Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Project Mission Bay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OCII holds workshop on proposed 109‑foot life‑sciences building on Mission Bay Parcel 7
Summary
The Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure on Oct. 6 reviewed a proposal from Alexandria Real Estate Equities for a 169,810‑sf, seven‑story life‑sciences building on Parcel 7 (Block 43) in Mission Bay. The project would require amendments to the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan, several fee payments and community benefits; no vote was taken.
Get email alerts on the Development Project Mission Bay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII) held a remote workshop on Oct. 6 to review a proposal from Alexandria Real Estate Equities (ARE) for a seven‑story life‑sciences building on Parcel 7 of Block 43 in Mission Bay. Staff and the project sponsor presented a preliminary design, public‑benefit commitments and the set of amendments the commission would need to consider in November.
Nikki Henry, assistant development specialist with the Mission Bay project team, told commissioners the proposed building would total roughly 169,810 leasable square feet and be approximately 109 feet tall (with an additional 20‑foot mechanical penthouse allowance). The action items staff expects to bring back in November include CEQA findings, an amendment to the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan to allocate about 170,000 additional commercial square feet to the project area, an amendment to the owner participation agreement (addressing childcare and open‑space maintenance contributions), an amendment to the design for development to increase allowable height from 39 to 109 feet, and approval of the basic concept and schematic design (BCSD) and a major‑phase revision.
Theresa Nemeth, vice president of development and community relations for ARE, said the company is proposing the project to activate a long‑underused parcel adjacent to a future public park and the I‑280/Caltrain right‑of‑way. "We are providing here an opportunity to bring new life science development to a site that has long been unused," Nemeth said, noting many prospective tenants are engaged in COVID‑related work.
Architect Craig Scott described design responses to the trapezoidal site, including breaking the massing into shifting two‑ and three‑story volumes, articulated facade fins and double‑ and triple‑height corner spaces. He said the ground floor would include approximately 2,500 square feet of neighborhood‑serving retail and a public plaza designed with Bionic landscape architects.
Staff presented the projected public benefits and fees. One‑time impact fees payable to OCII and the city were presented as approximately $12.2 million in total; ARE also pledged a $1.5 million operational endowment for the Mission Bay school on Block 14 (the district estimates the school will be complete in 2025). ARE has agreed to pay the childcare fee at the office rate (the rate typically higher than the research/lab rate) and to apply OCII's Small Business Enterprise (SBE) requirements to tenant‑improvement work. Staff said ARE is exceeding SBE participation goals to date (66% for professional services, including about 40% San Francisco‑based SBEs).
Vice Chair Rosales asked whether the childcare fee and jobs‑housing linkage fee are one‑time fees and how those funds would be used. Henry said both are one‑time fees; the jobs‑housing linkage fee follows planning‑code impact fee rules and typically flows into the city pool administered by the mayor’s housing office, while staff indicated the commission would prefer to direct funds to Mission Bay where feasible. Project manager Mark Slutskin told the commission the intent is to keep some jobs‑housing linkage funds within Mission Bay.
Commissioner Scott praised the presentation as thorough and said the proposal offers hope for recovery and future job creation. Commissioners and staff noted the CAC (citizens advisory committee) had reviewed a taller project in 2019 and that the revised 109‑foot proposal returned to the CAC on July 9, 2020, with a unanimous favorable recommendation.
No action was taken at the Oct. 6 workshop. Staff said the project team intends to return in November for formal actions and listed subsequent reviews that would follow (San Francisco Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, OCII oversight board and the California Department of Finance).
