court area.
2. Work with the Department of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer to analyze the two mid-block crossings versus one singular crosswalk. The City’s Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) will also review the proposed crossings and provide a recommendation.
Following the DRB meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans that addressed all of the board’s comments. Additionally, a draft Condition of Approval has been included for the applicant to address DRB’s recommendations prior to issuance of building permit.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on November 13, 2018, and provided a brief overview of the proposed project design followed by an opportunity for discussion. Several adjacent property owners attended the meeting and had general concerns regarding traffic in the vicinity and construction mitigation. Overall, the project was well liked and supported by the adjacent property owners who attended the meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have been prepared for 201 Haskins Way Project. The Draft EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts related to Transportation. During the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR, which ended on November 26, 2018, the City of South San Francisco Planning Division received five comment letters from three agencies and two members of the public. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments document, which includes the comments received during the public review period and responses to those comments. The Final EIR must be certified by the City Council along with consideration of the project applications. The Final EIR can be found online on the City’s website www.ssf.net/ceqadocuments <http://www.ssf.net/ceqadocuments>, is attached as Exhibit A to the CEQA Resolution, and will be available to the public at the Planning Division office.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
A Draft EIR analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project was prepared by SWCA. The Draft EIR was circulated on October 12, 2018 for a 45-day review period, and a public hearing was held on November 15, 2018 before the Planning Commission. (See Attachment 2 for the Planning Commission Minutes) This public hearing allowed the public and the Planning Commission an opportunity to present oral comments on the Draft EIR. Further, written comments were accepted until November 26, 2018.
Potentially Significant Impacts
The Draft EIR identifies a total of 42 potentially significant and unavoidable project-level impacts and cumulatively considerable contributions to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts, primarily related to transportation and circulation, as summarized in the Draft EIR. The City of South San Francisco as lead agency may not approve a project that may result in significant impacts unless the lead 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 42 potentially significant impacts, 24 are capable of being reduced to less-than-significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit C - CEQA Resolution). The following CEQA categories have impacts that can be reduced through mitigation:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Noise
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
For the remaining 18 potentially significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures have 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 specifically to traffic, are designated as significant and unavoidable and are discussed in greater detail in a following section.
Response to Comments (RTC) Document / Final EIR (FEIR)
The 45-day public comment for the Draft EIR lasted from October 12, 2018 to November 26, 2018. During this period, the City received three comment letters from public agencies-San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, California Department of Transportation, and County of San Mateo Department of Public Works-and two comment letters from local residents.
Once all comments had been received, the Response to Comments document was prepared. A Notice of Availability and Release, along with the Response to Comments Document (that together with the Draft EIR make up the Final EIR) was published on February 7, 2019. The Final EIR and Notice of Availability and Release were sent to all commenters and have been provided to the Planning Commission.
The Response to Comments document includes written responses to all comments received during the public review period and at the public hearing on the Draft EIR, as well as revised or clarified text.
Comments on the Draft EIR
The following presents a brief summary of the five comment letters received during the public review period and the corresponding responses in italics.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
The comment letter requested information on the latest State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance document, noted concerns about shoreline public access in relation to sea-level rise, and stated that an adaptive management plan based on a risk assessment should be developed if the project will remain longer than mid-century.
The analysis of the effect of sea-level rise on existing buildings and facilities is not required in the EIR. Nonetheless, the City has provided an analysis of projected sea-level rise in the proposed project for informational purposes. Landscaping and parking areas on the west side of the existing 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. parcel would be most inundated under seal-level rise projections, while existing foundations would remain above the most extreme sea-level rise and storm surge. It is unlikely that a potential project buildout associated with Phase 2 would occur in the projected inundation areas.
California Department of Transportation, District 4
The comment letter requested additional transportation-related data, requested additional queue evaluation at certain locations, noted the importance of coordination with Caltrans and the project’s fair share contribution to future improvements, and stated that the project should include a robust TDM Plan.
There is no separate Traffic Impact Analysis report, but all elements of the transportation analysis are documented in the EIR and the associated Appendix B, Transportation Technical Appendices. Additional queue evaluation requested at certain locations was not included because project traffic would not be expected or the intersection did not directly affect freeway off-ramp or mainline operations. The City will also coordinate with Caltrans on ramp projects affecting City streets. The applicant would pay the Traffic Impact Fee in effect at the time that building permits are issued for each construction phase, and the project would be required to implement a TDM program.
San Francisco International Airport
The comment letter noted that the project site is within Airport Influence Areas A and B, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has authority of land use review in Area B, and the project is subject to real estate disclosure requirements in Area A.
The text of the EIR was revised to clarify that real estate disclosure requirements apply to the project site located within Area A. Within Area B, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) would act within their ALUC capacity to review the proposed rezoning action to determine consistency applicable regulatory review procedures.
County of San Mateo Department of Public Works
The comment letter stated that stormwater runoff from the project site must not be directed into storm drain lines which ultimately enter the San Mateo County Flood Control District’s flood control channel, and requested a copy of as-built drawings.
The project site is located outside the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone and does not flow through the zone. The text of the EIR was revised to clarify that management of stormwater runoff as part of green infrastructure would comply with the requirements of the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit as administered by the City.
Randy Dilena, Dilena Family LLC
The comment letter expressed concerns about the potentially significant construction-related vibration impacts, requested that the mitigation plan be approved before Phase 1, and-should mitigation not be readily achievable-that the proximity of Phase 1 structures to adjacent structures be reconsidered to avoid significant construction-related vibration impacts. The comment letter also noted concerns regarding transportation and circulation, particularly at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue, and suggested that mitigation of the future cumulative impact at that intersection should be required before development permits are issued.
The EIR concludes that impacts from construction-related groundborne vibration with respect to building damage would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NO-2 under the proposed project. The EIR was revised to clarify that such mitigation measure will be developed and implemented during the final design phases of the project for City approval prior to issuance of building permits for each construction phase. Additionally, the EIR presents mitigation for the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue, but the mitigation cannot be implemented without impacting established bicycle facilities and/or requiring the purchase of additional right-of-way. The City is currently preparing its East of 101 Access Plan, which will identify additional measures to reduce traffic and congestion in the area. Finally, mitigation of future cumulative impacts is for other planned and potential development for the 2040 planning horizon when such developments are constructed and occupied.
Bill Mayer, M & M Development Co.
The comment letter identified concerns about potential property damage from project-related construction activities, including vibration impacts, air quality issues associated with dust and dirt on existing buildings and the need for future cleaning or painting, and exacerbation of existing cracks in the concrete driveways and warehouses due to normal settlement at the 151 Haskins Way parcel. The comment letter recommended that any existing issues be documented prior to project construction activities.
The EIR was revised to clarify that existing baseline conditions of potentially affected structures should be documented for monitoring and compliance purposes.
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) have been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21082.3 and 21081, respectively. The MMRP is organized to correspond to environmental issues and significant impacts discussed in the EIR and will be used by the City to track or identify the following: mitigation measures, timing for implementation, responsible party, the action, and ongoing monitoring responsibility. The complete MMRP is attached to the CEQA Resolution as Exhibit C.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included with the required CEQA Findings and attached to the CEQA Resolution as Exhibit B. In summary, the Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the City Council for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the 201 Haskins Way Project EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2018042047) and the project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable transportation impacts.
Staff is supporting adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations because the Project will provide economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits that balance the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project related to traffic. Balancing impacts include:
• Creating state-of-the-art R&D facilities consistent with the General Plan designation of the site, and General Plan goals and policies;
• Promoting the City’s ongoing development of the East of 101 Area into a nationally recognized biotechnology and R&D center that will attract other life science uses and provide quality jobs for the City;
• Redeveloping underutilized parcels within the project site at a higher density to take advantage of the opportunities offered in the East of 101 Area to create a vibrant R&D campus;
• Maximizing alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City’s transportation objectives by emphasizing linkages, Transportation Demand Management (TDM), and pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings;
• Providing a positive fiscal impact on the City through the creation of jobs, enhancement of property values, and generation of property tax and other development fees;
• Allowing for the continued operation of existing manufacturing and warehousing / distribution uses until new development occurs, consistent with City policies.
CONCLUSION
The proposed office/R&D campus is consistent with both General Plan goals and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Phase 1 of the project would allow construction for approximately 341,232 gross sq. ft. of a state-of-the-art office/R&D campus, which includes enhanced connectivity and improvements to the 400-450 E. Jamie Ct. site to achieve a unified biotech campus with the 201 Haskins Way property. Further, the proposed office/R&D campus promotes the City’s ongoing development of the East of 101 Area into a nationally recognized biotechnology/ R&D center, and ultimately produces quality jobs for the City. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR18-0002), including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and,
3. Adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve Planning Project (P17-0096), including Zoning Map Amendment (RZ18-0001), Zoning Text Amendment (ZA18-0002), Use Permit (UP18-0001), Design Review (DR19-0004), and Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM18-0001), based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval.
Attachments
1. Draft EIR Public Comments Staff Report, dated November 15, 2018
2. Planning Commission Minutes of November 15, 2018
3. Design Review Board Comment Letter, dated May 15, 2018
Associated Resolutions
1. Draft CEQA Resolution (19-92)
A. Final EIR (FEIR)
B. CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC)
C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
D. Draft EIR (DEIR)
2. Draft Entitlements Resolution (19-93)
A. Draft Text Amendment Ordinance
i. Zoning Map Amendment as Exhibit A
ii. Zoning Text Amendment as Exhibit B
B. Draft Conditions of Approval
C. Preliminary TDM Plan
D. 201 Haskins Planning Application Project Plans, dated September 28, 2018