Title
Report regarding consideration of a Design Review Modification, Development Agreement Amendment and Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the previously approved Research & Development project at 233 East Grand Avenue/328-340 Roebling Road in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
label
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1) Approve a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council make a determination that the 233 East Grand Avenue/328-340 Roebling Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the previously certified 2012 Mitigated Negative Declaration and that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and
2) Approve a 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 between Bayside Area Development, LLC, and the City; and (2) adopt a Resolution approving the Design Review Modification to allow for an increase in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.81 to 1.0 for the project at 233 East Grand Ave / 328-340 Roebling Road in the Business and Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District, subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval.
Body
BACKGROUND
Overview
The project site is located on Roebling Road, at the eastern corner of East Grand Avenue, and is currently fully developed. The site is sloped, with the rear of the site being approximately 23 feet higher than the frontage on East Grand Avenue. The existing 2.97 acre site is comprised of three separate parcels, each containing one office/warehouse building. The warehouse building located at 233 E. Grand Avenue was constructed in 1947 and the warehouse buildings located at 328 and 340 Roebling Road were constructed in 1958.
On November 12, 2012, the City Council approved entitlements to allow the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a campus-style Research & Development (R&D) complex with two 2-story office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 105,536 square feet, with a combination of at-grade and subterranean parking (Entitled Project). Specific entitlements included in the approval include:
• Design Review for the construction of the two separate buildings and on-site amenities.
• Use Permit to allow a reduction from the standard parking ratio, with an approved ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
• Parcel Map to reconfigure the site to create two parcels.
• Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to require a 35% alternative mode split for the project.
• Development Agreement to clarify and obligate several Project features and mitigation measures, including transportation impact fees, rails to trails improvements (which have been constructed), transit station enhancements fee, park fees, public safety impact fee, and TDM reporting and monitoring requirements while simultaneously vesting the applicant’s approvals for 10 years.
• Certification of the 2012 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2012 Recirculated IS/MND).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ DISCUSSION
As with similar projects that were entitled in the early 2010s, the architectural and site planning expectations for bio-technology campuses has evolved since the project was originally entitled. Accordingly, Healthpeak Properties submitted an application in February 2020 for a Design Review Modification and a First Amendment to the DA (Revised Project). The Revised Project would include the following changes to the Entitled Project:
• Revise the site plan to have a five-story stand-alone R&D building fronting on East Grand Avenue and Roebling Avenue, with a three-story parking structure at the rear of the site.
• Increase the entitled square footage to 129,919 square feet of R&D space, increasing the density of development on the site from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.81 to the maximum allowed of 1.0.
The Revised Project would continue to be in keeping with the Use Permit, Parcel Map and TDM Plan as previously approved, and the original conditions of approval related to these items would continue to apply to the Revised Project.
Proposed Design Review Modifications
The Entitled Project includes two separate office/R&D buildings; the Revised Project would combine the office/R&D area into one building that would be located at the front of the lot, with a more modern architecture in keeping with recent buildings completed in the general area. Architectural materials will include multiple types of glass walls with vertical fins interspersed, and a metal screen system for rooftop mechanical equipment.
Parking for the Revised Project will be consolidated into one parking structure located at the rear of the site, behind the office building. The parking structure will be constructed using structural concrete with aluminum fins and infill wire mesh. All of the site parking will be located inside the parking structure, which allows for an improved site/landscape plan by removing at-grade parking close to the buildings, to be replaced with enhanced tenant open spaces and landscape areas.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The applicant’s request for a First Amendment to the Development Agreement (First Amendment to the DA) seeks only minor modifications to the agreement. The modifications include:
• Update to the Project Description to reflect the Revised Project
• Update to the project fees to apply the Commercial Linkage Fee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee for only the approximately 25,000 square feet of additional building area proposed
• Agreement by the developer to participate in a Community Facilities District, if formed, at an annual tax rate equivalent to no more than $1.00 per gross project square foot on the Roebling Road property or such annual tax rate that applies to similarly situated Life Sciences projects in the East of 101
The proposed First Amendment to the DA is included as Attachment 1 to the draft City Council Ordinance, which is attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A. Note that following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, the First Amendment to the DA will be considered by the City Council through adoption of an Ordinance.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
On April 21, 2020, the Design Review Board reviewed the Revised Project application and recommended approval with the following suggestions:
1. Consider revising the eastern elevation to make it less monotonous.
2. Revise the proposed planting plan to include tree species that scale to the height of the buildings.
3. Consider the following additional revisions to the planting plan:
• Excessive use of alders and poplars which are medium and high water use species. Honey Locust does not like the wind and Cordyline is not a tree.
• The poplar, Buckeye and Adler that are being proposed at the parking and service areas are all deciduous and will provide no visual screening in the winter months.
• The Samual Sommers Magnolia is a medium water use and too small in scale with the building.
• There are too many species on the list that are medium water, which will not meet the WUCOLS requirements.
• The proposed White Rockrose will require fast draining sandy soils to survive. Soils locally are too clayey.
• The applicant has the opportunity to provide tall 75 ft. - 100 ft. species that will help scale the large buildings. Consider some clumps of taller evergreen trees such as Monterey Cypress planted in loamy sand, Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Eucalyptus, if the existing poor soil is not changed.
• Adding height with some evergreen species will help scale the tall buildings.
4. Consider how the wind from the West & Northwest will be mitigated at the main plaza. If appropriate, incorporate wind screens or other mitigating measures to make the plaza with outdoor seating useable space.
5. Consider shifting the drop off area to the south away from the parking entry and use the extra space for wind mitigation at the plaza.
6. Provide a section showing the relationship of the parking structure to the adjacent solar farm to the east, to be sure a permanent building shadow does not interfere with the solar system.
7. Consider adding solar panels to the parking structure.
Draft condition of approval A-2 requires that the applicant incorporate the DRB’s recommendations prior to the issuance of building permits.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The Project site is located in the Business and Technology Park land use category and zoning district, and is part of the “East of 101” Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan.
The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan as it has been designed to promote campus-style uses, such as biotechnology, high-technology and research and development uses. The site layout and overall architecture would help shape the urban character of the East of 101 Area. The Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment will not result in any substantive changes, and the overall project will remain consistent with the intent and purpose of the General Plan land use designation and comply with all development standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The BTP Zoning District allows for a maximum FAR of 1.0 and the applicant’s request to increase the FAR to 1.0 meets the FAR criteria per Section 20.110 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2012 Recirculated IS/MND) was prepared for the original entitlements by the environmental consulting firm Lamphier Gregory. The 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was circulated on February 17, 2012 for a thirty-day review period. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 4, 2012 to receive comments from the public. The City Council adopted the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND (State Clearinghouse Number 2009022013) on November 14, 2012.
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, when an IS/MND has been adopted for a project, the City is not required to prepare a subsequent negative declaration or EIR for that project unless there are substantial changes proposed to the project that would require major revisions to the prior environmental document, or that new information is discovered that was not known and could not have been known with due diligence at the time the prior environmental document was adopted. Instead, under section 15164, if certain changes are made to the project that do not rise to the level of substantial change or new information, the City would prepare an addendum to the IS/MND.
In this case, for the proposed modifications to the 233 East Grand Ave/ 328-340 Roebling Project, an addendum to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was prepared (2020 Addendum) to evaluate whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required. The 2020 Addendum concludes that the implementation of the modified project will not cause significant impacts, that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND, and that no significant information has come to light since the MND was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts. The 2020 Addendum further concludes that the proposed modifications to the Project do not represent a substantial change to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND and that the Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis as described in the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164, the City has reviewed the 2020 Addendum and supplemental analysis (Exhibit B to the accompanying CEQA resolution) and has determined that the Project is consistent with previously adopted environmental documents and that the 2020 Addendum serves as the appropriate environmental document without necessitating the preparation of a supplemental EIR or subsequent negative declaration.
CONCLUSION
The Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment is in keeping with the previously approved 233 East Grand Ave/328-340 Roebling Road entitlements, and will continue the transformation of this previously underutilized site to a high density state-of-the-art Office/R&D campus in keeping with the vision of the General Plan, East of 101 Area Plan and Business & Technology Park Zoning District. There are no new or increased environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council make a determination that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the project, and approve a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve the First Amendment to the DA (DAA20-0001) and Design Review Modification (DR20-0016), subject to the Draft Conditions of Approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 233 East Grand / 328-340 Roebling Approved Drawings (2012)
2. Design Review Board Minutes - April 21, 2020
3. Approved TDM Plan
4. Original Development Agreement
ASSOCIATIONS
1. Draft CEQA Resolution (File 20-316)
A. Exhibit A - 2012 Recirculated IS/ MND
B. Exhibit B - 2020 Addendum
2. Draft Entitlements Resolution (File 20-317)
A. Exhibit A - Draft City Council Ordinance
i. Attachment 1- First Amendment to the Development Agreement
B. Exhibit B - Revised Project Draft Conditions of Approval and 2012 Entitled Project Adopted Conditions of Approval
C. Exhibit C - 233 East Grand /328-340 Roebling Revised Project Plans