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 City Council conduct a public hearing, follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and take the following actions:
1) Approve a resolution making findings and determining 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;
2) Introduce an Ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement between Bayside Area Development, LLC, and the City, and waive further reading; and,
3) 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 at the corner of Roebling Road and East Grand Avenue, and was acquired by Healthpeak Properties (formerly called HCP Life Sciences) for development into a small office/R&D campus. The 2.97-acre site includes three separate parcels, with each parcel containing one existing office/warehouse building.
On November 12, 2012, the City Council approved entitlements to allow demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a biotechnology campus with two 2-story office/R&D buildings totaling about 105,536 sq. ft., 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, this project needed to have its architecture and site planning updated to match current market trends and expectations in the biotechnology industry. Accordingly, in February 2020, Healthpeak Properties submitted an application 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 & Roebling, with a three-story parking structure at the rear of the site.
• Increase the entitled square footage to 129,919 sq. ft. of R&D space, increasing the density 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 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 and replacing it 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 DA. 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, which did not exist at the time the original DA was approved. These two fees would be applied only to the additional building area being requested, which totals approximately 25,000 sq. ft.
• 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 accompanying Ordinance approving the amendment.
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 30-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.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission reviewed the revised project at its meeting on June 4, 2020. No members of the public provided comments on the project. The Commission believed that the design changes proposed for the project were an improvement. The Commission had general questions related to the impact of traffic on East Grand Ave, Development Agreement requirements, wind attenuation, storm water retention due to the slope of the site, and business trends due to the pandemic. The Commission was supportive of the Project, and recommended by a vote of 7-0 that the City Council approve the entitlements, make the requested CEQA determination, and approve the First Amendment to the Development Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
The developer of the project has funded the preparation of all applicable studies for the project and paid entitlement fees to process the application through the review process. Direct revenue associated with this project would include property tax revenue increase from the improvements and construction of an office/R&D campus. The project would pay the costs of meeting City requirements for off-site improvements to the public right-of-way, so the City does not expect to incur project specific costs.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The proposed project helps to achieve the following goal/objective of the City’s Strategic Plan:
• Initiative 2.4 - Promote a full range of employment options through business retention and development projects.
The new biotech campus will add additional employment opportunities and quality jobs for the City.
• Initiative 3.1 - Pursue financial stability to support City operations.
The new biotech campus would buildout underutilized parcels and provide a substantial increase in property tax revenue, furthering the City’s goal of financial stability contained in the Strategic Plan.
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.
Based on the information contained in the public record, staff recommends that the City Council make a determination that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the project, introduce the attached ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and waive further reading, and adopting a resolution making findings and approving the project entitlements.
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
5. Planning Commission Resolutions:
a. CEQA Resolution 2854-2020 (without exhibits)
b. Entitlements Resolution 2855-2020 (without exhibits)
6. Power Point Presentation
ASSOCIATIONS
1. Draft CEQA Resolution (File 20-319)
A. Exhibit A - 2012 Recirculated IS/ MND
B. Exhibit B - 2020 Addendum
2. Draft Development Agreement Amendment Ordinance (File 20-320)
A. Exhibit A - First Amendment to the Development Agreement
3. Draft Entitlements Resolution (File 20-321)
A. Exhibit A - Revised Project Draft Conditions of Approval and 2012 Entitled Project Adopted Conditions of Approval
B. Exhibit B - 233 East Grand /328-340 Roebling Revised Project Plans