DATE: January 17, 2023
TO: Adam Politzer, Interim City Manager
FROM: Charles S. Bryant, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Study Session – 58Fifty Shellmound Life Science Tower, 5850 Shellmound Way
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the City Council consider this staff report and provide direction by responding to the questions posed under the section “Issues to be Considered”.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at study sessions on August 26, 2021, February 24, 2022, April 28, 2022, and October 27, 2022. (See Attachment 1 for August 26, 2021 staff report, Attachment 2 for February 24, 2022 staff report, Attachment 3 for April 28, 2022 staff report. Since the October 27, 2022 Planning Commission staff report is substantially the same as this report, it is not attached.) The proposal was also reviewed by the City Council at a study session on May 17, 2022 (Attachment 4).
One of the key policy questions that the Planning Commission and the City Council needs to address is regarding the mix of uses.
As the project parcel size is between 1 and 5 acres and is in the Mixed Use with Residential (MUR) Zone, the proposal needs to include a mix of uses, one of which must be residential, as required by Section 9-3.303(b)(2)b of the Planning Regulations. A single use may be allowed with a conditional use permit provided that the following finding can be made in addition to the regular findings required for a conditional use permit:
That the applicant has convincingly demonstrated that it is infeasible to develop a project with a mix of use groups on the site. (Section 9-3.303(c)(1)) Initially, the project did not include any residential units. At the August 26, 2021 study session, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to provide a comprehensive analysis at the next study session of why residential use is not viable at this site. Economic Development and Housing Division staff worked with a consultant to peer review the applicant’s analysis of the feasibility of housing on this site and presented the results to the Commission at the February 24, 2022 study session. In general, the City’s consultant concurred in the applicant’s analysis. The majority of the Commissioners indicated that they understood the conclusions of the applicant’s and City’s consultant’s analyses, that a large residential development is not financially feasible on this site at this time but stated that at least some amount of housing should still be considered as part of the proposal. It was suggested that a few townhouse units could be located on the ground floor and would therefore not require elevators.
In response, the applicant put forward a revised proposal that included six townhouse units; the revised proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 28, 2022 and by the City Council on May 17, 2022. Both the Commission and the Council in their review of the revised proposal commented that six housing units was not adequate.
The applicant has now revised the proposal to include 30 affordable units, with 20 units to be provided at the very low-income level and 10 at the low-income level. The Commission reviewed this revised proposal at their October 27, 2022 meeting and their comments are outlined below in the section “Planning Commission Comments”.
The project requires City Council approval because it includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA). The reason for the GPA is that the General Plan Land Use Map shows a revised location of Shellmound Way that is approximately 150 feet north of the existing location, and the project has not been designed to comply with the relocation of Shellmound Way as shown in the General Plan. This issue is discussed below.
Revised Project Proposal
The project proposes a 14-story, 265-foot-high building accommodating 353,540 square feet of life science use (“Research and Development”), 30 affordable residential units, and approximately 1,000 square feet of ground floor retail/amenity space (see Sheet 18 of Project Plans dated October 27, 2022, Attachment 5).
The thirty proposed units will all be Below Market Rate (BMR) units with 20 allocated to be Very Low-Income units, and the remaining 10 two to be Low-Income units. These are currently being conceived to be rental units. These units are sited along the bicycle-pedestrian path along the northern property line. The table below outlines the unit mix.
Unit Type
Number
Percentage of Total (%)
Studio
3 10%
One-bedroom
6 20%
Two-bedroom
16 53.3%
Three-bedroom
5 16.7%
Total
30 100%
The other changes to the proposal include a decrease of Research and Development space by 33,200 square feet and a slight decrease in retail/amenity space by 1,230 square feet. The lobby square footage remain roughly the same size and a new lobby is added for the residential development along Christie Avenue. The parking count has been reduced by 94 spaces (315 spaces versus 409).
The remaining features of the project remain similar, with the building lobby occurring off Christie Avenue as well as the entrance to parking and loading. Loading occurs within the building on the ground floor and 315 vehicular parking spaces are provided on six levels of parking. Sheet 22 illustrates typical floor plans whereas Sheet 21 provides a north-south sectional view of the parking structure and residential units. The building reaches a roof height of 240 feet with an additional 25 feet accommodating mechanical support equipment (See Sheet 24). Since the building would have continuous exterior cladding from the ground to the top of the mechanical level, it would appear to be 265 feet tall, although the “official” building height would be 240 feet, as measured to the top of the roof.
A 10,625 square foot terrace for commercial tenants is provided on the fifth level above the parking structure as an amenity space for the employees (see Sheet 25) and approximately 16,800 square feet of open space is provided on the ground level in the form of a plaza at the corner of Christie Avenue and Shellmound Way (see Sheet 18). A 950-square foot amenity space is provided on the fifth floor (terrace level) of the residential building (see Sheet 23).
The design of the building is preliminary at this time with renderings of the massing shown in Sheets 20 and the four elevations on Sheets 24 to 27. The potential cladding for the life science building is an aluminum and glass curtain wall system, while a custom perforated metal system is contemplated for the garage cladding.
Sheets 13 to 16 illustrate the alternatives considered for the tower positions.
Shellmound Way Relocation and Pedestrian-Bicycle Path
In 2007, prior to the adoption of the General Plan, a traffic analysis was conducted for the Powell-Christie area which recommended that Shellmound Way be relocated about 150 feet to the north of its current location in order to improve circulation in the area, provide simplified access to the property at 5801 Christie Avenue, and create a larger development parcel south of Shellmound Way. When the General Plan was adopted in 2009, it included this relocation of Shellmound Way. (See Land Use Map, Figure 2-2 of the General Plan.).
During 2017-2018, the Planning Commission held three study sessions on a residential project previously proposed at 5850 Shellmound Way. On January 25, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended amending the General Plan to modify the location of Shellmound Way such that it is consistent with its existing configuration.
On March 5, 2018, the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) recommended that the proposed General Plan Amendment include an east-west pedestrian and bicycle path in the approximate location where the General Plan currently shows the relocated Shellmound Way. The City Council considered the proposed General Plan Amendment on March 6, 2018, and continued the item, directing staff to bring back a General Plan Amendment that includes the path as recommended by the BPAC. The applicant incorporated the General Plan Amendment into its proposal, to modify the location of Shellmound Way such that it is consistent with its existing configuration, and to add an east-west pedestrian and bicycle path in the approximate location where the General Plan currently shows the relocated Shellmound Way. The applicant also offered 10 feet along the northern property line to be dedicated for this path with the anticipation that an additional 10 feet would be added in the future from the adjacent City-owned parcel to the north, to allow for construction of a standard 20-foot pedestrian and bicycle path. This is shown on Sheet 18 of the attached plans, which actually show a 20-foot path because that much width is required for fire department access.
DISCUSSION
Conformity to General Plan and Planning Regulations
General Plan
Shellmound Way Relocation: As noted above, the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-2 of the General Plan) shows a revised location of Shellmound Way that is approximately 150 feet north of the existing location. The project would need a General Plan Amendment as the project has not been designed to comply with the location of Shellmound Way in the General Plan.
Land Use: The General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 2-2) classifies the project site as “Mixed Use with Residential”, which is described in Section 2.4 of the General Plan as “One or more of a variety of residential and non-residential uses including but not limited to offices, retail and hotel. On larger sites, a mix of residential and non-residential uses is required; on smaller sites, a single use may be permitted.” The project provides a mix of commercial uses and now provides residential as one of the uses. Please see further discussion under “Zoning District” below.
Planning Regulations
Zoning District: The base zoning district for the site is “Mixed Use with Residential” (MUR), which allows for a variety of commercial uses as well as multi-unit residential use.
The site is also in the Transit Hub (TH) overlay zone where all parking requirements are reduced by 50%, and in Pedestrian Priority (PP) which calls for wider sidewalks. This is further discussed below.
Use Classification: The proposed life sciences use is classified as a “Research and Development” Industrial use type which requires a conditional use permit in the MUR Zone, and the proposed six townhouses are classified as Multi-Unit Residential, which is allowed by right in this zone.
Mix of Uses Required: As the parcel size is between 1 and 5 acres, a conditional use permit and mix of uses, one of which must be residential, is required by Section 9-3.303(b)(2)b of the Planning Regulations. The regulations do not specify the proportion of the mix between residential and non-residential uses.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
The Floor Area Ratio for the site is 3.0 and can be increased to a bonus FAR of 6.0 with a conditional use permit and the provision of increased affordable housing impact fee and community benefits. The proposed FAR for the project is almost exactly 6.0 (388,090 square feet of floor area/64,682 square feet of site area). The project therefore will require 100 bonus points for FAR.
Height
The site falls within the 75/100+ foot height district, which can be increased to a bonus height of over 100 feet with a conditional use permit. The proposed height of the building is 240 feet. The project therefore will require 100 bonus points for height.
Residential Density
The maximum residential density for the site is 85 units per acre and can be increased to 170 units per acre with a conditional use permit. Based on a 64,682 square foot (1.48-acre) site, the permitted base density calculates to 126 units and 252 units with bonus points. The proposed density of 30 units on 1.48 acres calculates to 20.3 units per acre, which is permitted by right and requires no bonus points.
Bonus Points
Pursuant to Section 9-4.204 of the Planning Regulations, the project requires 100 bonus points, the greatest of the number of points required for FAR (100), height (100), and residential density (0).
For non-residential project components, such as the proposed life sciences tower, pursuant to Section 9-4.204(d), the applicant will need to obtain half of the bonus points (50) by paying an additional affordable housing impact fee. As such, the applicant will need to pay an additional 100 percent of the affordable housing impact fee at the time of building permit issuance. For reference, the current affordable housing impact fee is $5.08 per square foot, so the applicant would need to pay $10.16 per square feet to obtain 50 bonus points if the building permit were issued today. This calculates to approximately $3.59 million. The actual fee required will be whatever is in effect at the time that the building permit is issued.
The remaining 50 bonus points must be earned through the provision of community benefits, pursuant to Section 9-4.204(e). Possible benefits include additional public open space, zero net energy, public improvements, utility undergrounding, and a contribution to the City’s small business fund. The applicant has suggested obtaining bonus points by providing additional public open space on the ground level and by providing additional family friendly units.
Parking and Loading
Vehicular Parking: Typically research and laboratory businesses need space for laboratory and office on a half and half basis, and the City has used this criterion for other such projects including the recently approved BMR Emeryville Center of Innovation project.
As the site is in Transit Hub (TH) overlay zone, all estimated demands for parking are reduced by half. Therefore, the estimated parking demand for Office is 1.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet; for Research and Development it is 0.75 space per 1,000 square feet; for Multi-Unit Residential units the estimated demand is 0.5 spaces per unit plus 0.1 guest parking spaces per unit, or a total of 0.6 spaces per unit.
Section 9-4.404 (c) requires that, for all non-residential uses with area-based estimated parking demands, the first 1,500 square feet be subtracted from gross square footage of the use. Allowing for this exclusion brings the Research and Development square footage to 352,040 (353,540-1,500).
The estimated parking demand for the office space (176,020 square feet) is 211 spaces (1.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space (176,020 x 1.2/1000); and for Research and Development space the estimated demand is 132 spaces (0.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet (176,020 x 0.75/1000). The estimated demand for 30 units is 18 (0.6 x 30). This brings the total estimated parking demand of 361.
There is no minimum parking requirement and the maximum allowed is 10% more than the estimated demand. So, the maximum parking permitted is 397 spaces. The project proposes 315 parking spaces and is in compliance with the City’s parking regulations.
Bicycle Parking: The nonresidential portion of the project will trigger one short-term and one long term bicycle parking space for every ten automobile parking spaces indicated as the estimated parking demand. As the estimated demand is 686 spaces, 69 long term bicycle parking and 69 short term parking spaces will be required. For the residential portion of the project, one short-term space is required for every 20 units, and one long-term space is required per unit. This equates to 2 short-term spaces and 30 long-term spaces for the residential portion of the project. Thus, the total bicycle parking requirement is 71 short-term spaces (69 + 2) and 99 long-term spaces (69 + 30). (Note that there is no Transit Hub Overlay reduction for bicycle parking since the intent of this overlay zone is to encourage alternative transportation such as bicycles.) A bicycle parking room (presumably for long term parking) is indicated on the ground floor, although its design and number of bicycle parking spaces is not indicated. The applicant is not showing provision of any short-term bicycle parking spaces at this preliminary stage.
Loading: The project will trigger 2 medium loading spaces and 1 large loading space. The plans show three medium sized loading spaces and one large loading space and therefore comply with the City’s requirements.
Open Space
Section 9-4.303(a)(3) requires new commercial buildings or additions that exceed 100,000 square feet to provide a minimum area of common open space and/or Privately Owned Public Open Space (POPOS) that totals at least five percent of the gross floor area. Included in this requirement, the developer must provide a minimum area of POPOS that totals at least one percent of the gross floor area. For the proposed project (353,540 square feet of commercial space) this equals 17,677 square feet of open space, including a minimum of 3,534 square feet of POPOS.
Sheet 28, “Building Area Summary”, shows 16,805 square feet of open space on the ground floor and 10,625 square feet on the fifth level, which should be sufficient to meet the requirements. The applicant needs to provide clarification whether 3,534 square feet of open space (POPOs) will be accommodated entirely on its property.
For Multi-Unit Residential uses, the open space requirement is 60 square feet per unit, consisting of 40 square feet of private open space (balconies, decks, patios, etc.), and 20 square feet of common open space. If it is infeasible to provide private open space, common open space may be substituted for private open space at a 2:1 ratio. Thus, if no private open space is provided, 100 square feet of common open space per unit is required (20 + (40 x 2)). Therefore, if the 30 units have private open space, a total of 600 square feet of common open space is required (30 x 20), whereas if the units do not have private open space, a total of 3,000 square feet of common open space is required (30 x 100). Summary Sheet 28 indicates that 26 units will have private open spaces. A 950 square foot terrace is provided for the residents on the fifth floor. More details will be needed to assess compliance with the City’s open space requirements.
Sidewalk Design Guidelines
Pursuant to the Emeryville Design Guidelines provisions for sidewalks in Pedestrian Priority Zones, the project is required to provide a 12-foot wide sidewalk with a minimum 8-foot clear pedestrian pathway and a 4-foot landscaped area (including a 6-inch curb). In addition, Christie Avenue is a Green Street that requires a minimum of 15-foot sidewalk. The project complies with these dimensions, although some of the sidewalk will be on the applicant’s property and will therefore require a public access easement for 24/7 public use (see Sheet 11).
Stormwater and WELO Plans
The applicant will need to submit stormwater plans and show compliance with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO).
Feedback on the Project
To date, the project has been reviewed by staff at two Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meetings, at a community meeting sponsored by the applicant, by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), by the Planning Commission at four study sessions, and by the City Council at one study session. This feedback is summarized below in chronological order.
Staff Comments at August 11, 2021 DCC Meeting
Planning staff noted that, while the applicant cited Design Guideline I-33, which states that “In general, buildings directly adjacent to a freeway or railway should not contain residential uses” for not proposing housing on the site, this guideline also includes a list of mitigation measures for residential buildings, such as providing appropriate level of sound/vibration insulation, providing landscape buffers, using double doors with perimeter weather stripping, and providing mechanical ventilation, among others. Other staff members observed that there are a number of residential projects adjacent to the railroad or freeway that have been approved and constructed since adoption of the Design Guidelines, with the Sherwin Williams project and the Bayview Apartments at 6701 Shellmound Street (“Nady” site) both currently under construction. It was noted that the applicant needed to provide a feasibility analysis of why a residential project on this site is not viable, including assumptions made for rents, and the basis on which the applicant believes that the State of California intends to introduce rent control. Fire and Building staff provided written comments for the project.
Planning Commission August 26, 2021, Study Session Comments Three public comments were received from the residents of Christie Commons and Pacific Park Plaza, who raised concerns regarding the proposal’s height, increased traffic, wind impacts, and the need to provide amenities that would benefit the community. They also questioned the applicant’s explanation of why housing was not possible at this site.
The Commissioners were not opposed to the proposed life sciences tower, and offered a number of suggestions, including adding retail and/or community-oriented ground floor active uses; providing the neighborhood’s residents with amenities that they could use; and doing a preliminary traffic study now to assess how mitigations could be incorporated into the design at this early stage. However, they all expressed skepticism at the applicant’s claim that a residential use is infeasible at this site, as stipulated in the Mixed Use with Residential (MUR) zoning regulations. They directed the applicant to provide a comprehensive analysis at the next study session of why residential use is not viable at this site.
Community Meeting
The applicant held a virtual community meeting on October 21, 2021. Seven community members were present. Concerns were expressed regarding increased traffic and non-inclusion of housing as part of the proposal. One community member suggested moving the building south and opening up the bike path along the north of the building to accommodate a wider path that could be used by both pedestrians and cyclists. It was suggested that a widened path would allow for retail along the path and create a thoroughfare that could be used by the community and not just bicyclists. It was noted that an addition of a cantilever over the bike path would expand the open area and provide cover on rainy days. It was suggested that the ground floor of the building fronting Shellmound Way be used for life science uses, as Shellmound Way is not friendly for pedestrians due to the high volume of vehicular traffic on this roadway.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Comments The BPAC reviewed the project at their regular meeting on November 1, 2021. The Committee expressed the need for bicycle circulation improvements in the general area, and suggested that there be adequate activation and lighting on the proposed bicycle path in order to make it a successful facility. Suggestions regarding resources for e-scooters and bicycle parking were made, and one Committee member suggested that the applicant review the comments that have been received on the Active Transportation Plan in order to get ideas for improvements.
Planning Commission February 24, 2022 Study Session Comments The second Planning Commission study session was focused on soliciting input from the Commission regarding one issue: the financial feasibility of a residential use on the site.
There were eleven public comments, with one expressing support for the project and the other ten opposed. Those in opposition to the project expressed concerns regarding the proposed height and potential shadow impacts, and the amount of additional traffic that would be generated along Christie Avenue, which is a designated as a Green Street in the General Plan. One resident suggested greater setback from the street, given the height, and/or a reduction in the height of the building. This person also stated that the provision of additional open space to obtain bonus points should not be considered at this location.
A majority of Commissioners indicated that they understood the conclusions of the applicant’s and City’s consultants analyses, that a large residential development is not financially feasible on this site at this time, but stated that they could not make the finding “that the applicant has convincingly demonstrated that it is infeasible to develop a project with a mix of use groups on the site”, and indicated that they would like to see an option that included a few residential units on the ground floor of the research and development tower. Alternatively, it was suggested that the ground floor contain uses that would serve as amenities for the adjacent residential neighbors. The applicant was directed to prepare these two options for future consideration by the Commission.
Staff Comments at April 13, 2022 DCC Meeting
At the April 13, 2022 DCC meeting, staff from the Building Division and Alameda County Fire Department indicated that they did not foresee a code issue with the concept of two separate buildings built with different materials (life sciences tower with ground-level residential townhouses). The Committee unanimously agreed that the inclusion of below market rate townhomes was a good addition to the proposal and had the potential to create a unique alley that would be lined with residential development on both sides after the adjacent City property is developed with a housing project. A suggestion was made that, with the right treatment such as a shaded canopy, the alley had the potential of creating an inviting open space. Increasing the height of the cantilever was also suggested as a way of creating some relief at the pedestrian level and providing an opportunity for rooftop open space for the townhouse units. There was discussion on the adequacy of the passenger drop off/loading proposed off Christie Avenue. Use of bonus points to fund potential public improvements in the Shellmound/Christie/Powell loop area was also discussed.
Planning Commission April 28, 2022 Study Session Comments The Commission held a third study session on the project on April 28, 2022. The Commission appreciated the applicant’s inclusion of six townhomes and generally felt that the proposed mix of uses was acceptable, but encouraged the applicant to explore the possibility of adding a few more residential units. Several Commissioners opined that the applicant should consider reducing the building massing along Christie Avenue by moving the tower towards the east portion of the site, as was also suggested by a public commentor. Commissioners stated that it was important to create a continuous pedestrian experience along Christie Avenue and that the project should include an element that would draw community members to the site.
City Council May 17, 2022 Study Session Comments
The Council was unanimous in saying that the proposed six townhome units and the life science uses were not an appropriate mix of uses and wanted to see more housing on the site. It was suggested that the developer consider acquiring Parcel F in the adjacent Marketplace project and provide additional housing units on that site. Other suggestions included provision of secure and conveniently located bicycle parking, inclusion of bicycle infrastructure for e-bikes and cargo bikes, and use of cross laminated timber if possible.
Planning Commission October 27, 2022 Study Session Comments The majority of the Commission felt that a good faith effort had been made to increase the amount of housing in the project, from six to 30 units, and felt that the massing consideration of the project had moved in the right direction. The Commissioners felt that a roof top amenity space for the residential development would be appropriate and there was also a suggestion to give the proposed open spaces further attention and thought. A concern regarding truck maneuverability was expressed and that this concern be addressed in the transportation assessment for the project. One Commissioner also expressed interest in exploring increasing the number of residential units by adding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as ADUs do not count towards the FAR.
Additional Staff Comments
Following the most recent Planning Commission study session, staff has had further internal discussions about the potential for maximizing the residential component of the project. During these discussions, it was noted that the applicant could choose to take advantage of the State “Super Density Bonus Law” (AB 1763), which precludes imposition of any maximum residential density requirements for 100% affordable projects within a half-mile of transit, and potentially allows for up to four development concessions and an unlimited number of waivers of regulations. Potential concessions or waivers could involve relaxation of the FAR requirements to allow for increased Research and Development space greater than what is currently proposed. This could potentially make the entire project more financially feasible while also allow for an increase in the number of residential units. This approach would require a complete redesign, including issues of massing, construction type, and parking. Staff has not received feedback from the applicant about this concept.
Issues to be Considered
1. Mix of Uses
The project is primarily a Research and Development building with 30 residential (all affordable) units.
Does the Council feel that this mix of uses is appropriate for the site? Should other options, such as the State “Super Density Bonus Law”, be considered to increase the number of residential units?
2. Design and Other Issues
Does the Council have any comments on the preliminary design and concept? Environmental Review
A traffic report and visual simulations will be prepared for the project. At this time, we do not have enough information to determine the project’s CEQA status.
Fiscal Impact
None.
Staff Communication with the Public
Staff has had no communication with the public on this City Council item. As noted above, a community meeting was held by the applicant on October 21, 2021, and the project was reviewed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee on November 1, 2021, by the Planning Commission at four study sessions on August 26, 2021, February 24, 2022, April 28, 2022 and October 27, 2022, and by the City Council at a study session on May 17, 2022.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
CONCLUSION
After hearing a presentation from the applicant and receiving public testimony, staff requests that the City Council provide comment on the issues noted above and any other issues identified by the Council.
PREPARED BY: Miroo Desai, Principal Planner
APPROVED AND FORWARDED TO THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE:
________________________
Adam Politzer, Interim City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. August 26, 2021, Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (with attachments).
2. February 24, 2022, Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report includes following attachments:
(i) Emeryville Residential Analysis, CA Ventures, December 2021 (ii) 5850 Shellmound Residential Feasibility Review, Economic and Planning Systems, February 10, 2022.
3. April 28, 2022, Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (without attachments).
4. May 17, 2022, City Council Study Session Report (without attachments).
5. Project Plans dated October 27, 2022.
Study Session – 58Fifty Shellmound Life Science Tower
City Council Meeting | January 17, 2023
City of Emeryville
CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM