HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-10 E-PACKET
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
MARK ADDIEGO
Mayor
PRADEEP GUPTA
Vice Mayor
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Councilwoman
RICHARD A. GARBARINO
Councilman
LIZA NORMANDY
Councilwoman
FRANK RISSO
City Treasurer
KRISTA MARTINELLI
City Clerk
MIKE FUTRELL
City Manager
JASON ROSENBERG
City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open
session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates,
then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of
City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2016
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2016
AGENDA PAGE 2
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of New Employees. (Mich Mercado, Human Resources Manager).
PUBLIC COMMENTS
For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-agendized item, please
complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City
Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public
comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the
Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for
investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for
more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state
your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3)
MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion approving the Minutes of meetings of January 27, 2016.
2. Motion confirming payment registers for February 10, 2016.
3. Motion to waive reading and adopt an Ordinance making revisions to Chapter 13.16 of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code and establishing an Underground Utility District along
Spruce Avenue from Railroad Avenue to the North Edge of Spruce Elementary School
between Lux Avenue and Park Way (CIP Project No. ST1204). (Sam Bautista, Principal
Engineer and Kathleen Phalen, Swinerton Management).
4. Resolution consenting to the inclusion of properties within the City of South San Francisco's
Jurisdiction in the California Home Finance Authority Pace Programs and Associate
Membership in California Home Finance Authority to Finance Distributed Generation
Renewable Energy Sources, Energy and Water Efficiency Improvements, and Electric
Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. (Mike Lappen, ECD Coordinator).
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2016
AGENDA PAGE 3
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
5. Peninsula Clean Energy - Community Choice Energy:
a. Introduction of an Ordinance authorizing the Implementation of a Community
Choice Aggregation Program within the City, and waive further reading; and
b. Adoption of a Resolution approving the execution of a Joint Powers Agreement to
establish the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority within the City and appointing a City
Director and Alternate Director to represent the City. (Adena Friedman, Senior
Planner)
PUBLIC HEARING
6. Consideration of an environmental consistency analysis, including all supplementary
analyses, for the construction of two new seven-story residential buildings with a total of
260 units at both corners of Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue (309, 315, 401-421
Airport Boulevard), a private residential parking lot at 405 Cypress Avenue, and twelve (12)
townhome units at 216 Miller Avenue and consideration of a determination that the project
complies with CEQA; consideration of an ordinance approving a Development Agreement
with Miller Cypress SSF, LLC; and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, Design
Review, request for Modification to private storage and building height zoning standards;
request for a Parking Reduction to reduce provided parking by 25% to accommodate a
portion of compact parking spaces designed for the project; Parcels are located in the
Downtown Transit Core (DTC) and Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zoning Districts and the
Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Waiver and Modification, Parking Reduction
requests and Development Agreement are in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.280,
20.330, 20.480, 20.490, 20.510 & 19.60.
UP15-0027, DR15-0032, WM15-0001, PE15-0004, & DA15-0003A. (Alex Greenwood,
ECD Director)
7. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use section revising the East of
101 Area Plan pertaining to legal conforming uses recognized by Resolution 84-97 and to
make changes to the Planning Sub-Areas Element to ensure policy consistency with the
General Plan, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) and the Transit Office /
Research and Development (TO/RD) Core Zoning District, and determination that the
project will not result in any new significant environmental impacts and is consistent with
certified EIR. (Adena Friedman, Senior Planner)
8. Changes to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan Land Use Regulations; and Modification to the City Council Appeal Authority
City of South San Francisco/Owner/Applicant
Citywide P11-0097: ZA15-0009
Consideration of Zoning Text Amendments to amend the South San Francisco Municipal
Code Chapter 20.270 (“El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District”) to make
changes to the land use regulations; Chapter 20.280 (“Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
District”) to make changes to the land use regulations and development standards; Chapter
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2016
AGENDA PAGE 4
20.490 (“Use Permits”) to clarify Conditional Use Permit review authority, and Chapter
20.570 (“Appeals and Calls for Review”) to revise call for review authority, and
determination that the project will not result in any new significant environmental impacts
and is consistent with the certified EIR. (Tony Rozzi, Planning Div.)
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
9. Council Committee Appointments. (Mayor Addiego)
ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
o
N SANF CITY COUNCIL
f
04` .,._CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAFT
I n
REGULAR MEETING
c4LIFOR`P MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2016
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER TIME: 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Matsumoto,
Normandy and Garbarino, and Vice
Mayor Gupta.
ABSENT: Mayor Addiego.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by City Manager Futrell.
AGENDA REVIEW
Item No. 4 moved from the Consent Calendar to Administrative Business.
PRESENTATIONS
El Nino Presentation. (Justin Lovell, PublicWorks Administrator).
Public Works Administrator Lovell presented an El Nino Flood Preparedness and Response Guide
Pamphlet that the City of South San Francisco prepared in cooperation with the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG). The guide included information on El Nino, provided information on
preventative and precautionary measures and detailed emergency information and contacts.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Alfredo Olguin addressed Council on behalf of hisgrandfather to discuss rent hikes in the
Downtown area as an example of the growing issue of affordable housing.
Romel Castillo alerted Council to excessivespeeding on Grand Avenue at Aldenglen Drive,
highlighting safety concerns for pedestrians and drivers. He suggested that a Stop sign be placed at
that location.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
Councilwoman Matsumoto commented on speeding and traffic safety, the bicycle commuter
program for employees, the Dining Guide, Boards and Commission vacancies and attendance, and
public art funding.
CouncilwomanNormandy announced an upcoming Chinese New Year Event at the Main Library
sponsored by the South San Francisco Asian Alliance.
Councilman Garbarino announced reservations hadopened for the Annual Police Corned Beef Feed
and encouraged attendance.
ViceMayor Gupta inquired about extending the records retention schedule related to Council
packets, so that interestedparties might have long term access to project information and history.
He explained this would particularly benefit new members of Council and staff that might require
background information on such matters. The Vice Mayor next referenced unemployment and
expressed interest in expanded career path opportunities assisting local, underserved students. The
Vice Mayor asked for Council's support with an upcoming conferenceto explore expansion of this
program.
Councilman Garbarino shared the Vice Mayor's sentiments, supported theidea of the conference
and requested costs for consideration.
Councilwoman Matsumoto requested data about thelocal unemployment rate.
Councilwoman Matsumoto requested that the meeting be adjourned inhonor of Harry A. Higuera.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion approving the Minutes of meetings of January 11, 2016 and January 13, 2016.
2. Motion confirming payment registers for January 27, 2016.
3. Motion to accept the demolition of Greenhouse Buildings Project as complete in accordance
with plans and specifications. (Total construction cost $91,850.00). (Sam Bautista —
Principal Engineer).
Item No. 2 — Councilwoman Matsumoto inquired regarding thecosts relatedto several items
reflected on the payment registers, including the Parks and Recreation Ballet Program, Crisis
Communications Plan, a mislabeleditem, Highway 101 ramp improvements, California Strong
Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP) training fees, the Peg Channel Update Project, and
arborist fees.
Motion— Councilman Garbarino/Second— CouncilwomanNormandy toapprove the Consent
Calendar. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Normandy,
Garbarino and Matsumoto and Vice Mayor Gupta. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Addiego.
ABSTAIN: None.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27,2016
MINUTES PAGE 2
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
4. Resolution approving an Ambulance Billing Services Agreement and a Lockbox Services
Agreement; and authorizing the City Manager toexecute an Ambulance Billing Services
Agreement with Novato FireProtection District and a Lockbox Services Agreement with the
City's current banking services provider Wells Fargo Bank, for a combined total not to
exceed $294,096 for Fiscal Years FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. (Gerald
Kohlmann, Fire Chief).
Fire Chief Kohlmann presented the staff report recommending adoption of a Resolutionapproving
an Ambulance Billing Services Agreement with Novato Fire Protection District and a Lockbox
Services Agreement with the City's current banking services provider, Wells Fargo Bank. Chief
Kohlmann detailed the history of South San FranciscoParamedic Services and prior billing
practices. He advised of the growing transport needsand enhanced billing services. The Chief
further explained the request for proposals process relatedto billing, the selection methodology and
staff's ultimate selection of the Novato Fire Protection District as the City's new billing services
provider. Chief Kohlmann explained the plan to implement a flat rate for patient care reports, and
noted a$40,000 savings moving forward while phasingoutthecurrent contractor.
CouncilwomanNormandy queried whether staff was comfortable executing a 2 (two) year contract.
Fire Chief Kohlmann responded by noting the agreement includes an escape clause.
Councilwoman Matsumoto queried certain calculations included in the staff report. Based on the
agreed upon miscalculations, Staff and Council determined the report should be updated and the
item brought back to Council for consideration at a later meeting.
Council agreed to hear the item at a Special Meeting that was scheduled for 6:00 P.M. on February
3, 2016.
5. Resolution No. 9-2016 approving an amendment to an existing Consulting Services
Agreement with Carollo Engineers of Walnut Creek, California for engineering services for
the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) Digester Design Project in an amount not to
exceed $319,814. (Eric Evans, Associate Civil Engineer).
Associate Civil Engineer Eric Evanspresented the staff report recommending that Council adopt a
Resolution approving an amendment to an existing Consulting Services Agreement with Carollo
Engineers of Walnut Creek, Californiafor engineering services for the Water Quality Control Plant
WQCP) Digester Design Project in an amount not to exceed $319,814. Engineer Evans advised
the Water Quality Control Plant is undergoing design improvements to modernize, increase seismic
safety, increase efficiency, and ensure the plant's ability tohandle increased flows as well
accommodate future development. He stated theamendment would address several issues that were
not included in the original design agreement as well as some unforeseen design difficulties.
Through this process, staff becameaware of newtechnologies that enable processing greater
amounts of waste using fewer digester tanks. This would result in over $3,000,000 in capital cost
savings, increased efficiency, lower maintenance costs, and would allow the plant to accept food
waste in the future to satisfy itsenergy needs with the natural gas produced.
Motion— Councilwoman Normandy/Second— Councilman Garbarino: to approve ResolutionNo. 9-
2016. Approved by the following Roll Call Vote: AYES: CouncilmembersMatsumoto, Garbarino
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27,2016
MINUTES PAGE 3
and Normandy, and Vice Mayor Gupta. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Addiego. ABSTAIN:
None.
6. Resolution No. 10-2016 supporting the South City ShuttleProject and authorizing the
submittal of an application for San Mateo County Shuttle Program Funding in the amount of
365,507 for Fiscal Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 and committing a matching contribution of
121,836 from South San Francisco Local Measure A Funds. (Justin Lovell, Public Works
Administrator).
Public Works Administrator Justin Lovell presented the staff reportrecommending that Council
adopt a Resolution supporting theSouth City ShuttleProject and authorizing the submittal of an
application for San Mateo County Shuttle Program Funding in the amount of$365,507 for Fiscal
Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 and committing a matching contribution of$121,836 from South San
Francisco Local Measure A Funds. AdministratorLovell detailed theSouth City ShuttleProject's
maturation from its foundation to present, highlighting service improvements made and ridership
data collected over the past two years of operation. With Council's resolution of support, and
successful approval of the next two year funding cycle from San Mateo County Transportation
Authority, Lovell discussed future goals of stabilizing the route and schedule, focusing on increased
ridership and making rider experience improvements.
Councilwoman Matsumoto expressed her support for theSouth City Shuttle and encouraged staff to
seek community partners for strengthening the application. Lovell added the City can apply every
funding cycle as long as the application score is high enough.
Motion— Councilman Garbarino/Second— Councilwoman Normandy: to approve Resolution No.
10-2016. Approved by the following Roll Call Vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto,
Garbarino and Normandy, and Vice Mayor Gupta. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Addiego.
ABSTAIN: None.
Recess: 8:55 P.M.
Meeting Resumed: 9:04 P.M.
7. Study Session: Community Choice Aggregation. (Mike Futrell, City Manager).
City Manager Futrell presented the staff report and openedthe discussion on Community Choice
Aggregation Energy with Peninsula Clean Energy. He advised the initiative would permit
sustainable progress on energy needs and consumption. Senior Planner Friedman presented a
PowerPoint describing how Community Choice Aggregation benefits customers with affordable
rates, local control, energy efficiency programs, and environmentalbenefits including cost savings
and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. She proceeded to discuss how South San Francisco
would utilize this system, providing several scenarios of impact to customers. She further explained
the program would assist the City in meeting its goals relatedto the climate action plan. Certain
risks and uncertainties included marketrisks, operationalrisks, and political or regulatory risks.
Planner Friedman closed by recommending potential next steps, including collecting additional
analysis, holding a community meeting, going through the public hearing process, and establishingaBoardofDirectorsrepresentative.
Supervisor Dave Pine thanked Council for investing timeinto this effort. He believed the risks to be
manageable and encouraged South San Francisco to join Peninsula Clean Energy.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27,2016
MINUTES
PAGE 4
Speaker Jan Butts encouraged South San Francisco to get involved, offer citizens clean energy
choices, and help protect our climate.
Vice Mayor Gupta believed this to be a necessary step for the City. Foregoing the opportunity,
would take the choiceaway from the consumer.
Comments and direction also included feedback from Councilwoman Matsumoto who expressed
apprehension over considering this item on an accelerated time frame.
Council agreed to continueconsideration of the time over a series of upcoming meetings.
8. Study Session: Grand Avenue Library Renovation Project Update. (Brian McMinn, Public
Works Director).
Item not heard.
PUBLIC HEARING
9. Motion to waive reading and introduce an Ordinance making revisions toChapter 13.16 of
the South San Francisco Municipal Code and establishing an Underground Utility District
along Spruce Avenue from RailroadAvenue to the North Edge of Spruce Elementary
School between Lux Avenue and Park Way and presentation of a list of potentialfuture
Underground Utility Projects (CIP Project No. st1204). (Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer
and Kathleen Phalen, Swinerton Management).
Public Hearing Opened: 10:32 P.M.
Public Hearing Closed: 10:55 P.M.
Public WorksDirector Brian McMinn presentedthe staff report recommending that Council waive
reading and introduce an Ordinance making revisions toChapter 13.16 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code and establishing an Underground Utility District along Spruce Avenue from
Railroad Avenue to the North Edge of Spruce Elementary School between Lux Avenue and Park
Way. He advised that staff reviewed comments from the public and incorporated their concerns
into the development of this project with appropriate changes. A representative from Swinerton
Management detailed the effort to reach out to affected property owners. Director McMinn defined
the function of the ordinance, including establishing boundaries of the district. He advised staff
would troubleshoot servicepanel conversions with PG&E.
Councilwoman Matsumoto reiterated the importance of contacting every affected property owner
and mentioned she disagrees with some of the proposed future sites.
Vice Mayor Gupta mentioned aesthetic benefits and functional advantages of the project.
Motion— Councilman Garbarino/Second— Councilwoman Matsumoto: to introduce an Ordinance
making revisions toChapter 13.16 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and establishing an
Underground Utility District along Spruce Avenue from RailroadAvenue to the North Edge of
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27,2016
MINUTES PAGE 5
Spruce Elementary School between Lux Avenue and Park Way and presentation of a list of
potentialfuture Underground Utility Projects. Approved by the following Roll Call Vote: AYES:
Councilmembers Matsumoto, Garbarino and Normandy, and Vice Mayor Gupta. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Addiego. ABSTAIN: None.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL—COMMITTEE REPORTS ANDANNOUNCEMENTS
10. City Council Committee Assignments. (Mayor Addiego).
Item not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further businessthe meeting was adjourned in honor of Harry A. Higuera at 10:55 P.M.
Submitted: Approved:
st. . M ellfi i Cfity Cler, Mark Addiego, Mayor
City of ut .San Francisco City of South San Francisco
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27,2016MINUTES
PAGE 6
Staff Report
DATE: February 10, 2016
TO: Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
PROGRAM WITHIN THE CITY, AND WAIVE FURTHER READING; AND
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE PENINSULA CLEAN
ENERGY AUTHORITY WITHIN THE CITY AND APPOINTING A CITY
DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO REPRESENT THE CITY
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council:
1. Introduce an ordinance authorizing the implementation of a Community Choice
Aggregation program within the City, and waive further reading; and
2. Adopt a resolution approving the execution of a Joint Powers Agreement to Establish
the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority within the City and appointing a City Director
and Alternative Director to represent the City.
I. BACKGROUND
A. CCA Overview
In 2002, passage of Assembly Bill 117, concerning Community Choice Aggregation (CCA),
allowed CCAs to operate in California. This legislation enables California cities, counties,
public agencies, and joint powers agencies to aggregate the electricity demand of its
constituents and to procure electricity that meets their desired electricity supply portfolio, while
still having the local utility (Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), in South San Francisco’s case)
provide transmission, distribution, billing, and repair services.
In a jurisdiction that offers a CCA, enrollment in the CCA is automatic for electricity account
holders, per state law. Customers who do not want to participate and prefer to purchase power
from PG&E can opt out of the CCA program at any time. CCA participation rates are high,
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 2 of 14
partially due to this opt-out approach, allowing CCA agencies to compete for competitive
energy contracts in California’s monopoly-dominated energy markets.
The main purpose and benefit of CCA programs is that they offer consumer choice in the
energy market, and they have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
B. CCA Operations
A CCA replaces energy procurement and generation services that are provided by the local
utility (PG&E). PG&E continues to deliver the energy to the customer, maintains and repairs
infrastructure which carries it, and continues to provide customer service and billing. The
following figure illustrates the energy procurement and delivery process under a CCA. The
customer does not receive any duplicate charges, because the CCA and PG&E provide unique
services.
Figure 1: CCA Energy Delivery Process
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 3 of 14
C. Existing CCA Programs
There are currently three CCAs operational in California: Marin Clean Energy, Sonoma Clean
Power, and Lancaster Choice Energy (Los Angeles County). Many other municipalities,
including Alameda, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Solano Counties are currently exploring
CCAs.
The following is a summary of the three operational CCA programs.
1. Marin Clean Energy
In 2010, Marin Clean Energy (MCE) launched California’s first CCA. MCE is a joint powers
authority currently consisting of all jurisdictions in Marin County, the cities of Richmond,
Benicia, San Pablo, El Cerrito, and unincorporated Napa County. MCE's goal is to provide a
greater support for renewable energy at competitive rates to residents and businesses. MCE
sources energy from 50 percent renewable sources (compared to PG&E’s 27 percent renewable
energy portfolio) at rates that are currently slightly less than PG&E. MCE also offers a 100
percent renewable option, at a higher cost.
Typical residential rates for MCE are shown in the tables below, compared to PG&E rates (rates
current as of September 2015).
Table 1: Marin Clean Energy Comparison
PG&E MCE Savings
Electricity Cost
($/kWh) $.20968 $.20650 $.003 /
kWh
Average Monthly
Bill ($) $98.01 $96.53 $1.48 /
month
Source: www.pge.com
2. Sonoma Clean Power
More recently, Sonoma Clean Power launched in 2015. The Sonoma program offers energy
from 36 percent renewable sources, and also offers a 100 percent renewable option at a higher
cost. Typical residential rates for Sonoma Clean Power are shown in the table below, compared
to PG&E rates (current as of September, 2015).
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 4 of 14
Table 2: Sonoma Clean Power Comparison
PG&E Sonoma Clean
Power Savings
Electricity Cost
($/kWh) $.21168 $.1975 $.014 /
kWh
Average Monthly
Bill ($) $107.98 $100.75 $7.23 /
month
Source: www.pge.com
3. Lancaster Choice Energy
Lancaster Choice Energy launched in the City of Lancaster (Los Angeles County) in 2015. This
program offers rates that are more affordable than the local private utility (Southern California
Edison (SCE)), with a higher renewable content. Typical residential rates for Lancaster Choice
Energy are shown in the table below, compared with SCE rates.
Table 3: Lancaster Choice Energy Comparison
SCE Lancaster
Choice Energy Savings
Electricity Cost
($/kWh) $.18432 $0.1812 $.003 /
kWh
Average Monthly
Bill ($) $123.31 $121.21 $2.10/
month
Source: www.lancasterchoiceenergy.com/index.php
D. San Mateo County Efforts
San Mateo County began studying CCA formation in 2014, under the name Peninsula Clean
Energy (PCE). In February 2015, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approved
funding of $350,000 for a CCA technical feasibility study. Every city in San Mateo County, as
well as the County itself, participated in the study, which was completed in October 2015. The
full study can be found online at the following link:
http://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FINAL-Peninsula-Clean-
Energy-CCA-Technical-Study.pdf
The San Mateo County Technical Study examined actual energy use county-wide, and evaluated
three supply scenarios based on impact on electrical rates, greenhouse gas reductions, and
renewable energy mix. The supply scenarios were developed for the purpose of demonstrating
potential operating outcomes of the PCE program under a broad range of resource mixes, which
generally reflect key objectives of the San Mateo communities in terms of cost savings and
environmental benefits.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 5 of 14
All of the supply scenarios studied as part of the technical study excluded unbundled renewable
energy certificates (RECs), nuclear, and coal-based energy from the resource mixes. This ensures
that all of the renewable sources considered for the PCE meet state standards for eligible
renewable resources.
Prior to the procurement of any particular energy products, the PCE Board of Directors would set
its resource mix, based on the goals of the member communities. It is likely that customers
would be offered more than one choice under the PCE program, such as the 50 percent
renewable option, and the 100 percent renewable option.
PCE customers would be able to choose from one of the following options.
Table 4: San Mateo County PCE Likely Options
Key Considerations Balanced Cost +
Environmental 100% Renewable
Customer Costs
Compared to PG&E
Average 4% savings
(~$4.05/month)
Average 2% increase
(~$1.80/month)
Environmental Benefit 50% Renewable 100% Renewable
GHG Emissions Impacts
Compared to PG&E
75,000 metric ton
Reduction
204,000 metric ton
Reduction
Based on the current market prices, the Technical Study indicated that PCE could provide both
customer cost savings and significant GHG reductions.
• The 50 percent renewable option meets the City’s objective of reducing GHG
emissions, while reducing costs to customers
• The 100 percent renewable option provides a significant GHG reduction; however, it
would come at an additional cost to customers (estimated at two percent above PG&E’s
current rates).
As of the writing of this report, 12 other cities in San Mateo County, and the County itself,
have taken action to join the PCE Joint Powers Authority (JPA).
It is important to consider the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) charge, which is a
monthly charge assessed by PG&E to cover generation costs acquired prior to a customer’s
change in service provider. This fee is collected by PG&E and is effectively a monthly “exit fee”
assessed to customers who receive their generation services from another provider. In December
2015, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a 95 percent increase to the
PCIA. However, San Mateo County does not foresee the PCIA increase having a significant
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 6 of 14
impact on the program launch or overall financial viability of the program, because renewable
energy prices are falling and the PCIA increase was within the Technical Study sensitivity
analysis.
III. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PERSPECTIVE
South San Francisco is the second largest electricity user in the County, accounting for
approximately 15 percent of total countywide electric consumption.1 While residential
electricity usage only accounts for 16 percent of total consumption citywide, residential accounts
make up 86 percent of the total accounts that would be eligible for the Peninsula Clean Energy
program.
Table 5: Peninsula Clean Energy Projections (South San Francisco Only)
Peninsula Clean Energy:
Key Considerations South San Francisco Results
Customer Cost Compared to
PG&E Average 5% savings
Environmental Benefits 50% Renewable Energy
GHG Emissions Impacts
Compared to PG&E
Reduction of
10,860 metric tons
A. Peninsula Clean Energy Proposal: Impact to South San Francisco Energy Customers
Similar to the countywide results, South San Francisco residential customers would have an
approximately $3.38, or five percent, reduction in monthly costs compared to PG&E.
Participating business customers are also projected to have a reduction in electricity costs of
approximately five percent.
B. Peninsula Clean Energy Proposal: Impact to South San Francisco Greenhouse Gases
(GHGs)
Joining Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) would contribute towards meeting the goals of our
Climate Action Plan, which calls for a reduction of GHG emissions of 15 percent below
baseline levels by the year 2020. As shown in Table 6 above, joining PCE could reduce GHG in
South San Francisco by 10,860 metric tons.
1 This percentage does not include Direct Access customers, which are large commercial users who purchase energy
directly, not through PG&E. There are seventy-three Direct Access accounts in South San Francisco.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 7 of 14
Joining PCE would be one method that would help achieve GHG reduction goals. This program
would be in addition to a comprehensive list of programs and policies included in the City’s
Climate Action Plan that the City is already working towards implementing, that would help to
achieve GHG reduction goals.
The projected GHG reduction assumes a PCE participation rate of 85 percent. However, since it
is an opt-out program, it is possible that there would be a reduced environmental benefit if there
is a lower participation rate, or a greater environmental benefit if there is a higher participation
rate. The following table illustrates potential GHG emissions, assuming different participation
rates.
Table 6: Participation Rates and GHG Emissions
Peninsula Clean Energy
Participation Rate GHG Emissions Compared to PG&E
0% (City stays with
PG&E) No reduction
25% of customers Reduction of 3,194 Metric Tons
50% of customers Reduction of 6,338 Metric Tons
85% of customers Reduction of 10,860 Metric Tons
100%of customers Reduction of 12,776 Metric Tons
C. Benefits of Joining PCE
1. Consumer Choice
Joining the PCE program would provide South San Francisco residents and businesses with a
choice in regard to their energy provider and the degree to which their energy comes from
renewable and non-nuclear sources. South San Francisco utility customers could choose to join
PCE, or could choose to remain with PG&E. If customers joined PCE, and were not happy with
the experience, they would be able to go back to PG&E without any disruption of service.
CCAs are required by law to provide two written notices to customers prior to program launch;
however, PCE has indicated that it will provide additional notices and outreach efforts to ensure
that customers have ample opportunity to opt-out prior to program launch, or learn more about
the program offerings.
Similarly, the City would also have a choice in terms of Peninsula Clean Energy membership.
The City would have the option to withdraw from Peninsula Clean Energy, under any of the
following circumstances:
• At the beginning of the fiscal year, following six months’ notice
• Immediately after any amendment of the JPA agreement
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 8 of 14
• Prior to program launch, if the JPA is unable to procure power that is equal or lower to
PG&E’s rates and has lower GHG emissions.
2. Competitive Electricity Rates
PCE is committed to providing cost savings for customers. PCE customers will receive cleaner
electricity at rates that are projected to be slightly lower than those of PG&E. While lower rates
are not guaranteed from year-to-year, it is reasonable to anticipate rate savings to continue into
2016 because PG&E’s electricity generation rates are projected to increase in the near future.
While PG&E rates change several times a year, CCA rates generally adjust once per year,
offering a measure of rate stability and certainty for CCA customers.
While there is no guarantee that PCE generation rates will always be lower than PG&E’s
generation rates, PCE will has the advantage of being a small, non-profit agency that does not
pay shareholder dividends, corporate salaries, investor returns or income taxes like investor-
owned utilities do. This helps to keep costs down for customers.
3. Renewable Incentive Programs
PCE may be able to offer a solar net energy metering (NEM) program that provides better rates
than comparable PG&E programs. This program is already operating successfully in Marin
County under the MCE.
4. Access to PG&E and PCE Efficiency Programs
Because PG&E will still provide PCE customers with transmission and generation services,
they are still PG&E customers and are expected to still have access to the energy efficiency and
other cost-saving programs provided by PG&E. In addition, Peninsula Clean Energy will
operate its own energy efficiency programs.
Customers who are eligible for the PG&E’s California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE)
program, which provides deeply discounted energy bills to qualifying households, would
continue to be eligible and would receive the CARE discount under the PCE program.
5. Support of Community Programs and Projects
As a non-profit public agency, PCE will allocate a portion of revenues to local projects and
programs within its service area.
6. GHG Reduction
As described above, joining PCE could reduce GHG emissions in the City, in accordance with
our CAP goals.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 9 of 14
D. Risks of Joining PCE
Staff has studied potential risks, as has the City Attorney, relying on studies of the Marin
County MCE program, as the most established CCA in California, and the San Mateo County
technical study completed in October 2015, as well as a comprehensive review of the proposed
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (Peninsula Clean Energy JPA, Attachment 3 to this staff
report).
In the opinion of the City Attorney, after analyzing the PCE JPA, the possible legal and
financial risks to the City and its citizens in joining the program are as follows.
1. Legal Risks to the City
The PCE JPA expressly provides for limited liability for its member cities, as well as directors,
officers, and employees of PCE. The JPA states that “the debts, liabilities or obligations of the
[PCE] shall not be debts, liabilities or obligations of the individual [member cities] unless the
governing board of [the City] agrees in writing to assume any of the debts, liabilities or
obligations of the [PCE].” This language in the JPA will generally protect the City from any
actions or liabilities of PCE. To further mitigate any potential legal risks to the participants,
PCE has stated in the JPA that it is committed to acquiring “insurance coverage as is necessary
to protect the interests of the [PCE], the [member cities], and the public.”
Additionally, the JPA explicitly states that “[n]o current or former Director, officer, or
employee will be responsible for any act or omission by another Director, officer, or employee”
and PCE “shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the individual current and former
Directors.” Thus, the City is generally shielded from possible liability resulting from the actions
of the representatives of other member cities as well.
It is worth noting, however, that member cities of JPAs are not automatically insulated from tort
liability for the actions of the JPA entity and its members, per Government Code section 895.2.
If Peninsula Clean Energy were to:
(1) Be sued for negligence or wrongful acts or omissions;
(2) Have a significant adverse judgment levied against it; and
(3) The PCE’s insurance was not sufficient to satisfy the judgment, then the member
cities’ assets may be found reachable by the injured party.
Because all three of these conditions must occur to subject the City to the PCE’s liability,
the associated risk is very low.
2. Financial Risks to the City
The PCE’s initial costs have been fully covered by San Mateo County, and thus, most of the
financial risk lies with the County. The County expects, and the JPA provides, that this
expenditure will be returned in the form of customer charges once the PCE is fully functional. If
the PCE venture fails prior to roll out, however, the County will lose its investment, but the
member cities are insulated from this loss by the terms of the PCE JPA.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 10 of 14
Although the City’s financial risks are limited during the evaluation and pre-implementation
stages of the PCE, the JPA outlines a few specific situations where the City might incur costs if
it chooses to withdraw from the JPA or the PCE fails after formation.
Prior to the launch of the PCE, a report from an electrical utility consultant will be provided to
the prospective member cities outlining the PCE’s estimated electrical rates, greenhouse gas
emissions, and estimated renewable energy use.
If the report shows that the PCE will be unable to offer customers:
(1) Rates that are equal to or lower than PG&E’s, or
(2) Power generation that emits less greenhouse gas than PG&E or uses more renewable
energy than PG&E, then,
the City will be free to withdraw within fifteen (15) days, without any financial obligation.
After formation and implementation of PCE, the JPA states that there may be continuing
financial obligations to any member city that chooses to withdraw, or is involuntarily
terminated by a two-thirds vote of the other member directors.
The JPA specifically provides that a withdrawing or terminated member city “shall remain
responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or other financial obligations” arising from
participation in the program through the date of its withdrawal or termination. The major
financial obligation specifically outlined in the JPA is for “losses from the resale of power
contracted for by the [PCE] to serve the [City’s] load.” However, this section of the JPA also
explicitly provides that, upon notice of a member city’s desire to withdraw, PCE is obligated to
provide a minimum waiting period during which the member would be required to remain a
part of Peninsula Clean Energy in order to withdraw without financial consequence. Thus, the
City is free to withdraw from PCE at any time and pay for the power already contracted for on
its behalf or remain in the program until such time that the City has fully used, or that PCE has
re-allocated, the City’s share of the contracted power.
Finally, the JPA provides that a withdrawing member city is additionally responsible for costs
or obligations associated generally with any specific program the City agreed to be a part of
prior to the date of its withdrawal.
Considering the above discussion, staff considers the financial risk to the City associated
with joining PCE to be very low.
3. Financial Risks to PCE Customers
As stated above, customers in operational CCAs have enjoyed cost reductions in electricity
costs. The following analysis is provided as a worst-case scenario. In the event of a CCA
failure, unless they proactively opt out, customers rejoining PG&E could face increased
charges, exit fees, and re-entry costs. In order to protect its investment and discourage opting
out, PCE may institute exit fees for any customer that chooses to opt out after the 60-day free
period. Additionally, PG&E typically institutes both a re-entry fee and market rate energy
charge for any customer returning to the utility, as well as a mandated one-year commitment to
remain with PG&E after returning. (See PG&E Electrical Rule 23.)
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 11 of 14
The CPUC has required each CCA to post a bond of $100,000 to “cover such costs as potential
re-entry fees [for customers], penalties for failing to meet operational deadlines, and errors in
forecasting.” (CPUC Decision 05-12-041.) Although this bond is meant to cover re-entry fees
imposed by the investor-owned utilities (IOUs, such as PG&E), among other things, it is
unlikely that it would be used on an ad hoc basis, but only if the PCE fails altogether and all
local customers return to the IOU.
Thus, in the unlikely scenario that customers become dissatisfied with PCE, and choose to leave
after the free opt out period, they could potentially face fees from both PCE and PG&E.
Given the experience seen at the three operations CCAs in California (Marin Clean
Energy, Sonoma Clean Power, and Lancaster Choice Energy), staff believes the financial
risk to PCE customers to be very low.
4. Regulatory Risks
The CPUC oversees the creation and inception of all CCAs and promulgates all regulations that
apply to energy generation and supply in the state. To date, the CPUC has been generally
supportive of CCA formation and operation and is guided by the increase-in-utility-competition
and customer-rate-reduction principles outlined in Public Utilities Code. In 2012, the CPUC
adopted a Code of Conduct for the IOUs relative to CCA formation and implementation, as well
as an expedited complaint procedure available to CCAs in response to disruptive and deceptive
conduct by the IOUs. (See CPUC Decision 12-12-036.)
Most regulatory risks will impact the PCE as a whole and are unlikely to affect the City
individually or directly. However, it is possible that future CPUC regulations and state or
federal legislation may alter the relationship and responsibility of member communities with
regard to multi-community CCAs, especially if customers become dissatisfied with CCAs and
elected officials are forced to react to concerns voiced by their constituents.
At present, there are no known proposed legislation or regulatory changes that would
affect PCE’s operations. Staff believes the regulatory risk is very low.
E. PCE Governance
1. Joint Powers Agreement
As discussed in the risk analysis section, the JPA is a legally and financially separate entity
from the jurisdictions that it serves. The JPA will be governed by a Board of Directors
comprised of one elected official serving as a director and one alternate director from each of
the PCE member jurisdictions. The Board of Directors will be responsible for setting electricity
rates, program policy, and also developing an implementation plan to be submitted to the
CPUC.
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 12 of 14
2. Voting Structure
Each member city has one vote on behalf of their city, and the County is granted two votes, in
exchange for fronting the start-up costs for the program. The JPA does provide for an
additional vote weighted by shares based upon the annual energy used by each member city or
the County, in relation to all the PCE members’ total energy usage, as indicated in Table 7.
The weighted vote would only be used in specific circumstances. If a member agency is not
satisfied with the outcome of an initial vote, the agency may call for a second vote using the
weighted shares method. This method can only be used to nullify a previous vote; no action may
be approved solely by a vote of shares. This protects the interests of large energy users, such as
South San Francisco, and is also in place to encourage consensus-building among Board
members.
Table 7: Approximate JPA Voting Weights
City Voting Share
Portola Valley 0.5%
Colma 0.5%
Woodside 1%
Brisbane 1.5%
Hillsborough 1.5%
Half Moon Bay 1.5%
Atherton 1.5%
East Palo Alto 2%
Millbrae 2.5%
Belmont 2.5%
Pacifica 3%
Foster City 4.5%
San Carlos 4.5%
San Bruno 5%
Unincorporated County 6%
Burlingame 6%
Daly City 6.5%
Menlo Park 7.5%
San Mateo 12.5%
South San Francisco 15%
Redwood City 15.5%
Staff Report
Subject: COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
Date: February 10, 2016
Page 13 of 14
F. Public Input
One member of the public spoke in support of South San Francisco joining the PCE program at
the January 27, 2016 study session. In addition, several letters regarding the program were
received (Attachment 4).
On February 3, 2016, the City hosted a Community Workshop on the PCE program, to gather
input from residents and businesses. Notes on the input received at the workshop are attached to
this staff report (Attachment 6).
G. South San Francisco City Government Saves Approximately $56,000 by Joining PCE
As an electric customer and ratepayer, the City of South San Francisco would have the choice of
purchasing electricity for municipal accounts from PCE or PG&E. In 2015, the City spent nearly
$1.4 million on electricity bills, excluding the City’s solar accounts, and used approximately 8.3
million kWh with PG&E. Using current electric rate comparisons, staff estimates that the annual
potential financial impact could result in a four percent (4%) cost savings to the City, or
approximately $56,000 in annual savings. Using current emissions factors, enrolling municipal
accounts in PCE would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 600 metric tons by Year 10 of
PCE program operations, helping to contribute to overall community-wide GHG reductions in
the City.
IV. CEQA AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
The action of a local government to join PCE is an administrative action that will not result in a
direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the
environment, and thus is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guideline Section 15378. CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) states that a project
does not include "Organization or administrative activities of governments that will not result in
direct or indirect physical changes in the environment." Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378,
there cannot be a project unless the proposed action will result in "either a direct physical
change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment."
V. NEXT STEPS
Following the JPA formation process, PCE will establish a Board of Directors. The PCE Board
will be made up of two members from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and one
elected official from each member city (plus an Alternate from each city, who may be an
elected official or city staff member). The Board will set the PCE’s policies and electricity
rates. Following JPA formation, PCE will also develop an implementation plan to be certified
by the CPUC, which will outline how PCE will function, set rates, procure electricity, and carry
out all other functions required under CPUC regulations.
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY ORDINANCE
1
ORDINANCE NO. _________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY CHOICE
AGGREGATION PROGRAM IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
BY AND THROUGH A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT WITH THE PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY
AUTHORITY
_______________________________________________
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo prepared a Feasibility Study for a community
choice aggregation (“CCA”) program in San Mateo County with the cooperation of the cities
under the provisions of the Public Utilities Code section 366.2. The Feasibility Study shows that
implementing a community choice aggregation program would provide multiple benefits,
including:
•Providing customers a choice of power providers;
•Increasing local control and involvement in and collaboration on energy rates and other
energy-related matters;
•Providing more stable long-term electric rates that are competitive with those provided by
the incumbent utility;
•Reducing greenhouse gas emissions arising from electricity use within San Mateo County;
•Increasing local renewable generation capacity;
•Increasing energy conservation and efficiency projects and programs;
•Increasing regional energy self-sufficiency;
•Improving the local economy resulting from the implementation of local renewable and
energy conservation and efficiency projects; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (“City”) has directed
staff to bring for its approval a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement whereby the City will join
the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority (“Authority”). Under the Joint Powers Agreements, cities
and towns within San Mateo County may participate in the Peninsula Clean Energy CCA
program by adopting the resolution and ordinance required by Public Utilities Code section
366.2. Cities and towns choosing to participate in the CCA program will have membership on
the Board of Directors of the Authority as provided in the Joint Powers Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Authority will enter into Agreements with electric power suppliers and
other service providers, and based upon those Agreements the Authority will be able to provide
power to residents and business at rates that are competitive with those of the incumbent utility.
Once the California Public Utilities Commission approves the implementation plan created by
the Authority, the Authority will provide service to customers within the unincorporated area of
San Mateo County and within the jurisdiction of those cities who have chosen to participate in
the CCA program; and
2
WHEREAS, under Public Utilities Code section 366.2, customers have the right to opt-
out of a CCA program and continue to receive service from the incumbent utility. Customers
who wish to continue to receive service from the incumbent utility will be able to do so; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2016, the City Council held a study session, and on
February 10, 2016, the City Council held a public meeting on the ordinance, at which both
meetings interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to
implementation of the Peninsula Clean Energy CCA program in the City.
WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, as it is not a “project” as
it has no potential to result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the
environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378(a)). Further, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA as
there is no possibility that the ordinance or its implementation would have a significant effect on
the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). The ordinance is also categorically
exempt because it is an action taken by a regulatory agency to assume the maintenance,
restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15308). The
City’s Economic and Community Development Department shall cause a Notice of Exemption
to be filed as authorized by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco has
investigated options to provide electric services to customers within the City with the intent of
achieving greater local control and involvement over the provision of electric services,
competitive electric rates, the development of clean, local, renewable energy projects, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, and the wider implementation of energy conservation and efficiency
projects and programs; and hereby finds and declares as follows:
SECTION 2. RECITALS.
The above recitations are true and correct and material to this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT A COMMUNITY CHOICE
AGGREGATION PROGRAM.
Based upon the forgoing, and in order to provide business and residents within the City of
South San Francisco with a choice of power providers and with the benefits described above, the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco ordains that it shall implement a community
choice aggregation program within its jurisdiction by participating as a group with the County of
San Mateo and other cities and towns as described above in the Community Choice Aggregation
program of the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority, as generally described in the Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
3
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
held on the 10th day of February, 2016.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the ____ day of ____________, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: ___________________________________________________________
NOES: __________________________________________________________
ABSTAIN: _______________________________________________________
ABSENT: ________________________________________________________
Attest: ________________________________
City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing ordinance
this _____ day of ____________, 2016.
_______________________
Mark Addiego, Mayor
4
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
5
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE JOINT EXERCISE OF
POWERS AGREEMENT, WHICH WILL ESTABLISH THE
PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY WITH THE
CITY AS A CHARTER MEMBER AND APPOINTING THE
CITY’S DIRECTOR ON THE BOARD AND THE CITY’S
ALTERNATE DIRECTOR
____________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (“City”) has
investigated options to provide electric services to customers within the City, with the intent of
achieving greater local control and involvement over the provision of electric services,
competitive electric rates, the development of clean, local, renewable energy projects, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, and the wider implementation of energy conservation and efficiency
projects and programs; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo (“County”) has prepared a Feasibility Study for
a community choice aggregation (“CCA”) program in San Mateo County under the provisions of
the Public Utilities Code section 366.2. The Feasibility Study shows that implementing a
community choice aggregation program would provide multiple benefits, including:
a.Providing customers a choice of power providers;
b.Increasing local control and involvement in and collaboration on energy rates and
other energy-related matters;
c.Providing more stable long-term electric rates that are competitive with those
provided by the incumbent utility;
d.Reducing greenhouse gas emissions arising from electricity use within San Mateo
County;
e.Increasing local renewable generation capacity;
f.
g.
Increasing energy conservation and efficiency projects and programs;
Increasing regional energy self-sufficiency; and
h.Improving the local economy resulting from the implementation of local renewable
and energy conservation and efficiency projects; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to be a community choice aggregator and has introduced
the Ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 in order to do so; and
6
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo has already become a community choice
aggregator and believes that other cities and towns within San Mateo County also wish to be
community choice aggregators; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 366.2, two or more entities authorized to be a
community choice aggregator, may participate as a group in a community choice aggregation
program through a joint powers agency established pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with
Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, if each entity adopts the
aforementioned ordinance; and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council for its consideration and
acceptance a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, reference to which is hereby made for further
particulars, whereby the City shall participate in the creation of the Peninsula Clean Energy
Authority (“Authority”) with the County and at least one other city and/or town and become a
charter member; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement entered into between the County
and the participating cities of the Peninsula will create and form the Authority. Under the Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement, the County and cities and towns within San Mateo County
choosing to participate in the CCA program will have membership on the Board of Directors of
the Authority as provided in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement if they execute the
Agreement and adopt the ordinance required by the Public Utilities Code; and
WHEREAS, the newly created Authority will enter into agreements with electric power
suppliers and other service providers, and based upon those agreements the Authority will likely
be able to provide power to residents and businesses at rates that are competitive with those of
the incumbent utility (“PG&E”). Once the California Public Utilities Commission approves the
implementation plan created by the Authority, the Authority will provide service to customers
within the jurisdiction of those cities who have chosen to participate in the CCA program and
within the unincorporated area of San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, under Public Utilities Code section 366.2, customers have the right to opt-
out of a CCA program and continue to receive service from the incumbent utility. Customers
who wish to continue to receive service from the incumbent utility will be able to do so; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with a form of such Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement and the City Council has examined and approved same as to both form and
content and desires to enter into same.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South
San Francisco hereby takes the following actions:
1.Authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
with the County and other participating Cities and Towns of the Peninsula, which will establish
the Authority with the City as a charter member; and
2._________________ is hereby appointed to be the City’s Director on the Authority’s
Board and ______________________ is hereby appointed to be the City’s Alternate Director.
3.The City Manager is authorized to execute any and all other necessary documents to
enter into the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to form the Peninsula Clean Energy
Authority, and to take any action consistent with the intent of this resolution.
7
* * **
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of
February, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: ____________________________________________________________
NOES: _____________________________________________________________
ABSTAIN: _____________________________________________________________
ABSENT: _____________________________________________________________
ATTEST: _______________________________
City Clerk
8
ATTACHMENT 3
PCE JPA AGREEMENT
9
Page 1 of 14
Approved [insert date]
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT RELATING TO
AND CREATING THE
PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY
OF
SAN MATEO COUNTY
This Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, effective on the date determined by Section 2.1, is made
and entered into pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1 (Sections
6500 et seq.) of the California Government Code relating to the joint exercise of powers among the
Parties set forth in Exhibit B, and establishes the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority (“Authority”),
is by and between the County of San Mateo (“County”) and those cities and towns within the
County of San Mateo who become signatories to this Agreement, and relates to the joint exercise
of powers among the signatories hereto.
RECITALS
A. The Parties share various powers under California law, including but not limited to the
power to purchase, supply, and aggregate electricity for themselves and customers within
their jurisdictions.
B. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which
mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 to 1990 levels. The California
Air Resources Board is promulgating regulations to implement AB 32 which will require
local governments to develop programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
C. The purposes for entering into this Agreement include:
a. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to the use of power in San Mateo
County and neighboring regions;
b. Providing electric power and other forms of energy to customers at a competitive
cost;
c. Carrying out programs to reduce energy consumption;
d. Stimulating and sustaining the local economy by developing local jobs in
renewable energy; and
e. Promoting long-term electric rate stability and energy security and reliability for
residents through local control of electric generation resources.
D. It is the intent of this Agreement to promote the development and use of a wide range of
renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs, including but not limited to
10
Page 2 of 14
Approved [insert date]
solar, wind, and biomass energy production. The purchase of renewable power and
greenhouse gas-free energy sources will be the desired approach to decrease regional
greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the State’s transition to clean power resources to
the extent feasible. The Agency will also add increasing levels of locally generated
renewable resources as these projects are developed and customer energy needs expand.
E. The Parties desire to establish a separate public agency, known as the Peninsula Clean
Energy Authority, under the provisions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of
California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) (“Act”) in order to collectively study,
promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy programs.
F. The Parties anticipate adopting an ordinance electing to implement through the Authority a
common Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program, an electric service enterprise
available to cities and counties pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections
331.1(c) and 366.2. The first priority of the Authority will be the consideration of those
actions necessary to implement the CCA Program.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions
hereinafter set forth, it is agreed by and among the Parties as follows:
ARTICLE 1: DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS
1.1 Definitions. Capitalized terms used in the Agreement shall have the meanings specified in
Exhibit A, unless the context requires otherwise.
1.2 Documents Included. This Agreement consists of this document and the following
exhibits, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement.
Exhibit A: Definitions
Exhibit B: List of the Parties
Exhibit C: Annual Energy Use
Exhibit D: Voting Shares
Exhibit E: Signatures
ARTICLE 2: FORMATION OF PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY
2.1 Effective Date and Term. This Agreement shall become effective and Peninsula Clean
Energy Authority shall exist as a separate public agency on February 29, 2016 or when the County
of San Mateo and at least two municipalities execute this Agreement, whichever occurs later. The
Authority shall provide notice to the Parties of the Effective Date. The Authority shall continue to
exist, and this Agreement shall be effective, until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with
Section 6.4, subject to the rights of the Parties to withdraw from the Authority.
11
Page 3 of 14
Approved [insert date]
2.2 Formation. There is formed as of the Effective Date a public agency named the Peninsula
Clean Energy Authority. Pursuant to Sections 6506 and 6507 of the Act, the Authority is a public
agency separate from the Parties. Pursuant to Sections 6508.1 of the Act, the debts, liabilities or
obligations of the Authority shall not be debts, liabilities or obligations of the individual Parties
unless the governing board of a Party agrees in writing to assume any of the debts, liabilities or
obligations of the Authority. A Party who has not agreed to assume an Authority debt, liability or
obligation shall not be responsible in any way for such debt, liability or obligation even if a
majority of the Parties agree to assume the debt, liability or obligation of the Authority.
Notwithstanding Section 7.4 of this Agreement, this Section 2.2 may not be amended unless such
amendment is approved by the governing board of each Party.
2.3 Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish an independent public agency in
order to exercise powers common to each Party to study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and
manage energy, energy efficiency and conservation, and other energy-related programs, and to
exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to accomplishing this purpose. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, the Parties intend for this Agreement to be used as a contractual
mechanism by which the Parties are authorized to participate in the CCA Program, as further
described in Section 4.1. The Parties intend that other agreements shall define the terms and
conditions associated with the implementation of the CCA Program and any other energy programs
approved by the Authority.
2.4 Powers. The Authority shall have all powers common to the Parties and such additional
powers accorded to it by law. The Authority is authorized, in its own name, to exercise all powers
and do all acts necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and fulfill its
purposes, including, but not limited to, each of the following powers, subject to the voting
requirements set forth in Section 3.7 through 3.7.5:
2.4.1 to make and enter into contracts;
2.4.2 to employ agents and employees, including but not limited to a Chief Executive
Officer;
2.4.3 to acquire, contract, manage, maintain, and operate any buildings, infrastructure,
works, or improvements;
2.4.4 to acquire property by eminent domain, or otherwise, except as limited under
Section 6508 of the Act, and to hold or dispose of any property; however, the Authority
shall not exercise the power of eminent domain within the jurisdiction of a Party over its
objection without first meeting and conferring in good faith.
2.4.5 to lease any property;
2.4.6 to sue and be sued in its own name;
2.4.7 to incur debts, liabilities, and obligations, including but not limited to loans from
private lending sources pursuant to its temporary borrowing powers such as Government
Code Sections 53850 et seq. and authority under the Act;
12
Page 4 of 14
Approved [insert date]
2.4.8 to form subsidiary or independent corporations or entities if necessary, to carry out
energy supply and energy conservation programs at the lowest possible cost or to take
advantage of legislative or regulatory changes;
2.4.9 to issue revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness;
2.4.10 to apply for, accept, and receive all licenses, permits, grants, loans or other aids
from any federal, state, or local public agency;
2.4.11 to submit documentation and notices, register, and comply with orders, tariffs and
agreements for the establishment and implementation of the CCA Program and other
energy programs;
2.4.12 to adopt Operating Rules and Regulations; and
2.4.13 to make and enter into service agreements relating to the provision of services
necessary to plan, implement, operate and administer the CCA Program and other energy
programs, including the acquisition of electric power supply and the provision of retail and
regulatory support services.
2.4.14 to permit additional Parties to enter into this Agreement after the Effective Date
and to permit another entity authorized to be a community choice aggregator to designate
the Authority to act as the community choice aggregator on its behalf.
2.5 Limitation on Powers. As required by Government Code Section 6509, the power of the
Authority is subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising power possessed by San
Mateo County.
2.6 Compliance with Local Zoning and Building Laws and CEQA. Unless state or federal law
provides otherwise, any facilities, buildings or structures located, constructed, or caused to be
constructed by the Authority within the territory of the Authority shall comply with the General
Plan, zoning and building laws of the local jurisdiction within which the facilities, buildings or
structures are constructed and comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
ARTICLE 3: GOVERNANCE AND INTERNAL ORGANIZATION
3.1 Board of Directors. The governing body of the Authority shall be a Board of Directors (“Board”).
The Board shall consist of 2 (two) directors appointed by the San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors and 1 (one) director appointed by each City or Town that becomes a signatory to the
Agreement (“Directors”). Each Director shall serve at the pleasure of the governing board of the
Party who appointed such Director, and may be removed as Director by such governing board at
any time. If at any time a vacancy occurs on the Board, a replacement shall be appointed to fill the
position of the previous Director within 90 days of the date that such position becomes vacant.
Directors must be members of the Board of Supervisors or members of the governing board of the
municipality that is the signatory to this Agreement. Each Party may appoint an alternate(s) to
serve in the absence of its Director(s). Alternates may be either (1) members of the Board of
Supervisors or members of the governing board of the municipality that is the signatory to this
13
Page 5 of 14
Approved [insert date]
Agreement, or (2) staff members of the County or any such municipality.
3.2 Quorum. A majority of the appointed Directors shall constitute a quorum, except that less
than a quorum may adjourn from time to time in accordance with law.
3.3 Powers and Functions of the Board. The Board shall exercise general governance and
oversight over the business and activities of the Authority, consistent with this Agreement and
applicable law. The Board shall provide general policy guidance to the CCA Program. Board
approval shall be required for any of the following actions:
3.3.1 The issuance of bonds or any other financing even if program revenues are
expected to pay for such financing.
3.3.2 The hiring or termination of the Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel.
3.3.3 The appointment or removal of officers described in Section 3.9, subject to Section
3.9.3.
3.3.4 The adoption of the Annual Budget.
3.3.5 The adoption of an ordinance.
3.3.6 The approval of agreements, except as provided by Section 3.4.
3.3.7 The initiation or resolution of claims and litigation where the Authority will be the
defendant, plaintiff, petitioner, respondent, cross complainant or cross petitioner, or
intervenor; provided, however, that the Chief Executive Officer or General
Counsel, on behalf of the Authority, may intervene in, become a party to, or file
comments with respect to any proceeding pending at the California Public Utilities
Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or any other
administrative agency, without approval of the Board as long as such action is
consistent with any adopted Board policies.
3.3.8 The setting of rates for power sold by the Authority and the setting of charges for
any other category of service provided by the Authority.
3.3.9 Termination of the CCA Program.
3.4 Chief Executive Officer. The Board of Directors shall appoint a Chief Executive Officer
for the Authority, who shall be responsible for the day-to-day operation and management of the
Authority and the CCA Program. The Chief Executive Officer may exercise all powers of the
Authority, including the power to hire, discipline and terminate employees as well as the power to
approve any agreement if the total amount payable under the agreement is less than $100,000 in
any fiscal year, except the powers specifically set forth in Section 3.3 or those powers which by law
must be exercised by the Board of Directors.
3.5 Commissions, Boards, and Committees. The Board may establish any advisory
14
Page 6 of 14
Approved [insert date]
commissions, boards, and committees as the Board deems appropriate to assist the Board in
carrying out its functions and implementing the CCA Program, other energy programs and the
provisions of this Agreement which shall comply with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown
Act. The Board may establish rules, regulations, policies, bylaws or procedures to govern any such
commissions, boards, or committees if the Board deems appropriate to appoint such commissions,
boards or committees, and shall determine whether members shall be compensated or entitled to
reimbursement for expenses.
3.6 Director Compensation. Directors shall serve without compensation from the Authority.
However, Directors may be compensated by their respective appointing authorities. The Board,
however, may adopt by resolution a policy relating to the reimbursement by the Authority of
expenses incurred by Directors.
3.7 Voting In general, as described below in Section 3.7.3, action by the Authority Board will
be taken solely by a majority vote of the Directors present. However, as described below in Section
3.7.4, upon request of a Director, a weighted vote by shares will also be conducted. When such a
request is made, an action must be approved by both a majority vote of Directors present and a
majority of the weighted vote by shares present. No action may be approved solely by a vote by
shares. The voting shares of Directors and approval requirements for actions of the Board shall be
as follows:
3.7.1. Voting Shares.
Each Director shall have a voting share as determined by the following formula: (Annual
Energy Use/Total Annual Energy) multiplied by 100, where
(a) “Annual Energy Use” means, (i) with respect to the first year following the
Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kilowatt hours (“kWh”),
within the Party’s respective jurisdiction and (ii) with respect to the period after the
anniversary of the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kWh,
of accounts within a Party’s respective jurisdiction that are served by the
Authority; and
(b) “Total Annual Energy” means the sum of all Parties’ Annual Energy Use. The
initial values for Annual Energy Use will be designated in Exhibit C, and shall be
adjusted annually as soon as reasonably practicable after January 1, but no later
than March 1 of each year. These adjustments shall be approved by the Board.
(c) The combined voting share of all Directors representing the County of San
Mateo shall be based upon the annual electricity usage within the unincorporated
area of San Mateo County.
For the purposes of Weighted Voting, if a Party has more than one director, then the
voting shares allocated to the entity shall be equally divided amongst its Directors.
3.7.2. Exhibit Showing Voting Shares. The initial voting shares will be set forth in
Exhibit D. Exhibit D shall be revised no less than annually as necessary to account for
changes in the number of Parties and changes in the Parties’ Annual Energy Use. Exhibit
15
Page 7 of 14
Approved [insert date]
D and adjustments shall be approved by the Board.
3.7.3. Approval Requirements Relating to CCA Program. Except as provided in Sections
3.7.4 and 3.7.5 below, action of the Board shall require the affirmative vote of a majority
of Directors present at the meeting.
3.7.4. Option for Approval by Voting Shares. Notwithstanding Section 3.7.3, any Director
present at a meeting may demand that approval of any matter related to the CCA Program
be determined on the basis of both voting shares and by the affirmative vote of a majority
of Directors present at the meeting. If a Director makes such a demand with respect to
approval of any such matter, then approval of such matter shall require the affirmative vote
of a majority of Directors present at the meeting and the affirmative vote of Directors
having a majority of voting shares present, as determined by Section 3.7.1 except as
provided in Section 3.7.5.
3.7.5. Special Voting Requirements for Certain Matters.
(a) Two-Thirds and Weighted Voting Approval Requirements Relating to Sections
6.2 and 7.4. Action of the Board on the matters set forth in Section 6.2 (involuntary
termination of a Party), or Section 7.4 (amendment of this Agreement) shall require
the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of Directors present; provided, however,
that (i) notwithstanding the foregoing, any Director present at the meeting may
demand that the vote be determined on the basis of both voting shares and by the
affirmative vote of Directors, and if a Director makes such a demand, then
approval shall require the affirmative vote of both at least two-thirds of Directors
present and the affirmative vote of Directors having at least two-thirds of the
voting shares present, as determined by Section 3.7.1; (ii) but, at least two Parties
must vote against a matter for the vote to fail; and (iii) for votes to involuntarily
terminate a Party under Section 6.2, the Director(s) for the Party subject to
involuntary termination may not vote, and the number of Directors constituting
two-thirds of all Directors, and the weighted vote of each Party shall be
recalculated as if the Party subject to possible termination were not a Party.
(b) Seventy Five Percent Special Voting Requirements for Eminent Domain and
Contributions or Pledge of Assets.
(i) A decision to exercise the power of eminent domain on behalf of the
Authority to acquire any property interest other than an easement, right-of-way, or
temporary construction easement shall require a vote of at least 75% of all
Directors.
(ii) The imposition on any Party of any obligation to make contributions or
pledge assets as a condition of continued participation in the CCA Program shall
require a vote of at least 75% of all Directors and the approval of the governing
boards of the Parties who are being asked to make such contribution or pledge.
(iii) Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Director present at the meeting may
demand that a vote under subsections (i) or (ii) be determined on the basis of
16
Page 8 of 14
Approved [insert date]
voting shares and by the affirmative vote of Directors, and if a Director makes such
a demand, then approval shall require both the affirmative vote of at least 75% of
Directors present and the affirmative vote of Directors having at least 75% of the
voting shares present, as determined by Section 3.7.1, but at least two Parties must
vote against a matter for the vote to fail. For purposes of this section, “imposition
on any Party of any obligation to make contributions or pledge assets as a
condition of continued participation in the CCA Program” does not include any
obligations of a withdrawing or terminated party imposed under Section 6.3.
3.8 Meetings and Special Meetings of the Board. The Board shall hold at least six regular
meetings per year, but the Board may provide for the holding of regular meetings at more frequent
intervals. The date, hour and place of each regular meeting shall be fixed by resolution or ordinance
of the Board. Regular meetings may be adjourned to another meeting time. Special and Emergency
Meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with the provisions of California Government
Code Sections 54956 and 54956.5. Directors may participate in meetings telephonically, with full
voting rights, only to the extent permitted by law. All meetings shall be conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950 et
seq.).
3.9 Selection of Board Officers.
3.9.1 Chair and Vice Chair. The Directors shall select, from among themselves, a Chair,
who shall be the presiding officer of all Board meetings, and a Vice Chair, who shall serve
in the absence of the Chair. The term of office of the Chair and Vice Chair shall continue
for one year, but there shall be no limit on the number of terms held by either the Chair or
Vice Chair. The office of either the Chair or Vice Chair shall be declared vacant and a new
selection shall be made if:
(a) the person serving dies, resigns, or the Party that the person represents
removes the person as its representative on the Board or
(b) the Party that he or she represents withdraws from the Authority pursuant to
the provisions of this Agreement.
3.9.2 Secretary. The Board shall appoint a Secretary, who need not be a member of the
Board, who shall be responsible for keeping the minutes of all meetings of the Board and
all other official records of the Authority.
3.9.3 Treasurer and Auditor. The San Mateo County Treasurer shall act as the Treasurer
for the Authority. Unless otherwise exempted from such requirement, the Authority shall
cause an independent audit to be made by a certified public accountant, or public
accountant, in compliance with Section 6505 of the Act. The Treasurer shall act as the
depository of the Authority and have custody of all the money of the Authority, from
whatever source, and as such, shall have all of the duties and responsibilities specified in
Section 6505.5 of the Act. The Treasurer shall report directly to the Board and shall
comply with the requirements of treasurers of incorporated municipalities. The Board may
transfer the responsibilities of Treasurer to any person or entity as the law may provide at
the time. The duties and obligations of the Treasurer are further specified in Article 5.
17
Page 9 of 14
Approved [insert date]
3.10 Administrative Services Provider. The Board may appoint one or more administrative
services providers to serve as the Authority’s agent for planning, implementing, operating and
administering the CCA Program, and any other program approved by the Board, in accordance
with the provisions of an Administrative Services Agreement. The appointed administrative
services provider may be one of the Parties. An Administrative Services Agreement shall set forth
the terms and conditions by which the appointed administrative services provider shall perform or
cause to be performed all tasks necessary for planning, implementing, operating and administering
the CCA Program and other approved programs. The Administrative Services Agreement shall set
forth the term of the Agreement and the circumstances under which the Administrative Services
Agreement may be terminated by the Authority. This section shall not in any way be construed to
limit the discretion of the Authority to hire its own employees to administer the CCA Program or
any other program.
ARTICLE 4: IMPLEMENTATION ACTION AND AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS
4.1 Preliminary Implementation of the CCA Program.
4.1.1 Enabling Ordinance. To be eligible to participate in the CCA Program, each Party
must adopt an ordinance in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) for
the purpose of specifying that the Party intends to implement a CCA Program by and
through its participation in the Authority.
4.1.2 Implementation Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared an Implementation
Plan meeting the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 and any applicable
Public Utilities Commission regulations as soon after the Effective Date as reasonably
practicable. The Implementation Plan shall not be filed with the Public Utilities
Commission until it is approved by the Board in the manner provided by Section 3.7.3.
4.1.3 Termination of CCA Program. Nothing contained in this Article or this Agreement
shall be construed to limit the discretion of the Authority to terminate the implementation
or operation of the CCA Program at any time in accordance with any applicable
requirements of state law.
4.2 Authority Documents. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the affairs of the Authority
will be implemented through various documents duly adopted by the Board through Board
resolution. The Parties agree to abide by and comply with the terms and conditions of all such
documents that may be adopted by the Board, subject to the Parties’ right to withdraw from the
Authority as described in Article 6.
ARTICLE 5: FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
5.1 Fiscal Year. The Authority’s fiscal year shall be 12 months commencing July 1 or the date
selected by the Agency and ending June 30. The fiscal year may be changed by Board resolution.
18
Page 10 of 14
Approved [insert date]
5.2 Depository.
5.2.1 All funds of the Authority shall be held in separate accounts in the name of the
Authority and not commingled with funds of any Party or any other person or entity.
5.2.2 All funds of the Authority shall be strictly and separately accounted for, and
regular reports shall be rendered of all receipts and disbursements, at least quarterly during
the fiscal year. The books and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection by the
Parties at all reasonable times. The Board shall contract with a certified public accountant
or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of the Authority,
which shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 6505 of the Act.
5.2.3 All expenditures shall be made in accordance with the approved budget and upon
the approval of any officer so authorized by the Board in accordance with its Operating
Rules and Regulations. The Treasurer shall draw checks or warrants or make payments by
other means for claims or disbursements not within an applicable budget only upon the
prior approval of the Board.
5.3 Budget and Recovery of Costs.
5.3.1 Budget. The initial budget shall be approved by the Board. The Board may revise
the budget from time to time as may be reasonably necessary to address contingencies and
unexpected expenses. All subsequent budgets of the Authority shall be approved by the
Board in accordance with the Operating Rules and Regulations.
5.3.2 Funding of Initial Costs. The County of San Mateo has funded certain activities
necessary to implement the CCA Program. If the CCA Program becomes operational,
these Initial Costs paid by the County of San Mateo shall be included in the customer
charges for electric services as provided by Section 5.3.3 to the extent permitted by law,
and the County of San Mateo shall be reimbursed from the payment of such charges by
customers of the Authority. Prior to such reimbursement, the County of San Mateo shall
provide such documentation of costs paid as the Board may request. The Authority may
establish a reasonable time period over which such costs are recovered. In the event that
the CCA Program does not become operational, the County of San Mateo shall not be
entitled to any reimbursement of the Initial Costs it has paid from the Authority or any
Party.
5.3.3 CCA Program Costs. The Parties desire that all costs incurred by the Authority that
are directly or indirectly attributable to the provision of electric, conservation, efficiency,
incentives, financing, or other services provided under the CCA Program, including but
not limited to the establishment and maintenance of various reserves and performance
funds and administrative, accounting, legal, consulting, and other similar costs, shall be
recovered through charges to CCA customers receiving such electric services, or from
revenues from grants or other third-party sources.
19
Page 11 of 14
Approved [insert date]
ARTICLE 6: WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION
6.1 Withdrawal.
6.1.1 Right to Withdraw. A Party may withdraw its participation in the CCA Program,
effective as of the beginning of the Authority’s fiscal year, by giving no less than 6 months
advance written notice of its election to do so, which notice shall be given to the Authority
and each Party. Withdrawal of a Party shall require an affirmative vote of the Party’s
governing board.
6.1.2 Right to Withdraw After Amendment. Notwithstanding Section 6.1.1, a Party may
withdraw its membership in the Authority following an amendment to this Agreement
adopted by the Board which the Party’s Director(s) voted against provided such notice is
given in writing within thirty (30) days following the date of the vote. Withdrawal of a
Party shall require an affirmative vote of the Party’s governing board and shall not be
subject to the six month advance notice provided in Section 6.1.1. In the event of such
withdrawal, the Party shall be subject to the provisions of Section 6.3.
6.1.3 The Right to Withdraw Prior to Program Launch. After receiving bids from power
suppliers, the Authority must provide to the Parties the report from the electrical utility
consultant retained by the Authority that compares the total estimated electrical rates that
the Authority will be charging to customers as well as the estimated greenhouse gas
emissions rate and the amount of estimated renewable energy used with that of the
incumbent utility. If the report provides that the Authority is unable to provide total
electrical rates, as part of its baseline offering, to the customers that are equal to or lower
than the incumbent utility or to provide power in a manner that has a lower greenhouse gas
emissions rate or uses more renewable energy than the incumbent utility, a Party may
immediately withdraw its membership in the Authority without any financial obligation,
as long as the Party provides written notice of its intent to withdraw to the Authority
Board no more than fifteen days after receiving the report.
6.1.4 Continuing Financial Obligation; Further Assurances. Except as provided by
Section 6.1.3, a Party that withdraws its participation in the CCA Program may be subject
to certain continuing financial obligations, as described in Section 6.3. Each withdrawing
Party and the Authority shall execute and deliver all further instruments and documents,
and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, as determined by the Board,
to effectuate the orderly withdrawal of such Party from participation in the CCA Program.
6.2 Involuntary Termination of a Party. Participation of a Party in the CCA program may be
terminated for material non-compliance with provisions of this Agreement or any other agreement
relating to the Party’s participation in the CCA Program upon a vote of Board members as provided
in Section 3.7.5. Prior to any vote to terminate participation with respect to a Party, written notice
of the proposed termination and the reason(s) for such termination shall be delivered to the Party
whose termination is proposed at least 30 days prior to the regular Board meeting at which such
matter shall first be discussed as an agenda item. The written notice of proposed termination shall
specify the particular provisions of this Agreement or other agreement that the Party has allegedly
20
Page 12 of 14
Approved [insert date]
violated. The Party subject to possible termination shall have the opportunity at the next regular
Board meeting to respond to any reasons and allegations that may be cited as a basis for
termination prior to a vote regarding termination. A Party that has had its participation in the CCA
Program terminated may be subject to certain continuing liabilities, as described in Section 6.3.
6.3 Continuing Financial Obligations; Refund. Except as provided by Section 6.1.3, upon a
withdrawal or involuntary termination of a Party, the Party shall remain responsible for any claims,
demands, damages, or other financial obligations arising from the Party membership or
participation in the CCA Program through the date of its withdrawal or involuntary termination, it
being agreed that the Party shall not be responsible for any financial obligations arising after the
date of the Party’s withdrawal or involuntary termination. Claims, demands, damages, or other
financial obligations for which a withdrawing or terminated Party may remain liable include, but
are not limited to, losses from the resale of power contracted for by the Authority to serve the
Party’s load. With respect to such financial obligations, upon notice by a Party that it wishes to
withdraw from the CCA Program, the Authority shall notify the Party of the minimum waiting
period under which the Party would have no costs for withdrawal if the Party agrees to stay in the
CCA Program for such period. The waiting period will be set to the minimum duration such that
there are no costs transferred to remaining ratepayers. If the Party elects to withdraw before the end
of the minimum waiting period, the charge for exiting shall be set at a dollar amount that would
offset actual costs to the remaining ratepayers, and may not include punitive charges that exceed
actual costs. In addition, such Party shall also be responsible for any costs or obligations associated
with the Party’s participation in any program in accordance with the provisions of any agreements
relating to such program provided such costs or obligations were incurred prior to the withdrawal
of the Party. The Authority may withhold funds otherwise owing to the Party or may require the
Party to deposit sufficient funds with the Authority, as reasonably determined by the Authority and
approved by a vote of the Board of Directors, to cover the Party’s financial obligations for the costs
described above. Any amount of the Party’s funds held on deposit with the Authority above that
which is required to pay any financial obligations shall be returned to the Party. The liability of any
Party under this section 6.3 is subject and subordinate to the provisions of Section 2.2, and nothing
in this section 6.3 shall reduce, impair, or eliminate any immunity from liability provided by
Section 2.2.
6.4 Mutual Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of all the
Parties; provided, however, the foregoing shall not be construed as limiting the rights of a Party to
withdraw its participation in the CCA Program, as described in Section 6.1.
6.5 Disposition of Property upon Termination of Authority. Upon termination of this
Agreement, any surplus money or assets in possession of the Authority for use under this
Agreement, after payment of all liabilities, costs, expenses, and charges incurred under this
Agreement and under any program documents, shall be returned to the then-existing Parties in
proportion to the contributions made by each.
ARTICLE 7: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
7.1 Dispute Resolution. The Parties and the Authority shall make reasonable efforts to
informally settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement. Should such
21
Page 13 of 14
Approved [insert date]
informal efforts to settle a dispute, after reasonable efforts, fail, the dispute shall be mediated in
accordance with policies and procedures established by the Board.
7.2 Liability of Directors, Officers, and Employees. The Directors, officers, and employees of
the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers and in
the performance of their duties pursuant to this Agreement. No current or former Director, officer,
or employee will be responsible for any act or omission by another Director, officer, or employee.
The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the individual current and former
Directors, officers, and employees for any acts or omissions in the scope of their employment or
duties in the manner provided by Government Code Sections 995 et seq. Nothing in this section
shall be construed to limit the defenses available under the law, to the Parties, the Authority, or its
Directors, officers, or employees.
7.3 Indemnification of Parties. The Authority shall acquire such insurance coverage as is
necessary to protect the interests of the Authority, the Parties, and the public. The Authority shall
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Parties and each of their respective Board or Council
members, officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, losses, damages, costs, injuries,
and liabilities of every kind arising directly or indirectly from the conduct, activities, operations,
acts, and omissions of the Authority under this Agreement.
7.4 Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may not be amended except by a written
amendment approved by a vote of Board members as provided in Section 3.7.5. The Authority
shall provide written notice to all Parties of amendments to this Agreement, including the effective
date of such amendments, at least 30 days prior to the date upon which the Board votes on such
amendments.
7.5 Assignment. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the rights and
duties of the Parties may not be assigned or delegated without the advance written consent of all of
the other Parties, and any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or duties in contravention of this
Section 7.5 shall be null and void. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding
upon, the successors and assigns of the Parties. This Section 7.5 does not prohibit a Party from
entering into an independent agreement with another agency, person, or entity regarding the
financing of that Party’s contributions to the Authority, or the disposition of proceeds which that
Party receives under this Agreement, so long as such independent agreement does not affect, or
purport to affect, the rights and duties of the Authority or the Parties under this Agreement.
7.6 Severability. If one or more clauses, sentences, paragraphs or provisions of this Agreement
shall be held to be unlawful, invalid or unenforceable, it is hereby agreed by the Parties, that the
remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby. Such clauses, sentences, paragraphs or
provision shall be deemed reformed so as to be lawful, valid and enforced to the maximum extent
possible.
7.7 Further Assurances. Each Party agrees to execute and deliver all further instruments and
documents, and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, to effectuate the purposes
and intent of this Agreement.
7.8 Execution by Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
22
Page 14 of 14
Approved [insert date]
counterparts, and upon execution by all Parties, each executed counterpart shall have the same
force and effect as an original instrument and as if all Parties had signed the same instrument. Any
signature page of this Agreement may be detached from any counterpart of this Agreement without
impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of
this Agreement identical in form hereto but having attached to it one or more signature pages.
7.9 Parties to be Served Notice. Any notice authorized or required to be given pursuant to this
Agreement shall be validly given if served in writing either personally, by deposit in the United
States mail, first class postage prepaid with return receipt requested, or by a recognized courier
service. Notices given (a) personally or by courier service shall be conclusively deemed received at
the time of delivery and receipt and (b) by mail shall be conclusively deemed given 48 hours after
the deposit thereof (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) if the sender receives the return
receipt. All notices shall be addressed to the office of the clerk or secretary of the Authority or
Party, as the case may be, or such other person designated in writing by the Authority or Party.
Notices given to one Party shall be copied to all other Parties. Notices given to the Authority shall
be copied to all Parties.
23
Approved [insert date]
Exhibit A
Definitions
“Act” means the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code
Section 6500 et seq.)
“Administrative Services Agreement” means an agreement or agreements entered into after the
Effective Date by the Authority with an entity that will perform tasks necessary for planning,
implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program or any other energy programs
adopted by the Authority.
“Agreement” means this Joint Powers Agreement.
“Annual Energy Use” has the meaning given in Section 3.7.1.
“Authority” means the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority.
“Authority Document(s)” means document(s) duly adopted by the Board by resolution or motion
implementing the powers, functions, and activities of the Authority, including but not limited to
the Operating Rules and Regulations, the annual budget, and plans and policies.
“Board” means the Board of Directors of the Authority.
“CCA” or “Community Choice Aggregation” means an electric service option available to cities
and counties pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2.
“CCA Program” means the Authority’s program relating to CCA that is principally described in
Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 4.1.
“Director” means a member of the Board of Directors representing a Party.
“Effective Date” means February 29, 2016 or when the County of San Mateo and at least two
municipalities execute this Agreement, whichever occurs later, as further described in Section
2.1.
“Implementation Plan” means the plan generally described in Section 4.1.2 of this Agreement
that is required under Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 to be filed with the California Public
Utilities Commission for the purpose of describing a proposed CCA Program.
“Initial Costs” means all costs incurred by the County and/or Authority relating to the
establishment and initial operation of the Authority, such as the hiring of a Chief Executive
Officer and any administrative staff, and any required accounting, administrative, technical, or
legal services in support of the Authority’s initial activities or in support of the negotiation,
preparation, and approval of one or more Administrative Services Agreements.
24
Approved [insert date]
Exhibit A (cont.)
Definitions
“Operating Rules and Regulations” means the rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures
governing the operation of the Authority.
“Parties” means, collectively, any municipality within the County of San Mateo which
executes this Agreement.
“Party” means a signatory to this Agreement.
“Total Annual Energy” has the meaning given in Section 3.7.1.
25
Approved [insert date]
Exhibit B
List of Parties
Parties: County of San Mateo
26
Approved [insert date]
Exhibits C and D
Annual Energy Use and Voting Shares
ANNUAL ENERGY USE WITHIN PCE
JURISDICTIONS AND VOTING SHARES
Twelve Months Ended November [date]
Party Total kWh Voting
Share
SAN MATEO
COUNTY
Total 100
27
ATTACHMENT 4
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
28
San Mateo Community Choice
1473 Sixth Ave, Belmont, CA 94002
sanmateocommunitychoice@gmail.com
SanMateoCommunityChoice.org
1/25/2016 Re: Please adopt Peninsula Clean Energy
Board
Jan Butts
Dr. Sue Chow
Dr. Michael Closson
Janet Creech
Gladwyn D’Souza
Anja Miller
Mike Ferreira
Dave Clark
Kirsten Schwind
Omar Abi-Chahine
Tara Shahrvini
Ellen Wilkinson
Jacky Lee
City of South San Francisco
City Council, c/o City Clerk
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA, 94080
Dear South San Francisco City Council,
On 1/27/16 you will have the opportunity to dramatically
reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions in keeping with your
Climate Action Plan by deciding to proceed with Peninsula
Clean Energy for your city.
Joining Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) is the single most
powerful action the city can take to reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions (GHG) and meet state mandated Climate
Action goals, according to a recent report from the Sierra
Club.
And it is the right thing to do … for your citizens and for
the planet. With your vote to join PCE, you can be proud
that your city has personally contributed to a vast
reduction in GHG emissions, provided consumers with
meaningful choices versus dictated services controlled by
an unresponsive monopoly, initiated an innovative, non-
profit, community-enhancing, organization that offers
residents and businesses the opportunity to save money,
promote local “green” economic development and jobs,
and invest in a path to build community assets and
resilience in the event of regional failure of the energy
grids.
Please decide in favor of Peninsula Clean Energy at the
1/27/16 Council meeting’s study session.
Sincerely,
Gladwyn d’Souza
Spokesperson, San Mateo Community Choice
29
Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club - 3921 East Bayshore Road #240, Palo Alto, CA 94303 - 650-390-8411 www.lomaprieta.sierraclub.org
Loma Prieta Chapter serving San Mateo, Santa Clara & San Benito Counties
January 25, 2016
South San Francisco City Council
c/o City Clerk
400 Grand Ave., South San Francisco, CA 94080
Re: Please vote in Favor of Peninsula Clean Energy at Tomorrow's Council Meeting
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
The Sierra Club strongly supports the formation of a countywide Community Choice
Energy Joint Powers Authority in San Mateo County. We applaud the supportive role that
the Board of Supervisors has taken by underwriting the initial expense and by forming
the Advisory Committee in order to garner thorough input and outreach.
The CCEs formed in Marin and Sonoma Counties are examples of successful CCEs that
have provided significant benefits to their communities.
A CCE that is dedicated to renewable energy sources is a winner on all counts:
It creates more jobs than fossil-fuel sources.
It will help your city achieve its Climate Action Goals.
It can deliver electricity at competitive or lower prices that PG&E according to the study that the
county commissioned.
It doesn’t burden the city with any long term expenses or funding requirements.
It empowers every customer to reduce their carbon footprint without having to change behavior
or spend additional money.
It provides customers with choice.
It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It will improve air quality since there are no pollutants associated with renewable energy
sources.
It will enhance the economics of distributed energy for a more secure local economy.
30
Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club - 3921 East Bayshore Road #240, Palo Alto, CA 94303 - 650-390-8411 www.lomaprieta.sierraclub.org
Peninsula Clean Energy will help all residents whether they are renters, homeowners, or
businesses. It will even help those who currently have solar now and those who want to
install solar in the future. It's the right step for the city of South San Francisco.
We appreciate your continued support of CCEs and other initiatives to reduce and
eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Sue Chow
Co-chair, Climate Action Leadership Team
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
650-454-0259
CC: City Clerk
Mike Ferreira, Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Barbara Kelsey, Office Manager, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
31
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF DALY CITY
333 – 90TH STREET
DALY CITY, CA 94015-1895
February 1, 2016
Honorable Mayor and City Council
c/o City Clerk Krista Martinelli
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Re: Please vote in Favor of Peninsula Clean Energy at Wednesday’s Council Meeting
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
The City of Daly City supports the formation of the countywide Community Choice Energy (CCE) Joint Powers
Authority (JPA), Peninsula Clean Energy, in San Mateo County. Our City Council voted unanimously to join
Peninsula Clean Energy on Monday, January 25, 2016. Now, Peninsula Clean Energy will play a major role in
accomplishing the goals of Daly City’s Climate Action Plan. In fact, CCE represents one of the most impactful
options currently available to jurisdictions to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and further implement
their Climate Action Plans.
In order to make this collaborative effort a success, we need your support. South San Francisco is the second
largest consumer of electricity in the entire County, making your City’s participation in Peninsula Clean Energy
particularly important.
Peninsula Clean Energy would offer energy customers—both residents and businesses—competitive choices
and opportunities for greener energy as well as support for our local economy. It will also provide greater local
control over our shared energy future. Operational CCE programs in the State, including Marin Clean Energy,
Sonoma Clean Power and Lancaster Community Choice, have proven that CCEs provide significant benefits
to their communities.
I strongly urge you to join the Peninsula Clean Energy Joint Powers Authority at your City Council meeting on
Wednesday, February 3, 2016.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Guingona
Councilmember
CITY COUNCIL
RAYMOND A. BUENAVENTURA
DAVID J. CANEPA
JUDITH A. CHRISTENSEN
MICHAEL P. GUINGONA
SAL TORRES
________
PATRICIA E. MARTEL
CITY MANAGER
K. ANNETTE HIPONA
CITY CLERK
DANECA M. HALVORSON
CITY TREASURER
PHONE (650) 991-8008
32
ATTACHMENT 5
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
33
City Council Hearing
February 10, 2016
34
35
Peninsula Clean Energy: provides
energy procurement + generation
PG&E: delivers energy, maintains
infrastructure, customer service,
billing
Customer experience is the same
No duplication of charges
36
Consumer choice
◦Join Peninsula Clean Energy
◦Stay with PG&E
Competitive rates
Environmental benefits
Energy efficiency programs
37
Program Year
Established
Average
Monthly
Savings
Marin Clean
Energy 2010 $1.48 / month
Sonoma Clean
Power 2015 $7.23 / month
Lancaster
Choice Energy 2015 $2.10 / month
38
Join Peninsula
Clean Energy Stay with PG&E
Cost Savings 5% Savings -
Renewable
Energy 50% 27%
Greenhouse
Gas Reduction
10,860 Metric
Tons -
39
Market risks
Operational risk
Political / Regulatory Risks
40
Introduce an ordinance authorizing theimplementation of a Community ChoiceAggregation program within the City,and waive further reading; and
Adopt a resolution approving theexecution of a Joint Powers Agreementto Establish the Peninsula Clean EnergyAuthority within the City and appointinga City Director and Alternate Director torepresent the City.
41
ATTACHMENT 6
COMMUNITY MEETING NOTES
42
43
Following is a summary of questions and comments from the February 3, 2016 Community
Workshop on Peninsula Clean Energy, and input from emails received.
• Will tonight’s presentation be available online?
• Sonoma clean energy customer - has had a good experience.
• This is a good first step - provides an option, a little savings, better treatment of
environment.
• Provide more detail about labor requirements for the Peninsula Clean Energy Program.
• The City of Palo Alto has a public utility, lower rates, and higher renewable mix because
it is a municipal utility.
• How are Peninsula Clean Energy’s policies set?
• Residents can opt out at any time, so they could choose to go back to PG&E any time.
Could Peninsula Clean Energy go out of business if enough customers went back to
PG&E, if PG&E offered better rates?
• Questions about issues of liability, cost, how easily you can opt out?
• How will solar programs work as part of Peninsula Clean Energy? What about Net
Energy Metering?
• A family member has experienced higher rates with Sonoma Clean Power, the monthly
bill has gone up
• Will Peninsula Clean Energy be a private company?
• Will there be a reduced rate for Electric Vehicles (similar to PG&E)?
• 15 years ago, there was a similar program considered in SSF, the City did not enter.
There was then a major problem with the power supply grid.
• 5% is not a whole lot of savings, it should be cheaper.
• Devil I know, vs. devil I don't know
• What is PG&E's real position on this program?
• We should explore alternatives
• Will there be rental fees for the use of PG&E's infrastructure?
• Can we consider a municipal program like Palo Alto?
• Look at successful municipal programs.
• Can you guarantee that every customer will have a lower bill?
• How easy will it be to access information about energy rates?
• In favor of cautious optimism, and want to lower GHGs.
• Who decides what happens with solar panels?
44
• Concern about scaling - is there research to indicate that energy exists to serve San Mateo
County?
• If South San Francisco joins Peninsula Clean Energy, would customers have to opt out?
• Chicago example - Community Choice Aggregation program was not successful, people
ended up laying more and the program folded.
• Other program examples were not successful (102 / 725 programs were not successful).
• Are alternative energy sources regulated in Community Choice Aggregation programs?
• Are energy sources local to California?
• We would lose a tax advantage if energy was purchased from another state.
• What is the projected yearly overhead cost for JPA staff and consultants?
• How does the exit fee work?
• Costs are going to go down for solar and wind, and Peninsula Clean Energy will provide
energy incentives, so we will use less energy overall. It is a win-win.
• Where are the solar panels made?
• Will union labor be used for energy projects under Peninsula Clean Energy?
• Need to consider cost to build infrastructure, lease property, etc.
• What jobs are going to be created through Peninsula Clean Energy?
• League of Women Voters – we have looked at climate change, and this is an effective
way to cut carbon emissions and help with climate change. The JPA sets up opportunity
for citizens to comment, and we will have a place to go and speak at the Board of
Directors. Peninsula Clean Energy is worth a try, it won't cost any more money than
PG&E.
• Will there be an opt-out fee from Peninsula Clean Energy?
• Digital meters from PG&E - they said you could opt out, but then customers were
charged a higher rate.
• What is the County's interest in the Peninsula Clean Energy program?
• People will forget to opt out, and will get hit with a fee in the future.
• Why can't PG&E compete on the same level as Community Choice Aggregation
programs (in terms of fee and energy mix)?
• What prevents PG&E from retaliation against customers who exit from PG&E?
• If electricity generation rates go down, will the bill go down?
• If rates are lower next year, will electricity bills go down again?
• Will PG&E be charging any more for transmission and repair?
45
• If customers opt-out from Peninsula Clean Energy and have to pay a fee, will that be a
one-time fee, or a monthly fee?
• We have to reduce carbon emissions somehow, and lower our carbon footprint.
• What will the renewable content be for Peninsula Clean Energy?
• Encourage City Council to vote for this.
• What are the opt-out rates for the existing programs?
• Who will be on the Board for Peninsula Clean Energy?
• I like having choice.
• We are at a critical point in time - we need to lower our carbon footprint.
• How can you actually tell us the rates are going to be lower?
• Why is it an opt-out program?
• South San Francisco residents should vote if we join Peninsula Clean Energy.
• There will be no loss of jobs, and most likely there will be more jobs. This is a net win at
every level.
• Climate change - we need to think about what causes it, there are big industries that burn
fossil fuels.
• We could be installing more solar panels and having local jobs instead of burning fossil
fuels.
• What has PG&E guaranteed us?
• What is the best way forward - more fossil fuels, or clean energy? Cost of solar is
diminishing quickly. Let's move forward - think about the future, build a healthier planet
for the future.
• Do more community forums and spread the knowledge about Peninsula Clean Energy.
• Ratepayers - money goes to funding PG&E energy efficiency programs - are these
affected at all?
• Experience with Xoom Energy – provided better deal than PG&E for gas, and better
customer service. Will there be follow-up on rates from Peninsula Clean Energy?
• Once you opt out, and go back to PG&E, can you change your mind and opt back in to
Peninsula Clean Energy?
• Very much in favor of going to a public energy solution.
• Will Peninsula Clean Energy be involved in gas transmission?
• How many jobs could be created by Peninsula Clean Energy program?
• At what percentage of people opting out of program would the program no longer work?
46
• If something goes wrong and too many people opt out - would the County and taxpayer
pay for it?
• How long will the initial start-up take?
• What are the gains for businesses from the Peninsula Clean Energy program?
• We have a new 1/2 cent sales tax in South San Francisco - will that be part of the rate
structure for the ratepayers?
• Will we pay additional delivery charges for PG&E infrastructure?
• We are already doing our share for the environment - other countries are much bigger
polluters than we are.
• Please vote no, I feel that where I purchase my utilities is personal right.
• This was tried before and failed. At what expense to the community?
• It is not a choice if I am moved and then I have to request to go back to the PG&E.
• Rates are not regulated.
• No guarantee of local jobs in South San Francisco.
• Other states have tried this and gone back to the legacy company.
• The lure of estimated savings is a concern. With no guarantee, except to attend a board
hearing regarding rates.
• Our City and County Government should focus on our housing, roads, water, safety and
education concerns in South San Francisco and San Mateo County. Not where I purchase
my electric power.
• It is my choice to reduce my footprint in private. Instead of being forced.
• I would like to express my support for South San Francisco joining the PCE program.
• We are in favor of Peninsula Clean Energy, we are sending our vote to join this new
partnership.
Staff Report
DATE: February 10, 2016
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW
TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL
OF 260 UNITS AT 309, 315, 401-421 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, A PRIVATE
RESIDENTIAL PARKING LOT AT 405 CYPRESS AVENUE, AND 12
TOWNHOME UNITS AT 216 MILLER AVENUE; REQUEST FOR
MODIFICATION TO PRIVATE STORAGE AND BUILDING HEIGHT
ZONING STANDARDS; REQUEST FOR A PARKING REDUCTION TO
REDUCE PROVIDED PARKING BY 25% TO ACCOMMODATE A
PORTION OF COMPACT PARKING SPACES DESIGNED FOR THE
PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS, A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE
PROJECT COMPLIES WITH CEQA. PARCELS ARE LOCATED IN THE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE (DTC) AND GRAND AVENUE CORE (GAC)
ZONING DISTRICTS AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DESIGN
REVIEW, WAIVER AND MODIFICATION, PARKING REDUCTION
REQUESTS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SSFMC CHAPTERS 20.280, 20.330, 20.480, 20.490, 20.510 & 19.60
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council and the Successor Agency:
1.Make findings and adopt a resolution approving the Environmental Consistency
Analysis for the project and making a determination that the project complies with
CEQA.
It is recommended that the City Council:
1.Adopt a Resolution making findings to approve the entitlements UP15-0027, DR15-
0032, WM15-0001, PE15-0004 based on the attached draft findings and subject to
the attached draft conditions of approval.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 2 of 16
2. Introduce an Ordinance and waive reading to approve a Development Agreement
(DA 15-0003) with Miller Cypress SSF, LLC for the development of four downtown
area sites.
It is recommended that the Successor Agency:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Miller
Cypress SSF, LLC for the acquisition and development of two downtown area sites.
BACKGROUND
The $140 million project consists of seven separate lots, totaling 101,980 square feet and
approximately 2.34 acres. No City funds have been provided to finance the development. There
is approximately $300 million in public and private investment occurring Downtown. The
various projects include 500 units of new infill housing, both market rate and affordable along,
with the $55 Million in funding for the Caltrain Plaza. This cornerstone project under
consideration is the largest and reflects nearly half of the aforementioned investment. The project
also reflects the good faith efforts and ongoing negotiations between the Successor Agency and
the developer that have been occurring since the execution of the Exclusive Negotiating Rights
Agreement (“ENRA”) in September 2014. Impacts of the proposed development include:
• 260 units of market rate multi-family rental housing and 12 for-sale townhomes (of
which two are affordable units) revitalizing four non-contiguous, underutilized
Downtown properties.
• Generating $140 Million in private reinvestment.
• Generating approximately $234,000 in annual property taxes.
The properties that were originally acquired by the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
(“Redevelopment Agency”) and the City include the former Ford dealership properties at 315,
401-421 Airport Boulevard, and 405 Cypress Avenue. Additionally, a private parking lot at 216
Miller Avenue was acquired. The properties were assembled by the Redevelopment Agency to
facilitate a major transit oriented development in the Downtown for a City-selected commercial
or residential developer.
Upon the dissolution of redevelopment agencies by the State of California, the City transferred
the properties to the South San Francisco Successor Agency (“Successor Agency”). The
Successor Agency was then required to develop a Long Range Property Management Plan
(“LRPMP”) that governs the disposition and use of all former redevelopment agency properties.
The LRPMP calls for the subject sites to be retained by the City for future development; the
LRPMP has been approved by both the Oversight Board and the California Department of
Finance (“DOF”). The properties are now owned by the Successor Agency to the City.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 3 of 16
The Successor Agency has previously authorized an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement
(“ENRA”) with the Sares Regis Group to allow time to prepare a Purchase and Sale Agreement
(“PSA”) to acquire the properties and a Development Agreement (“DA) for development of the
315, 401-421 Airport Boulevard, 405 Cypress Avenue, and 216 Miller Avenue properties. The
property at 309 Airport Avenue was separately acquired by the Sares Regis Group.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows for limited environmental review of
subsequent projects under a program Environmental Impact Report. (EIR) (CEQA Guidelines
section 15168.) Subsequent activities in a proposed project must be examined in the light of the
program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
The CEQA Guidelines require agencies to use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this
analysis. The Environmental Consistency Analysis (ECA) attached as Attachment 1A satisfies
the CEQA Guidelines. Under the ECA, the City of South San Francisco (City) uses a written
checklist to evaluate the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of
the proposed project were sufficiently analyzed under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
(DSASP) program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c)(4).)
On January 28, 2015, a program EIR was certified by the City Council. (Final Environmental
Impact Report for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP),
State Clearinghouse #2013102001.) The program EIR assessed the potential environmental
impacts resulting from implementation of the DSASP. The DSASP established new land use,
development, and urban design regulations for the area for a 20-year planning period. The ECA
was prepared to consider whether any new environmental effects not identified in the DSASP
program EIR might be created by construction and operation of the Sares-Regis Ford Properties
Redevelopment project and concludes that all environmental effects were previously analyzed
and no additional environmental review is required. The analysis established:
1. The proposed project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations, and as a
result, would not create any additional environmental impacts in excess of those
addressed by the DSASP program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations;
2. The DSASP program EIR MMRP applies to the project and requires the project to
comply with all applicable mitigations.
3. Some applicable mitigations and regulations required the following further analysis:
a. Air Quality: A Health Risk Assessment was required and confirmed that
construction related and temporary air quality impacts, and future resident exposure
would be below applicable thresholds with mitigation measures as identified in the
DSASP program EIR;
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 4 of 16
b. Biological Resources: Compliance with tree removal regulations related to nesting
season, as required by the California Fish and Game Code and Tree Preservation
Ordinance;
c. Cultural Resources: The City required the applicant to prepare a Historic Resources
Assessment (Attachment 1, Exhibit A), The Historic Resources Assessment
confirmed that the subject buildings within the project area were not historic or
eligible for historic status and did not meet applicable thresholds. In addition, an
Updated Historic Evaluation of the Bertolucci’s Building was conducted by
Archaeological Resource Management, which analyzed the nearby Bertolucci’s
restaurant building and concludes that the proposed project would not result in any
significant impacts to the Bertolucci’s building under the CEQA guidelines.
d. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A condition of approval to require conformance with
the Climate Action Plan;
e. Noise: A Noise Study was required and confirmed that residential exposure was
below applicable thresholds by utilizing window controls, mechanical ventilation, and
appropriate sealing;
f. Transportation/Traffic: A traffic analysis was required and confirmed that certain
intersections would potentially be impacted by the project and would require
improvements per the mitigations identified in the DSASP program EIR;
4. Focused analysis of the project resulted in additional recommendations for the project,
including:
a. Installing a plaque commemorating the history of Fred J. Lautze and the Ford
Dealership’s original 1925 structure at 315 Airport Boulevard, which although not
historic, represents a unique history for South San Francisco; and
b. That the City and/or the applicant take actions to highlight the Bertolucci’s sign,
either by placing appropriate signage for Bertolucci’s on the new building or
incorporating some other element into the new project that would acknowledge the
visibility of the sign.
The ECA and supplemental reports are included for reference as Attachment 1, Exhibit A. A
copy of the MMRP is also attached and a Condition of Approval requiring that the project
comply with all applicable Mitigation Measures identified in the MMRP and through the ECA
has been included. The Conditions of Approval and requirements that the project comply with
existing MMRP mitigation measures does not constitute implementing new mitigation.
Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (c)(2) the project remains consistent
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 5 of 16
with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR and no additional environmental review is
required.
A joint City Council/Successor Agency Resolution making findings and approving the ECA and
making a determination that the project complies with CEQA is attached as Attachment 1.
ENTITLEMENT DISCUSSION
Project Overview
The project site is in the western portion of the DSASP area. The immediate vicinity includes
the nearby South San Francisco Caltrain station, US-101, Airport Boulevard and a mixture of
low-density mixed-use and commercial development along Airport Boulevard, Grand Avenue,
and Miller Avenue.
As shown in the image below, the proposed project is split among four locations and located at
the intersection of Airport Boulevard, Miller and Cypress Avenues (Parcels A, D), and 216
Miller Avenue (Parcel C).
Figure 1 - Project Aerial
The project sites include a vacant, two-story Ford Vehicle dealership building; a vacant, two-
story 21-room Single-Room Occupancy Hotel; and two private surface parking lots that are
unavailable to the public.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 6 of 16
The applicant proposes the development of 272 units in two phases over 2.34 acres. Phase 1 at
Parcels A and D includes the redevelopment of the property containing the former Ford Vehicle
dealership and supporting buildings, as well as an acquired single-room occupancy hotel. The
two residential apartment buildings proposed to be built on the sites will be seven stories in
height. Each building will have five residential stories over two garage levels. The building at
Parcel A (401-421 Airport Boulevard) will have 160 apartment homes and the building at Parcel
D (309/315 Airport Boulevard) will have 100 apartment homes. The vacant Parcel B at 405
Cypress Avenue will be converted into a private residential parking lot to support the apartment
community. Phase 2 of the project will develop the vacant Parcel C (216 Miller) into twelve (12)
for-sale townhomes. This phase of the project will require a separate and future subdivision map
and affordable housing agreement review before the Planning Commission and City Council.
For the purposes of this application, the site plan, floor plan, and elevations for Parcel C are only
being considered.
The applicant proposes approximately 342 supporting vehicle parking spaces, 26 short-term
bicycle parking spaces, and 73 secure bike rack spaces. A portion of the vehicle parking spaces
are proposed to be compact, measuring 8’-6” by 16’ instead of the standard 8’-6” by 18’; the
applicant has requested a Parking Reduction to reduce the number of required parking spaces by
25% to allow for the compact space design, which is not a recognized dimension in the Zoning
Ordinance. Additionally, the project includes:
• 15,259 sq. ft. of courtyard space;
• 802 sq. ft. of rooftop decking;
• 5,510 sq. ft. in private apartment decks;
• A club/fitness room, measuring nearly 5,200 sq. ft. and
• A lounge area of 1,000 sq. ft.
The sidewalks will be replaced along the project site perimeter to meet the minimum sidewalk
standards set forth in the DSASP and pedestrian improvements include bulb out extensions at all
four corners of the intersection at Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue. Some on-site trees will
remain, as possible, and the landscaping plan proposes over forty new street trees and additional
landscaping. Sidewalk amenities would also include new street and pedestrian lighting,
landscaping, public bicycle racks and sidewalk corner treatments (e.g., crossing ramps) that
would comply with City and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. A new
storm drain system is also proposed on Miller Avenue to manage new runoff.
A more detailed description of the proposed architecture, parking, and landscaping are included
in the Planning Commission staff report, dated January 21, 2016 (Attachment 3).
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 7 of 16
Figure 2 – Parcels A, C, & D Rendering View from Cypress Avenue
ZONING CONSISTENCY
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
In February, 2015, the City Council adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
(“DSASP”), as well as amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, adding Chapter 20.280
“Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District” to implement the policies and goals in the
DSASP. The DSASP covers properties within 0.5 miles of the City’s Caltrain Station, which
includes the subject property. The General Plan amendments created separate land use
designations consistent with the DSASP.
Upon construction, the proposed project will be a high-density residential development that
fulfills all of the principles of the DSASP. The project will revitalize a defunct and vacant set of
buildings; add a robust population of new downtown residents or space for existing residents to
relocate; provide a mixture of studio, one, two and three bedroom apartments, and for-sale
townhomes; focus investment at the core of Downtown and make improvements within the
Pedestrian Priority Zone; and centralize new development close to the Caltrain commuter station.
General Development Standards
The DSASP zoning district also includes a variety of general development standards and
supplemental regulations that would be applicable to the proposed project. Subject to approval
of the Parking Reduction and Waiver and Modification requests, as discussed below, the project
would comply with all of the applicable standards. As reference, an attachment is included
verifying the zoning standards (Attachment 5).
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 8 of 16
One standard that should be clarified is the density calculation, since Parcel D is made of two
lots with separate zoning districts (both DTC and GAC). A total of 274 units are permitted under
the blended density of the parcels that are zoned DTC (260 units) and 309 Airport Boulevard (14
units), which is zoned GAC, and the project is therefore consistent with the density standards
allowed with approval of a community benefits package.
Parking Reduction Request
The total parking required for the proposed project would be a minimum of 337 spaces and a
maximum of 428 spaces.
The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 342 spaces within the structured garages on
Parcels A and D, the surface parking lot at Parcel B, and within the private townhome garages at
Parcel C. Although the total number of spaces exceeds the minimum number of spaces required
by the Zoning Ordinance, a portion of these spaces has been designed to be tandem spaces
shared by a single unit, or the spaces are compact; neither of these designs is allowed by the
Zoning Ordinance. In order to allow the substandard parking spaces, the applicant has requested
a Parking Reduction to reduce the overall parking demand by 25%, which accounts for these
spaces (approximately 21% as proposed). Unique to this request, the number of available
parking spaces on-site will be 342 spaces, but the smaller compact and tandem spaces cannot be
counted towards the overall total.
Despite the unconventional parking design that is not recognized by the City’s Zoning
Ordinance, the applicant has designed for slightly more than the minimum required parking for
the project and will be actively managing and assigning the parking on-site to ensure appropriate
use. Staff recommends that the Parking Reduction be considered for approval given the balance
required between on-site parking and desire for new units within walking distance of the Caltrain
commuter station. Rather than seeking a parking reduction to simply not provide all required
parking spaces, the applicant has designed this project based on their experience with other
developments and will provide an appropriate number of standard and compact spaces on-site.
Required findings are included in the Entitlements Resolution attached as Attachment 2 and a
full analysis is included as part of the Planning Commission staff report, dated January 21, 2016
and attached as Attachment 5.
Waivers and Modification Request
The Waivers and Modifications process requires that the City make certain findings:
1. The waiver or modification is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property
and the proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to,
topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual
circumstance;
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 9 of 16
2. There are no alternatives to the requested waiver or modification that could provide an
equivalent level of benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding
owners and occupants or to the general public; and
3. The granting of the requested waiver or modification would not be detrimental to the
health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land
use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of this title.
Required findings are included in the Entitlements Resolution and a full analysis is included as
part of the Planning Commission staff report, dated January 21, 2016 and attached.
Community Benefits
The DSASP zoning district includes an “Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program,” which
permits an increase to the maximum density and FAR permitted for a building with the approval
of a Conditional Use Permit, if the public benefits that are included as part of a development
project demonstrate a positive contribution that is above and beyond the minimum required
impact fees and other requirements of the particular project.
To allow the increased density and increased FAR, the applicant is proposing the items below as
public benefits. The Development Agreement recognizes a few of the items as public benefits for
purposes of obtaining the increase density and increased FAR. The total cost impact of the
proposed items is $5,713,000:
• Payment of $2,720,000 to the Parks and Recreation Department ($10,000/unit) to support
recreation facilities and new parks;
• Payment of $500,000 contribution to the City for plaza/pedestrian connection
improvements;
• Streetscape improvements on the east side of Cypress Avenue, along Miller Avenue
between Airport Blvd. and Cypress Avenue, and along Lux Avenue adjacent to the
project ($1,278,000 including utility lines as detailed below);
• Undergrounding utility lines on the east side of Cypress Avenue adjacent to the project,
on Miller Avenue between Cypress Avenue and Airport Boulevard;
• Installation of utilities to be dedicated to the City for a water line and storm drain on
Miller Avenue ($300,000);
• LEED rated community with energy efficiency of more than 10% above CA 2013 Title
24 requirements ($500,000);
• Pedestrian lighting along Airport Avenue in addition to the City required street lighting;
• Mitigate environmental contamination of properties for residential development
($340,000);
• Provide upgraded construction fencing during construction ($50,000); and
• Public Art commitment of $25,000 at the Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue corner or
other suitable area.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 10 of 16
The applicant has provided a “Vacant Ford Property Application Proposed Community Benefits”
memorandum (Attachment 6) that describes the items proposed as public benefits to allow the
additional density. As stated above, some of these proposed items are identified as public
benefits within the Development Agreement. The proposed public benefits require approval by
the City Council, who exercises discretionary authority over the project.
City staff has reviewed the proposed public benefits and believes that they are sufficient. The
applicant indicates that the density bonus will provide up to 45 additional units, reflecting a
potential profit of $25,000 per unit for a total of $1,125,000. While that profit estimate may be
low, assigning a benefit of as high as $100,000 per unit still provides a profit of $4,500,000
which is lower than the committed public benefit costs. Staff supports the proposed Use Permit
to allow increased density and FAR for the project because the proposed public benefits and
requested development incentives are suitable to the site and to adjacent uses and structures, the
proposed public benefits are consistent with the accepted list of public benefits, and reflect a fair
investment and benefit to the applicant and to the City.
In addition, while not part of the public benefits associated with the increased density, the
proposed project proposes to pay area standard wages, which is consistent with the permissive
policy:
• DSASP Land Use Strategy LU-1: Encourage the use of local workforce and local
business sourcing for development in the plan area that generates quality construction and
service jobs with career pathways, that provides job training opportunities for the local
workforce, and that pays area standard wages for construction so that money in wages
and materials used in the construction of these developments is invested in the local
economy.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission reviewed this project at their public hearing on January 21, 2016 and
expressed support for the project design. They suggested two major items for the applicant’s
contemplation:
1. Consider adding below market rate residential units to the rental project located on
Parcels A and D; and
2. Engage with the owner/operator of Bertolucci’s Restaurant to investigate a possible
agreement related to the visibility of the restaurant sign.
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Development
Agreement, the requested entitlements and the Environmental Consistency Analysis.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 11 of 16
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Downtown Transit Core and Grand
Avenue Core. The General Plan includes specific policies related to development within the
Downtown, in an effort to “encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly
mixed-use activity center with retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal services,
government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential types and densities.”
The General Plan Downtown Sub-Area includes the following guiding policies in relation to the
Downtown:
• Guiding Policy 3.1-G-1: Promote Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being, and its
presence as the city’s center;
• Guiding Policy 3.1.-G-2: Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly
mixed-use activity center with retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal
services, government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential
types and densities;
• Guiding Policy 3.1-G-3: Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of
currently underutilized sites; and
• Guiding Policy 3.1.-G-5: Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan as a guide for General Plan policies for the Downtown Station Area.
The proposed project will conform to the General Plan Land Use Policies by reusing a set of
underutilized sites to construct a high-density residential development that will provide a
pedestrian-friendly streetscape close to the center of Downtown and in close proximity to the
Caltrain commuter station. The project also provides a strong architectural statement that will
act as a gateway development adjacent to the US-101 Grand Avenue exit. The project
implements the goals of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the project design is
consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as it relates to building design, form and
articulation.
Housing Element Opportunity Sites
The Housing Element is one of the seven State-mandated Elements of the General Plan. Unlike
other elements, the Housing Element must be updated by deadlines set by the State; the Housing
Element for the housing cycle of 2015-2022 was certified by the State in April 2015. The
Housing Element is the blueprint for future housing development in the city and includes goals,
policies, and programs that direct residential decision-making. The Housing Element is required
by state law to identify how and where the housing needs of each community will be met. For
the upcoming housing cycle, the City of South San Francisco has a Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (“RHNA”) of 1,864 units.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 12 of 16
To show that the City has properly zoned land to meet the RHNA numbers, the City is required
to identify adequate opportunity sites throughout the jurisdiction. The available site inventory
focuses on sites with near-term development potential, typically where the site is currently
vacant or highly underutilized. In the recently certified Housing Element, the Downtown area
was identified as providing many potential opportunity sites, including the proposed project,
which was evaluated as Sites 14, 15, 16, & 17. Utilizing an estimated actual buildout for these
parcels, the sites identified the potential for 174 new units. The proposed project would exceed
this projection by building at a higher density, and therefore would comply with the General Plan
Housing Element.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PUBLIC COMEMNTS
Housing Sub-Committee Meeting
A Housing Sub-Committee meeting was held on June 1, 2015 to share the preliminary designs
with representatives from the City Council and Planning Commission. Feedback was generally
positive and suggested that this was an appropriate design for the development location. The
Sub-Committee suggested adding a public art component and enhanced landscaping for the
project.
Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was held on November 5, 2015 in which approximately a dozen
residents attended. As it was an open house, there was not a formal Q&A discussion with the
applicant that staff could observe. In general, however, the comments were generally supportive
of the project as long appropriate parking was provided for the site. The applicant indicated that
some homeowners on Tamarack Lane, which is adjacent to the proposed townhome development
on Parcel C, were concerned with traffic on Tamarack Lane. The applicant chose to address this
concern with an additional analysis of modeled traffic conditions on Tamarack Lane and this
updated information has been included in the Environmental Consistency Analysis. The traffic
analysis identified that new traffic would result in a minor increase in new vehicles during the
peak AM and PM hours and given the one-way design of Tamarack Lane, would not result in
any traffic queuing or any significant impacts on Tamarack Lane for current residents. This has
been peer reviewed by the Engineering Division, which concurs with the modeling approach and
assessment.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
The applicant attended the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meeting held on
December 2, 2015 to present the project and highlight bicycle infrastructure. The BPAC was
supportive of the project and suggested that the project include signs guiding bicyclists within
the structured parking to promote safety between cyclists and drivers.
Correspondence Received and City Response
The Developer has provided a list of signatures indicating support from their Neighborhood
Meeting, Kiwanis Club Meeting, and outreach to the business and residential community. It has
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 13 of 16
been included as Attachment 7, Exhibit A. Additionally, several comments have been received
by staff to date, speaking in opposition to the project. This correspondence has been included as
Attachment 7, Exhibit B. Additionally the concerns identified in the letters were responded to by
staff and can be referenced in the Planning Commission Staff Report attachment.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The applicant and the City have negotiated a Development Agreement (“DA”) to clarify and
obligate Project features and mitigation measures.
The key features of the DA include:
• The term of the DA shall be ten (10) years.
• Payment of applicable fees, including the Public Safety Impact Fee and Child Care
Impact Fee.
• Payment of the following Community Enhancement Payments:
o Public Art Commitment - Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)
o Community Benefit Payment - Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)
o Park In-Lieu Payment - Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per residential unit
constructed for a total of $2,720,000
The proposed DA Ordinance is attached as Attachment 4. Note that, pursuant to SSFMC section
19.60.130, no development agreement may be approved by the City Council unless the following
conditions are met:
1. The provisions of the agreement are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan; and
2. The development agreement complies with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and
building regulations and with the general and any relevant specific plan
3. The agreement must state:
a. The specific duration of the agreement
b. The permitted uses of the property
c. The density and intensity of use
d. The maximum height and size of proposed buildings
e. Specific provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes
The findings have been made and are included in the draft Ordinance for the City Council’s
consideration, which is attached as Attachment 4.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 14 of 16
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
Key Business Points and Deal Structure
The Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) between the Successor Agency and Sares Regis
reflects the business terms of the sale. The major business terms are summarized below:
Financial: Upon approval of the Successor Agency and Oversight Board the purchase price for
the properties is $4 million, which is based on the residual land value appraisal of $7 million less
$3 million in Community Benefits. In addition to the $4 million purchase price, the PSA
provides for a supplemental purchase price for Parcel C. The Community Benefits payment
includes the following items:
• $2,720,000 for Park in Lieu fees at rate of $10,000 per home for each of the 272 homes.
• Community Benefit Allowance of $525,000 for plaza/pedestrian connection
improvements and public art.
The benefits above are described in greater detail in the “Community Benefits” section of this
report.
Environmental Remediation: The developer will take title “as-is” with no environmental work or
indemnities from the City.
Below Market Rate For Sale Homes: Of the 12 for-sale townhomes, one will be sold at 70% of
the Area Median Income (AMI) and one at 80% of the AMI.
Schedule
• Prior to June 30, 2016: The Developer will prepare and submit construction documents,
including building permit submittal documents for the 260 multi-family residential rental
units.
• Prior to December 31, 2016: The Developer will apply for and obtain demolition,
foundation and building permits for Parcels A, B and D and the property adjacent to
Parcel D acquired separately by Developer.
• December 31, 2016: The close of escrow for the Property, including Parcels A, B, C, and
D, will occur no later than December 31, 2016.
• Prior to March 31, 2017: The Developer will complete demolition of the existing
structures on the Property and will commence construction of the 260 multi-family
residential rental units on Parcels A, B and D and the property separately acquired by the
Developer.
• Prior to March 31, 2019: The Developer shall substantially complete development of the
260 multi-family residential rental units on Parcels A and D and the parcel adjacent to
Parcel D separately acquired by Developer, open the leasing center and commence
construction of the twelve for-sale townhomes.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: FORD PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 16 of 16
Attachments: Click on the links below to move forward in the e-version of the Staff Report:
1.Joint City Council/Successor Agency CEQA Resolution with Exhibits
a.Environmental Consistency Analysis
i.TAC and GHG Emissions Assessment – Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc.
ii.Historic Resources Analysis – Archaeological Resource Management
iii.Traffic and Circulation Analysis – Hexagon Transportation Consultants,
Inc.
iv.Shadow Analysis
v.Wind Analysis
vi.Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from DSASP EIR
2.City Council Entitlement Resolution with Exhibits
a.Conditions of Approval
b.Vacant Ford Properties Entitlement Submittal Project Plans, dated December 7,
2015
3.Planning Commission
a.Staff Report for January 21, 2016
b.Resolution 2782-2016
4.City Council Development Agreement Ordinance
a.Draft Development Agreement
5.Ford Properties Redevelopment – Zoning Ordinance Compliance
a.Accessory Storage Modification Request Memorandum
b.Height within the Grand Avenue Core Zoning District Modification Request
Memorandum
6.Proposed Community Benefits Memorandum
7.Public Comments
a.Community Support Letters and Signatures submitted by Developer
b.Community Letters in Opposition
c.Staff Response
8.Successor Agency Purchase and Sale Agreement Resolution
a.Draft Purchase and Sale Agreement
9.City Council Staff Presentation
2597833.1
Page 1
Page 281
Page 380
Page 415
Page 451
Page 461
Page 464
Page 500
Page 550
ATTACHMENT 1
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY CEQA RESOLUTION
WITH EXHIBITS
1
RESOLUTION NO. ________
CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR
AGENCY MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS, INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTARY
ANALYSES, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SEVEN-STORY
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL OF 260 UNITS AT BOTH
CORNERS OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND MILLER AVENUE (309, 315,
401-421 AIRPORT BOULEVARD), A PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PARKING
LOT AT 405 CYPRESS AVENUE, AND TWELVE (12) TOWNHOME UNITS
AT 216 MILLER AVENUE; AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE
PROJECT COMPLIES WITH CEQA
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South
San Francisco (“Agency”) is the owner of certain real property located in the City of South San
Francisco (“City”), California, known as County Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-317-110 (“401
Airport Boulevard”), 012-317-100 (“411 Airport Boulevard”), 012-317-090 (“421 Airport
Boulevard”), 012-314-100 (“405 Cypress Avenue”), 012-314-220 (“216 Miller Avenue”), 012-
318-080 (“315 Airport Boulevard”) and collectively referred to as the “Agency Properties”; and,
WHEREAS, in August, 2014, the Agency and Miller Cypress SSF, LLC (“Developer”)
entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) that established a mutual
understanding among the City, the Agency, and the Developer regarding the potential
development of the Agency Properties; and,
WHEREAS, in preparation for the potential acquisition of the Agency Properties by the
Developer, the Agency and Developer prepared a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”); and,
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the potential acquisition of the Agency Properties, the
Developer has acquired rights to entitle and develop County Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-318-
040 (“309 Airport Boulevard”); and,
WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed construction of a high-density residential
development, consisting of 260 residential apartments in Phase 1, 12 for-sale residential
townhomes in Phase 2, and 342 total vehicle parking spaces (“Project”) over 2.34 acres at the
following addresses: 309 Airport Blvd., 315 Airport Blvd., 401-421 Airport Blvd., 405
Cypress Ave., and 216 Miller Ave. (collectively “Project Site”) in the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council’s approval of the Developer’s proposal and the Agency’s
approval of the PSA would each be considered a “project” for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
2
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact
Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse number 2013102001) in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”)
and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development
of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP Program EIR”); and,
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015, the City Council also adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (“SOC”) in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA
Guidelines, which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the
DSASP Program EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in
light of the project’s economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits; and,
WHEREAS, the Project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations and the
Project is subject to the DSASP Program EIR MMRP; and,
WHEREAS, CEQA allows for limited environmental review of subsequent projects
under a program EIR when an agency finds that a project would not create any new
environmental effects beyond those previously analyzed under a program EIR and would not
require any new mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines § 15168 (c)(2)).
WHEREAS, under CEQA, an agency must examine subsequent activities in a proposed
project in the light of the program EIR to determine whether the program EIR sufficiently
analyzed the environmental effects of a proposed project or whether an additional environmental
document must be prepared. The CEQA Guidelines require agencies to use checklists or similar
mechanisms to conduct this analysis (CEQA Guidelines § 15168 (c)(5)); and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project
which concluded that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those
disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP Program EIR certified by City Council and also,
concluded that the Project would not require any new mitigation measures; and,
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to take public testimony and solicit public
comment and consider the Environmental Consistency Analysis, Development Agreement and
proposed entitlements and recommended approval of the Environmental Consistency Analysis,
Development Agreement and proposed entitlements; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a lawfully noticed joint public hearing
on February 10, 2016 to take public testimony and solicit public comment and consider the
Environmental Consistency Analysis; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in
the Environmental Consistency Analysis, including all supplementary analyses and comment
letters submitted, makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and approves of the
3
Environmental Consistency Analysis as an objective and accurate document that reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project’s environmental
impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, including all supplementary analyses and comment letters
submitted, makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and approves of the Environmental
Consistency Analysis as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the Agency in the discussion of the Project’s environmental impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program
EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Project Plans, as
prepared by TCA Architects, dated December 7, 2015; the Environmental Consistency Analysis,
as prepared by City staff, dated February 10, 2016 including all appendices thereto; all site
plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission’s duly noticed January 21, 2016 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony
submitted as part of the joint City Council/Successor Agency’s duly noticed February 10, 2016
meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco and the Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco hereby find as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The Environmental Consistency Analysis attached to this Resolution as Exhibit
A, as prepared by City staff, dated February 10, 2016 is incorporated by reference and made a
part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
4. Design features of the Project, as well as compliance with all applicable
regulations, conditions of approval, and the mitigation measures imposed on the Project pursuant
to the DSASP Program EIR MMRP, will operate to ensure that the impacts of the Project will
not exceed established CEQA thresholds of significance except for those impacts which the City
previously determined could not be mitigated to below a level of a significant impact and for
which the City has previously adopted a statement of overriding considerations. Therefore, and
as further documented in the Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project, additional
mitigation measures beyond those established in the DSASP Program EIR MMRP are not
required for the Project.
4
5. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, there is not substantial evidence in the
record to support a fair argument that approval of the Project and the PSA will result in
significant environmental effects beyond those adequately evaluated and addressed by the
DSASP Program EIR nor would the Project require any new mitigation measures because:
a. There are no substantial changes proposed in the Project, which will require major
revisions of the DSASP Program EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
b. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which
the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the DSASP Program
EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
c. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the DSASP
Program EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
i. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
DSASP Program EIR;
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative; or
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the DSASP Program EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative;
6. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon
review and consideration of the environmental documentation provided, including but not
limited to the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff, dated February 10,
2016 attached hereto as Exhibit A, the City Council and the Successor Agency, each exercising
its independent judgment and analysis, finds that the Project is consistent with the analysis
presented in the certified Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR, and that the
Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the
5
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR certified by the City Council. This is
supported by the fact that, consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the project prepared Toxic Air Contaminants
(TAC) and Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment, a Historic Resources Analysis, an
Updated Historical Evaluation, and a Traffic and Circulation Analysis, all of which determined
that the Project would not result in any new impacts not adequately evaluated and addressed by
the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR. In addition, the records includes a wind
study and a shadow study which both conclude that the Project will not cause a significant
environmental impact.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of South San Francisco and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and hereby takes
the following actions:
1. Approves the Environmental Consistency Analysis, including all supplementary
analyses attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
2. Determines that the Project is consistent with the analysis presented in the
certified DSASP Program EIR, complies with the requirements of CEQA, and
does not require further environmental review.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco at the regular joint meeting held on the 10th day of February, 2016 by the
following vote:
City Council:
AYES:___________________________________________
NOES: ____________
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Attest:
City Clerk
Successor Agency:
AYES:___________________________________________
NOES: ____________
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
6
Attest:
Clerk
7
EXHIBIT A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
i. TAC and GHG Emissions Assessment – Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc.
ii. Historic Resources Analysis – Archaeological Resource Management
iii. Traffic and Circulation Analysis – Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
iv. Shadow Analysis
v. Wind Analysis
vi. Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from DSASP EIR
2598986.1
8
1
Project Information – Environmental Consistency Analysis
I. Purpose
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows for limited environmental
review of subsequent projects under a program Environmental Impact Report. (EIR)
(CEQA Guidelines section 15168.) Subsequent activities in a proposed project must be
examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional
environmental document must be prepared. The CEQA Guidelines require agencies to
use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this analysis. This Environmental
Consistency Analysis (ECA) satisfies the CEQA Guidelines. Under this ECA, the City of
South San Francisco (City) uses a written checklist to evaluate the site and the activity to
determine whether the environmental effects of the proposed project were sufficiently
analyzed under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) program EIR.
(CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c)(4).)
On January 28, 2015, a program EIR was certified by the City Council. (Final
Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan (DSASP), State Clearinghouse #2013102001.) The program EIR assessed
the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the DSASP. The
DSASP established new land use, development, and urban design regulations for the area
for a 20-year planning period. The following ECA has been prepared to consider whether
any new environmental effects not identified in the DSASP program EIR might be
created by construction and operation of the Sares-Regis Ford Properties Redevelopment
project and concludes that all environmental effects were previously analyzed and no
additional environmental review is required.
II. Project Description
1. Project Title
Sares-Regis Ford Properties Redevelopment
309, 315, 401–421 Airport Boulevard, 405 Cypress Avenue, 216 Miller Avenue
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Tony Rozzi, AICP
Senior Planner
Economic and Community Development Department - Planning Division
(650) 877-8535
Tony.Rozzi@ssf.net
4. Project Location
9
2
The City of South San Francisco
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Ken Busch, Senior Vice President
Sares Regis
901 Mariners Island Boulevard, Suite 700
San Mateo, CA 94404
(650) 377-5505
6. General Plan Designation
Downtown Transit Core (DTC) / Grand Avenue Core (GAC)
7. Zoning
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) – Downtown Transit Core (DTC) and
Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zoning Sub-Districts
8. Description of Project
The applicant proposes the development of 272 residential units in two phases over 2.34
acres. Phase One at 309, 315, 401-421 Airport Boulevard and 405 Cypress Avenue
includes the redevelopment on the site of a former Ford vehicle dealership and supporting
buildings, as well as an acquired single-room occupancy hotel. The two buildings are
proposed to be seven stories in height; each building will have five residential stories
over two above ground garage levels. The proposed building at 401-421 Airport
Boulevard will have 160 apartment homes (22 studio, 65 one-bedroom, 69 two-bedroom,
and 4 three-bedroom units) and the proposed building at 309, 315 Airport Boulevard will
have 100 apartment homes (20 studio, 36 one-bedroom, and 44 two-bedroom units).
The vacant property at 405 Cypress Avenue would be converted into a parking lot to
support the proposed apartment communities. Phase Two of the project would develop a
vacant parcel (216 Miller Avenue) into twelve (12) for-sale townhomes.
The applicant proposes to provide approximately 342 supporting vehicle parking spaces,
26 short-term bicycle parking spaces, and 73 secure bike rack spaces. A portion of the
vehicle parking spaces are proposed to be compact, measuring 8’-6” by 16’ instead of the
standard 8’-6” by 18’; the applicant has requested a Parking Exemption Permit (PE15-
0004) to reduce the number of required parking spaces by 25% to allow for the compact
space design, which is not a recognized dimension in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Approval of this permit would allow an overall reduction in required parking to permit
the non-conforming spaces; in lieu of not providing the spaces, the applicant wishes to
provide non-conforming parking spaces. Consistent with the DSASP Zoning District
standards (South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) 20.280; Table 20.280.004-2),
and a Waiver and Modification request, the buildings will each be consistent with height
limits. Additionally, the project includes:
• 15,259 sq. ft. of courtyard space;
• 802 sq. ft. of rooftop decking;
• 5,510 sq. ft. of private apartment decks;
• A club/fitness room, measuring nearly 5,200 sq. ft.; and
• A lounge area of 1,000 sq. ft.
10
3
The sidewalks would be replaced along the project site perimeter to meet the minimum
sidewalk standards set forth in the DSASP. Pedestrian improvements will include bulb
out extensions at all four corners of the intersection at Miller Avenue and Cypress
Avenue. Some on-site trees will remain, as determined to be healthy, and the
landscaping plan proposes over forty new street trees and additional landscaping.
Sidewalk amenities would also include new lighting, landscaping, public bicycle racks
and sidewalk corner treatments (e.g., crossing ramps) that will comply with the City and
the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) requirements. A new storm drain system is
also proposed to be constructed along Miller Avenue to manage new runoff created by
the development.
For reference in this document, the project will refer to elements of the development by
its parcel location. As shown in the image below, the proposed project is split among
four locations and located at the intersection of Airport Boulevard, Miller and Cypress
Avenues (Parcels A, D), and 216 Miller Avenue (Parcel C).
9. Existing Uses On-Site
The project site includes a vacant, two-story former Ford vehicle dealership building at
Parcel D, a former Ford truck maintenance facility at Parcel A; a vacant, two-story 21-
room single occupancy hotel on Parcel D; and private surface parking that is unavailable
to the public (Parcels B and C).
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is in the portion of the DSASP area west of US-101. The immediate
vicinity includes the nearby South San Francisco Caltrain station, US-101, Airport
Boulevard, and a mixture of low-density mixed-use and commercial development along
Airport Boulevard, Grand Avenue, and Miller Avenue.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
11
4
None. Development will be subject to entitlements from the City of South San Francisco.
III. Determination
The project is within the scope of the DSASP program EIR and no new environmental
document is required. (CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c).) All of the following
statements are found to be true:
1. This subsequent project will have no additional significant effects not discussed or
identified in the DSASP program EIR;
2. No new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required;
3. This subsequent project is within the scope of the project covered by the Final EIR for the
City’s DSASP;
4. All applicable policies, regulations, and mitigation measures identified in the DSASP
program EIR will be applied to this subsequent project or otherwise made conditions of
approval of this subsequent project; and
5. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the
DSASP program EIR was certified, and no new information, which was not known and
could not have been known at the time that the DSASP program EIR was certified as
complete and has become available.
12
5
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area? ("Glare" is defined in the DSASP program
EIR as the reflection of harsh bright light sufficient to cause physical
discomfort or loss in visual performance and visibility.)
Documentation:
a. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.1-9) concluded that no scenic vistas or view corridors existed within the DSASP
area but that there are prominent visual landmarks in South San Francisco outside of the DSASP area, including
San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill Park, the “Wind Harp Tower” at San Bruno Point Hill and the San Francisco Bay.
There are no designated scenic outlooks within the DSASP area and no designated places where people would
gather in order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain or Sign Hill Park. Additionally, all new development under
the DSASP would have building heights consistent with the land use designations of the development sites with the
grant of a Waiver and Modification. Since the land use designations are approved by the General Plan, blockage of
these views from new development would be consistent with the City’s regulations. Therefore, the project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, consistent with the DSASP program EIR.
b. While the DSASP area is not located within a state scenic highway, it does contain historic buildings that could be
considered scenic resources. The integrity of such resources would be maintained, however, with adherence to
DSASP policies and objectives. A main objective of the DSASP is to revitalize the Downtown to be a vibrant and
successful community resource while protecting the historic building fabric of the area. Grand Avenue is the
historic heart of the City, with City Hall at one end of the street and a diverse array of one, two, and three story
buildings, examples of interesting architectural periods, dispersed along the street. While Grand Avenue would
experience new development and improvements, the scale and character of the street would be maintained under the
DSASP. Additionally, new development building heights and design guidelines, as proposed with this project, would
respect the historic fabric of the Downtown area while providing an updated, refreshed feel to attract more
pedestrian and commercial activity within the DSASP area.
Adopted DSASP policies, guidelines, and zoning regulations protect historic buildings and their visual character
within the DSASP area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic
resources, as it would be in conformance with these policies. The proposed project is in compliance with all
applicable DSASP standards, guidelines, and regulations, as proposed or modified with the entitlements request.
As a result, the project is consistent with the aesthetic considerations of the DSASP program EIR.
c. The existing Downtown area is currently comprised of inconsistent building heights and aesthetic quality and lacks
a cohesive grid street network. There is little to no streetscaping and the area is deteriorated in certain locations
and generally not designed for optimal pedestrian and commercial activity. Implementation of the DSASP has
established design guidelines and standards to improve the overall aesthetic quality of the DSASP area as a whole.
A wind analysis (Parcels A, C and D in South San Francisco, CA – Wind Issues Associated with the Project,
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc, January 12, 2016) was conducted for the project and concludes that the predominant
westerly winds should not create a wind tunnel effect and would not create hazardous wind conditions for
pedestrians on Cypress Avenue. Some of the features of the building that lessen potential wind effects are the 80’-
0” height of the building (buildings at least 100’-0” are considered tall), articulation of the building, open podium
design above the second floor, and street tree plantings.
13
6
A shadow and light analysis prepared for the project (Vacant Ford Properties Entitlement Submittal Set, TCA
Architects, January 4, 2016) demonstrates that there will be little to no adverse shading effects to adjacent
properties as a result of the proposed project. The shadow and light analysis concludes the following:
“…The two sites (A and D) are oriented effectively South to North along both Airport Blvd. and Cypress
Avenue, the effects of the shade study show little or no impact on the adjoining properties to the west, and
to the east there is the 101 freeway. The only shade impact on adjacent properties to the west occurs
between 8 AM and Noon at the Winter Solstice. At all other times of the year, there is virtually no impact
on the adjacent property especially during normal business hours.”
Implementation of the proposed project would be beneficial to the DSASP area, as it will include 272 new
residential units within three high-quality, modern buildings, construct significant pedestrian and streetscape
enhancements along Miller Avenue, Cypress Avenue, and Airport Boulevard, and redevelop several lots that have
been vacant for several years. The overall project proposal would enhance the visual quality of the site and its
surroundings and consistent with the DSASP program EIR, would not result in a negative aesthetic impact to the
surrounding area.
d. The land uses accommodated under the DSASP would have the potential to include sources of light and glare, such
as security lighting or new glass panels buildings. However, the DSASP area is currently developed with similar
land uses. Redevelopment would not result in a substantial net increase in nighttime lighting or daytime glare
sources. The SSFMC includes multiple building and construction regulations and zoning requirements that are
intended to minimize localized light and glare impacts. Additionally, the DSASP Performance Standards and
adopted zoning regulations state that all new pedestrian light fixtures shall be designed to focus light onto sidewalks
and to minimize light spillover into adjacent upper level building windows or into the night sky. The proposed
project has been designed to adhere to these requirements and therefore, no new sources of substantial light or
glare not evaluated by the DSASP program EIR would result from implementation of the project.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES --Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland,
or timberland zoned Timberland Production?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Documentation:
a. , c., & d. No agricultural uses are located in the DSASP area, and the area does not contain any Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, forest land, timberland, timberland production, or forest
land. The project is located in a built-out urban environment, and therefore would not convert farmland to a non-
agricultural use. Consistent with the DSASP program EIR, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed
project.
b. The project would not conflict with any agricultural zoning use or a Williamson Act contract. There are no such
zoned land uses or Williamson Act contracts in the project vicinity. Consistent with the DSASP program EIR, no
impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
III. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
14
7
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard, including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative threshold for ozone precursors?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including,
but not limited to, substantial levels of toxic air contaminants?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Documentation:
a. - c. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.2-10 through 4.2-28) identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to
air quality for construction and operational activities of new development if mitigation measures were not
implemented for all future projects. Mitigations were suggested by the EIR, but the City Council determined that
such impacts could not be avoided even with the incorporation of these measures, and that no other feasible
mitigations or alternatives would avoid or lessen the impacts. Consequently, the City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the DSASP program EIR on January 28, 2015 that weighed new development
benefits against potential impacts and determined that significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality were in the
City’s best interests. The proposed project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations, and as a result,
would not create any additional construction or operational emission impacts in excess of those addressed by the
DSASP program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations. While implementation of mitigation measure
MM4.2 1 and MM4.2 2 have the potential to reduce air pollutant emissions from construction by requiring
compliance with BAAQMD construction mitigation measures, and operation through the reduction of project-
related trips, they cannot guarantee that emissions would be lessened to below a significance level. Therefore, even
with implementation of mitigation, construction and operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable
impacts. The project would be required to comply with the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
(MMRP) and the applicable Mitigation Measures outlined in the DSASP program EIR as a condition of approval.
Additionally, the applicant has provided an emissions assessment that has provided additional mitigation
suggestions to reduce construction and operational impacts to a less than significant impact (Miller-Cypress SSF
Parcels TAC and GHG Emissions Assessment; Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.; November 11, 2015). In response to
Mitigation Measure MM4.2-1, a measure to reduce construction exhaust emissions was developed to ensure
localized construction emissions do not lead to significant health risk impacts. This measure applies only to
construction at Parcel C and shall be included as a condition of approval for the project:
Implement the following measures to minimize emissions from diesel equipment:
(1.) All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the site for more
than two days continuously shall meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) particulate matter
emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent and
(2.) All portable pieces of construction equipment (i.e., air compressors, cement mixers, concrete/industrial
saws, generators, and welders) meet EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or
equivalent; and
(3.) Avoid staging equipment adjacent to residences.
The Conditions of Approval are imposing specific conditions on the project to ensure that the project complies with
applicable regulations and City-requirements and the MMRP mitigation measures are implementing existing, not
new mitigation. Therefore, the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
d. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.2-22 through 4.2-27) concluded that development in accordance with the DSASP
regulations would expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and particulates (PM 2.5 ) if located
within 500 feet of a freeway, urban road with 100,000 vehicles/day, or the Caltrain railroad. Because the project
site is adjacent to the Caltrain railroad and less than 500 feet from freeway US-101, , the DSASP Mitigation
Measure MM4.2-3 requires a Health Risk Assessment to be prepared and approved by the City. The analysis
(Miller-Cypress SSF Parcels TAC and GHG Emissions Assessment; Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc; November 11, 2015)
determined that the community risk impacts from single and cumulative sources (Table 5, p. 14) were below the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds for single source and cumulative sources and that
there was no significant health impacts on future residents locating within the proposed project. As a condition of
15
8
approval, the applicant will be required to notify all prospective tenants in writing that the project is within an
urban downtown with regular and typical noise and emissions due to its location. The Conditions of Approval and
MMRP mitigation measures are not implementing new mitigation, however, and therefore the project remains
consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
e. There would be no food service businesses nor other use which would cause objectionable odors included within the
project. As part of standard project review, equipment used for outdoor food preparation (courtyard, roof deck)
and the outdoor fireplace (courtyard) would be subject to City approval for safety and odor control. Furthermore,
the project would accommodate refuse and recycling in enclosed trash rooms on each residential floor and the
lower/street level of the project garage. Refuse and recycling pick-up would be provided by a local waste service
provider (South San Francisco Scavenger) and would occur on a weekly basis. Consequently, no odor impacts are
anticipated as a result of the project.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Documentation:
a. – c. The DSASP area is currently developed with residential, commercial, and office uses. There are no large open
spaces in the project area. Open space within the Downtown area consists of developed parkland, mostly graded
vacant lots, and a portion of the PG&E transmission corridor.
The City’s General Plan identifies the areas of the City that support biological resources, which generally consist of
San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill, and wetland areas along Colma Creek (South San Francisco 1999, Open Space and
Conservation Element). The City requires assessment and protection of biological resources for development in
these areas. The DSASP area is not located in an area that supports biological resources. Only a small portion on
the southern boundary of the DSASP area is adjacent to the Colma Creek Canal. The area is located south of
Airport Boulevard, east of the railroad track, and east of San Mateo Avenue and this proposed project’s nearest
location is 0.6 miles away.
Riparian habitat in South San Francisco is limited to along Colma Creek and along the Bay fringe. However, the
DSASP does not propose any land use directly adjacent to the canal and the area directly adjacent to the canal is
currently in use for utility infrastructure and right-of-way. The proposed project is not proximate to this location.
Therefore, consistent with the DSASP program EIR, this project would not result in any substantial adverse impacts
to sensitive plant or animal species.
16
9
d. – e. Construction and development associated with implementation of the proposed project would not occur within
an area containing habitat that supports biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no
impact on wildlife movement corridors. Landscaping vegetation within the DSASP area could provide potential
nesting habitat for migrating birds. If vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through August 31
bird nesting period, construction would be required to comply with applicable regulations in the California Fish
and Game Code (Section 3503, 3513, or 3800), which would protect nesting birds from construction disturbances
and this will be required as a condition of approval.
Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco Tree
Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Development activities could involve removal or pruning of
protected trees. However, such activities would be required to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance as part
of the project approval process, including obtaining a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees,
and avoiding tree roots during trenching for utilities. This will be required as a condition of approval.
The Conditions of Approval impose specific conditions on the project to ensure that the project complies with
applicable regulations and City-requirements and the MMRP mitigation measures implement existing, not new,
mitigation. Therefore, the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
f. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the DSASP area or proposed project.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Documentation:
a. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.3-11 through 4.3-13) identifies 12 historic resources within the DSASP area and an
additional 12 sites within 0.5 mile of the area boundaries. Although the Grand Avenue commercial corridor was
suggested as a historic district, it was never formally designated. The DSASP program EIR concluded that there
were potential impacts to these resources only for project sites located on or directly adjacent to a historic resource.
Consistent with EIR Chapter 4, the DSASP specifies standards, guidelines, and mitigations for historic resources
identified in the DSASP. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-1 would require a qualified professional to
conduct site-specific historical resource evaluation for future development within the DSASP area that would
demolish or otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 45 years old or older or would otherwise affect their
historic setting. The Ford vehicle dealership properties were initially noted as a potential “historic resource which
may be altered, relocated, or removed” by City staff. The primary building and supporting buildings on this
property would be demolished as part of this proposed project. A report on the proposed project (Historic
Evaluation of the South San Francisco Ford Buildings and Associated Mural on Airport Boulevard, Archaeological
Resource Management – Robert R. Cartier, Ph.D., November 20, 2015) has been prepared and reviewed by City
staff.
The report’s investigation concluded that that “the South San Francisco Ford Buildings are not listed on the City of
South San Francisco Historic Resources Inventory, the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, the structures do not appear to be eligible for inclusion in
any of these registers.” However, since the dealership was operated by the Lautze family for over fifty years in
South San Francisco, the report recommends that a plaque be erected “at or in front of the site of the original 1925
structure (315 Airport Boulevard), describing the history of Fred J. Lautze and the dealership.” Staff has discussed
this proposal with the project applicant and it will be included as a condition of approval for the project and will
require the Planning Manager’s final review. With adherence to this condition of approval, the proposed project
will have no impact on historic or significant cultural resources, consistent with the DSASP program EIR. By
17
10
imposing this condition, the City is implementing existing, not new, mitigation; therefore, the project remains
consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
Additionally, the report documents that the existing mural at 415 Airport Boulevard that is titled “Transporting
Oneself” by the artist Catalina Gonzalez was completed in 1999. No further action on this mural, which was
commissioned by the City of South San Francisco’s Redevelopment Agency, is contemplated, and removal will have
no impact on historic or significant cultural resources, as those terms are defined under CEQA Guidelines§
15064.5, within the DSASP area, consistent with the DSASP program EIR.
It is important to note that pursuant to the federal Visual Artist Rights Act (VARA), the artist Catalina Gonzalez
does retain attribution rights and may have the right to prevent mutilation or modification of her work without
consent. Further, to extent that the California Artist Protect Act (CAPA) is not preempted by VARA, Ms. Gonzalez
may also have additional rights under that statute. A condition of approval is included to require the project
applicant to comply with VARA requirements and CAPA requirements (to the extent applicable) prior to demolition
of the 415 Airport Boulevard building.
Additionally, due to the adjacent location of Bertolucci’s Italian Restaurant located at 421 Cypress Avenue, which
was surveyed as a potential historic resource by the City in 1986, the applicant has submitted a report evaluating
the proposed project’s potential CEQA impacts on the structure (An Updated Historic Evaluation of the Bertolucci’s
Building in South San Francisco, Archaeological Resource Management – Robert R. Cartier, Ph.D., January 15,
2016). The report was evaluated by City staff and peer reviewed by Atkins North America, the DSASP program EIR
consultant.
The report’s investigation concluded that that: “The Bertolucci’s Restaurant building at 421 Cypress Avenue is
located across Cypress Avenue (approximately 45 feet) from the proposed Parcel A residential building and
adjacent to(separated by an approximately 20 foot alley) the proposed Parcel B parking lot. As described in our
report prepared for the proposed project dated November 20, 2015, the proposed project does not remove or
otherwise impact the Bertolucci’s building or any buildings that relate to or contribute to the Bertolucci’s building.
The proposed project will, however, block the existing view of the sign on top of the building from the adjacent
elevated portion of Highway 101. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if blocking the view from Highway
101 is a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on our research and analysis
described below, we conclude that it is not.”
Additionally, the report concludes “As per CEQA Guidelines, in order for an impact to be considered significant,
the impact must pose a “substantially adverse” change to that resource. A “substantially adverse” impact in the
context of historic resources is one which affects the resource “such that the significance of an historical resource
would be impaired” (PRC Section 5020.1(q)). The Bertolucci’s sign is one several elements of the Bertolucci’s
building which contribute to the historic character of the property, however, the current view of the sign from
Highway 101 is not an essential factor in maintaining the significance of the structure or what makes the sign a
contributing element to the building given the relatively recent (1994) creation of extent of the current view and the
modifications to the sign itself. The contributing aspects of the sign to the building are based on the age and the
design of the sign itself and its relationship to the historical use of the building. Based on our review of the
characteristics of building and sign, it appears the Bertolucci’s building would retain eligibility for both the CRHR
and the local historic register regardless of whether the sign remains visible from Highway 101 or not, due to its
architecture and historic associations. Thus, while the proposed project would block the existing view of the sign
from Highway 101, this impact does not appear to be significant under CEQA because the lack of visibility from the
Highway would not jeopardize the structure’s eligibility for the CRHR, or its eligibility for listing on the local
register of the City of South San Francisco. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project would
not pose any direct or indirect significant adverse impact the historic merit of the Bertolucci’s building according to
CEQA guidelines.”
b. The proposed project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known archaeological resources in the
project vicinity. However, the DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.3-13 through 4.3-14) concluded that there is a high
potential for new development facilitated by the DSASP to disturb unrecorded archaeological resources, which
represented a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM4.3-2 through MM4.3-4 of the DSASP
program EIR requires that prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading)or in the
event that any deposit of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are encountered during project
construction activities, all work within 100 feet shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist be contacted to assess
the deposit and make recommendations, possibly including complete avoidance of the resources, in-place
preservation, and/or data recovery. Additionally, prior to start of construction, the supervisor will undergo worker
environmental awareness training or provide evidence of such training that is City-approved. These measures,
18
11
which shall be required as conditions of approval for the project, would reduce the potential impacts of the project
on archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level. By imposing these conditions, the City is implementing
existing, not new, mitigation; therefore, the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
c. The proposed project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known paleontological resources in the
project vicinity. However, the DSASP program EIR (p.4.3-14) concluded that earthmoving activity associated with
DSASP-facilitated development could potentially disrupt, alter, or eliminate as-yet undiscovered paleontological
resources, which represented a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM4.3-5 through MM4.3-6 of
the DSASP program EIR requires that prior to the issuance of grading or demolition permits, the Community
Development Department, in coordination with a qualified paleontologist, assess individual development proposals
for the potential to destroy unique paleontological resources and to determine provisions to protect such resources
when applicable, possibly including complete avoidance of the resources, in-place preservation, and/or data
recovery as detailed in MM4.3-5. Additionally, should paleontological resources or unique geologic features be
identified at a particular site during project construction, construction shall cease within 100 feet of the find and the
City shall be notified. A City-approved paleontologist shall assess the significance of the find and impacts to any
significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods determined adequate by the
paleontologist and as approved by the City. These measures, which shall be required as conditions of approval for
the project, would reduce the potential impacts of the project on paleontological resources to a less-than-significant
level, consistent with the evaluation of the DSASP program EIR. By imposing these conditions, the City is
implementing existing, not new, mitigation; therefore, the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP
program EIR d. The proposed project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known cemeteries or
human remains in the project vicinity (DSASP program EIR p. 4.3-15). However, should any human remains be
found during on- or off-site improvements associated with the proposed project, the DSASP program EIR identifies
the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requiring that no further disturbances shall occur until the
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. PRC Section 5097.98 outlines the Native American Heritage Commission
notification process and the required procedures if the County Coroner determines the human remains to be Native
American. Compliance with this standard regulation would protect unknown and previously unidentified human
remains, and impacts related to unknown human remains would be less than significant and no mitigation would be
required, consistent with the evaluation of the DSASP program EIR.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault (Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Documentation:
19
12
a. i.-iv.) The DSASP area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act of 1994 and no known active or potentially active faults traverse the study area. Because ground
rupture generally only occurs at the location of a fault, and no active faults are known to traverse the DSASP area,
the project would not be subject to a substantial risk of surface fault ruptures. The City and the larger San
Francisco Bay Area are in a seismically active region. A rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault
could result in intensities registering 7.1 on the modified Mercalli intensity scale in the South San Francisco area.
Most of the City would experience an intensity level of VII (Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate) from a
rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.1 magnitude. According
to the South San Francisco General Plan, portions of the DSASP area are located in areas potentially subject to
extremely high or very high levels of ground shaking (see General Plan Health and Safety Element Figure 8 2
[General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands]). The structural design of the proposed buildings must
adhere to state and City building code standards, such as the California Building Code (CBC), which define
minimum acceptable levels of risk and safety. Additionally, in accordance with the General Plan Policy 8.1 I 1,
special occupancy land uses (hospitals, schools, and other structures that are important to protecting health and
safety in the community) would not be located in the areas designated as seismically sensitive in General Plan
Figure 8–2. Compliance with existing state and City regulations would be consistent with the analysis of the DSASP
program EIR that identified that existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Because the DSASP area is located in a seismically active region, the potential for seismic-related ground
failure exists, including liquefaction. Most of the DSASP area is located in an area with very low susceptibility for
liquefaction, except a portion of the DSASP area east of US 101 with a moderate to very high risk for liquefaction
(USGS n.d.). However, proposed development must adhere to the CBC and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act,
which include requirements for geotechnical investigations in areas with high risks for liquefaction, including
mitigation to minimize risks. SFFMC Section 15.56.140 (Grading Permit Requirements) also requires a soils
engineering report and engineering geology report that would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make
recommendations to minimize hazards. Compliance with existing state and City regulations would be consistent
with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR that identified that existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less-
than-significant level.
The parts of the San Francisco Bay region having the greatest susceptibility to landslides are hilly areas underlain
by weak bedrock units with slopes greater than 15 percent. In South San Francisco this hazard is primarily located
on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain in the Terrabay development and near Skyline Boulevard. Because the
DSASP area is located in an area with slopes less than 15 percent, natural slope instability is not a concern.
Excavation wall stability would be regulated by CBC Chapter 33 and consistent with the DSASP program EIR
analysis.
b-e. Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction would be temporary and erosion effects would depend
largely on the areas excavated, the quantity of excavation, and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that
would be affected by erosion processes. In addition, all construction activities would be required to comply with
CBC Chapter 18, which regulates excavation activities and the construction of foundations and retaining walls, and
CBC Chapter 33, which regulates safeguarding activities, including drainage and erosion control. Additionally,
development would continue to be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
general permit for construction activities. Pursuant to this permit, as part of an erosion control plan, construction
site erosion and sedimentation control best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and would include
such measures as silt fences, watering for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding, and other measures.
Further, development under the DSASP will be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the San Mateo
Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), and requires runoff management programs that
would include BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation. Following construction, future development would
consist almost entirely of impervious surfaces and would not be subject to substantial erosion or topsoil loss.
The soil in South San Francisco is generally characterized as having a low expansion potential, with the exception
of areas at the base of the San Bruno Mountains or adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Development in the DSASP
area would not be located in an area at high risk for expansive soils. Additionally, future development must comply
with the CBC and SSFMC Section 15.56.140 (Grading Permit Requirements), which require a soils engineering
report and engineering geology report that would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make
recommendations to minimize hazards.
The proposed project would not produce wastewater that requires support of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems. The City of South San Francisco would continue to provide wastewater service to the entire
DSASP area. Therefore, this project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and would have a less-
than-significant impact on geology and soils.
20
13
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
c) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding caused by sea level rise resulting from global climate
change?
Documentation:
a. A limited amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would occur during demolition and construction
activities. Because GHGs remain in the atmosphere for years, even the temporary emissions from construction
activities would be cumulatively considerable without the implementation the BAAQMD recommended BMPs, the
General Plan policies, and CAP policies to reduce construction-related GHG emissions. Implementation of the
General Plan and CAP policies along with mitigation measure MM4.4-1 would reduce this impact to less than
cumulatively significant. Incorporation of the General Plan and CAP policies would reduce the generation of waste
from construction activities, thereby reducing the emission of GHGs associated with waste disposal and
decomposition. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-1 would reduce GHG emissions associated with
waste and would have the potential to reduce combustion-related GHG emission by reducing the amount or type of
fuel utilized at construction sites. In summary, construction emissions would be temporary in nature and would not
significantly contribute to regional GHG levels with appropriate prescribed mitigation measures.
The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.4-21 through 4.4-26) determined that while the occupancy and operation of
DSASP-facilitated projects would generate GHG emissions, these emissions would be subject the City’s adopted
Climate Action Plan (CAP) and the CAP’s policies. Mitigation Measures MM4.4-2 through MM4.4-10, as
applicable, will be incorporated into the project as conditions of approval. As such, GHG emissions’ significance
threshold would be a less-than-significant impact. This project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis
and would not result in new or unidentified impacts. By imposing these conditions, the City is implementing existing,
not new, mitigation; therefore, the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR As
indicated above, with implementation of existing mitigation, the project within the DSASP would meet the goals
identified in the City of South San Francisco’s CAP which is needed to reduce GHG emissions within the City to
exceed the Assembly Bill 32 goals moving past 2020. Therefore, the emissions of GHGs from new development
within the DSASP would be consistent with both AB 32 and the CAP for the City. This project is consistent with the
DSASP program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentified impacts.
b. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.4-5 through 4.4-9) determined that the DSASP area is unlikely to be subject to
flooding due to sea level rise associated with global climate change. Therefore, the proposed project within the
DSASP should not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding caused
by sea level rise resulting from global climate change. This project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR
analysis and would not result in new or unidentified impacts.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it
21
14
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Documentation:
a. The project would include 272 residential units and associated uses. It would not involve routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it result in hazardous emissions. The DSASP program EIR (p. 5-4)
concluded that while some hazardous substances may be generated, stored, transported, used, or disposed of in
association with residential and non-residential development projects Downtown (e.g., cleaning supplies), existing
local, State, and federal regulations and oversight would reduce the potential threat to a less-than-significant
impact. This project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentified
impacts.
b. & c. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No
manufacturing or industrial processes that utilize or produce dangerous substances are proposed with this project,
and the DSASP program EIR (p. 5-4) concluded that with mandatory local, State, and federal regulations in place,
the risk to the public or the environment from upset and accident conditions would represent a less-than-significant
impact. The project is further than ¼ mile from the nearest school, Martin Elementary School. As such, this project
is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentified impacts.
d. According to the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database, there are several open and closed
hazardous materials cases in the DSASP area. Cases are concentrated south of Grand Avenue and along the US
101 corridor. The majority of cases involve leaking underground storage tanks (LUST). Other cases involve solvents
and dry cleaning chemicals. The proposed project is located on a site (315, 401, 411, 421 Airport Blvd, 401-407
Cypress Ave, 204 Miller Ave) included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled by the State Water Resources
Control Board Geotracker database (www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov, viewed November 13, 2015). The site
assessment was open as of July 15, 2015 and identifies potential contaminants of concern in the aquifer that would
be a potential concern for the drinking water supply and indoor air.
As discussed in the City’s General Plan, the location of existing hazardous materials cases near future proposed
development would be identified during the development approval process (South San Francisco 1999, Health and
Safety Element). Redevelopment or development would be required to comply with all applicable regulations for
remediation of hazards, such as compliance with appropriate guidelines of the regional Underground Storage Tank
Program. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites to
a less-than-significant impact and would be consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
e. & f. The project area is located approximately 0.75 miles north of the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA).
The DSASP area is located outside of all airport Safety Compatibility Zones. However, the DSASP area is located
within Airport Influence Area B and is subject to Federal Aviation Administration notification requirements (see
Exhibit IV 10 [FAA Notification Form 7460—Filing Requirements, of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for
the Environs of San Francisco International Airport]) (C/CAG 2012). The maximum building height allowed in the
DSASP area (120 feet) would be below 163.2 feet, which is the lowest obstruction standard in the DSASP area (see
Exhibit IV 14, 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 Airport Imaginary Surfaces – North Side, of the
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport). Additionally, all
future development under the DSASP would be subject to review for compatibility with the Comprehensive Airport
Land Use Plan for SFIA. Consistent with CFR Part 77, developers proposing structures taller than the notification
elevations identified in Exhibit IV-10 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan would be required to file a
notification with the FAA at least 30 days before the proposed start of construction. Most of the DSASP area,
22
15
including the proposed project sites, is located in area that requires notification for buildings taller than 100 feet.
Coordination with the FAA would ensure that a significant safety hazard would not occur. There are no private
airstrips within 2 miles of the DSASP area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project vicinity, consistent with the analysis of the DSASP
program EIR.
g. Construction activities associated with development under the DSASP could potentially affect emergency response
or evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency
access on site. However, SFFMC Section 11.16.170 prohibits road closures or obstructions without approval by the
chief of police. Coordination with the chief of police would ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained
during construction. As a result, the proposed project would be required to comply with the SSFMC and not impair
or interfere with emergency plans, and the project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
h. The project site is located in a downtown urban environment not adjacent to wildlands and therefore would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. This is consistent
with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Documentation:
a. - d. To comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), San Mateo County and the twenty cities and towns in the County,
including the City of South San Francisco, formed the San Mateo Countywide STOPPP. STOPPP holds a joint
municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The
permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the
ocean to the maximum extent possible. The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist
to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution; this checklist will be
completed and required by the Water Quality Division and is included as a Condition of Approval. Construction
activities would continue to be required to comply with the NPDES general permit for construction activities,
23
16
pursuant to which BMPs would be implemented to control stormwater during construction, including silt fences,
watering for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding, and other measures.
Colma Creek is the City’s main natural drainage system. A small area along the southern boundary of the DSASP
area is adjacent to Colma Creek; however, Colma Creek does not intersect the DSASP area at any point and future
development of the proposed project would not alter the course of Colma Creek or any other waterway. Surface and
stormwater runoff from the DSASP area is collected by the City’s storm drainage system. The existing storm
drainage system in the project area is designed to accommodate flows from urbanized development and takes into
account the high ratio of impervious surfaces in the area. The proposed project would remove existing buildings on
the site and redevelop the area with similar uses. The ratio of impervious surface area would be similar to existing
conditions, thereby not increasing runoff or stormwater flows over existing conditions. During construction, erosion
and run-off would be controlled through required compliance with the NPDES general permit for construction
activities, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP
program EIR and would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
e. Redevelopment under this project would require new drainage structures and localized on-site storm drain systems.
This project proposes a new storm drain system to accommodate anticipated runoff and sizing will be directed by
the Engineering Division, as appropriate during the Building Permit process.
The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against
guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. This project will be required to conform to those provisions and
the development would be required to comply with all applicable regulations pertaining to water quality.
Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP
program EIR and would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
f. With implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of both
the NPDES permit program, project construction would result in no degradation of existing water quality.
Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would not generate any foreseen uses that would substantially
degrade water quality. The proposed project is in compliance with all applicable regulations, as evaluated by the
DSASP program EIR and as a result, no additional water quality impacts are anticipated with implementation of
this project.
h. - j. Portions of the DSASP area east of US 101, north of Armour Avenue, and south of 2nd Lane are within the 100-
year flood hazard area but the proposed project is not within this portion of DSASP (California Department of
Water Resources 2013). No residences are proposed east of US 101; therefore, no impact would occur in this area.
However, high-density residential land use would be accommodated within the 100-year flood hazard area north of
Armour Avenue and south of 2nd Lane. However, consistent with General Plan Policy 8.2 I 2, the City would ensure
as part of the development review process that proposed development in the 100-year flood hazard area would
provide adequate flood protection. Further, because the project area is already developed, redevelopment of the
DSASP area within the 100-year flood hazard area would not result in the introduction of new structures in
undeveloped floodplain areas that would substantially impede or redirect flood flows. The project is consistent with
the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
The project area is not located in a potential dam failure inundation area (ABAG 2003). A 1.5-million-gallon
storage reservoir located on the top of San Bruno Hill poses the greatest risk of seiche hazards in the DSASP area.
However, because the reservoir holds a relatively small volume of water, water released during seiching would be
largely absorbed in the vegetated hillsides. Because the hillsides are not very steep, the flow of water would not be
rapid. Also, water would drain away from the hill instead of ponding and resulting in high water levels. Thus, seiche
inundation impacts are considered to be less than significant in the project area. The project area is not located in
an area at risk for tsunami inundation; therefore, a significant impact related to tsunamis would not occur
(California EMA et al. 2009). The potential for inundation by mudflow is considered low because the DSASP area
does not contain steep slopes. Hillsides surrounding the DSASP area are covered by development and/or
landscaping. Rainfall onto these areas would encounter vegetation or impervious surfaces, and would not pose a
risk of causing saturated soil to loosen and flow downhill. Thus, there would be no mudflow inundation impact on
the DSASP area, as evaluated in the DSASP program EIR.
24
17
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Documentation:
a. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.5-10) concludes that implementation of the DSASP would reinforce, with no
substantial change in, established community-wide land use patterns. The EIR also concludes that the DSASP land
use characteristics, provisions, and development standards would result in beneficial land use effects. The DSASP
has been incorporated into the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project is consistent with
the DSASP standards and zoning regulations and as a result, no further analysis is required.
b. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction
over the project (DSASP program EIR p. 4.5-11). The project complies with all applicable DSASP standards,
guidelines, and regulations. The applicant will be requesting a Conditional Use Permit to reduce or modify some
requirements consistent with the City’s adopted Zoning Ordinance. Overall density for this project will be
consistent with the standards set forth in SSFMC 20.280 at 120 dwelling units per acre with the development of
Parcels A, B, & C and 80 dwelling units per acre for development of Parcel D (309 Airport Blvd.).
The DSASP would yield significant amounts of new residential and employment uses in the DSASP area, where
development potential would be determined by applying the land use, density and intensity assumptions to land
within each district. For the purposes of the DSASP and for assessing environmental impacts associated with the
plan, it has been assumed that only 25 percent of parcels in the DSASP area would be developed within the plan’s
20-year timeframe. Assuming only 25 percent of the parcels within the DSASP area would be redeveloped over the
approximate 20-year timeframe of the plan, the DSASP has the potential to add 1,435 units of residential uses to the
existing 1,426 units in the area, for a total of 2,861 residential units in the proximity of the Caltrain station.
Additionally, the DSASP has the potential to add a maximum of 1.2 million sf of new office/R&D uses, which
represents as many as 2,400 or more jobs added to the City. This project represents 272 new residential units,
which will bring the cumulative total to fewer than 500 total new residential units within the DSASP area since
adoption in January, 2015. As a result, no potentially significant land use or planning impacts are anticipated and
no further analysis beyond the DSASP program EIR is necessary.
c. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the DSASP area and the project remains consistent
with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
Documentation:
a. & b. No significant mineral deposits are identified in the DSASP area (DSASP program EIR p. 5-7). The project site
within the DSASP does not contain valuable or locally important mineral resources, nor will it consume
extraordinary amounts of mineral resources. Therefore, project implementation would not create an impact on
mineral resources, consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
25
18
XII. NOISE – Would the project:
a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-
borne noise levels?
c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Documentation:
a.- b. Noise in South San Francisco is regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code).
In addition, the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan enumerates noise policies. More specifically, excessive
and unreasonable noise levels are defined as noise levels generated by construction activities, including demolition,
alteration, repair or remodeling of existing structures, and construction of new structures, on property within the
City, at more than 90 decibels (dB) measured at any point within a residential district of the City and outside of the
plane of the property.
Therefore, construction noise is required to be less than 90 dB within residential districts and no construction noise
is permitted between the hours of 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM the following day. The General Plan requires all exterior
noise sources (construction operations, air compressors, pumps, fans, and leaf blowers) to use available noise
suppression devices and techniques to bring exterior noise down to acceptable levels compatible with adjacent land
uses.
The primary sources of noise from the project would be temporary construction noise and operational noise.
Construction noise is largely a function of the construction equipment used, the location and sensitivity of nearby
land uses, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Construction noise levels would vary
depending on construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between noise source and receptor,
and presence or absence of barriers between noise source and receptor. All noise-generating construction activities
are anticipated to be conducted on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM in accordance with City
requirements, which require noise suppression devices to reduce noise levels below 90 dB.
The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.6-14 through 4.6-16) concluded that new DSASP-facilitated multifamily residential
development could be exposed to noise levels exceeding City guidelines and State Title 24 standards, resulting in a
potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM4.6-3 states that a noise study consistent with the
requirements of the California Building Code shall be conducted for new multifamily residential projects, and noise
reduction measures necessary to achieve compatibility with the City’s Noise Element guidelines and Title 24
standards (45 dBA CNEL within residential units) shall be incorporated into the project. This measure, which shall
be required as a condition of approval for the project, would reduce the potential noise impacts on the project to a
less-than-significant level and has been adequately addressed by the DSASP program EIR.
The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.6-18 through 4.6-19) also identified potentially significant intermittent vibration
impacts for residential projects located within 100 feet of the centerline of the Caltrain railroad tracks. The
proposed project site is located near the Caltrain tracks right-of-way. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM4.6-5
shall be required as a condition of approval for the project and would reduce the potential ground-borne vibration
impacts on the project to a less-than significant level. The mitigation requires a detailed, site-specific vibration
study that demonstrates that ground-borne vibrations associated with rail operations either: (1) would not exceed
applicable Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ground-borne vibration impact assessment criteria or (2) can be
reduced to below the applicable FTA criteria thresholds through building design and construction measures (e.g.,
26
19
stiffened floors, modified foundations). By imposing this condition, the City is implementing existing, not new,
mitigation; therefore, the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR c. The
DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.6-20 through 4.6-21) concluded that permanent noise levels from DSASP development
would increase primarily due to new traffic patterns, new commercial development next to or below residential
development, and site-specific sources such as mechanical equipment. The addition of project traffic from buildout
of the entire DSASP (up to 1,400 new units) would result in an increase in noise levels of up to 3 dBA for two
roadway segments in the DSASP area, however, those segments are not located adjacent to this proposed project
and this project represents only a fraction of the total expected units within the DSASP area. Therefore, project-
related impacts associated with increases in traffic noise will not have an impact and have been adequately
addressed by the DSASP program EIR.
d. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.6-22) concluded that potentially significant temporary noise and vibration impacts
could be generated by demolition and construction activities in the DSASP area. Construction of land uses
accommodated by the DSASP area would not take place all at once, and would be spread throughout the DSASP
area so that limited receptors would be exposed to construction noise at any given time. Under SSFMC Section
8.32.050(d), construction activities are limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM
to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays, or as authorized by the construction
permit. Construction noise that occurs during these hours is exempt from the noise level limits established in the
City’s Noise Ordinance because these hours are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside of
evening and early morning hours and time periods where residents are most sensitive to exterior noise.
Consequently, the City considers impacts resulting from construction noise during these hours to be less than
significant. Project construction would be required to comply with all applicable City ordinances, including limits
on construction hours. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant, and no
further mitigation is required, as analyzed in the DSASP program EIR.
e. & f. The DSASP area is located approximately 0.75 miles from the SFIA. Due to distance and the orientation of the
airport runways, the DSASP area is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of the SFIA (C/CAG 2012).
Noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and below are considered compatible with residential land uses in the City’s General
Plan (South San Francisco 1999, Noise Element). Additionally, the applicant has submitted a Noise Assessment
Study for the proposed project and the consultant has determined the following:
The analysis of the on-site sound level measurements indicates that the existing noise environment is due primarily
to traffic sources on Highway 101, Airport Boulevard, and Miller Avenue. Aircraft operations at San Francisco
International Airport do not significantly impact the sites. The results of the study indicate that the exterior noise
exposures at the site are within the limits of the City‘s Noise Element. Noise mitigation for the exterior areas will
not be required. The interior noise exposures will exceed the limits of the standards of Title 24. Noise mitigation
measures for interior living spaces will be required (Noise Assessment Study for the Planned “Miller Ace” Multi-
Family Development, Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc, June 26, 2015).
To achieve compliance with the 45 dB CNEL limit of the Title 24, the following window controls will be required. In
addition, general building shell controls are also recommended, as described in Appendix B and included below for
reference. (Noise Assessment Study for the Planned “Miller Ace” Multi-Family Development, Edward L. Pack
Associates, Inc, June 26, 2015).
• Maintain closed at all times, all windows and glass doors of living spaces on the outer periphery of the
buildings on Parcels A, C and D that face south, east or north. Install windows and glass doors with the Sound
Transmission Class (STC) ratings indicated on Figures 2, 3, and 4 on pages 8, 9, and 10.
• Provide some type of mechanical ventilation for all living spaces with a closed window condition.
• Unshielded entry doors having a direct or side orientation toward the primary noise source must be 1-5/8"
or 1-3/4" thick, insulated metal or solid-core wood construction with effective weather seals around the full
perimeter.
• If any penetrations in the building shell are required for vents, piping, conduit, etc., sound leakage around
these penetrations can be controlled by sealing all cracks and clearance spaces with a non-hardening caulking
compound.
• Ventilation openings shall not compromise the acoustical integrity of the building shell.
These measures, as suggested by the noise assessment study, will keep the project consistent with Title 24, the
General Plan’s Noise Element, and the DSASP program EIR analysis. No further analysis is required and these
recommendations shall be included as project conditions of approval.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
27
20
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Documentation:
a. With the adopted DSASP area plan, General Plan and Zoning amendments, construction of 272 new residential
units and up to 805 new residents (2.96 persons per household) would be consistent with the General Plan, where
additional population growth due to the higher-density areas within the DSASP area has been accounted for in
future population growth projections for the City. Additionally, a higher employment rate has also been accounted
for in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with all governing documents and policies
regulating the City and would not exceed the build-out estimated population of the amended General Plan. Thus,
the impacts from direct population growth as a result of new housing units with this project would be consistent
with the DSASP program EIR and no further analysis is required.
The DSASP provides for infill development that makes maximum use of existing infrastructure. The DSASP area is
located in the center of a dense urban area, and implementation of the DSASP would not include extension of the
existing infrastructure, only site-specific infrastructure upgrades as needed. The proposed project is consistent with
this evaluation from the DSASP program EIR and no further analysis is required.
b. & c. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.7-11 through 4.7-12) concluded that the DSASP, and projects facilitated by it,
would not result in significant displacement impacts. Implementation of the DSASP would not displace significant
numbers of residents or residential units necessitating construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Most new
development would occur on commercial or vacant sites. Additionally, the DSASP accommodates higher density
residential development that could support any affordable housing units lost through redevelopment in the DSASP
area. As a result, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing units
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Furthermore, the residential building on the
project site is unoccupied (a portion of the development site once included a total of 21 units but is currently
vacant), and the project proposes 272 new residential units, for a net gain of 251 residential units. No need for
replacement housing would be necessitated by the project and the project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR
analysis.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Documentation:
a. The City has implemented a Public Safety Impact Fee (2012) for all new development. This fee is intended to fund
improvements in infrastructure or public services necessitated by new development. All development pursuant to the
28
21
DSASP would be required to pay this fee. However, construction of new fire facilities is not expected as a result of
this project as the DSASP program EIR has evaluated that current provision is adequate.
Further reducing impacts to fire services, all development pursuant to the DSASP would be required to comply with
provisions of the California Building Code and Fire Code pertaining to fire protection systems and equipment,
general safety precautions, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and existing
buildings and premises, including emergency access provisions (see SSFMC Sections 15.08.010 and 15.24.010,
adopting the CBC and California Fire Code).
Compliance with Municipal Code requirements and payment of Public Safety Impact Fees will ensure that this
project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and no further action is required.
XV. RECREATION – Would the project:
a) Result in an increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Documentation:
a. It is expected that existing facilities serving the DSASP area would satisfy most if not all of the park and open space
needs generated by the DSASP buildout, including this project proposal. More specifically, Orange Memorial Park
and Centennial Way, along with 218 total acres of parks and open space, averaging 3.4 acres per 1,000 residents
provides a wide range of regional facilities available for the residents of the City. In addition to Orange Memorial
Park and Centennial Way, there are a wide variety of City, County, educational, and private recreational facilities
within the City. Also, the DSASP program EIR (p. 4.9-8 through 4.9-9) concluded that there would be no significant
parks and recreation impacts resulting from the DSASP or projects built under it. Additionally, upon build-out of
the DSASP, a network of new open space opportunities is anticipated that will further serve the entire DSASP area,
and new development within the DSASP may be required to pay in-lieu fees to support increases in population. The
proposed project will be in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations, as approved with the entitlements
request, and as a result, is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis.
b. The project would include private recreational facilities (e.g., fitness center) but does not require the construction or
expansion of public recreational facilities. As a result, the project would not have an adverse physical effect on the
environment related to recreational facilities and is covered by the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
29
22
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
Documentation:
a. & b. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.10-61 through 4.10-68) identified significant and unavoidable impacts at
five area intersections, as well as impacts on freeway segments, freeway ramps, and transit service. Mitigations
were suggested by the EIR, but the South San Francisco City Council determined that such impacts could not be
avoided even with the incorporation of these measures, and that no other feasible mitigations or alternatives would
avoid or lessen the impacts. Consequently, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
DSASP program EIR on January 28, 2015 that weighed new development benefits against potential impacts and
determined that significant and unavoidable impacts to transportation/traffic was in the City’s best interests. The
proposed project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations, and as a result, would not create any
additional transportation or traffic impacts in excess of those addressed by the DSASP program EIR and Statement
of Overriding Considerations. A supplemental traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon (Miller Cypress Residential
Project Traffic Study; Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc; November 6, 2015) identified that no impacts are
anticipated for any of the 11 intersections analyzed with mitigation measures in the DSASP program EIR. The City
Engineer has peer reviewed and determined that no further traffic analysis is required.
c. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns at San Francisco International Airport or any other
airport, including either an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks.
d. The project, as proposed, would operate within the existing roadway system and proposes pedestrian safety
enhancements to reduce pedestrian hazards. Additionally, the supplemental traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon
(Miller Cypress Residential Project Traffic Study; Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc; November 6, 2015)
evaluated on-site circulation to determine safety concerns and was peer-reviewed by the Engineering Division. The
analysis summarized the following recommendations, which shall be required as conditions of approval for the
project:
(1) A review of the site plans for the proposed project for parcels A, C and D showed that adequate circulation
would be provided on site. The site plans do not show any loading zones. The project should provide
designated areas along the project frontage for moving/delivery trucks and also for emergency/fire access
in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
(2) The project would provide adequate parking on site. Where tandem parking spaces are provided, the
parking code requires that the total number of tandem parking spaces should be less than 50% of the total
required parking spaces. The total number of tandem parking spaces is less than 50% of the total required
parking spaces, thus meeting the parking code. The compact parking spaces would not be problematic and
should be marked as compact spaces.
(3) A review of the parking stall dimensions showed that the tandem parking spaces do not meet the code. The
code requires that where tandem parking spaces are provided, the tandem parking bay should measure at
least 10 feet by 40 feet. The tandem parking bays shown on the site plans measure 8.5 feet by 34 feet. These
dimensions would be adequate provided the tandem bays are assigned to residents with one full-size and
one compact vehicle.
The applicant also submitted a supplemental traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon (Miller Avenue Residential
Project, South San Francisco Impact on Tamarack Lane; Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc; December 28,
2015) that evaluated neighborhood concerns about traffic circulation on Tamarack Lane for the proposed
townhomes on Parcel C. The analysis identified that new traffic would result in a minor increase in new vehicles
during the peak AM and PM hours and given the one-way design of Tamarack Lane, would not result in any traffic
queuing or any significant impacts on Tamarack Lane.
e. The proposed project would utilize the existing roadways in the vicinity. The project design would be required to
comply with all applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency access, as well as fire protection and
security. In addition, all buildings would (1) include a sprinkler system; (2) Knox key box for each building with
30
23
access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined; and (3) maps
mounted at entry gates for rapid orientation while responding to emergencies. Additionally, The City has
implemented a Public Safety Impact Fee (2012) for all new development. This fee is intended to fund improvements
to infrastructure or public services necessitated by new development to ensure adequate emergency access.
f. Implementation of the proposed project would not require on- or off-site improvements that would conflict with
existing policies, plans, or programs that support alternative transportation. The project site is located less than
one-quarter mile from a regional rail station (Caltrain) and bus depot (SamTrans). In addition, the proposed
project would support both bike and pedestrian usage consistent with the DSASP, including secure bike parking and
sidewalk improvements and landscaping, public bike racks, and a repainted Class II bicycle lane. Moreover, as
part of the proposed project, four new bulb outs and pedestrian crossings would be constructed at the intersection of
Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue, thereby improving pedestrian access to shopping, transit and amenities, and to
the downtown area as a whole. As a result, the proposed project would not have an impact on alternative
transportation modes, consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or
distribution facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of a new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves the
project area that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project area’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Documentation:
a. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.11-30) concluded that the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control
Plant, located in South San Francisco, would ensure that the wastewater facility is able to continue to meet or
exceed the wastewater treatment requirements established for it by the RWQCB, even with the additional
wastewater generated by development permitted under the DSASP.
b. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.11-21 through 4.11-24) concluded that development occurring under the DSASP
would not necessitate the construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities. See items (d) and
(e) below for further explanation.
c. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.11-21 through 4.11-24) concluded that no significant increase in storm water
runoff was anticipated to be created by the DSASP or DSASP-facilitated development. Furthermore, each project is
required to submit documentation consistent with the State and County Water Pollution Prevention Program
requirements, which are peer reviewed by the Water Quality Division of the City’s Department of Public Works.
The project’s main buildings on Parcel A and D, as proposed, are expected to qualify for a 100 percent exemption
under Special Project Category “C” (Transit-Oriented Development [TOD] Project) of the San Mateo County
Water Pollution Prevention Program, which means that the project would be 100 percent exempt (in storm drainage
volume) from County low impact development (LID) requirements because the project: (1) is within ¼-mile of a
transit hub; (2) has a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre (project density would be approximately 120
units per acre); and (3) would contain no surface parking. The result would be that up to 100 percent of the project
31
24
site’s impervious surface runoff could be treated with media filter devices approved by the Bay Area Stormwater
Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). This proposed exemption is subject to City review and approval.
The remaining project development (Parcels B and C) are subject to on-site stormwater treatment consistent with
the San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program and have proposed appropriate on-site treatment
measures. The project, as proposed, would also expand the storm drain facilities on Miller Avenue to serve the
project. The project would be subject to this requirement as a condition of project approval. Therefore, impacts of
this project on stormwater runoff and facilities would be less than significant and consistent with the analysis of the
DSASP program EIR.
d. The City of South San Francisco is served by the Cal Water’s South San Francisco District. Cal Water obtains
water from a purchasing agreement with San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which is supplied by
local surface water sources within its Regional Water System, and from its own groundwater sources. Future area
water supplies would be delivered through existing City supply facilities and new water infrastructure constructed
for delivery into specific project sites. Adequate delivery was identified within the DSASP program EIR (p. 4.11-24)
for all anticipated new development within the DSASP area, therefore this project is consistent with the DSASP
program EIR analysis.
e. Sewage and wastewater generated within the City is collected through the City’s sewer system and is disposed of
and treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP. The sanitary sewer system has an interconnecting
network of approximately 12 miles of 6-inch to 30-inch-diameter gravity sewer mains, force mains, and twelve pump
stations, which function together to bring wastewater from individual homes and businesses to the WQCP. Some
pump stations act as tributaries to a few stations that handle most of the wastewater from large portions of the
community. Chapter 14 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code ensures the future health, safety, and general
welfare of the City and provides regulations for the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system.
Wastewater generation is correlated with water usage and continued water conservation practices would reduce the
volume of wastewater generated. New developments such as this project would be required to comply with all
provisions of the NPDES program as well as all applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the San
Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City of South San Francisco would maintain local
sewer lines and perform upgrades on an as-needed basis. It is anticipated that the increased flows from development
under the DSASP, including this project, would not result in required upgrades to the reclamation plants, and the
project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis.
f. & g. Project construction would comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and land fill capacity exists for
future DSASP buildout. Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City of South San Francisco is regulated by the
City’s SSFMC, particularly Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. Under the SSFMC, future development would be required to
have its solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, and recyclable materials collected by the
Scavenger Company. Additional health and sanitation requirements set forth in the SSFMC would be met by the
Scavenger Company. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste, and is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
32
25
Documentation:
a. Based on the preceding discussion and the program EIR prepared for the DSASP, including mitigation measures, it
has been determined that the proposed project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR and would
not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, “Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which,
when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.”
“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects. The potential cumulative impacts of the project have been considered for each
environmental topic evaluated above. Given the relatively short-term nature of the project’s construction schedule,
and the fact that the proposed project would serve an existing community within an urbanized area consistent with
the adopted DSASP, the project is not anticipated to have any cumulatively considerable impacts beyond those
identified and analyzed in the DSASP program EIR.
c. The project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly, beyond those previously identified and analyzed in the DSASP program EIR.
2599407.1
33
MILLER-CYPRESS SSF PARCELS
A, B, C, AND D+
TAC AND GHG EMISSIONS
ASSESSMENT
South San Francisco, CA
November 11, 2015
Prepared for:
Ken Busch
SARES|REGIS REGIS -HOMES
901 Mariners Island Blvd #700
San Mateo, CA 94404
Prepared by:
James A. Reyff
and
William Popenuck
1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120
Petaluma, CA 94954
(707) 794-0400
I&R Project# 15-112
34
1
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to address air quality community risk impacts associated with the
Miller-Cypress Parcels A, B, C, and D+ Residential Project in South San Francisco, California.
The project would construct apartments and parking at four separate parcels near Miller Avenue.
Parcel A will construct 160 apartments on a 1.04-acre site with about 74,000 square feet of
unenclosed parking. The project site is currently an abandoned car dealership and parking lot.
Parcel B would reconstruct a parking lot on a 0.2-acre site. Parcel C would construct 12
apartments and parking on a 0.4-acre site. Finally, Parcel D would include 100 new apartments
with an unenclosed parking structure on a 0.5-acre site. These projects are all in close proximity
to each other and are subject to air quality mitigation measures associated with the South San
Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR. This analysis addresses the mitigation
requirements. Specifically:
1. Mitigation Measure MM4.2-1 requires the emissions modeling of construction activities
to identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce emissions below the significance
criteria;
2. Mitigation Measure MM4.2-2 requires quantification of operational emissions to
demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project emissions; and
3. Mitigation Measure MM4.2-3 requires a health risk assessment that assesses the
impacts of air pollution sources that could affect the project’s residents and, if necessary,
identify appropriate measures to reduce the potential health risk to below significant
level.
To address these mitigation measures, the following analyses were conducted:
Evaluate Construction Activities (MM4.2-1)
Construction air quality impacts were addressed by predicting construction period emissions and
health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors and identifying measures to control emissions.
These projects are near residences, so a health risk assessment was conducted. This involved
emissions modeling using CalEEMod and dispersion modeling using the EPA’s AERMOD
model and hourly meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International Airport and
obtained from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The excess cancer risks, associated
with modeled construction period diesel particulate matter concentrations were computed
following Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) risk management policy
guidance. In addition, non-cancer hazards and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations
were also predicted. This analysis was conducted for each of the three sites and the maximum
impact from the combined construction of all sites was identified.
Operational Emissions (MM4.2-2)
The same CalEEMod model runs to predict construction emissions would be used to predict
operational air pollutant emissions from the proposed project. These emissions would be
35
2
compared against significance thresholds, and if necessary, emissions reduction measures would
be identified.
Exposure to Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (MM4.2-3)
The project sites are located near several sources of toxic air contaminants that include U.S.
Highway 101, the Caltrain rail line, Airport Boulevard, and several stationary sources permitted
by BAAQMD. The following analysis was conducted to address these sources:
• The EMFAC2011 emission factor model and the Cal3qhcr dispersion model along with
hourly meteorological data from San Francisco International Airport and obtained from
BAAQMD was used to model impacts associated with traffic on U.S. Highway 101. The
BAAQMD Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator was used to assess impacts from the
local busy roadways, which are Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue.
• EPA emissions factors for diesel train locomotives and the AERMOD dispersion model
along with hourly meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International
Airport and obtained from the CARB was used to model impacts associated with nearby
train activity.
• The BAAQMD Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool, along with BAAQMD’s
appropriate Distance Multipliers were used to address impacts from nearby stationary
sources affecting any of the sites.
• The maximum single-source and cumulative source health risk impacts were computed at
the location where the maximum impacts occur; otherwise known as the maximum
effected individual or MEI.
Summary of Findings
In response to Mitigation Measure MM4.2-1, a measure to reduce construction exhaust
emissions was developed to ensure localized construction emissions do not lead to significant
health risk impacts. This measure applies only to construction at Parcel C:
No additional project measures were identified to meet Mitigation Measure MM4.2-2 or
Mitigation Measure MM4.2-3.
Implement the following measures to minimize emissions from diesel equipment:
1. All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the site for more
than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2
engines or equivalent and
2. All portable pieces of construction equipment (i.e., air compressors, cement mixers,
concrete/industrial saws, generators, and welders) meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions
standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent.
3. Avoid staging equipment adjacent residences.
36
3
Setting
Air Pollutants
The project is located in San Mateo County that is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay
Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable
particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions
to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of
the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur
in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High
ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and
increase coughing and chest discomfort.
Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is
assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter
of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of
2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of
both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter
levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality
(e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because
they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants. TACs are found
in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel
combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low
concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because
chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State,
and federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-
quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors,
and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a
complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and
formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as
carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants
programs.
CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources
to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Several of these regulatory programs
37
4
affect medium and heavy duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from
California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule,
in-use public and utility fleets, and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008,
CARB approved a new regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from existing
on-road heavy-duty diesel fueled vehicles.1 The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet
specific performance requirements between 2014 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles
required to have 2010 model-year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased
in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle. This assessment
includes the effects of these regulations.
The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. At the
State level, the CARB (a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency [EPA])
oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level. The BAAQMD
has recently published California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines
that are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects.2
Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the
following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the
elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These
groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of
these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care
facilities, elementary schools, and parks. Project residents are considered sensitive receptors as
well as residences near each of the project sites.
1 Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed: November 21, 2014.
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May.
38
5
Significance Thresholds – Health Risks
In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects
under CEQA. These Thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD
believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA
and were posted on BAAQMD’s website and included in the Air District's updated CEQA
Guidelines (updated May 2011). The significance thresholds identified by BAAQMD and used
in this analysis are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs./day)
Annual Average
Emissions
(tons/year)
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 82 15
PM2.5 54 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-
hour average)
Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust Ordinance
or other Best Management
Practices
Not Applicable
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 10 per one million
Chronic or Acute Hazard
Index 1.0 1.0
Incremental annual
average PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.3 µg/m3
Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from all sources within 1,000 foot
zone of influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk 100 per one million
Chronic Hazard Index 10.0
Annual Average PM2.5 0.8 µg/m3
Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with
an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less; and GHG = greenhouse gas.
39
6
Project Assessment
MM4.2-1 Requirement - Project Construction Activity
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which
is a known TAC. These exhaust air pollutant emissions would not be considered to contribute
substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. Construction exhaust emissions may
still pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary
community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and
exposure to PM2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby
receptors. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted that
evaluated potential health effects of sensitive receptors at these nearby residences from
construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5.3 Emissions and dispersion modeling was conducted
to predict the off-site concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer
risks and non-cancer health effects could be evaluated.
Construction Period Emissions
Construction activity is anticipated to include demolition, grading and site preparation, trenching,
building construction, and paving. Construction period emissions were modeled using the
California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2013.2.2 (CalEEMod) with model defaults for
the project types and sizes. The proposed project land uses were input into CalEEMod were as
follows:
Parcel A – 1.04 acres
160 “Dwelling Unit Apartments Mid Rise”
74.07 “1000sqft Unenclosed Parking with Elevator”
Parcel B – 0.20 acres
8.76 “1000 sqft Parking Lot”
Parcel C – 0.40 acres
12 units “Dwelling Unit Apartments Mid Rise”
8.00 “1000 sqft Parking Lot”
Parcel D – 0.52 acre
100 “Dwelling Unit Apartments Mid Rise”
58.42 “1000sqft Unenclosed Parking with Elevator”
Construction of the project is expected to occur over several years beginning in 2016.
Construction period emissions were modeled using CalEEMod along with the anticipated
construction activity for each project. The number and types of construction equipment and
diesel vehicles, along with the anticipated length of their use for different phases of construction,
were based on a site-specific construction schedule provided for each project. The CalEEMod
3 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer.
40
7
modeling included emissions from truck and worker travel. For computation of air pollutants,
the default travel lengths were used in the modeling. For the on-site health risk assessment,
travel was assumed to occur over a distance of 1 mile on or near the site (note that travel away
from the site would not contribute to health risk impacts). Table 2 presents the construction
period air pollutant emissions in total tons and pounds per average day. Construction of the
project would begin in the third quarter of 2016 and last until the 4th quarter of 2019, or about 3
years. Assuming 20 days of construction per month, there would be 720 construction days. The
average emissions per day were computed by dividing total emissions from construction of all
parcels by 720 days. Emissions are below the significance thresholds; therefore, no additional
mitigation measures are required for the project.
Table 2. Project Average Daily Construction Air Pollutant Emissions
Description
ROG
NOx
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust*
Parcel A emissions in tons 1.74 1.30 0.06 0.06
Parcel B emissions in tons 0.09 0.08 0.01 0.01
Parcel C emissions in tons 0.22 0.57 0.03 0.03
Parcel D emissions in tons 1.18 0.76 0.03 0.03
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)** 9.0 7.5 0.4 0.4
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
* Note that PM2.5 exhaust emissions include on-site construction equipment, off-site worker vehicle, vendor and
truck traffic. Offsite traffic activity is not included in the health risk assessment of construction activity.
** Assuming 720 construction workdays
The health risk assessment predicted concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 resulting from
construction. The CalEEMod model provided total annual PM2.5 exhaust emissions (assumed to
be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on-road
vehicles. The on-road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during demolition and grading
activities, worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. As described above, a trip
length of 1 mile was used to represent vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was
assumed that these emissions from on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at
the construction site. Fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were also computed by CalEEMod.
Dispersion Modeling
The EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5
concentrations at existing sensitive receptors (residences) in the vicinity of the project
construction area. The AERMOD dispersion model is a BAAQMD-recommended model for use
in modeling analysis of these types of emission activities for CEQA projects.4 The AERMOD
modeling utilized two area sources for each project to represent the on-site construction
emissions; one for exhaust emissions and one for fugitive dust emissions. To represent the
4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and
Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May.
41
8
construction equipment exhaust emissions, an emission release height of 6 meters (19.7 feet) was
used for the area source that represents exhaust emissions. The elevated source height reflects
the height of the equipment exhaust pipes plus an additional distance for the height of the
exhaust plume above the exhaust pipes to account for plume rise of the exhaust gases. For
modeling fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 2 meters (6.6 feet) was
used for the area source. Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel
were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. Construction emissions were modeled as
occurring daily between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., when the majority of construction activity would occur.
Figure 1 shows the project site and nearby sensitive receptor (residences) locations where health
impacts were evaluated.
The modeling used an hourly meteorological data set from San Francisco International Airport
that was obtained from CARB 5. Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction
activities during the 2016 – 2019 period were computed using the AERMOD model. DPM and
PM2.5 concentrations were predicted at nearby sensitive receptor locations. Receptor heights of
1.5 meters (4.9 feet) and 4.5 meters (14.8 feet) were used to represent the breathing heights of
residents in the first and second floor levels of nearby apartments and residences.
The maximum-modeled DPM and PM2.5 concentrations for each construction site and the
maximum from the combination of all construction sites are identified in Figure 1.
Predicted Cancer Risk and Hazards
Increased cancer risks were calculated using the maximum modeled concentrations and
BAAQMD recommended risk assessment methods for infant exposure (3rd trimester through two
years of age), child exposure, and for an adult exposure. The cancer risk calculations were based
on applying the BAAQMD recommended age sensitivity factors to the TAC concentrations.
Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer
causing TACs. BAAQMD-recommended exposure parameters were used for the cancer risk
calculations.6 Infant, child, and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all residences during
the construction period.
Combined Construction Risk Assessment
In addition to construction of the project, there are other sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions in
the area and some of those are within 1,000 feet of the construction sites. These sources include:
Local Roadway - Airport Boulevard. The BAAQMD Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator
was used to assess impacts from the two local busy roadways, which are Airport Boulevard and
Grand Avenue. The average traffic volume was computed by multiplying the peak-hour traffic
volume by 10. For Airport Boulevard, this was 19,500 vehicles and for Grand Avenue, it was
5 CARB 2015. Processed meteorological data provided by the Air Quality Planning and Science Division processed
and provided in a format specified by AERMOD. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/metfiles2.htm#district
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010, Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening
Analysis Guidelines, January.
42
9
12,130 vehicles 7. The roadway orientation and distance between the MEI receptor and the
roadway were input to the calculator. The calculator provides the maximum excess lifetime
cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration.
U.S. 101 Traffic. The BAAQMD Google Earth Tool - Highway Screening Analysis Tool was
used to predict impacts from the freeway at the construction MEI receptor. The link closest to
the receptor was chosen and the results for the distance and direction most representative were
used.
Caltrain. Emissions and dispersion modeling were conducted to assess the impacts from
Caltrain. The description for this modeling is described later in this report where this source was
assessed for impacts to new project residents.
Stationary Sources. The BAAQMD Google Earth Tool - Stationary Source Screening Analysis
Tool was used to predict impacts from the freeway at the construction MEI receptor. Two
stationary sources were identified within 1,000 feet of the project that pose excess cancer risk
impacts. Both of these sources are gasoline stations. The BAAQMD Gasoline Dispensing
Facility (GDF) Distance Multiplier Tool was used to adjust cancer risk values for the distance
between the source and the MEI.
Table 3 presents results of this health risk assessment for the maximally exposed individual
(MEI) receptor for each construction site and the combination of all construction activities.
Attachment 1 includes the emission calculations (i.e., CalEEMod Output) and source information
used in the modeling and the cancer risk calculations.
The cancer risk calculations assume an infant would be present at each receptor. Since the
cancer risk calculations incorporate age sensitivity factors that are 10 times higher than adults
and a higher breathing rate for infants, the cancer risk for infants is much higher than adults or
children. These are reported as a worst-case condition. Under this scenario, construction of
Parcel C would pose a significant cancer risk, while annual PM2.5 concentrations and non-cancer
hazards would below significance thresholds. Additional project mitigation would be required
for the construction of Parcel C, since the cancer risk from activities at Parcel C cause cancer risk
in excess of 10 chances per million.
7 This is the “Existing Plus Project” traffic volume provided by Fehr & Peers.
43
10
Figure 1. Project Construction Site and Locations of Off-Site Sensitive Receptors
and Maximum Cancer Risks
44
11
Table 3. Combined Construction Source Cancer Risks, PM2.5 Concentrations, and Hazard
Index
Source
Cancer Risk
(per million)
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Acute and
Chronic
Hazard (HI)
Proposed Project Construction MEI Max 21.2 0.17 0.03
Parcel A 6.2 0.05 <0.01
Parcel B 0.7 0.01 <0.01
Parcel C 21.2 0.15 0.03
Parcel D 5.5 0.06 0.01
Local Roadways – Airport Blvd. at 300 ft 1.7 0.04 <0.01
Local Roadways – Grand Ave at 700 ft 0.7 0.02 <0.03
U.S. 101 at 500 ft West <6.4 <0.3 <0.01
CalTrain <0.8 <0.01 <0.01
Stationary Source G11137 at 200 ft 1.1 0.00 <0.01
Stationary Source G9214 at 600 ft 0.5 0.00 <0.01
Total 32.4 0.54 <0.11
BAAQMD Thresholds 100 0.8 10.0
Significant? Yes No No
Note: (1) Source 18401 misplaced on Google Earth Tool and is located beyond 1,000 feet. (2) Source 16678 has
no risk or PM2.5 concentration associated with it. (3) Source 4316 and 14612 are dry cleaners that do not pose long-
term risk and does not generate PM2.5 concentrations. (4) Cancer risk and maximum PM2.5 predicted at Parcel A
which is closer to the MEI than U.S. 101 or Caltrain.
Additional Construction Mitigation for MM4.2-1
Applies to Parcel C
Implement the following measures to minimize emissions from diesel equipment:
1. All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the
site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter
emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent and
2. All portable pieces of construction equipment (i.e., air compressors, cement mixers,
concrete/industrial saws, generators, and welders) meet U.S. EPA particulate matter
emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent.
3. Avoid staging equipment adjacent to residences.
Implementation of these measures would substantially reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions.
The computed maximum excess child cancer risk would be 7.4 per million.
Mitigation Measure MM4.2-2 Operational Air Pollutant Emissions
This mitigation measure requires quantification of operational emissions to demonstrate that
adequate measures have been identified to reduce project air pollutant emissions. The
CalEEMod model that was used to compute operational air pollutant emissions was also used to
45
12
compute operational emissions. The model was run with default inputs for the project land use
and types describe previously for the construction emissions. CalEEMod provided annual
emissions in tons. These were divided by 365 days to compute average daily emissions. Key
inputs to the model for computing operational emissions include the following:
• Year = 2019, the first year that all project components could be fully constructed and
operational;
• Traffic = Default trip rates, trip types and trip lengths;
• Area Sources = Default inputs, except no wood burning was assumed per BAAQMD
regulations
Table 4 reports the annual and average daily emissions associated with operation of the project.
Average daily emissions are well below the significance thresholds, so additional mitigation
measures are not necessary. Attachment 2 includes the CalEEMod operational modeling.
Table 4. Project Average Daily Operational Air Pollutant Emissions
Description
ROG
NOx
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Operational emissions in tons 2.81 1.66 1.52 0.44
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)* 15.4 9.1 8.3 2.4
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
*Assuming 365 days operation per year
Mitigation Measure MM4.2-3 TAC Sources Affecting the Project
Operation of this residential project is not considered a source of TAC or fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) emissions. As a result, the project operation would not cause emissions that expose
sensitive receptors to unhealthy air pollutant levels. Because the project would not be a source
of TACs, it would not contribute cumulatively to unhealthy exposure to TACs.
The project would include new sensitive receptors. Substantial sources of air pollution can
adversely affect sensitive receptors proposed as part of new projects. A review of the area
indicates that there are roadways, diesel-powered trains and stationary sources within 1,000 feet
of the site that could adversely affect new residences and two listed stationary sources of air
pollution. Figure 2 shows the 1,000-foot influence area and the sources within that area. There
are thresholds that address both the impact of single and cumulative TAC sources upon projects
that include new sensitive receptors (see Table 1). The analysis of the stationary source and
local surface streets used screening data provided by BAAQMD to identify the potential cancer
risk and PM2.5 exposure risks, whereas refined modeling techniques were employed to assess the
impacts from U.S. 101 (Bayshore Freeway) and the Caltrain Railroad.
46
13
Figure 2. Air Pollutant Sources Near the Project Sites
Results of this assessment are provided in Table 5. A description of the modeling for each
source is provided below.
Local Roadways
The project is located near two high volume local roadways. The BAAQMD Roadway
Screening Analysis Calculator was used to assess impacts from the two local busy roadways,
which are Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue. The average traffic volume was computed by
multiplying the peak-hour traffic volume by 10. For Airport Boulevard, this was 19,500 vehicles
and for Grand Avenue, it was 12,130 vehicles 8. The roadway orientation and distance between
each Parcel and the roadway were input to the calculator. The calculator provides the maximum
excess lifetime cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration. Note that screening tables published
by BAAQMD indicate that non-cancer hazards from traffic would be well below the BAAQMD
thresholds.
8 This is the “Existing Plus Project” traffic volume provided by Fehr & Peers.
47
14
Table 5. Community Risk Impacts from Single and Cumulative Sources
Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Maximum
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Hazard
Index
Parcel A
Local Roadways – Airport Blvd. at >25ft West 8.0 0.2 <0.04
Local Roadways – Grand Ave at 380 ft West 1.0 0.0 <0.04
U.S. 101 at 125 ft West 6.4 0.3 <0.01
CalTrain 0.8 <0.01 <0.01
Stationary Source G11137 at 575 feet 0.2 0.0 <0.01
Stationary Source G9214 at 575 feet 0.5 0.0 <0.01
Cumulative Total 16.7 0.5 <0.1
Parcel C
Local Roadways – Airport Blvd. at 25ft West 1.2 0.0 <0.04
Local Roadways – Grand Ave at 600 ft West 0.7 0.0 <0.04
U.S. 101 at 600 ft West <4.7 <0.2 <0.01
CalTrain <0.8 <0.1 <0.01
Stationary Source G11137 at 200 ft 1.1 0.00 <0.01
Stationary Source G9214 at 600 ft 0.5 0.00 <0.01
Cumulative Total <9.0 <0.3 <0.1
Parcel D
Local Roadways – Airport Blvd. at 25ft 8.0 0.2 <0.04
Local Roadways – Grand Ave at 150 ft 2.5 0.1 <0.04
U.S. 101 at 175 ft 5.6 0.3 <0.01
CalTrain 0.6 0.0 <0.01
Stationary Source G11137 at 575 feet 0.2 0.00 <0.01
Stationary Source G9214 at 330 feet 1.3 0.00 <0.01
Cumulative Total 18.2 0.6 <0.1
BAAQMD Threshold - Single Source 10.0 0.3 0.05
BAAQMD Threshold – Cumulative Sources 100 0.8 10.0
Significant No No No
Stationary Sources
Two operational stationary sources of TACs were identified within 1,000 feet of the project sites
using the BAAQMD Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool.9 This tool provides screening
levels of cancer risk, PM2.5 and non-cancer risk for the identified sources. Both sources are
gasoline stations. These facilities only result in excess cancer risk impacts due to emissions of
benzene from fueling storage and dispensing. The cancer risk reported in the BAAQMD tool
was adjusted for distance using the BAAQMD Gasoline Dispensing Facility (GDF) Distance
Multiplier Tool. Note that Plant #18401, is not within 1,000 feet of the project sites, even though
it is depicted in the BAAQMD Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool as being in the
influence area. Plant 16678, an auto body shop, does not have any emissions. Plants 14612 and
9 See http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-
Methodology.aspx , accessed December 10, 2014.
48
15
4316 are dry cleaners that are not considered long-term sources of TAC emissions since their use
of perchlorethylene, a TAC used in dry cleaning, is being phased out by regulation.
Refined Highway Community Risk Impacts the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101)
A refined analysis of the impacts of TAC and PM2.5 to new sensitive receptors is necessary to
evaluate potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from U.S. 101 at Parcels A and D, since
screening levels exceed significance thresholds. A review of the traffic information reported by
Caltrans indicates that U.S. 101 traffic includes 222,000 annual average vehicles per day that are
about 4.4 percent trucks, of which 1.7 percent are considered heavy duty trucks and 2.7 percent
are medium duty trucks.10
Traffic Emissions Modeling
Emission factors for DPM (PM2.5 exhaust from diesel vehicles) were developed for the years
2020, 2025, and 2030 using the calculated mix of cars and trucks on U.S. 101 using the CARB
EMFAC2011 vehicle emissions model. Default EMFAC2011 vehicle model fleet age
distributions for San Mateo County were assumed. Average daily traffic volumes truck
percentages were based on Caltrans data for U.S. 101 for 2013.11 Traffic volumes were assumed
to increase 1% per year. Average hourly traffic distributions for San Mateo County roadways
were developed using the EMFAC model,12 which were then applied to the average daily traffic
volumes to obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and emissions for U.S. 101. Emissions of
total organic gases (TOG) were also calculated for 2020, 2025, and 2030 using the
EMFAC2011 model. These TOG emissions were then used in the modeling the organic
TACs. TOG emissions from exhaust and for running evaporative loses from gasoline vehicles
were calculated using EMFAC2011 default model values for San Mateo County along with the
traffic volumes and vehicle mixes for U.S. 101.
For all hours of the day, other than during peak a.m. and p.m. periods, an average speed of 65
mph was assumed for all vehicles other than heavy duty trucks which were assumed to travel at a
speed of 60 mph For 2-hour periods during the peak a.m. and peak p.m. periods, average travel
speeds of 30 mph were used for northbound and southbound traffic.
Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling of DPM and PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the CAL3QHCR model,
which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of analysis. A five-year data set (1991-
1995) of hourly meteorological data from the San Francisco International Airport prepared by
the BAAQMD was used in the modeling. Other inputs to the model included road geometry,
10 California Department of Transportation. 2014. 2013 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State
Highway System
11 Caltrans, 2015. 2014 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System. Available:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/
12 The Burden output from EMFAC2007, CARB’s previous version of the EMFAC model, was used for this since
the current web-based version of EMFAC2011 does not include Burden type output with hour by hour traffic
volume information.
49
16
road elevations, and hourly traffic volumes, emission factors and receptor locations. North and
south bound traffic on U.S. 101within about 1,000 feet of the project site were modeled.
Potential impacts from U.S. 101 to new project residents were evaluated. Since Parcels A and D
are closest to U.S. 101 impacts at these locations were evaluated. The modeling used grids of
receptors spaced every 10 meters (33 feet) within the areas of Parcel A and Parcel D. At Parcel
A there would be some first and second floor residential units adjacent to Cypress Avenue. The
third floor would be the first level with residential units throughout the entire floor. At Parcel D
the first level with residential units would be the third floor. Receptor heights of 1.5 meters (4.9
feet), 4.85 meters (15.9 feet), and 8.5 meters (27.9 feet) were used in modeling to represent
breathing heights of residents on the first, second, and third floor levels. Concentrations at
higher floor levels would be lower than those of the third floor level residential units. Figure 3
shows the roadway links and receptor locations used in the modeling.
Computed Cancer Risk
Using the average DPM and TOG concentrations, the individual residential cancer risks were
computed using methods recommended by BAAQMD.13 The factors used to compute cancer
risk are highly dependent on modeled concentrations, exposure period or duration, and the type
of receptor. The exposure level is determined by the modeled concentration; however, it has to
be averaged over a representative exposure period. The averaging period is dependent on many
factors, but mostly the type of sensitive receptor being evaluated. This assessment
conservatively assumed long-term residential exposures. BAAQMD has developed exposure
assumptions for typical types of sensitive receptors. These include nearly continuous exposures
of 70 years for residences. The cancer risk calculations for 70-year residential exposures reflect
use of BAAQMD’s cancer risk calculation method that uses age sensitivity factors in calculating
cancer risks. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to
cancer causing TACs. The cancer risk calculations applied age sensitivity weighting factors
for each emissions period modeled.
The maximum cancer risks for Parcels A and D are summarized in Table 6. The maximum
increased cancer risk from traffic on U.S. 101 was computed as 6.4 in one million. This was
modeled at a third floor receptor in the eastern portion of Parcel A closest to U.S. 101 and is
shown on Figure 3. Cancer risks from U.S. 101 at all other locations would be lower than the
maximum risk.
Table 6. Highway 101 Maximum Community Risk Levels
Location
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Parcel A
1st\ Floor Residences
2nd Floor Residences
3rd Floor Residences
4.7
4.6
6.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Parcel D
3rd Floor Residences
5.6
0.3
<0.01
BAAQMD Single Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
13 BAAQMD, 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HSRA) Guidelines, January.
50
17
Non-Cancer Health Effects
Potential non-cancer health effects due to chronic exposure to DPM were also evaluated. The
chronic inhalation reference exposure level (REL) for DPM is 5 μg/m3. The maximum predicted
annual DPM concentrations at Parcels A and D from Highway 101 traffic were all less than
0.013 μg/m3. This DPM concentration is much lower than the REL and the resulting HI would
be less than 0.01.
PM2.5 Concentrations from Modeled Roadways
In addition to evaluating the health risks from TACs, potential impacts from PM2.5 emissions for
vehicles traveling on U.S. 101 were evaluated. The same basic modeling approach that was used
for assessing TAC impacts was used in the modeling of PM2.5 concentrations. PM2.5 emissions
from all vehicles were used, rather than just the diesel powered vehicles, because all vehicle
types (i.e., gasoline and diesel powered) produce PM2.5. Additionally, PM2.5 emissions from
vehicle tire and brake wear and entrained road dust were included in these emissions. The
assessment involved, first, calculating PM2.5 emission rates from traffic traveling on U.S. 101.
PM2.5 emissions were calculated using the EMFAC2011 model for the years 2020, 2025, and
2030. Average hourly traffic volumes were calculated in the same manner as discussed earlier
for the TAC modeling. Then, dispersion modeling using emission factors and traffic volumes
was conducted. The dispersion modeling of traffic using the CAL3QHCR model was conducted
in the same manner as the TAC modeling. The model provides estimated annual PM2.5
concentrations.
The maximum annual average PM2.5 concentration from U.S. 101 traffic was 0.3μg/m3,
occurring at the receptor that had the maximum cancer risk from U.S. 101. Maximum PM2.5
concentrations at Parcels A and D are shown in Table 6.
Railroad Community Risk Impacts
Parcel D of the project is located about 450 feet west of the Caltrain rail lines and Parcel A is
about 500 feet from the rail lines. Rail activity on these rail lines includes passenger and freight
train service that generate TAC and PM2.5 emissions from diesel locomotive exhaust. Due to the
proximity of the rail line to the proposed project sites, potential health risks to future residents at
the proposed project from DPM emissions from diesel locomotive engines were evaluated.
Currently all of Caltrain’s trains use diesel locomotives. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification
Project is a key component of the Caltrain Modernization program that would electrify the
Caltrain Corridor from San Francisco to San Jose. Under this program diesel-locomotive hauled
trains would be converted to Electric Multiple Unit or EMU trains by 2020.As part of the
program to modernize operation of the Caltrain rail corridor between San Jose and San
Francisco, Caltrain is planning to switch from diesel locomotives to use of electric trains in the
near future.14 Nearly all of the trains in the future are planned to be electric multiple unit
(EMU) trains, which are self-propelled electric rail vehicles that can accelerate and decelerate at
14 Caltrain, 2014. Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. Final Environmental Impact Report. December 2014.
51
18
faster rates than diesel power trains, even with longer trains. This plan was formally adopted on
January 8, 2015 and electrified service is anticipated to begin in 2020 or 2021 15.
Rail Road Emissions Modeling
Based on the current Caltrain schedule, there are 92 trains passing the project site during the
weekdays, 32 trains during the weekend, and 4 trains that only run on Saturday. Electrification
of Caltrain would eliminate DPM emissions from most of these trains. In addition to the Caltrain
trains, there are about four freight trains that also use this rail line on a daily basis.16 Caltrain
plans are that in 2020 service between San Jose and San Francisco would use a mixed fleet of
EMUs and diesel locomotives, with approximately 75% of the service being electric and 25%
being diesel. In 2020, some peak service trains would be diesel on weekdays. All other service,
including off-peak periods, would be EMU-based. Off-peak periods include early morning,
midday, and after 7:00 p.m. After 2020, diesel locomotives would be replaced with EMUs over
time as they reach the end of their service life. Caltrain’s diesel-powered locomotives would
continue to be used to provide service between the San Jose Diridon Station and Gilroy. It is
expected that 100 percent of the San Jose to San Francisco fleet would be EMUs by 2026 to
2029.17
While most of Caltrain’s trains would be electric in the future, it was assumed that during 2020
through 2024 there would be about 19 daily trips, on an annual average basis, using diesel
locomotives and from 2025 on there would be two annual average daily trips with diesel
locomotives. All trains used for freight service were assumed to use diesel powered
locomotives.
DPM and PM2.5 emissions from trains on the rail line were calculated using EPA emission
factors for locomotives 18 and CARB adjustment factors to account for fuels used in California19.
Caltrain’s current locomotive fleet consists of twenty-three 3,200 horsepower (hp) locomotives
of model year or overhaul date of 1999 or earlier and six 3,600 hp locomotives of model year
2003.20 The current fleet average locomotive engine size is about 3,285 hp. In estimating diesel
locomotive emissions for the case of electrification, the diesel locomotives that would still be
operating were conservatively assumed to be the newer locomotives with the 3,600 hp engines.
Each passenger train was assumed to use one locomotive and would be traveling at an average
speed of 20 mph in the vicinity of the project site. Emissions from the freight trains were
calculated assuming they would use two locomotives with 2,300 hp engines (total of 4,600 hp)
and would be traveling at about 20 mph. Since the exposure duration used in calculating cancer
risks is 70 years (in this case the period from 2020 through 2089), the Caltrain and freight train
average DPM emissions were calculated based on EPA emission factors for the periods 2020-
15See (accessed on Jan. 28, 2015)
http://www.caltrain.com/about/news/Caltrain_Board_Certifies_Final_Environmental_Impact_Report_and_Approves_Peninsula_Corridor_Electri
fication_Project.html
16 Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, Technical Memorandum 4a, Conditions, Configuration & Traffic on Existing
System, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, November 15, 2006.
17 Ibid
18 Emission Factors for Locomotives, USEPA 2009 (EPA-420-F-09-025)
19 Offroad Modeling, Change Technical Memo, Changes to the Locomotive Inventory, CARB July 2006.
20 Caltrain Commute Fleets. Available at: http://www.caltrain.com/about/statsandreports.html. Accessed September 24, 2014.
52
19
2024, and 2025-2040, with the average emissions for 2025-2040 assumed to be representative of
years 2025 through 2089. In order to account for the increased sensitivity to TACs of infants and
children compared to adults, the average emission rates were weighted by age sensitivity factors
recommended by the BAAQMD.21
Railroad Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling of locomotive emissions was conducted using the EPA’s AERMOD
dispersion model and five year (1991-1995) of hourly meteorological data from San Francisco
International Airport prepared for use with the AERMOD model by CARB. Locomotive
emissions from train travel within about 1,000 feet of the project site were modeled as a two line
sources comprised of a series of volume sources along the rail lines. Concentrations were
calculated at the first, second, and third floor levels for the proposed residential areas at Parcel A
and at the third floor level of the proposed residential area at Parcel D. Figure 3 shows the
railroad line segments used for the modeling and receptor locations where concentrations were
calculated. Potential impacts at other project sites would be lower than those at Parcels A and D
since these parcels are closer to the rail lines than the other sites. The maximum modeled long-
term DPM and PM2.5 concentrations occurred at a first floor receptor at Parcel A. The location
where the maximum DPM and PM2.5 concentrations occurred is shown on Figure 3.
Computed Cancer Risk
Maximum excess cancer risks were calculated from the maximum modeled long-term average
DPM concentrations using the same cancer risk procedures that were used for assessing U.S. 101
traffic. For residential exposures, this includes nearly continuous exposures of 70 years and
applies BAAQMD-recommended age sensitivity factors to the cancer risks, accounting for age
sensitivity to TACs. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and children
to cancer-causing TACs. For this evaluation, the age sensitivity factors were incorporated as
weighting factors into the DPM emission rates used for modeling. The maximum cancer risks,
PM2.5 levels modeled, and non-cancer hazard index values at Parcels A and D receptors due to
railroad emissions are summarized in Table 7. Details of the emission calculations, dispersion
modeling and cancer risk calculations are contained in Attachment 5.
Table 7. Railroad Community Risk Levels
Location
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Parcel A
1st\ Floor Residences
2nd Floor Residences
3rd Floor Residences
0.76
0.75
0.60
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Parcel D
3rd Floor Residences
0.64
<0.01
<0.01
BAAQMD Single Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
21 BAAQMD, 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012
53
20
Combined Community Risk Impacts to Project Sensitive Receptors
Table 5 also includes the community risk levels at each project site for the combination of all
sources within the influence area of 1,000 feet. As shown in Table 5, these exposures do not
exceed the cumulative source thresholds of significance.
Attachment 3 includes the screening calculation worksheets used to assess risk and annual PM2.5
from local roadways and stationary sources. Attachment 4 includes the modeling summaries and
cancer risk calculations for U.S. 101 impacts. Attachment 5 includes the modeling summaries
and cancer risk calculations for the railroad (Caltrain line).
54
21
Figure 3. Project Site, On-Site Sensitive Receptors, Roadway and Rail Line Segments
Modeled and Receptors with Maximum Cancer Risk
55
22
Attachment 1: Construction CalEEMod Modeling and Health Risk Analysis
56
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
Demolition - based on provided construction worksheet
Trips and VMT - Added additional demo trips (96) and cement (308)148
Architectural Coating -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 2 mobile, Tier 4 portable and BMPs for fugitive PM2.5
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Off-road Equipment - based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - based on provided construction worksheet - air compressors are electric
Off-road Equipment - based on provided construction worksheet
Grading - based on provided construction worksheet
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - PG&E 2013 Certified Rate
Land Use - Based on construction worksheet and 10-19-15 plans
Construction Phase - Based on provided worksheet. Compressed all work into two years 2016-2017, schedule calls for completion Q1 2018
Off-road Equipment - based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - based on provided construction worksheet
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
429 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
70
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2018
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 74.07 1000sqft 0.00 74,066.00 0
Population
Apartments Mid Rise 160.00 Dwelling Unit 1.04 163,692.00 458
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/30/2015 12:34 PM
SSF Parcel A
San Mateo County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
57
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 4.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Aerial Lifts
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.31 0.31
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.70 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 74,070.00 74,066.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.21 1.04
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 550.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 160,000.00 163,692.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 1.88 1.50
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,000.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 5.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 1.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 100.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 218.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
58
0.0000 74.6143 74.6143 0.0136 0.0000 74.89930.0103 0.0144 0.0246 2.7800e-
003
0.0143 0.017120171.6014 0.4508 0.8226 8.6000e-
004
0.0000 46.7790 46.7790 7.8000e-
003
0.0000 46.94278.9600e-
003
7.1500e-
003
0.0161 2.0300e-
003
7.1100e-
003
9.1400e-
003
2016 0.0397 0.2491 0.5527 5.4000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 121.3934 121.3934 0.0214 0.0000 121.84220.0231 0.0533 0.0764 5.3600e-
003
0.0509 0.0563Total1.7078 0.9507 1.3478 1.4000e-
003
0.0000 74.6144 74.6144 0.0136 0.0000 74.89940.0103 0.0268 0.0371 2.7800e-
003
0.0257 0.028520171.6324 0.5234 0.7936 8.6000e-
004
0.0000 46.7790 46.7790 7.8000e-
003
0.0000 46.94280.0128 0.0265 0.0393 2.5800e-
003
0.0253 0.027820160.0754 0.4274 0.5542 5.4000e-
004
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 153.00 461.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 429
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2018
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 6.00
59
Trips and VMT
Interior construction Aerial Lifts 4 6.00 62 0.31
Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 4.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 2.00 162 0.38
Demolition Excavators 3 162 0.38
Building Construction Welders 2 1.00 46 0.45
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 6.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 6.00 97 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 7.00 255 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 6.00 255 0.40
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 255 0.40
Paving Rollers 2 4.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 4.00 130 0.36
Paving Pavers 0 6.00 125 0.42
Site Preparation Graders 0 8.00 174 0.41
Grading Graders 1 2.00 174 0.41
Building Construction Generator Sets 2 2.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Forklifts 2 2.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 1.00 226 0.29
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 6.00 9 0.56
Load Factor
Interior construction Air Compressors 0 6.00 78 0.48
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power
10
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1.5
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 331,476; Residential Outdoor: 110,492; Non-Residential Indoor: 111,099; Non-Residential Outdoor: 37,033
7 Paving Paving 11/29/2017 12/12/2017 5
218
6 Interior construction Architectural Coating 7/12/2017 11/28/2017 5 100
5 Building Construction Building Construction 9/9/2016 7/11/2017 5
15
4 Utilities Trenching 8/19/2016 9/8/2016 5 15
3 Grading Grading 7/29/2016 8/18/2016 5
15
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/22/2016 7/28/2016 5 5
End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 7/1/2016 7/21/2016 5
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0016.65 59.67 46.70 10.26 57.95 53.40
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
3.91 26.39 -2.04 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 121.3933 121.3933 0.0214 0.0000 121.84210.0192 0.0215 0.0407 4.8100e-
003
0.0214 0.0262Total1.6411 0.6999 1.3753 1.4000e-
003
60
0.0000 4.0324 4.0324 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 4.04066.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
Off-Road 4.7000e-
004
2.0300e-
003
0.0289 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.5500e-
003
0.0000 2.5500e-
003
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 3.9000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.1890 0.1890 0.0000 0.0000 0.18918.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
Total 5.1000e-
004
1.0400e-
003
6.3000e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0636 0.0636 0.0000 0.0000 0.06376.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 1.8000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
8.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.1254 0.1254 0.0000 0.0000 0.12542.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
Hauling 3.3000e-
004
9.7000e-
004
5.4200e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.0324 4.0324 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 4.04065.6600e-
003
2.6000e-
003
8.2600e-
003
8.6000e-
004
2.6000e-
003
3.4600e-
003
Total 4.8500e-
003
0.0347 0.0283 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0324 4.0324 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 4.04062.6000e-
003
2.6000e-
003
2.6000e-
003
2.6000e-
003
Off-Road 4.8500e-
003
0.0347 0.0283 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.6600e-
003
0.0000 5.6600e-
003
8.6000e-
004
0.0000 8.6000e-
004
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Clean Paved Roads
3.2 Demolition - 2016
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Utilities 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Interior construction 4 29.00 0.00 0.00
Paving 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 7 146.00 29.00 0.00
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 461.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 4 10.00 0.00 0.00
Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 52.00 1.00
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
61
0.0000 2.2023 2.2023 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.21629.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Off-Road 1.0900e-
003
0.0226 0.0176 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0212 0.0212 0.0000 0.0000 0.02122.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0212 0.0212 0.0000 0.0000 0.02122.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.2023 2.2023 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.21625.3000e-
004
1.8800e-
003
2.4100e-
003
6.0000e-
005
1.7300e-
003
1.7900e-
003
Total 2.5500e-
003
0.0244 0.0181 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2023 2.2023 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.21621.8800e-
003
1.8800e-
003
1.7300e-
003
1.7300e-
003
Off-Road 2.5500e-
003
0.0244 0.0181 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.3 Site Preparation - 2016
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.1890 0.1890 0.0000 0.0000 0.18918.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
Total 5.1000e-
004
1.0400e-
003
6.3000e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0636 0.0636 0.0000 0.0000 0.06376.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 1.8000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
8.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.1254 0.1254 0.0000 0.0000 0.12542.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
Hauling 3.3000e-
004
9.7000e-
004
5.4200e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.0324 4.0324 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 4.04062.5500e-
003
6.0000e-
005
2.6100e-
003
3.9000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
4.5000e-
004
Total 4.7000e-
004
2.0300e-
003
0.0289 5.0000e-
005
62
0.0000 7.9399 7.9399 2.3900e-
003
0.0000 7.99012.8800e-
003
2.8800e-
003
2.8800e-
003
2.8800e-
003
Off-Road 3.6800e-
003
0.0776 0.0634 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.6000e-
004
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.2069 1.2069 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.20742.8000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
Total 3.1800e-
003
8.7300e-
003
0.0494 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0954 0.0954 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.09568.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.7000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.3200e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.1115 1.1115 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.11182.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.1000e-
004
Hauling 2.9100e-
003
8.6200e-
003
0.0481 1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 7.9399 7.9399 2.3900e-
003
0.0000 7.99028.0000e-
004
6.1400e-
003
6.9400e-
003
9.0000e-
005
5.6500e-
003
5.7400e-
003
Total 9.1200e-
003
0.0911 0.0629 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9399 7.9399 2.3900e-
003
0.0000 7.99026.1400e-
003
6.1400e-
003
5.6500e-
003
5.6500e-
003
Off-Road 9.1200e-
003
0.0911 0.0629 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.0000e-
004
0.0000 8.0000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.4 Grading - 2016
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0212 0.0212 0.0000 0.0000 0.02122.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0212 0.0212 0.0000 0.0000 0.02122.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.2023 2.2023 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.21622.4000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
1.1500e-
003
3.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.4000e-
004
Total 1.0900e-
003
0.0226 0.0176 2.0000e-
005
63
0.0000 2.1933 2.1933 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.20729.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Total 1.0900e-
003
0.0225 0.0175 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1933 2.1933 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.20729.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Off-Road 1.0900e-
003
0.0225 0.0175 2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0318 0.0318 0.0000 0.0000 0.03193.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 9.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0318 0.0318 0.0000 0.0000 0.03193.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 9.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1933 2.1933 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.20721.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.7200e-
003
1.7200e-
003
Total 2.5400e-
003
0.0243 0.0180 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1933 2.1933 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.20721.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.7200e-
003
1.7200e-
003
Off-Road 2.5400e-
003
0.0243 0.0180 2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.5 Utilities - 2016
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.2069 1.2069 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.20742.8000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
Total 3.1800e-
003
8.7300e-
003
0.0494 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0954 0.0954 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.09568.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.7000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.3200e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.1115 1.1115 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.11182.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.1000e-
004
Hauling 2.9100e-
003
8.6200e-
003
0.0481 1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 7.9399 7.9399 2.3900e-
003
0.0000 7.99013.6000e-
004
2.8800e-
003
3.2400e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.8800e-
003
2.9200e-
003
Total 3.6800e-
003
0.0776 0.0634 8.0000e-
005
64
0.0000 18.9593 18.9593 3.2000e-
003
0.0000 19.02661.9400e-
003
1.9400e-
003
1.9400e-
003
1.9400e-
003
Total 3.9400e-
003
0.0704 0.1360 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 18.9593 18.9593 3.2000e-
003
0.0000 19.02661.9400e-
003
1.9400e-
003
1.9400e-
003
1.9400e-
003
Off-Road 3.9400e-
003
0.0704 0.1360 2.2000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 10.0029 10.0029 4.5000e-
004
0.0000 10.01245.4100e-
003
3.8000e-
004
5.8000e-
003
1.4700e-
003
3.5000e-
004
1.8200e-
003
Total 0.0256 0.0442 0.2328 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.0154 5.0154 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 5.02364.3600e-
003
8.0000e-
005
4.4400e-
003
1.1700e-
003
7.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
Worker 0.0145 5.5700e-
003
0.0695 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.9875 4.9875 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.98881.0500e-
003
3.0000e-
004
1.3600e-
003
3.0000e-
004
2.8000e-
004
5.8000e-
004
Vendor 0.0111 0.0386 0.1633 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 18.9593 18.9593 3.2000e-
003
0.0000 19.02660.0136 0.0136 0.0131 0.0131Total0.0269 0.1989 0.1376 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 18.9593 18.9593 3.2000e-
003
0.0000 19.02660.0136 0.0136 0.0131 0.0131Off-Road 0.0269 0.1989 0.1376 2.2000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2016
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0318 0.0318 0.0000 0.0000 0.03193.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 9.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0318 0.0318 0.0000 0.0000 0.03193.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 9.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
65
0.0000 31.9205 31.9205 5.1300e-
003
0.0000 32.02813.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
Total 6.6600e-
003
0.1191 0.2301 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 31.9205 31.9205 5.1300e-
003
0.0000 32.02813.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
Off-Road 6.6600e-
003
0.1191 0.2301 3.7000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 16.4756 16.4756 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 16.49029.1600e-
003
5.7000e-
004
9.7300e-
003
2.4900e-
003
5.3000e-
004
3.0100e-
003
Total 0.0402 0.0689 0.3722 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 8.1698 8.1698 6.0000e-
004
0.0000 8.18237.3800e-
003
1.3000e-
004
7.5100e-
003
1.9800e-
003
1.2000e-
004
2.0900e-
003
Worker 0.0225 8.4400e-
003
0.1058 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 8.3058 8.3058 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 8.30791.7800e-
003
4.4000e-
004
2.2200e-
003
5.1000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
9.2000e-
004
Vendor 0.0177 0.0605 0.2665 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 31.9205 31.9205 5.1300e-
003
0.0000 32.02810.0206 0.0206 0.0199 0.0199Total0.0409 0.3111 0.2284 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 31.9205 31.9205 5.1300e-
003
0.0000 32.02810.0206 0.0206 0.0199 0.0199Off-Road 0.0409 0.3111 0.2284 3.7000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 10.0029 10.0029 4.5000e-
004
0.0000 10.01245.4100e-
003
3.8000e-
004
5.8000e-
003
1.4700e-
003
3.5000e-
004
1.8200e-
003
Total 0.0256 0.0442 0.2328 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.0154 5.0154 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 5.02364.3600e-
003
8.0000e-
005
4.4400e-
003
1.1700e-
003
7.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
Worker 0.0145 5.5700e-
003
0.0695 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.9875 4.9875 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.98881.0500e-
003
3.0000e-
004
1.3600e-
003
3.0000e-
004
2.8000e-
004
5.8000e-
004
Vendor 0.0111 0.0386 0.1633 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
66
0.0000 22.8541 22.8541 7.0000e-
003
0.0000 23.00119.7100e-
003
9.7100e-
003
9.7100e-
003
9.7100e-
003
Off-Road 0.0116 0.2401 0.1870 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.5385
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1845 1.1845 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.18631.0700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
Total 3.2600e-
003
1.2200e-
003
0.0153 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.1845 1.1845 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.18631.0700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
Worker 3.2600e-
003
1.2200e-
003
0.0153 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 22.8541 22.8541 7.0000e-
003
0.0000 23.00114.2200e-
003
4.2200e-
003
3.8800e-
003
3.8800e-
003
Total 1.5457 0.1195 0.1610 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 22.8541 22.8541 7.0000e-
003
0.0000 23.00114.2200e-
003
4.2200e-
003
3.8800e-
003
3.8800e-
003
Off-Road 7.2100e-
003
0.1195 0.1610 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.5385
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.7 Interior construction - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 16.4756 16.4756 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 16.49029.1600e-
003
5.7000e-
004
9.7300e-
003
2.4900e-
003
5.3000e-
004
3.0100e-
003
Total 0.0402 0.0689 0.3722 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 8.1698 8.1698 6.0000e-
004
0.0000 8.18237.3800e-
003
1.3000e-
004
7.5100e-
003
1.9800e-
003
1.2000e-
004
2.0900e-
003
Worker 0.0225 8.4400e-
003
0.1058 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 8.3058 8.3058 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 8.30791.7800e-
003
4.4000e-
004
2.2200e-
003
5.1000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
9.2000e-
004
Vendor 0.0177 0.0605 0.2665 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
67
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000
0.0000 2.1470 2.1470 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.16087.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
Off-Road 1.0100e-
003
0.0213 0.0176 2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0327 0.0327 0.0000 0.0000 0.03273.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 9.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0327 0.0327 0.0000 0.0000 0.03273.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 9.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1470 2.1470 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.16091.4500e-
003
1.4500e-
003
1.3400e-
003
1.3400e-
003
Total 2.2600e-
003
0.0226 0.0163 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000
0.0000 2.1470 2.1470 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.16091.4500e-
003
1.4500e-
003
1.3400e-
003
1.3400e-
003
Off-Road 2.2600e-
003
0.0226 0.0163 2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.8 Paving - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1845 1.1845 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.18631.0700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
Total 3.2600e-
003
1.2200e-
003
0.0153 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.1845 1.1845 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.18631.0700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
Worker 3.2600e-
003
1.2200e-
003
0.0153 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 22.8541 22.8541 7.0000e-
003
0.0000 23.00119.7100e-
003
9.7100e-
003
9.7100e-
003
9.7100e-
003
Total 1.5501 0.2401 0.1870 2.5000e-
004
68
0.0000 0.0327 0.0327 0.0000 0.0000 0.03273.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 9.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0327 0.0327 0.0000 0.0000 0.03273.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 9.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1470 2.1470 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.16087.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
Total 1.0100e-
003
0.0213 0.0176 2.0000e-
005
69
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.41
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.36 0.36
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 162.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 162.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 1.25 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 0.50
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 5.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 4.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 5.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
Grading - Based on provided construction worksheet
Demolition - Based on provided construction worksheet
Trips and VMT - Based on provided construction worksheet - asphalt + cement trips added
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 2 equipment and BMPs for fugitive PM2.5
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Construction only
Land Use - Based on provided construction worksheet
Construction Phase - Based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
429 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
70
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2018
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Population
Parking Lot 8.76 1000sqft 0.20 8,762.00 0
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 11/2/2015 12:46 PM
SSF Parcel B
San Mateo County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
70
4
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/7/2017 7/13/2017 5 5
End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 7/1/2017 7/6/2017 5
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 10.9410 10.9410 1.6900e-
003
0.0000 10.97667.3700e-
003
4.4700e-
003
0.0118 2.0600e-
003
4.1900e-
003
6.2500e-
003
Total 9.0800e-
003
0.0841 0.0751 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 10.9410 10.9410 1.6900e-
003
0.0000 10.97667.3700e-
003
4.4700e-
003
0.0118 2.0600e-
003
4.1900e-
003
6.2500e-
003
2017 9.0800e-
003
0.0841 0.0751 1.2000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 10.9410 10.9410 1.6900e-
003
0.0000 10.97667.3700e-
003
4.4700e-
003
0.0118 2.0600e-
003
4.1900e-
003
6.2500e-
003
Total 9.0800e-
003
0.0841 0.0751 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 10.9410 10.9410 1.6900e-
003
0.0000 10.97667.3700e-
003
4.4700e-
003
0.0118 2.0600e-
003
4.1900e-
003
6.2500e-
003
2017 9.0800e-
003
0.0841 0.0751 1.2000e-
004
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2018
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 52.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 2.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 429
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Graders
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Paving Equipment
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
71
0.0000 0.9687 0.9687 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.97373.4800e-
003
5.1000e-
004
3.9900e-
003
5.3000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
1.0100e-
003
Total 9.5000e-
004
9.4700e-
003
7.8000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.9687 0.9687 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.97375.1000e-
004
5.1000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
Off-Road 9.5000e-
004
9.4700e-
003
7.8000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.4800e-
003
0.0000 3.4800e-
003
5.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Clean Paved Roads
3.2 Demolition - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO
12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 2 5.00 0.00 52.00
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 32.00 12.40
12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 1 3.00 0.00 0.00
Demolition 3 8.00 0.00 32.00 12.40
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 1 2.00 130 0.36
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 255 0.40
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 255 0.40
Paving Rollers 1 2.00 80 0.38
Paving Pavers 0 7.00 125 0.42
Site Preparation Graders 0 8.00 174 0.41
Grading Graders 1 4.00 174 0.41
Grading Excavators 1 4.00 162 0.38
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 2.00 81 0.73
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 6.00 9 0.56
Load Factor
Demolition Excavators 1 4.00 162 0.38
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power
5
4 Paving Paving 7/21/2017 8/3/2017 5 10
3 Grading Grading 7/14/2017 7/20/2017 5
72
0.0000 0.7218 0.7218 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.72652.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
8.4000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
5.3000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
Total 7.9000e-
004
7.6100e-
003
5.9800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7218 0.7218 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.72655.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
Off-Road 7.9000e-
004
7.6100e-
003
5.9800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1711 1.1711 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.17144.1000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
4.7000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
Total 4.4000e-
004
4.4200e-
003
6.2400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1256 0.1256 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.12571.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Worker 5.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
7.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.0455 1.0455 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.04572.7000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
Hauling 3.9000e-
004
4.3400e-
003
5.4800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.9687 0.9687 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.97373.4800e-
003
5.1000e-
004
3.9900e-
003
5.3000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
1.0100e-
003
Total 9.5000e-
004
9.4700e-
003
7.8000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.9687 0.9687 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.97375.1000e-
004
5.1000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
Off-Road 9.5000e-
004
9.4700e-
003
7.8000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.4800e-
003
0.0000 3.4800e-
003
5.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1711 1.1711 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.17144.1000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
4.7000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
Total 4.4000e-
004
4.4200e-
003
6.2400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1256 0.1256 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.12571.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Worker 5.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
7.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.0455 1.0455 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.04572.7000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
Hauling 3.9000e-
004
4.3400e-
003
5.4800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
73
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 4.0224 4.0224 9.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.04211.8800e-
003
2.7400e-
003
4.6200e-
003
1.0300e-
003
2.5800e-
003
3.6100e-
003
Total 4.6500e-
003
0.0433 0.0318 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0224 4.0224 9.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.04212.7400e-
003
2.7400e-
003
2.5800e-
003
2.5800e-
003
Off-Road 4.6500e-
003
0.0433 0.0318 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.8800e-
003
0.0000 1.8800e-
003
1.0300e-
003
0.0000 1.0300e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.4 Grading - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0589 0.0589 0.0000 0.0000 0.05897.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Total 2.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
3.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0589 0.0589 0.0000 0.0000 0.05897.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
3.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.7218 0.7218 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.72652.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
8.4000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
5.3000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
Total 7.9000e-
004
7.6100e-
003
5.9800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7218 0.7218 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.72655.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
Off-Road 7.9000e-
004
7.6100e-
003
5.9800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0589 0.0589 0.0000 0.0000 0.05897.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Total 2.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
3.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0589 0.0589 0.0000 0.0000 0.05897.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
3.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
74
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 0.7631 0.7631 2.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.76804.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
Total 1.0000e-
003
7.5900e-
003
5.6200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.7631 0.7631 2.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.76804.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
Off-Road 7.4000e-
004
7.5900e-
003
5.6200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.5 Paving - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.3399 1.3399 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.34036.1000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
1.6000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
Total 5.1000e-
004
4.5300e-
003
7.2500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2943 0.2943 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.29473.4000e-
004
0.0000 3.4000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
Worker 1.2000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.7700e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.0455 1.0455 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.04572.7000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
Hauling 3.9000e-
004
4.3400e-
003
5.4800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.0224 4.0224 9.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.04211.8800e-
003
2.7400e-
003
4.6200e-
003
1.0300e-
003
2.5800e-
003
3.6100e-
003
Total 4.6500e-
003
0.0433 0.0318 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0224 4.0224 9.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.04212.7400e-
003
2.7400e-
003
2.5800e-
003
2.5800e-
003
Off-Road 4.6500e-
003
0.0433 0.0318 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.8800e-
003
0.0000 1.8800e-
003
1.0300e-
003
0.0000 1.0300e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.3399 1.3399 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.34036.1000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
1.6000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
Total 5.1000e-
004
4.5300e-
003
7.2500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2943 0.2943 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.29473.4000e-
004
0.0000 3.4000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
Worker 1.2000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.7700e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.0455 1.0455 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.04572.7000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
Hauling 3.9000e-
004
4.3400e-
003
5.4800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
75
0.0000 1.8952 1.8952 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.89576.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
7.5000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
2.6000e-
004
Total 7.1000e-
004
7.1800e-
003
0.0101 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1962 0.1962 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.19642.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
Worker 8.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
1.1800e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.6990 1.6990 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.69924.3000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
Hauling 6.3000e-
004
7.0500e-
003
8.9000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.7631 0.7631 2.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.76804.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
Total 1.0000e-
003
7.5900e-
003
5.6200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.7631 0.7631 2.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.76804.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
Off-Road 7.4000e-
004
7.5900e-
003
5.6200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.8952 1.8952 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.89576.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
7.5000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
2.6000e-
004
Total 7.1000e-
004
7.1800e-
003
0.0101 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1962 0.1962 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.19642.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
Worker 8.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
1.1800e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.6990 1.6990 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.69924.3000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
Hauling 6.3000e-
004
7.0500e-
003
8.9000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
76
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
Demolition - Based on provided construction worksheet
Grading - Based on provided construction worksheet
Architectural Coating -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 2 Equipment and BMPs for fugitive dust
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construciton worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construciton worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construciton worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construciton worksheet
Trips and VMT - added cement and asphalt trips. Set trip lengths to 1 mile
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - PG&E 2013 Certified Rate
Land Use - Based on provided construction worksheet and plans
Construction Phase - Based on provided construciton worksheet - compressed schedule
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet - assumed 218 hrs was mistake input
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
70
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2019
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Apartments Mid Rise 12.00 Dwelling Unit 0.40 22,016.00 34
Population
Parking Lot 8.00 1000sqft 0.00 8,000.00 0
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 11/9/2015 12:51 PM
SSF Parcel C
San Mateo County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
77
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 15.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 76.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2019
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 5.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 0.50
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.40
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 12,000.00 22,016.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.18 0.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 322.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 322.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 1.88 1.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 0.50
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/4/2019 6/17/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/20/2019 1/1/2019
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 5.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 120.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 160.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
78
15
4 Utilities Trenching 8/18/2018 9/7/2018 5 15
3 Grading Grading 7/28/2018 8/17/2018 5
15
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/21/2018 7/27/2018 5 5
End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 7/1/2018 7/20/2018 5
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0047.26 66.87 62.51 42.18 65.17 64.04
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
16.42 24.05 -6.46 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 70.5971 70.5971 0.0154 0.0000 70.92144.7200e-
003
0.0102 0.0149 8.5000e-
004
0.0102 0.0111Total0.1817 0.4004 0.5985 8.1000e-
004
0.0000 39.3723 39.3723 9.1900e-
003
0.0000 39.56536.0000e-
004
3.9100e-
003
4.5000e-
003
1.6000e-
004
3.9000e-
003
4.0700e-
003
2019 0.1691 0.2157 0.3304 4.5000e-
004
0.0000 31.2248 31.2248 6.2500e-
003
0.0000 31.35604.1200e-
003
6.3000e-
003
0.0104 6.9000e-
004
6.2900e-
003
6.9800e-
003
2018 0.0126 0.1847 0.2681 3.6000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 70.5971 70.5971 0.0154 0.0000 70.92158.9500e-
003
0.0308 0.0398 1.4700e-
003
0.0293 0.0307Total0.2174 0.5272 0.5622 8.1000e-
004
0.0000 39.3723 39.3723 9.1900e-
003
0.0000 39.56546.0000e-
004
0.0132 0.0138 1.6000e-
004
0.0125 0.012720190.1835 0.2553 0.3033 4.5000e-
004
0.0000 31.2248 31.2248 6.2500e-
003
0.0000 31.35618.3500e-
003
0.0176 0.0260 1.3100e-
003
0.0167 0.018020180.0339 0.2719 0.2589 3.6000e-
004
CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
79
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Paving 2 5.00 0.00 15.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 2 2.00 0.00 0.00
Building Construction 5 12.00 3.00 76.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Utilities 2 5.00 0.00 0.00
Grading 3 8.00 0.00 64.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 1 3.00 0.00 0.00
Demolition 2 5.00 0.00 64.00 1.00
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Rollers 1 1.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 1.00 130 0.36
Paving Pavers 0 7.00 125 0.42
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 6.00 9 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 0 6.00 78 0.48
Architectural Coating Aerial Lifts 2 8.00 62 0.31
Building Construction Welders 1 1.00 46 0.45
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 4.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Forklifts 2 5.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 0.50 226 0.29
Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 3.00 97 0.37
Utilities Excavators 1 3.00 162 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 255 0.40
Grading Graders 1 2.00 174 0.41
Grading Excavators 1 2.00 162 0.38
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 0 8.00 174 0.41
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 255 0.40
Demolition Excavators 1 4.00 162 0.38
Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 2.00 81 0.73
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power
10
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 44,582; Residential Outdoor: 14,861; Non-Residential Indoor: 360; Non-Residential Outdoor: 120 (Architectural
7 Paving Paving 6/18/2019 7/1/2019 5
160
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/1/2019 6/17/2019 5 120
5 Building Construction Building Construction 9/8/2018 4/19/2019 5
80
0.0000 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 0.0000 0.02963.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 8.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.1494 0.1494 0.0000 0.0000 0.14943.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
Hauling 3.6000e-
004
1.0500e-
003
6.2800e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.8205 2.8205 6.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.83393.1100e-
003
5.4000e-
004
3.6500e-
003
4.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
1.0100e-
003
Total 8.9000e-
004
0.0175 0.0223 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.8205 2.8205 6.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.83395.4000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
Off-Road 8.9000e-
004
0.0175 0.0223 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.1100e-
003
0.0000 3.1100e-
003
4.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.7000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.1789 0.1789 0.0000 0.0000 0.17906.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Total 4.4000e-
004
1.0800e-
003
6.6400e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 0.0000 0.02963.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 8.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.1494 0.1494 0.0000 0.0000 0.14943.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
Hauling 3.6000e-
004
1.0500e-
003
6.2800e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.8205 2.8205 6.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.83396.9000e-
003
1.0800e-
003
7.9800e-
003
1.0400e-
003
1.0300e-
003
2.0700e-
003
Total 2.0900e-
003
0.0192 0.0196 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.8205 2.8205 6.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.83391.0800e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.0300e-
003
1.0300e-
003
Off-Road 2.0900e-
003
0.0192 0.0196 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00006.9000e-
003
0.0000 6.9000e-
003
1.0400e-
003
0.0000 1.0400e-
003
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Clean Paved Roads
3.2 Demolition - 2018
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO
81
0.0000 5.9000e-
003
5.9000e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 5.9100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.5320 0.5320 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.53551.2000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
Total 2.7000e-
004
5.6400e-
003
4.3900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5320 0.5320 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.53552.3000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
Off-Road 2.7000e-
004
5.6400e-
003
4.3900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 5.9000e-
003
5.9000e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 5.9100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000 5.9000e-
003
5.9000e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 5.9100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.5320 0.5320 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.53552.7000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
Total 5.0000e-
004
4.9300e-
003
4.3800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5320 0.5320 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.53553.5000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
3.2000e-
004
3.2000e-
004
Off-Road 5.0000e-
004
4.9300e-
003
4.3800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.3 Site Preparation - 2018
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.1789 0.1789 0.0000 0.0000 0.17906.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Total 4.4000e-
004
1.0800e-
003
6.6400e-
003
0.0000
82
0.0000 0.0472 0.0472 0.0000 0.0000 0.04734.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 1.2000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
5.7000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.1494 0.1494 0.0000 0.0000 0.14943.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
Hauling 3.6000e-
004
1.0500e-
003
6.2800e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.5667 3.5667 1.1100e-
003
0.0000 3.59002.4000e-
004
1.2500e-
003
1.4900e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.2500e-
003
1.2800e-
003
Total 1.6500e-
003
0.0352 0.0294 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.5667 3.5667 1.1100e-
003
0.0000 3.59001.2500e-
003
1.2500e-
003
1.2500e-
003
1.2500e-
003
Off-Road 1.6500e-
003
0.0352 0.0294 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 0.0000 0.19677.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Total 4.8000e-
004
1.1000e-
003
6.8500e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0472 0.0472 0.0000 0.0000 0.04734.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 1.2000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
5.7000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.1494 0.1494 0.0000 0.0000 0.14943.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
Hauling 3.6000e-
004
1.0500e-
003
6.2800e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.5667 3.5667 1.1100e-
003
0.0000 3.59015.3000e-
004
2.2100e-
003
2.7400e-
003
6.0000e-
005
2.0400e-
003
2.1000e-
003
Total 3.6100e-
003
0.0363 0.0282 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.5667 3.5667 1.1100e-
003
0.0000 3.59012.2100e-
003
2.2100e-
003
2.0400e-
003
2.0400e-
003
Off-Road 3.6100e-
003
0.0363 0.0282 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.4 Grading - 2018
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 5.9000e-
003
5.9000e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 5.9100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
0.0000
83
0.0000 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 0.0000 0.02963.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 8.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1573 2.1573 6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.17147.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
Total 9.9000e-
004
0.0212 0.0179 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1573 2.1573 6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.17147.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
Off-Road 9.9000e-
004
0.0212 0.0179 2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 0.0000 0.02963.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 8.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 0.0000 0.02963.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 8.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1573 2.1573 6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.17149.6000e-
004
9.6000e-
004
8.8000e-
004
8.8000e-
004
Total 1.5800e-
003
0.0163 0.0160 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1573 2.1573 6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.17149.6000e-
004
9.6000e-
004
8.8000e-
004
8.8000e-
004
Off-Road 1.5800e-
003
0.0163 0.0160 2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.5 Utilities - 2018
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 0.0000 0.19677.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Total 4.8000e-
004
1.1000e-
003
6.8500e-
003
0.0000
84
0.0000 0.3826 0.3826 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.38323.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
Worker 1.0100e-
003
3.7000e-
004
4.6400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4994 0.4994 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.49961.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
Vendor 1.0000e-
003
3.4500e-
003
0.0156 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 0.0000 0.08983.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Hauling 2.2000e-
004
6.3000e-
004
3.7800e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 20.7656 20.7656 3.6100e-
003
0.0000 20.84143.5000e-
003
3.5000e-
003
3.5000e-
003
3.5000e-
003
Total 5.5600e-
003
0.0985 0.1561 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 20.7656 20.7656 3.6100e-
003
0.0000 20.84143.5000e-
003
3.5000e-
003
3.5000e-
003
3.5000e-
003
Off-Road 5.5600e-
003
0.0985 0.1561 2.4000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.9718 0.9718 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.97265.0000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
Total 2.2300e-
003
4.4500e-
003
0.0240 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3826 0.3826 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.38323.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
Worker 1.0100e-
003
3.7000e-
004
4.6400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4994 0.4994 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.49961.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
Vendor 1.0000e-
003
3.4500e-
003
0.0156 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 0.0000 0.08983.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Hauling 2.2000e-
004
6.3000e-
004
3.7800e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 20.7656 20.7656 3.6100e-
003
0.0000 20.84150.0130 0.0130 0.0124 0.0124Total0.0229 0.1884 0.1529 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 20.7656 20.7656 3.6100e-
003
0.0000 20.84150.0130 0.0130 0.0124 0.0124Off-Road 0.0229 0.1884 0.1529 2.4000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2018
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 0.0000 0.02963.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 8.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
0.0000
85
0.0000 0.3600 0.3600 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.36043.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
Worker 9.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
4.1400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4784 0.4784 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.47851.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
Vendor 8.8000e-
004
3.1500e-
003
0.0142 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0859 0.0859 0.0000 0.0000 0.08603.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Hauling 1.9000e-
004
5.8000e-
004
3.4600e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 20.1217 20.1217 3.4000e-
003
0.0000 20.19323.4100e-
003
3.4100e-
003
3.4100e-
003
3.4100e-
003
Total 5.4200e-
003
0.0961 0.1523 2.3000e-
004
0.0000 20.1217 20.1217 3.4000e-
003
0.0000 20.19323.4100e-
003
3.4100e-
003
3.4100e-
003
3.4100e-
003
Off-Road 5.4200e-
003
0.0961 0.1523 2.3000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.9243 0.9243 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.92504.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
Total 2.0000e-
003
4.0600e-
003
0.0218 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3600 0.3600 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.36043.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
Worker 9.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
4.1400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4784 0.4784 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.47851.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
Vendor 8.8000e-
004
3.1500e-
003
0.0142 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0859 0.0859 0.0000 0.0000 0.08603.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Hauling 1.9000e-
004
5.8000e-
004
3.4600e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 20.1218 20.1218 3.4000e-
003
0.0000 20.19320.0110 0.0110 0.0105 0.0105Total0.0198 0.1677 0.1470 2.3000e-
004
0.0000 20.1218 20.1218 3.4000e-
003
0.0000 20.19320.0110 0.0110 0.0105 0.0105Off-Road 0.0198 0.1677 0.1470 2.3000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.9718 0.9718 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.97265.0000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
Total 2.2300e-
003
4.4500e-
003
0.0240 2.0000e-
005
86
0.0000 0.0911 0.0911 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.09139.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Worker 2.3000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 17.8093 17.8093 5.6300e-
003
0.0000 17.92763.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
Total 0.1611 0.1115 0.1505 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 17.8093 17.8093 5.6300e-
003
0.0000 17.92763.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
Off-Road 4.8800e-
003
0.1115 0.1505 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.1562
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0911 0.0911 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.09139.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 2.3000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0911 0.0911 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.09139.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Worker 2.3000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 17.8093 17.8093 5.6300e-
003
0.0000 17.92761.9700e-
003
1.9700e-
003
1.8200e-
003
1.8200e-
003
Total 0.1610 0.0804 0.1291 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 17.8093 17.8093 5.6300e-
003
0.0000 17.92761.9700e-
003
1.9700e-
003
1.8200e-
003
1.8200e-
003
Off-Road 4.8100e-
003
0.0804 0.1291 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.1562
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.9243 0.9243 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.92504.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
Total 2.0000e-
003
4.0600e-
003
0.0218 2.0000e-
005
87
0.0000 0.0190 0.0190 0.0000 0.0000 0.01902.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 5.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0344 0.0344 0.0000 0.0000 0.03441.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling8.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
1.3800e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.3725 0.3725 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.37491.3000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
Total 1.8000e-
004
3.7400e-
003
3.1500e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000
0.0000 0.3725 0.3725 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.37491.3000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
Off-Road 1.8000e-
004
3.7400e-
003
3.1500e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0533 0.0533 0.0000 0.0000 0.05343.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 1.3000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
1.6000e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0190 0.0190 0.0000 0.0000 0.01902.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 5.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0344 0.0344 0.0000 0.0000 0.03441.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling8.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
1.3800e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.3725 0.3725 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.37491.6000e-
004
1.6000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
Total 2.7000e-
004
2.7900e-
003
2.7500e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000
0.0000 0.3725 0.3725 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.37491.6000e-
004
1.6000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
Off-Road 2.7000e-
004
2.7900e-
003
2.7500e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.8 Paving - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0911 0.0911 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.09139.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 2.3000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
0.0000
88
0.0000 0.0533 0.0533 0.0000 0.0000 0.05343.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 1.3000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
1.6000e-
003
0.0000
89
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00
tblConstDustMitigation WaterExposedAreaPM10PercentReduct
ion
55 61
tblConstDustMitigation WaterExposedAreaPM25PercentReduct
ion
55 61
Demolition - Based on provided construction worksheet
Grading - Based on provided construction worksheet
Architectural Coating -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 2 & 4 and BMPs for Fugitive PM2.5
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construciton worksheet
Trips and VMT - Added cement and asphalt trips. Trip length 1 mile for on and near site
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - PG&E's 2013 certified rate. Construction only
Land Use - Based on provided construction worksheet and plans
Construction Phase - Based on provided construction worksheet. Compressed schedule into 2016-2017
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction schedule
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction worksheet
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
429 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
70
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2019
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Apartments Mid Rise 100.00 Dwelling Unit 0.52 105,993.00 286
Population
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 58.42 1000sqft 0.00 58,419.00 0
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 11/9/2015 1:01 PM
SSF Parcel D
San Mateo County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
90
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2019
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 429
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 0.50
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.63 0.52
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 100,000.00 105,993.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.34 0.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 275.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 58,420.00 58,419.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 0.50
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 500.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/18/2016 1/1/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/18/2017 11/2/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/1/2017 11/15/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/2/2017 7/1/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/21/2018 11/17/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/19/2017 11/1/2017
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 3.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 8.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 100.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 218.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
91
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2eExhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 68.1898 68.1898 0.0117 0.0000 68.43430.0155 7.1300e-
003
0.0226 3.6200e-
003
7.0800e-
003
0.0107Total1.1122 0.3473 0.8250 7.9000e-
004
0.0000 56.9852 56.9852 8.7400e-
003
0.0000 57.16870.0106 3.8600e-
003
0.0144 2.8700e-
003
3.8100e-
003
6.6800e-
003
2017 1.1063 0.2546 0.7204 6.7000e-
004
0.0000 11.2046 11.2046 2.9100e-
003
0.0000 11.26574.8800e-
003
3.2700e-
003
8.1500e-
003
7.5000e-
004
3.2700e-
003
4.0200e-
003
2016 5.9600e-
003
0.0927 0.1046 1.2000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 68.1898 68.1898 0.0117 0.0000 68.43440.0227 0.0273 0.0500 4.7000e-
003
0.0260 0.0307Total1.1477 0.5122 0.8072 7.9000e-
004
0.0000 56.9853 56.9853 8.7400e-
003
0.0000 57.16870.0106 0.0199 0.0304 2.8700e-
003
0.0191 0.022020171.1347 0.3984 0.7053 6.7000e-
004
0.0000 11.2046 11.2046 2.9100e-
003
0.0000 11.26570.0122 7.4400e-
003
0.0196 1.8300e-
003
6.9200e-
003
8.7600e-
003
2016 0.0130 0.1138 0.1019 1.2000e-
004
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 12.40 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 154.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
92
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTDemolition513.00 0.00 103.00 1.00
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Rollers 2 2.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 2.00 130 0.36
Paving Pavers 0 7.00 125 0.42
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 6.00 9 0.56
Interior construction Air Compressors 0 6.00 78 0.48
Interior construction Aerial Lifts 4 3.00 62 0.31
Building Construction Welders 2 0.50 46 0.45
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Generator Sets 2 1.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Forklifts 2 1.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 0.50 226 0.29
Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 4.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 255 0.40
Grading Graders 1 2.00 174 0.41
Grading Excavators 2 3.00 162 0.38
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 6.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 0 8.00 174 0.41
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 255 0.40
Demolition Excavators 2 2.00 162 0.38
Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 3 1.00 81 0.73
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power
10
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 214,636; Residential Outdoor: 71,545; Non-Residential Indoor: 87,629; Non-Residential Outdoor: 29,210 (Architectural
7 Paving Paving 11/2/2017 11/15/2017 5
218
6 Interior construction Architectural Coating 7/1/2017 11/17/2017 5 100
5 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2017 11/1/2017 5
8
4 Utilities Trenching 8/6/2016 8/17/2016 5 8
3 Grading Grading 7/27/2016 8/5/2016 5
15
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/22/2016 7/26/2016 5 3
End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 7/1/2016 7/21/2016 5
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0032.03 73.89 54.88 22.98 72.76 65.16Percent
Reduction
3.09 32.19 -2.20 0.00
93
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 3.3830 3.3830 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.39794.3500e-
003
5.4000e-
004
4.8900e-
003
6.6000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
003
Total 9.5000e-
004
0.0177 0.0259 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.3830 3.3830 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.39795.4000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
Off-Road 9.5000e-
004
0.0177 0.0259 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00004.3500e-
003
0.0000 4.3500e-
003
6.6000e-
004
0.0000 6.6000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.3310 0.3310 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.33121.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
Total 8.9000e-
004
2.0200e-
003
0.0119 0.0000
0.0000 0.0827 0.0827 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.08287.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.4000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
1.1500e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.2483 0.2483 0.0000 0.0000 0.24844.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Hauling 6.5000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0107 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.3830 3.3830 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.39790.0112 1.7900e-
003
0.0129 1.6900e-
003
1.7300e-
003
3.4200e-
003
Total 3.2700e-
003
0.0296 0.0235 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.3830 3.3830 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.39791.7900e-
003
1.7900e-
003
1.7300e-
003
1.7300e-
003
Off-Road 3.2700e-
003
0.0296 0.0235 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0112 0.0000 0.0112 1.6900e-
003
0.0000 1.6900e-
003
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Clean Paved Roads
3.2 Demolition - 2016
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Paving 3 8.00 0.00 40.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Interior construction 4 19.00 0.00 0.00
Building Construction 7 97.00 20.00 154.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Utilities 2 5.00 0.00 0.00
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 77.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTSite Preparation 4 10.00 0.00 0.00
94
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 1.3214 1.3214 4.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.32971.0000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
6.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.5000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
Total 6.6000e-
004
0.0135 0.0105 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3214 1.3214 4.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.32975.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
Off-Road 6.6000e-
004
0.0135 0.0105 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 0.0000 0.01271.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 0.0000 0.01271.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.3214 1.3214 4.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.32972.7000e-
004
1.1300e-
003
1.4000e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.0400e-
003
1.0700e-
003
Total 1.5300e-
003
0.0147 0.0109 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3214 1.3214 4.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.32971.1300e-
003
1.1300e-
003
1.0400e-
003
1.0400e-
003
Off-Road 1.5300e-
003
0.0147 0.0109 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.3 Site Preparation - 2016
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.3310 0.3310 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.33121.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
Total 8.9000e-
004
2.0200e-
003
0.0119 0.0000
0.0000 0.0827 0.0827 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.08287.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.4000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
1.1500e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.2483 0.2483 0.0000 0.0000 0.24844.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Hauling 6.5000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0107 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
95
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 4.7285 4.7285 1.4300e-
003
0.0000 4.75842.1000e-
004
1.6700e-
003
1.8800e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.6700e-
003
1.6900e-
003
Total 2.1700e-
003
0.0459 0.0378 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.7285 4.7285 1.4300e-
003
0.0000 4.75841.6700e-
003
1.6700e-
003
1.6700e-
003
1.6700e-
003
Off-Road 2.1700e-
003
0.0459 0.0378 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.2365 0.2365 0.0000 0.0000 0.23677.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
Total 6.4000e-
004
1.5000e-
003
8.7400e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 0.0000 0.05104.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 1.5000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
7.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.1856 0.1856 0.0000 0.0000 0.18573.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Hauling 4.9000e-
004
1.4400e-
003
8.0300e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.7285 4.7285 1.4300e-
003
0.0000 4.75845.3000e-
004
3.4900e-
003
4.0200e-
003
6.0000e-
005
3.2100e-
003
3.2700e-
003
Total 5.2500e-
003
0.0530 0.0369 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.7285 4.7285 1.4300e-
003
0.0000 4.75843.4900e-
003
3.4900e-
003
3.2100e-
003
3.2100e-
003
Off-Road 5.2500e-
003
0.0530 0.0369 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.4 Grading - 2016
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 0.0000 0.01271.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 0.0000 0.01271.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
96
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 1.1745 1.1745 3.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.18204.9000e-
004
4.9000e-
004
4.9000e-
004
4.9000e-
004
Total 5.8000e-
004
0.0120 9.3700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.1745 1.1745 3.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.18204.9000e-
004
4.9000e-
004
4.9000e-
004
4.9000e-
004
Off-Road 5.8000e-
004
0.0120 9.3700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 0.0000 0.01701.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total5.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 0.0000 0.01701.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker5.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1745 1.1745 3.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.18201.0000e-
003
1.0000e-
003
9.2000e-
004
9.2000e-
004
Total 1.3600e-
003
0.0130 9.6500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.1745 1.1745 3.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.18201.0000e-
003
1.0000e-
003
9.2000e-
004
9.2000e-
004
Off-Road 1.3600e-
003
0.0130 9.6500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.5 Utilities - 2016
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.2365 0.2365 0.0000 0.0000 0.23677.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
Total 6.4000e-
004
1.5000e-
003
8.7400e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 0.0000 0.05104.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 1.5000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
7.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.1856 0.1856 0.0000 0.0000 0.18573.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Hauling 4.9000e-
004
1.4400e-
003
8.0300e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
97
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 25.3966 25.3966 4.0800e-
003
0.0000 25.48222.6100e-
003
2.6100e-
003
2.6100e-
003
2.6100e-
003
Total 5.3000e-
003
0.0948 0.1831 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 25.3966 25.3966 4.0800e-
003
0.0000 25.48222.6100e-
003
2.6100e-
003
2.6100e-
003
2.6100e-
003
Off-Road 5.3000e-
003
0.0948 0.1831 2.9000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 18.1177 18.1177 7.5000e-
004
0.0000 18.13339.8200e-
003
6.4000e-
004
0.0105 2.6700e-
003
5.8000e-
004
3.2500e-
003
Total 0.0442 0.0780 0.4199 2.3000e-
004
0.0000 8.6370 8.6370 6.3000e-
004
0.0000 8.65037.8000e-
003
1.3000e-
004
7.9400e-
003
2.0900e-
003
1.2000e-
004
2.2100e-
003
Worker 0.0238 8.9200e-
003
0.1118 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 9.1149 9.1149 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 9.11721.9500e-
003
4.9000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
5.6000e-
004
4.5000e-
004
1.0100e-
003
Vendor 0.0195 0.0664 0.2924 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.3657 0.3657 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.36587.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
Hauling 9.4000e-
004
2.6900e-
003
0.0157 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 25.3966 25.3966 4.0800e-
003
0.0000 25.48220.0164 0.0164 0.0159 0.0159Total0.0325 0.2475 0.1817 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 25.3966 25.3966 4.0800e-
003
0.0000 25.48220.0164 0.0164 0.0159 0.0159Off-Road 0.0325 0.2475 0.1817 2.9000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 0.0000 0.01701.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total5.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 0.0000 0.01701.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker5.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
98
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 11.4938 11.4938 3.5200e-
003
0.0000 11.56772.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
Total 1.0538 0.0697 0.0941 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 11.4938 11.4938 3.5200e-
003
0.0000 11.56772.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
Off-Road 3.0500e-
003
0.0697 0.0941 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.0508
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.7761 0.7761 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.77727.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.1000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
Total 2.1400e-
003
8.0000e-
004
0.0101 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7761 0.7761 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.77727.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.1000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
Worker 2.1400e-
003
8.0000e-
004
0.0101 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 11.4938 11.4938 3.5200e-
003
0.0000 11.56772.1200e-
003
2.1200e-
003
1.9500e-
003
1.9500e-
003
Total 1.0544 0.0601 0.0810 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 11.4938 11.4938 3.5200e-
003
0.0000 11.56772.1200e-
003
2.1200e-
003
1.9500e-
003
1.9500e-
003
Off-Road 3.6300e-
003
0.0601 0.0810 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.0508
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.7 Interior construction - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 18.1177 18.1177 7.5000e-
004
0.0000 18.13339.8200e-
003
6.4000e-
004
0.0105 2.6700e-
003
5.8000e-
004
3.2500e-
003
Total 0.0442 0.0780 0.4199 2.3000e-
004
0.0000 8.6370 8.6370 6.3000e-
004
0.0000 8.65037.8000e-
003
1.3000e-
004
7.9400e-
003
2.0900e-
003
1.2000e-
004
2.2100e-
003
Worker 0.0238 8.9200e-
003
0.1118 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 9.1149 9.1149 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 9.11721.9500e-
003
4.9000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
5.6000e-
004
4.5000e-
004
1.0100e-
003
Vendor 0.0195 0.0664 0.2924 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.3657 0.3657 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.36587.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
Hauling 9.4000e-
004
2.6900e-
003
0.0157 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
99
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 1.0735 1.0735 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.08043.9000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
Total 5.0000e-
004
0.0107 8.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000
0.0000 1.0735 1.0735 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.08043.9000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
Off-Road 5.0000e-
004
0.0107 8.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.1277 0.1277 0.0000 0.0000 0.12785.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Total 3.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0327 0.0327 0.0000 0.0000 0.03273.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 9.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0950 0.0950 0.0000 0.0000 0.09502.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Hauling 2.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
4.0800e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.0735 1.0735 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.08047.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
6.7000e-
004
6.7000e-
004
Total 1.1300e-
003
0.0113 8.1500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000
0.0000 1.0735 1.0735 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.08047.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
6.7000e-
004
6.7000e-
004
Off-Road 1.1300e-
003
0.0113 8.1500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.8 Paving - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.7761 0.7761 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.77727.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.1000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
Total 2.1400e-
003
8.0000e-
004
0.0101 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7761 0.7761 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.77727.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.1000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
Worker 2.1400e-
003
8.0000e-
004
0.0101 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
100
0.0000 0.1277 0.1277 0.0000 0.0000 0.12785.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Total 3.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0327 0.0327 0.0000 0.0000 0.03273.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 9.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0950 0.0950 0.0000 0.0000 0.09502.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Hauling 2.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
4.0800e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
101
Project Name: Miller Cypress SSF - Parcel A
See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor
Project Size 163,692 s.f. residential 1.04 total project acres disturbed
0 s.f. retail
0 s.f. office/commerical
0 s.f. other, specify:
74,066 s.f. parking garage
Construction Hours 7:30 am to 3:30 pm
Qty Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.
Hours per
day
Annual
Hours Comments
Demolition Start Date:Q3 2016 Total work days:15 Overall Import/Export Volumes
End Date:Q3 2016
3 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 2 7 0.9333333 42 Demolition Volume
2 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 6 2.4 72 Square footage of buildings to be demolished
0 Rubber-Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0 (or total tons to be hauled)
Other Equipment?_11,500_ square feet or_?_ Hauling volume (tons)
Site Preperation Start Date:Q4 2016 Total work days:5 Any pavement demolished and hauled? _1,210_ tons
End Date:Q4 2016
0 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0
4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 6 5 6 120
Other Equipment?
Grading / Excavation Start Date:Q4 2016 Total work days:15
End Date:Q4 2016 Soil Hauling Volume
2 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 5 2 60 Export volume = 1,000 cubic yards?
1 Graders 174 0.4087 4 5 1.3333333 20 Import volume = 550 cubic yards?
0 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0
3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 6 15
Other Equipment?
Trenching Start Date:Q1 2017 Total work days:15
End Date:Q1 2017
2 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.3685 4 15 4 120
0 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 0 0
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date:Q1 2017 Total work days:218 Cement Trucks? _154_ Total Round-Trips
End Date:Q4 2017
1 Cranes 226 0.2881 6 10 6 60 Electric? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise assumed diesel
2 Forklifts 89 0.201 4 100 40 800 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise Assumed diesel
2 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 45 36 720 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) _Y__
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 0 0 0 0
2 Welders 46 0.45 4 5 2 40
Other Equipment?
Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date:Q3 2017 Total work days:100
End Date:Q1 2018
0 Air Compressors (ALL ELECTRIC)78 0.48 0 0
4 Aerial Lift 62 0.3 6 100 6 2400
Other Equipment?
Paving Start Date:Q1 2018 Total work days:10
Start Date:Q1 2018
0 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 0 0 0 0
0 Pavers 125 0.4154 0 0 0 0
1 Paving Equipment 130 0.3551 10 4 4 40
2 Rollers 80 0.3752 10 4 4 80
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 0 0 0 0
Other Equipment?
Asphalt? ___ cubic yards or ____ round trips?
Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
102
Project Name: Miller Cypress SSF - Parcel B
See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor
Project Size 0 s.f. residential 0.2 total project acres disturbed
0 s.f. retail
0 s.f. office/commerical
8,762 s.f. other, specify: Surface parking with landscape edge
0 s.f. parking garage
Construction Hours 7:30 am to 3:30 pm
Qty Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.
Hours per
day
Annual
Hours Comments
Demolition Start Date:Q3 2017 Total work days:4 Overall Import/Export Volumes
End Date:Q3 2017
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 2 4 2 8 Demolition Volume
1 Excavators 162 0.3819 4 4 4 16 Square footage of buildings to be demolished
0 Rubber-Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0 (or total tons to be hauled)
Other Equipment?_0_ square feet or_?_ Hauling volume (tons)
Site Preperation Start Date:Q3 2017 Total work days:5 Any pavement demolished and hauled? _325_ tons
End Date:Q3 2017
N/A Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 N/A N/A #VALUE!#VALUE!
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 8 3 4.8 24
Other Equipment?
Grading / Excavation Start Date:Q3 2017 Total work days:5
End Date:Q3 2017 Soil Hauling Volume
1 Excavators 162 0.3819 4 3 2.4 12 Export volume = 162 cubic yards?
1 Graders 174 0.4087 4 2 1.6 8 Import volume = 162 cubic yards?
0 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 6 7
Other Equipment?
Trenching Start Date:Total work days:0
End Date:
0 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.3685 0 0 #DIV/0!0
0 Excavators 162 0.3819 0 0 #DIV/0!
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date:Total work days:0 Cement Trucks? _20_ Total Round-Trips
End Date:
0 Cranes 226 0.2881 0 0 #DIV/0!0 Electric? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise assumed diesel
0 Forklifts 89 0.201 0 0 #DIV/0!0 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise Assumed diesel
0 Generator Sets 84 0.74 0 0 #DIV/0!0 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) _N__
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 0 0 #DIV/0!0
0 Welders 46 0.45 0 0 #DIV/0!0
Other Equipment?
Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date:Total work days:0
End Date:
0 Air Compressors (ALL ELECTRIC)78 0.48 0 0 #DIV/0!0
0 Aerial Lift 62 0.3 0 0 #DIV/0!0
Other Equipment?
Paving Start Date:Q4 2017 Total work days:10
Start Date:Q4 2017
0 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 0 0 0 0
0 Pavers 125 0.4154 0 0 0 0
1 Paving Equipment 130 0.3551 10 1 1 10
1 Rollers 80 0.3752 10 1 1 10
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 0 0 0 0
Other Equipment?
Asphalt? _162__ cubic yards or ____ round trips?
Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
103
Project Name: Miller Cypress SSF - Parcel C
See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor
Project Size 22,016 s.f. residential 0.4 total project acres disturbed
0 s.f. retail
0 s.f. office/commerical
8,000 s.f. other, specify: Half surface parking & half landscape/hardscape
0 s.f. parking garage
Construction Hours 7:30 am to 3:30 pm
Qty Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.
Hours per
day
Annual
Hours Comments
Demolition Start Date:Q3 2018 Total work days:15 Overall Import/Export Volumes
End Date:Q3 2018
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 2 4 0.5 8 Demolition Volume
1 Excavators 162 0.3819 4 4 1.1 16 Square footage of buildings to be demolished
0 Rubber-Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0.0 0 (or total tons to be hauled)
Other Equipment?_0_ square feet or_?_ Hauling volume (tons)
Site Preperation Start Date:Q4 2018 Total work days:5 Any pavement demolished and hauled? _645_ tons
End Date:Q4 2018
0 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0.0 0
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 6 5 6.0 30
Other Equipment?
Grading / Excavation Start Date:Q4 2018 Total work days:15
End Date:Q4 2018 Soil Hauling Volume
1 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 3 1.2 18 Export volume = 322 cubic yards?
1 Graders 174 0.4087 10 3 2.0 30 Import volume = 322 cubic yards?
0 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0.0 0
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 6 15
Other Equipment?
Trenching Start Date:Q1 2019 Total work days:15
End Date:Q1 2019
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.3685 4 8 2.1 32
1 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 8 3.2
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date:Q1 2019 Total work days:160 Cement Trucks? _38_ Total Round-Trips
End Date:Q3 2019
1 Cranes 226 0.2881 6 10 0.4 60 Electric? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise assumed diesel
2 Forklifts 89 0.201 6 120 4.5 1440 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise Assumed diesel
1 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 65 3.3 520 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) _Y__
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 0 0 0.0 0
1 Welders 46 0.45 4 3 0.1 12
Other Equipment?
Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date:Q2 2019 Total work days:120
End Date:Q4 2019
0 Air Compressors (ALL ELECTRIC)78 0.48 0 0 0.0 0
2 Aerial Lift 62 0.3 6 218 10.9 2616
Other Equipment?
Paving Start Date:Q3 2019 Total work days:10
Start Date:Q3 2019
0 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 0 0 0.0 0
0 Pavers 125 0.4154 0 0 0.0 0
1 Paving Equipment 130 0.3551 10 1 1.0 10
1 Rollers 80 0.3752 10 1 1.0 10
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 0 0 0.0 0
Other Equipment?
Asphalt? _74__ cubic yards or ____ round trips?
Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
104
Project Name: Miller Cypress SSF - Parcel D+
See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor
Project Size 105,993 s.f. residential 0.52 total project acres disturbed
0 s.f. retail
0 s.f. office/commerical
s.f. other, specify:
58,419 s.f. parking garage
Construction Hours 7:30 am to 3:30 pm
Qty Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.
Hours per
day
Annual
Hours Comments
Demolition Start Date:Q3 2016 Total work days:15 Overall Import/Export Volumes
End Date:Q3 2016
3 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 2 5 0.6666667 30 Demolition Volume
2 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 4 1.6 48 Square footage of buildings to be demolished
0 Rubber-Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0 (or total tons to be hauled)
Other Equipment?_22,650_ square feet or_?_ Hauling volume (tons)
Site Preperation Start Date:Q4 2016 Total work days:3 Any pavement demolished and hauled? _0_ tons
End Date:Q4 2016
0 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0
4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 6 3 6 72
Other Equipment?
Grading / Excavation Start Date:Q4 2016 Total work days:8
End Date:Q4 2016 Soil Hauling Volume
2 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 3 2.25 36 Export volume = 500 cubic yards?
1 Graders 174 0.4087 4 3 1.5 12 Import volume = 275 cubic yards?
0 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0
3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 6 8 6
Other Equipment?
Trenching Start Date:Q1 2017 Total work days:8
End Date:Q1 2017
2 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.3685 4 8 4 64
0 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 0 0
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date:Q1 2017 Total work days:218 Cement Trucks? _77_ Total Round-Trips
End Date:Q4 2017
1 Cranes 226 0.2881 6 5 0.1 30 Electric? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise assumed diesel
2 Forklifts 89 0.201 4 50 0.9 400 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise Assumed diesel
2 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 22 0.8 352 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) _Y__
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 0 0 0.0 0
2 Welders 46 0.45 4 3 0.1 24
Other Equipment?
Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date:Q3 2017 Total work days:100
End Date:Q1 2018
0 Air Compressors (ALL ELECTRIC)78 0.48 0 0
4 Aerial Lift 62 0.3 6 50 3 1200
Other Equipment?
Paving Start Date:Q1 2018 Total work days:10
Start Date:Q1 2018 58.419
0 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 0 0 0 0
0 Pavers 125 0.4154 0 0 0 0
1 Paving Equipment 130 0.3551 10 2 2 20
2 Rollers 80 0.3752 10 2 2 40
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 0 0 0 0
Other Equipment?
Asphalt? ___ cubic yards or ____ round trips?
Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
105
Miller Ave - Parcels A - D, South San Francisco, CA - Without Mitigation
DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates
DPM
ModeledEmission
ConstructionDPMAreaDPM EmissionsAreaRate
DescriptionYearArea(ton/year)Source(lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)(g/s/m2)
Parcel A2016Parcel A0.0253DPM_A50.60.015401.94E-034,2304.59E-07
Parcel D2016Parcel D0.00693DPM_D13.90.004225.32E-042,7501.93E-07
Total0.032264.50.019622.47E-036,980
Parcel A2017Parcel A0.0257DPM_A51.40.015651.97E-034,4724.41E-07
Parcel B2017Parcel B0.0042DPM_B8.40.002553.21E-048053.99E-07
Parcel D2017Parcel D0.0191DPM_D38.20.011631.47E-032,7505.33E-07
Total0.049098.00.029833.76E-038,026
Parcel C2018Parcel C0.0167DPM_C33.40.010171.28E-031,5938.04E-07
Total0.016733.40.010171.28E-031,593
Parcel C2019Parcel C0.0125DPM_C25.00.007619.59E-041,5936.02E-07
Total0.012525.00.007619.59E-041,593
hr/day =9(7am - 4pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3285
Miller Ave - Parcels A - D, South San Francisco, CA - Without Mitigation
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Construction Emissions for Modeling
DPM
ModeledEmission
ConstructionAreaPM2.5 EmissionsAreaRate
DescriptionYearAreaSource(ton/year)(lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)g/s/m2
Parcel A2016Parcel AFUG_A0.002585.20.001571.98E-044,2304.68E-08
Parcel D2016Parcel DFUG_D0.001833.70.001111.40E-042,7505.10E-08
Total0.00448.80.002683.38E-046,980
Parcel A2017Parcel AFUG_A0.002785.560.001692.13E-044,4724.77E-08
Parcel B2017Parcel BFUG_B0.00214.120.001251.58E-048051.96E-07
Parcel D2017Parcel DFUG_D0.00295.740.001752.20E-042,7508.01E-08
Total0.007715.40.004695.91E-048,026
Parcel C2018Parcel CFUG_C0.001312.60.000801.00E-041,5936.31E-08
Total0.00132.60.000801.00E-041,593
Parcel C2019Parcel CFUG_C0.000160.30.000101.23E-051,5937.70E-09
Total0.000160.30.000101.23E-051,593
hr/day =9(7am - 4pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3285
106
Miller Ave - Parcels A - D, South San Francisco, CA - With Mitigation
DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates
DPM
ModeledEmission
ConstructionDPMAreaDPM EmissionsAreaRate
DescriptionYearArea(ton/year)Source(lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)(g/s/m2)
Parcel A2016Parcel A0.00711DPM_A14.20.004335.45E-044,2301.29E-07
Parcel D2016Parcel D0.00327DPM_D6.50.001992.51E-042,7509.12E-08
Total0.010420.80.006327.96E-046,980
Parcel A2017Parcel A0.01430DPM_A28.60.008711.10E-034,4722.45E-07
Parcel B2017Parcel B0.0042DPM_B8.40.002553.21E-048053.99E-07
Parcel D2017Parcel D0.0038DPM_D7.60.002322.92E-042,7501.06E-07
Total0.022344.60.013581.71E-038,026
Parcel C2018Parcel C0.00629DPM_C12.60.003834.83E-041,5933.03E-07
Total0.006312.60.003834.83E-041,593
Parcel C2019Parcel C0.0039DPM_C7.80.002372.99E-041,5931.88E-07
Total 0.0039 7.80.002372.99E-041,593
hr/day =9(7am - 4pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3285
Miller Ave - Parcels A - D, South San Francisco, CA - With Mitigation
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Construction Emissions for Modeling
DPM
ModeledEmission
ConstructionAreaPM2.5 EmissionsAreaRate
DescriptionYearAreaSource(ton/year)(lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)g/s/m2
Parcel A2016Parcel AFUG_A0.002034.10.001241.56E-044,2303.68E-08
Parcel D2016Parcel DFUG_D0.000751.50.000465.75E-052,7502.09E-08
Total0.00285.60.001692.13E-046,980
Parcel A2017Parcel AFUG_A0.002785.560.001692.13E-044,4724.77E-08
Parcel B2017Parcel BFUG_B0.00214.120.001251.58E-048051.96E-07
Parcel D2017Parcel DFUG_D0.00295.740.001752.20E-042,7508.01E-08
Total0.007715.40.004695.91E-048,026
Parcel C2018Parcel CFUG_C0.000691.40.000425.29E-051,5933.32E-08
Total0.00071.40.000425.29E-051,593
Parcel C2019Parcel CFUG_C0.000160.30.000101.23E-051,5937.70E-09
Total0.000160.30.000101.23E-051,593
hr/day =9(7am - 4pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3285
107
Miller Ave - Parcels A - D, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Health Impacts Summary
Maximum Impacts at Off-Site Residential Receptors- Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum ConcentrationsIncreased Maximum
ExhaustFugitiveCancer RiskHazardAnnual PM2.5
ConstructionPM2.5/DPMPM2.5(per million)IndexConcentration
Area (μg/m3)(μg/m3)ChildAdult(-)(μg/m3)
Parcel A1 0.04340.00606.20.30.0090.05
Parcel B2 0.00810.00500.70.00.0020.01
Parcel C1 0.13860.0142 21.2 1.10.0280.15
Parcel D1 0.05060.01075.50.30.0100.06
Parcels A-D0.14330.0283 21.2 1.30.0290.17
Maximum Impacts at Off-Site Residential Receptors - Mitigated Emissions
Maximum ConcentrationsIncreased Maximum
ExhaustFugitiveCancer RiskHazardAnnual PM2.5
ConstructionPM2.5/DPMPM2.5(per million)IndexConcentration
Area (μg/m3)(μg/m3)ChildAdult(-)(μg/m3)
Parcel C1 0.05220.0075 7.4 0.40.0100.060
1 Maximum impacts occur at the 2nd floor level
2 Maximum impacts occur at the 1st floor level
1 Maximum impacts occur at the 2nd floor level
108
Miller Ave - Parcel A, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Construction of Parcel A
Off-Site Residential Receptor Locations - 1.5 meters
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
ParameterChildAdult
CPF =1.10E+001.10E+00
DBR =581302
A =11
EF =350350
AT =25,55025,550
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
ExposureChild - Exposure InformationChildAdult - Exposure InformationAdult
ExposureExposureCancerModeledExposureCancerUnmitigated
Exposure DurationDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskFugitiveTotal
Year(years)YearAnnualFactor(per million)YearAnnualFactor(per million)PM2.5PM2.5
1120160.0314102.7520160.0313910.140.004980.036
2120170.0302102.6420170.0301610.140.005070.035
310.00004.750.000.000010.00
410.000030.000.000010.00
510.000030.000.000010.00
610.000030.000.000010.00
710.000030.000.000010.00
810.000030.000.000010.00
910.000030.000.000010.00
1010.000030.000.000010.00
1110.000030.000.000010.00
1210.000030.000.000010.00
1310.000030.000.000010.00
1410.000030.000.000010.00
1510.000030.000.000010.00
1610.000030.000.000010.00
1710.00001.50.000.000010.00
1810.000010.000.000010.00
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
6510.000010.000.000010.00
6610.000010.000.000010.00
6710.000010.000.000010.00
6810.000010.000.000010.00
6910.000010.000.000010.00
7010.000010.000.000010.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk5.40.3
109
Miller Ave - Parcel A, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Construction of Parcel A
Off-Site Residential Receptor Locations - 4.5 meters
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
ParameterChildAdult
CPF =1.10E+001.10E+00
DBR =581302
A =11
EF =350350
AT =25,55025,550
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
ExposureChild - Exposure InformationChildAdult - Exposure InformationAdult
ExposureExposureCancerModeledExposureCancerUnmitigated
Exposure DurationDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskFugitiveTotal
Year(years)YearAnnualFactor(per million)YearAnnualFactor(per million)PM2.5PM2.5
1120160.0434103.8020160.0433910.200.005960.049
2120170.0274102.4020170.0273810.120.004410.032
310.00004.750.000.000010.00
410.000030.000.000010.00
510.000030.000.000010.00
610.000030.000.000010.00
710.000030.000.000010.00
810.000030.000.000010.00
910.000030.000.000010.00
1010.000030.000.000010.00
1110.000030.000.000010.00
1210.000030.000.000010.00
1310.000030.000.000010.00
1410.000030.000.000010.00
1510.000030.000.000010.00
1610.000030.000.000010.00
1710.00001.50.000.000010.00
1810.000010.000.000010.00
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
6510.000010.000.000010.00
6610.000010.000.000010.00
6710.000010.000.000010.00
6810.000010.000.000010.00
6910.000010.000.000010.00
7010.000010.000.000010.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk6.20.3
110
Miller Ave - Parcel B, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Construction of Parcel B
Off-Site Residential Receptor Locations - 1.5 meters
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
ParameterChildAdult
CPF =1.10E+001.10E+00
DBR =581302
A =11
EF =350350
AT =25,55025,550
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
ExposureChild - Exposure InformationChildAdult - Exposure InformationAdult
ExposureExposureCancerModeledExposureCancerUnmitigated
Exposure DurationDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskFugitiveTotal
Year(years)YearAnnualFactor(per million)YearAnnualFactor(per million)PM2.5PM2.5
1 120170.0081100.7020170.008051 0.04 0.004990.013
2 1 0.0000100.00 0.00001 0.00
3 1 0.00004.750.00 0.00001 0.00
4 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
5 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
6 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
7 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
8 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
9 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
10 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
11 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
12 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
13 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
14 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
15 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
16 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
17 1 0.00001.50.00 0.00001 0.00
59 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
64 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
65 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
66 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
67 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
68 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
69 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
70 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.71 0.04
111
Miller Ave - Parcel B, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Construction of Parcel B
Off-Site Residential Receptor Locations - 4.5 meters
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
ParameterChildAdult
CPF =1.10E+001.10E+00
DBR =581302
A =11
EF =350350
AT =25,55025,550
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
ExposureChild - Exposure InformationChildAdult - Exposure InformationAdult
ExposureExposureCancerModeledExposureCancerUnmitigated
Exposure DurationDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskFugitiveTotal
Year(years)YearAnnualFactor(per million)YearAnnualFactor(per million)PM2.5PM2.5
1 120170.0068100.6020170.006841 0.03 0.004570.011
2 1 0.0000100.00 0.00001 0.00
3 1 0.00004.750.00 0.00001 0.00
4 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
5 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
6 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
7 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
8 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
9 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
10 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
11 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
12 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
13 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
14 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
15 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
16 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
17 1 0.00001.50.00 0.00001 0.00
59 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
64 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
65 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
66 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
67 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
68 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
69 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
70 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.60 0.03
112
Miller Ave - Parcel C, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Construction of Parcel C
Off-Site Residential Receptor Locations - 1.5 meters
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
ParameterChildAdult
CPF =1.10E+001.10E+00
DBR =581302
A =11
EF =350350
AT =25,55025,550
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
ExposureChild - Exposure InformationChildAdult - Exposure InformationAdult
ExposureExposureCancerModeledExposureCancerUnmitigated
Exposure DurationDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskFugitiveTotal
Year(years)YearAnnualFactor(per million)YearAnnualFactor(per million)PM2.5PM2.5
1 120180.0954108.3520180.095351 0.43 0.020330.116
2 120190.0714106.2520190.07141 0.32 0.002480.074
3 100.00004.750.00 0.00001 0.00
4 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
5 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
6 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
7 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
8 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
9 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
10 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
11 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
12 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
13 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
14 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
15 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
16 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
17 1 0.00001.50.00 0.00001 0.00
59 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
64 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
65 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
66 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
67 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
68 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
69 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
70 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 14.60 0.76
113
Miller Ave - Parcel C, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Construction of Parcel C
Off-Site Residential Receptor Locations - 4.5 meters
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
ParameterChildAdult
CPF =1.10E+001.10E+00
DBR =581302
A =11
EF =350350
AT =25,55025,550
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
ExposureChild - Exposure InformationChildAdult - Exposure InformationAdult
ExposureExposureCancerModeledExposureCancerUnmitigated
Exposure DurationDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskFugitiveTotal
Year(years)YearAnnualFactor(per million)YearAnnualFactor(per million)PM2.5PM2.5
1 120180.13861012.1320180.138591 0.63 0.014230.153
2 120190.1038109.0820190.10381 0.47 0.001740.106
3 100.00004.750.00 0.00001 0.00
4 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
5 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
6 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
7 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
8 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
9 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
10 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
11 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
12 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
13 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
14 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
15 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
16 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
17 1 0.00001.50.00 0.00001 0.00
59 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
64 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
65 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
66 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
67 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
68 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
69 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
70 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 21.2 1.1
114
Miller Ave - Parcel D, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Construction of Parcel D
Off-Site Residential Receptor Locations - 4.5 meters
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
ParameterChildAdult
CPF =1.10E+001.10E+00
DBR =581302
A =11
EF =350350
AT =25,55025,550
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
ExposureChild - Exposure InformationChildAdult - Exposure InformationAdult
ExposureExposureCancerModeledExposureCancerUnmitigated
Exposure DurationDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskFugitiveTotal
Year(years)YearAnnualFactor(per million)YearAnnualFactor(per million)PM2.5PM2.5
1120160.0126101.1020160.0125910.060.005260.0179
2120170.0506104.4320170.0506310.230.010710.0613
310.00004.750.000.000010.00
410.000030.000.000010.00
510.000030.000.000010.00
610.000030.000.000010.00
710.000030.000.000010.00
810.000030.000.000010.00
910.000030.000.000010.00
1010.000030.000.000010.00
1110.000030.000.000010.00
1210.000030.000.000010.00
1310.000030.000.000010.00
1410.000030.000.000010.00
1510.000030.000.000010.00
1610.000030.000.000010.00
1710.00001.50.000.000010.00
1810.000010.000.000010.00
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
6510.000010.000.000010.00
6610.000010.000.000010.00
6710.000010.000.000010.00
6810.000010.000.000010.00
6910.000010.000.000010.00
7010.000010.000.000010.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk5.50.3
115
Miller Ave - Parcel C, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Mitigated Emissions
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Construction of Parcel C
Off-Site Residential Receptor Locations - 4.5 meters
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
ParameterChildAdult
CPF =1.10E+001.10E+00
DBR =581302
A =11
EF =350350
AT =25,55025,550
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
ExposureChild - Exposure InformationChildAdult - Exposure InformationAdult
ExposureExposureCancerModeledExposureCancer
Exposure DurationDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskDPM Conc (ug/m3)AdjustRiskFugitiveTotal
Year(years)YearAnnualFactor(per million)YearAnnualFactor(per million)PM2.5PM2.5
1 120180.0522104.5720180.052231 0.24 0.007490.060
2 120190.0324102.8420190.03241 0.15 0.001740.034
3 100.00004.750.00 0.00001 0.00
4 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
5 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
6 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
7 100.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
8 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
9 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
10 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
11 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
12 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
13 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
14 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
15 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
16 1 0.000030.00 0.00001 0.00
17 1 0.00001.50.00 0.00001 0.00
59 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
64 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
65 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
66 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
67 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
68 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
69 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
70 1 0.000010.00 0.00001 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 7.4 0.4
116
23
Attachment 2: Operational CalEEMod Modeling
117
0.0000 12.3399 12.3399 3.4200e-
003
1.7000e-
004
12.46300.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118Area1.9732 0.0235 2.0311 1.1000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 954.80 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 429
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2019
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 7.16 1.96
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 4.50
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.23 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 92.40 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 149.60 188.00
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 1.00
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - PG&E 2013 certified rate is 429
Land Use - Operational size - Parcels A, B, C and D+
Construction Phase - No construction
Off-road Equipment - No construction
Woodstoves - No wood burning
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
429 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
70
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2019
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Apartments Mid Rise 272.00 Dwelling Unit 1.96 272,000.00 778
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 140.49 1000sqft 0.00 140,490.00 0
Population
Parking Lot 8.76 1000sqft 0.20 8,760.00 0
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 11/10/2015 4:28 PM
SSF all parcels operational
San Mateo County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
118
4.3 Trip Type Information
Total 1,792.48 1,947.52 1,651.04 4,005,809 4,005,809
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,792.48 1,947.52 1651.04 4,005,809 4,005,809
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT
0.0000 1,406.242
2
1,406.2422 0.0571 0.0000 1,407.440
9
1.4799 0.0221 1.5019 0.3969 0.0204 0.4173Unmitigated0.8208 1.5295 7.9981 0.0196
0.0000 1,406.242
2
1,406.2422 0.0571 0.0000 1,407.440
9
1.4799 0.0221 1.5019 0.3969 0.0204 0.4173Mitigated0.8208 1.5295 7.9981 0.0196
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
31.0206 1,843.311
5
1,874.3320 2.1613 0.0203 1,926.006
5
1.4799 0.0428 1.5227 0.3969 0.0411 0.4380Total2.8070 1.6640 10.0764 0.0205
5.6223 26.2692 31.8915 0.5791 0.0140 48.38750.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water
25.3982 0.0000 25.3982 1.5010 0.0000 56.91910.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste
0.0000 1,406.242
2
1,406.2422 0.0571 0.0000 1,407.440
9
1.4799 0.0221 1.5019 0.3969 0.0204 0.4173Mobile0.8208 1.5295 7.9981 0.0196
0.0000 398.4602 398.4602 0.0207 6.1300e-
003
400.79608.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
Energy 0.0130 0.1110 0.0472 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.3399 12.3399 3.4200e-
003
1.7000e-
004
12.46300.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118Area1.9732 0.0235 2.0311 1.1000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
31.0206 1,843.311
5
1,874.3320 2.1614 0.0203 1,926.015
5
1.4799 0.0428 1.5227 0.3969 0.0411 0.4380Total2.8070 1.6640 10.0764 0.0205
5.6223 26.2692 31.8915 0.5792 0.0140 48.39650.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water
25.3982 0.0000 25.3982 1.5010 0.0000 56.91910.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste
0.0000 1,406.242
2
1,406.2422 0.0571 0.0000 1,407.440
9
1.4799 0.0221 1.5019 0.3969 0.0204 0.4173Mobile0.8208 1.5295 7.9981 0.0196
0.0000 398.4602 398.4602 0.0207 6.1300e-
003
400.79608.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
Energy 0.0130 0.1110 0.0472 7.1000e-
004
119
2.3600e-
003
129.29278.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
0.0000 128.5106 128.5106 2.4600e-
003
0.0472 7.1000e-
004
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Apartments Mid
Rise
2.4082e+0
06
0.0130 0.1110
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO
128.5106 2.4600e-
003
2.3600e-
003
129.2927
Mitigated
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
0.0000 128.5106
129.2927
Total 0.0130 0.1110 0.0472 7.1000e-
004
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
0.0000 128.5106 128.5106 2.4600e-
003
2.3600e-
003
7.1000e-
004
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Apartments Mid
Rise
2.4082e+0
06
0.0130 0.1110 0.0472
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 128.5106 128.5106 2.4600e-
003
2.3600e-
003
129.29278.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0130 0.1110 0.0472 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 128.5106 128.5106 2.4600e-
003
2.3600e-
003
129.29278.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0130 0.1110 0.0472 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 269.9496 269.9496 0.0183 3.7800e-
003
271.50320.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 269.9496 269.9496 0.0183 3.7800e-
003
271.50320.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity
Mitigated
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
4.4 Fleet Mix
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.002652 0.003672 0.006635 0.000224 0.000983
5.0 Energy Detail
SBUS MH
0.579581 0.062616 0.176505 0.113545 0.029546 0.004152 0.015698 0.004192
LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY
0.00 0.00 0 0 0
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1
0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00
29.10 44.80 86 11 3
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Mid Rise 12.40 4.30 5.40 26.10
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-
W
120
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating
0.2649
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 12.3399 12.3399 3.4200e-
003
1.7000e-
004
12.46300.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118Unmitigated1.9732 0.0235 2.0311 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.3399 12.3399 3.4200e-
003
1.7000e-
004
12.46300.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118Mitigated1.9732 0.0235 2.0311 1.1000e-
004
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
77.5372
Total 269.9496 0.0183 3.7800e-
003
271.5032
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
396182 77.0935 5.2100e-
003
1.0800e-
003
192.4574
Parking Lot 7708.8 1.5001 1.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
1.5087
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
983375 191.3561 0.0129 2.6800e-
003
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
77.5372
Total 269.9496 0.0183 3.7800e-
003
271.5032
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
396182 77.0935 5.2100e-
003
1.0800e-
003
192.4574
Parking Lot 7708.8 1.5001 1.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
1.5087
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
983375 191.3561 0.0129 2.6800e-
003
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
128.5106 128.5106 2.4600e-
003
2.3600e-
003
129.2927
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
8.9700e-
003
0.0000Total0.0130 0.1110 0.0472 7.1000e-
004
121
Mitigated
0.0000
Total 31.8915 0.5792 0.0140 48.3965
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
48.3965
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
17.7219 /
11.1725
31.8915 0.5792 0.0140
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 31.8915 0.5792 0.0140 48.3965
Category t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 31.8915 0.5791 0.0140 48.3875
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
0.0000 12.3399 12.3399 3.4200e-
003
1.7000e-
004
12.46300.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118Total1.9732 0.0235 2.0311 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.3017 3.3017 3.2500e-
003
0.0000 3.36990.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111Landscaping0.0623 0.0235 2.0310 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 9.0382 9.0382 1.7000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
9.09326.3000e-
004
6.3000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
Hearth 9.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer
Products
1.6452
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating
0.2649
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 12.3399 12.3399 3.4200e-
003
1.7000e-
004
12.46300.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118Total1.9732 0.0235 2.0311 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.3017 3.3017 3.2500e-
003
0.0000 3.36990.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111Landscaping0.0623 0.0235 2.0310 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 9.0382 9.0382 1.7000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
9.09326.3000e-
004
6.3000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
Hearth 9.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer
Products
1.6452
122
9.0 Operational Offroad
0.0000
Total 25.3982 1.5010 0.0000 56.9191
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
56.9191
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
125.12 25.3982 1.5010 0.0000
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
0.0000
Total 25.3982 1.5010 0.0000 56.9191
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
56.9191
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
125.12 25.3982 1.5010 0.0000
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mitigated 25.3982 1.5010 0.0000 56.9191
t
o
n
MT/yr
Unmitigated 25.3982 1.5010 0.0000 56.9191
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
0.0000
Total 31.8915 0.5791 0.0140 48.3875
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
48.3875
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
17.7219 /
11.1725
31.8915 0.5791 0.0140
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
123
Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power
124
24
Attachment 3: Local Roadway and Stationary Source Screening Calculations
125
SSF Parcels A, B, C, D+
G11137 G9214
San_Mateo_May_2012_sch
ema:FID 219 San_Mateo_May_2012
_schema:FID 1208
San_Mateo_May_2012_sch
ema:PlantNo G11137 San_Mateo_May_2012
_schema:PlantNo G9214
San_Mateo_May_2012_sch
ema:Name Chico's Service Station San_Mateo_May_2012
_schema:Name
Unocal #1020 --Grand
Martco Inc
San_Mateo_May_2012_sch
ema:Address 401 Linden Avenue San_Mateo_May_2012
_schema:Address 221 Airport Boulevard
San_Mateo_May_2012_sch
ema:City South San Francisco San_Mateo_May_2012
_schema:City South San Francisco
San_Mateo_May_2012_sch
ema:UTM_East 552047 San_Mateo_May_2012
_schema:UTM_East 552182
San_Mateo_May_2012_sch
ema:UTM_North 4167850 San_Mateo_May_2012
_schema:UTM_North 4167588
San_Mateo_May_2012_sch
ema:Cancer 5.774305 San_Mateo_May_2012
_schema:Cancer 14.724477
San_Mateo_May_2012_sch
ema:Hazard 0.009556 San_Mateo_May_2012
_schema:Hazard 0.024367
San_Mateo_May_2012_sch
ema:PM25 na San_Mateo_May_2012
_schema:PM25 na
126
Distance meters Distance feet Distance adjustment multiplier Enter Cancer Risk Adjusted Cancer Risk Enter Chronic Hazard Index Adjusted Chronic Hazard Index
20 66 1.000 14.724477 0
25 82 0.728 14.724477 10.72 0
30 98 0.559 14.724477 8.23 0
35 115 0.445 14.724477 6.55 0
40 131 0.365 14.724477 5.37 0
45 148 0.305 14.724477 4.49 0
50 164 0.260 14.724477 3.83 0
55 180 0.225 14.724477 3.31 0
60 197 0.197 14.724477 2.89 0
65 213 0.174 14.724477 2.56 0
70 230 0.155 14.724477 2.28 0
75 246 0.139 14.724477 2.05 0
80 262 0.126 14.724477 1.85 0
85 279 0.114 14.724477 1.68 0
90 295 0.104 14.724477 1.54 0
95 312 0.096 14.724477 1.41 0
100 328 0.088 14.724477 1.30 0
105 344 0.082 14.724477 1.20 0
110 361 0.076 14.724477 1.12 0
115 377 0.071 14.724477 1.04 0
120 394 0.066 14.724477 0.97 0
125 410 0.062 14.724477 0.91 0
130 426 0.058 14.724477 0.86 0
135 443 0.055 14.724477 0.81 0
140 459 0.052 14.724477 0.76 0
145 476 0.049 14.724477 0.72 0
150 492 0.046 14.724477 0.68 0
155 508 0.044 14.724477 0.64 0
160 525 0.042 14.724477 0.61 0
165 541 0.040 14.724477 0.58 0
170 558 0.038 14.724477 0.55 0
175 574 0.036 14.724477 0.53 0
180 590 0.034 14.724477 0.51 0
185 607 0.033 14.724477 0.48 0
190 623 0.031 14.724477 0.46 0
195 640 0.030 14.724477 0.44 0
200 656 0.029 14.724477 0.43 0
205 672 0.028 14.724477 0.41 0
210 689 0.027 14.724477 0.39 0
215 705 0.026 14.724477 0.38 0
220 722 0.025 14.724477 0.36 0
225 738 0.024 14.724477 0.35 0
230 754 0.023 14.724477 0.34 0
235 771 0.022 14.724477 0.33 0
240 787 0.022 14.724477 0.32 0
245 804 0.021 14.724477 0.31 0
250 820 0.020 14.724477 0.30 0
255 836 0.020 14.724477 0.29 0
260 853 0.019 14.724477 0.28 0
265 869 0.018 14.724477 0.27 0
270 886 0.018 14.724477 0.26 0
275 902 0.017 14.724477 0.25 0
280 918 0.017 14.724477 0.25 0
285 935 0.016 14.724477 0.24 0
290 951 0.016 14.724477 0.23 0
295 968 0.015 14.724477 0.23 0
300 984 0.015 14.724477 0.22 0
3. In the table below, enter the cancer risk and/or chronic hazard index found in step 1 for the GDF in the row which aligns with the shortest distance from each GDF to the nearest receptor (found in step 2). If the shortest distance to the receptor falls between
two distance values, select the multiplier corresponding to the smaller distance. For distances beyond 300 meters, use the multiplier 0.015. The resulting product is the adjusted cancer risk in a million or the adjusted chronic hazard index for the GDF.
Note: These distance adjustment multipliers may be used only for the screening level health risk values indicated in the District's Stationary Source Screening Analysis tool for gasoline dispensing facilities. This distance multiplier tool may not be used to adjust
values from an HRA if an HRA for the facility was conducted.
Source: G9214
How to Use the Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (GDF)
This distance multiplier tool refines the screening values for cancer risk and chronic hazard index found in the District's Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool to represent adjusted risk and hazard
impacts that can be expected with farther distances from the source of emissions (GDF's).
1. Obtain the GDF cancer risk and/or chronic hazard index from the District's Stationary Source Screening Analysis tool for facilities where the Plant No. is preceded with a 'G'. If the distance to the nearest receptor is less than 20 meters, the distance
adjustment multiplier table cannot be used and an air dispersion modeling analysis using site-specific information is needed to refine the cancer risk and/or chronic hazard index estimate.
2. Determine the shortest distance from the GDF to the nearest receptor.
127
Distance meters Distance feet Distance adjustment multiplier Enter Cancer Risk Adjusted Cancer Risk Enter Chronic Hazard Index Adjusted Chronic Hazard Index
20 66 1.000 5.774305 5.77 0
25 82 0.728 5.774305 4.20 0
30 98 0.559 5.774305 3.23 0
35 115 0.445 5.774305 2.57 0
40 131 0.365 5.774305 2.11 0
45 148 0.305 5.774305 1.76 0
50 164 0.260 5.774305 1.50 0
55 180 0.225 5.774305 1.30 0
60 197 0.197 5.774305 1.13 0
65 213 0.174 5.774305 1.00 0
70 230 0.155 5.774305 0.89 0
75 246 0.139 5.774305 0.80 0
80 262 0.126 5.774305 0.73 0
85 279 0.114 5.774305 0.66 0
90 295 0.104 5.774305 0.60 0
95 312 0.096 5.774305 0.55 0
100 328 0.088 5.774305 0.51 0
105 344 0.082 5.774305 0.47 0
110 361 0.076 5.774305 0.44 0
115 377 0.071 5.774305 0.41 0
120 394 0.066 5.774305 0.38 0
125 410 0.062 5.774305 0.36 0
130 426 0.058 5.774305 0.34 0
135 443 0.055 5.774305 0.32 0
140 459 0.052 5.774305 0.30 0
145 476 0.049 5.774305 0.28 0
150 492 0.046 5.774305 0.27 0
155 508 0.044 5.774305 0.25 0
160 525 0.042 5.774305 0.24 0
165 541 0.040 5.774305 0.23 0
170 558 0.038 5.774305 0.22 0
175 574 0.036 5.774305 0.21 0
180 590 0.034 5.774305 0.20 0
185 607 0.033 5.774305 0.19 0
190 623 0.031 5.774305 0.18 0
195 640 0.030 5.774305 0.17 0
200 656 0.029 5.774305 0.17 0
205 672 0.028 5.774305 0.16 0
210 689 0.027 5.774305 0.15 0
215 705 0.026 5.774305 0.15 0
220 722 0.025 5.774305 0.14 0
225 738 0.024 5.774305 0.14 0
230 754 0.023 5.774305 0.13 0
235 771 0.022 5.774305 0.13 0
240 787 0.022 5.774305 0.12 0
245 804 0.021 5.774305 0.12 0
250 820 0.020 5.774305 0.12 0
255 836 0.020 5.774305 0.11 0
260 853 0.019 5.774305 0.11 0
265 869 0.018 5.774305 0.11 0
270 886 0.018 5.774305 0.10 0
275 902 0.017 5.774305 0.10 0
280 918 0.017 5.774305 0.10 0
285 935 0.016 5.774305 0.09 0
290 951 0.016 5.774305 0.09 0
295 968 0.015 5.774305 0.09 0
300 984 0.015 5.774305 0.09 0
Source: G11137
How to Use the Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (GDF)
1. Obtain the GDF cancer risk and/or chronic hazard index from the District's Stationary Source Screening Analysis tool for facilities where the Plant No. is preceded with a 'G'. If the distance to the nearest receptor is less than 20 meters, the distance
adjustment multiplier table cannot be used and an air dispersion modeling analysis using site-specific information is needed to refine the cancer risk and/or chronic hazard index estimate.
2. Determine the shortest distance from the GDF to the nearest receptor.
3. In the table below, enter the cancer risk and/or chronic hazard index found in step 1 for the GDF in the row which aligns with the shortest distance from each GDF to the nearest receptor (found in step 2). If the shortest distance to the receptor falls between
two distance values, select the multiplier corresponding to the smaller distance. For distances beyond 300 meters, use the multiplier 0.015. The resulting product is the adjusted cancer risk in a million or the adjusted chronic hazard index for the GDF.
Note: These distance adjustment multipliers may be used only for the screening level health risk values indicated in the District's Stationary Source Screening Analysis tool for gasoline dispensing facilities. This distance multiplier tool may not be used to adjust
values from an HRA if an HRA for the facility was conducted.
This distance multiplier tool refines the screening values for cancer risk and chronic hazard index found in the District's Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool to represent adjusted risk and hazard
impacts that can be expected with farther distances from the source of emissions (GDF's).
128
Bay Area Air Quality Management DistrictRoadway Screening Analysis Calculator
County specific tables containing estimates of risk and hazard impacts from roadways in the Bay Area.
• Roadway Direction: Select the orientation that best matches the roadway. If the roadway orientation is neither clearly north-south nor east-west, use the highest values predicted from either orientation.
• Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Enter the annual average daily traffic on the roadway. These data may be collected from the city or the county (if the area is unincorporated).
Notes and References listed below the Search Boxes
Search Parameters Results
County San Mateo County
Roadway Direction NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTIONAL ROADWAY
Side of the Roadway PM2.5 annual average
Distance from Roadway 25 feet (μg/m3)
Cancer Risk
20,000 (per million)
.
Airport Blvd
Data for San Mateo County based on meteorological data collected from San Mateo Sewage Treatment Plant in 2005
Notes and References:
1. Emissions were developed using EMFAC2011 for fleet mix in 2014 assuming 10,000 AADT and includes impacts from diesel and gasoline vehicle exhaust, brake and tire wear, and resuspended dust.
2. Roadways were modeled using CALINE4 air dispersion model assuming a source length of one kilometer. Meteorological data used to estimate the screening values are noted at the bottom of the “Results” box.
3. Cancer risks were estimated for 70 year lifetime exposure starting in 2014 that includes sensitivity values for early life exposures and OEHHA toxicity values adopted in 2013.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Annual Average Daily
Traffic (ADT)8.00
0.181
Input the site-specific characteristics of your project by using the drop down menu in the “Search Parameter” box. We recommend that this analysis be used for
roadways with 10,000 AADT and above.
• County: Select the County where the project is located. The calculator is only applicable for projects within the nine Bay Area counties.
• Side of the Roadway: Identify on which side of the roadway the project is located.
• Distance from Roadway: Enter the distance in feet from the nearest edge of the roadway to the project site. The calculator estimates values for distances greater than 10
feet and less than 1000 feet. For distances greater than 1000 feet, the user can choose to extrapolate values using a distribution curve or apply 1000 feet values for greater distances.
When the user has completed the data entries, the screening level PM2.5 annual average concentration and the cancer risk results will appear in the Results Box on the right. Please note that the roadway
tool is not applicable for California State Highways and the District refers the user to the Highway Screening Analysis Tool at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-
GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx.
129
Bay Area Air Quality Management DistrictRoadway Screening Analysis Calculator
County specific tables containing estimates of risk and hazard impacts from roadways in the Bay Area.
• Roadway Direction: Select the orientation that best matches the roadway. If the roadway orientation is neither clearly north-south nor east-west, use the highest values predicted from either orientation.
• Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Enter the annual average daily traffic on the roadway. These data may be collected from the city or the county (if the area is unincorporated).
Notes and References listed below the Search Boxes
Search Parameters Results
County San Mateo County
Roadway Direction NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTIONAL ROADWAY
Side of the Roadway PM2.5 annual average
Distance from Roadway 430 feet (μg/m3)
Cancer Risk
20,000 (per million)
.
Airport Blvd
Data for San Mateo County based on meteorological data collected from San Mateo Sewage Treatment Plant in 2005
Notes and References:
1. Emissions were developed using EMFAC2011 for fleet mix in 2014 assuming 10,000 AADT and includes impacts from diesel and gasoline vehicle exhaust, brake and tire wear, and resuspended dust.
2. Roadways were modeled using CALINE4 air dispersion model assuming a source length of one kilometer. Meteorological data used to estimate the screening values are noted at the bottom of the “Results” box.
3. Cancer risks were estimated for 70 year lifetime exposure starting in 2014 that includes sensitivity values for early life exposures and OEHHA toxicity values adopted in 2013.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Annual Average Daily
Traffic (ADT)1.20
0.027
Input the site-specific characteristics of your project by using the drop down menu in the “Search Parameter” box. We recommend that this analysis be used for
roadways with 10,000 AADT and above.
• County: Select the County where the project is located. The calculator is only applicable for projects within the nine Bay Area counties.
• Side of the Roadway: Identify on which side of the roadway the project is located.
• Distance from Roadway: Enter the distance in feet from the nearest edge of the roadway to the project site. The calculator estimates values for distances greater than 10
feet and less than 1000 feet. For distances greater than 1000 feet, the user can choose to extrapolate values using a distribution curve or apply 1000 feet values for greater distances.
When the user has completed the data entries, the screening level PM2.5 annual average concentration and the cancer risk results will appear in the Results Box on the right. Please note that the roadway
tool is not applicable for California State Highways and the District refers the user to the Highway Screening Analysis Tool at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-
GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx.
130
Bay Area Air Quality Management DistrictRoadway Screening Analysis Calculator
County specific tables containing estimates of risk and hazard impacts from roadways in the Bay Area.
• Roadway Direction: Select the orientation that best matches the roadway. If the roadway orientation is neither clearly north-south nor east-west, use the highest values predicted from either orientation.
• Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Enter the annual average daily traffic on the roadway. These data may be collected from the city or the county (if the area is unincorporated).
Notes and References listed below the Search Boxes
Search Parameters Results
County San Mateo County
Roadway Direction NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTIONAL ROADWAY
Side of the Roadway PM2.5 annual average
Distance from Roadway 150 feet (μg/m3)
Cancer Risk
15,000 (per million)
.
Grand
Data for San Mateo County based on meteorological data collected from San Mateo Sewage Treatment Plant in 2005
Notes and References:
1. Emissions were developed using EMFAC2011 for fleet mix in 2014 assuming 10,000 AADT and includes impacts from diesel and gasoline vehicle exhaust, brake and tire wear, and resuspended dust.
2. Roadways were modeled using CALINE4 air dispersion model assuming a source length of one kilometer. Meteorological data used to estimate the screening values are noted at the bottom of the “Results” box.
3. Cancer risks were estimated for 70 year lifetime exposure starting in 2014 that includes sensitivity values for early life exposures and OEHHA toxicity values adopted in 2013.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Annual Average Daily
Traffic (ADT)2.45
0.055
Input the site-specific characteristics of your project by using the drop down menu in the “Search Parameter” box. We recommend that this analysis be used for
roadways with 10,000 AADT and above.
• County: Select the County where the project is located. The calculator is only applicable for projects within the nine Bay Area counties.
• Side of the Roadway: Identify on which side of the roadway the project is located.
• Distance from Roadway: Enter the distance in feet from the nearest edge of the roadway to the project site. The calculator estimates values for distances greater than 10
feet and less than 1000 feet. For distances greater than 1000 feet, the user can choose to extrapolate values using a distribution curve or apply 1000 feet values for greater distances.
When the user has completed the data entries, the screening level PM2.5 annual average concentration and the cancer risk results will appear in the Results Box on the right. Please note that the roadway
tool is not applicable for California State Highways and the District refers the user to the Highway Screening Analysis Tool at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-
GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx.
131
Bay Area Air Quality Management DistrictRoadway Screening Analysis Calculator
County specific tables containing estimates of risk and hazard impacts from roadways in the Bay Area.
• Roadway Direction: Select the orientation that best matches the roadway. If the roadway orientation is neither clearly north-south nor east-west, use the highest values predicted from either orientation.
• Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Enter the annual average daily traffic on the roadway. These data may be collected from the city or the county (if the area is unincorporated).
Notes and References listed below the Search Boxes
Search Parameters Results
County San Mateo County
Roadway Direction NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTIONAL ROADWAY
Side of the Roadway PM2.5 annual average
Distance from Roadway 380 feet (μg/m3)
Cancer Risk
15,000 (per million)
.
Grand
Data for San Mateo County based on meteorological data collected from San Mateo Sewage Treatment Plant in 2005
Notes and References:
1. Emissions were developed using EMFAC2011 for fleet mix in 2014 assuming 10,000 AADT and includes impacts from diesel and gasoline vehicle exhaust, brake and tire wear, and resuspended dust.
2. Roadways were modeled using CALINE4 air dispersion model assuming a source length of one kilometer. Meteorological data used to estimate the screening values are noted at the bottom of the “Results” box.
3. Cancer risks were estimated for 70 year lifetime exposure starting in 2014 that includes sensitivity values for early life exposures and OEHHA toxicity values adopted in 2013.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Annual Average Daily
Traffic (ADT)0.98
0.022
Input the site-specific characteristics of your project by using the drop down menu in the “Search Parameter” box. We recommend that this analysis be used for
roadways with 10,000 AADT and above.
• County: Select the County where the project is located. The calculator is only applicable for projects within the nine Bay Area counties.
• Side of the Roadway: Identify on which side of the roadway the project is located.
• Distance from Roadway: Enter the distance in feet from the nearest edge of the roadway to the project site. The calculator estimates values for distances greater than 10
feet and less than 1000 feet. For distances greater than 1000 feet, the user can choose to extrapolate values using a distribution curve or apply 1000 feet values for greater distances.
When the user has completed the data entries, the screening level PM2.5 annual average concentration and the cancer risk results will appear in the Results Box on the right. Please note that the roadway
tool is not applicable for California State Highways and the District refers the user to the Highway Screening Analysis Tool at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-
GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx.
132
25
Attachment 4: U.S. 101 Modeling Summaries and Cancer Risk Calculations
133
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Hwy 101
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions
Year =2020
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)
Diesel
ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
NB-101 Northbound Hwy 101 N4 7856820.6 3.4 2,218 variable
SB-101 Southbound Hwy 101 S4 7896820.6 3.4 2,218 variable
2020 Hourly Diesel Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - NB & SB Hwy 101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 3.26%720.0633 9 6.97%1550.0759177.08%1570.0796
2 2.48%550.0568107.69%1710.0637184.41%980.0632
3 1.40%310.0318115.93%1320.0612192.42%540.0455
4 0.82%180.0605127.05%1560.0629201.51%340.0389
5 0.75%170.0532136.64%1470.0631213.13%690.0530
6 2.08%460.0720146.41%1420.0620224.96%1100.0610
7 5.00%1110.0639156.61%1470.0576233.61%800.0555
8 4.28%950.0690165.01%1110.0530240.50%110.0532
Total 2,218
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Hwy 101
PM2.5 & TOG Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year =2020
Group Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
NB-101 Northbound Hwy 101 N4 7856820.6 1.4 117,660 variable
SB-101 Southbound Hwy 101 S4 7896820.6 1.4 117,660 variable
2020 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - NB & SB Hwy 101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.10%12930.0236 9 7.09%83450.0221177.40%87100.0215
2 0.38%4470.0273104.31%50750.0228188.28%97450.0209
3 0.30%3510.0224114.61%54230.0215195.78%67950.0200
4 0.16%1900.0261125.87%69060.0216204.35%51200.0199
5 0.44%5180.0213136.18%72730.0211213.28%38550.0204
6 0.82%9650.0250146.05%71130.0212223.32%39040.0214
7 3.75%44180.0213157.08%83350.0208232.48%29220.0211
8 7.86%92490.0205167.22%84910.0203241.88%22150.0197
Total 117,660
134
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Hwy 101
Entrained PM2.5 Road Dust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year =2020
Group Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
NB-101 Northbound Hwy 101 N4 7856820.6 0.0 117,660 variable
SB-101 Southbound Hwy 101 S4 7896820.6 0.0 117,660 variable
2020 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Road Dust PM2.5 Emissions - NB & SB Hwy 101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.10%12930.0100 9 7.09%83450.0100177.40%87100.0100
2 0.38%4470.0100104.31%50750.0100188.28%97450.0100
3 0.30%3510.0100114.61%54230.0100195.78%67950.0100
4 0.16%1900.0100125.87%69060.0100204.35%51200.0100
5 0.44%5180.0100136.18%72730.0100213.28%38550.0100
6 0.82%9650.0100146.05%71130.0100223.32%39040.0100
7 3.75%44180.0100157.08%83350.0100232.48%29220.0100
8 7.86%92490.0100167.22%84910.0100241.88%22150.0100
Total 117,660
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Hwy 101 Traffic Data and PM2.5 & TOG Emission Factors - 60 mph Trucks & 65 mph Other Vehicles
Analysis Year = 2020
Emission Factors
2014 Caltrans 2020 Number Diesel All Vehicles Gas Vehicles
NumberNumber 2020DieselVehicleVehicles Total Exhaust Exhaust Running
Vehicle VehiclesVehiclesPercent VehiclesSpeed DPM PM2.5 PM2.5 TOGTOG
Type (veh/day)(veh/day)Diesel (veh/day)(mph)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)
LDA 150,252159,2670.41%656650.01280.01920.00150.02140.039
LDT 61,98065,6990.08%50650.02190.01950.00170.03670.084
MDT 5,9056,2596.39%400600.01990.02210.00320.04900.129
HDT 3,8634,09581.32%3,330600.07200.10880.06040.10960.159
Total 222,000235,320 -4,43762.5 ----
Mix Avg Emission Factor 0.057970.020920.002610.026720.05456
1.06
Vehicles/Direction 117,660 2,218
Avg Vehicles/Hour/Direction 4,903 92
Traffic Data Year = 2014
Caltrans Truck AADT & Vehicle ADT Total Truck by Axle
TotalTruck 2 3 45
SR 101 S. San francisco, Grand Ave 222,0009,7685,9057563872,720
60.45%7.74%3.96%27.85%
Percent of Total Vehicles 4.40%2.66%0.34%0.17%1.23%
1.00%
Increase From 2014
Traffic Increase per Year (%) =
135
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Hwy 101 Traffic Data and PM2.5 & TOG Emission Factors - 30 mph
Analysis Year = 2020
Emission Factors
2014 Caltrans 2020 Number Diesel All Vehicles Gas Vehicles
NumberNumber 2020DieselVehicleVehicles Total Exhaust Exhaust Running
Vehicle VehiclesVehiclesPercent VehiclesSpeed DPM PM2.5 PM2.5 TOGTOG
Type (veh/day)(veh/day)Diesel (veh/day)(mph)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)
LDA 150,252159,2670.41%656300.01600.01960.00190.02730.039
LDT 61,98065,6990.08%50300.03220.02000.00230.04850.084
MDT 5,9056,2596.39%400300.03270.02210.00320.07830.129
HDT 3,8634,09581.32%3,330300.09780.13040.08200.55430.159
Total 222,000235,320 -4,43730 ----
Mix Avg Emission Factor 0.079090.021720.003410.036340.05456
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Hwy 101 Traffic Data and Entrained PM2.5 Road Dust Emission Factors
E2.5 = [k(sL)^0.91 x (W)^1.02 x (1-P/4N) x 453.59
where:
E2.5 = PM2.5 emission factor (g/VMT)
k = particle size multiplier (g/VMT) [kPM2.5 = kPM10 x (0.0686/0.4572) = 1.0 x 0.15 = 0.15 g/VMT]a
sL = roadway specific silt loading (g/m2)
W = average weight of vehicles on road (Bay Area default = 2.4 tons)a
P = number of days with at least 0.01 inch of precipitation in the annual averaging period
N = number of days in the annual averaging period (default = 365)
Notes: a CARB 2014, Miscellaneous Process Methodology 7.9, Entrained Road Travel, Paved Road Dust (Revised and updated, April 2014)
PM2.5
Silt Average Emission
LoadingWeight No. Days Factor
Road Type (g/m2)(tons)County ppt > 0.01"(g/VMT)
Freeway0.022.4 San Mateo 600.00999
SFBAAB a SFBAABa
Road Type
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)County
>0.01 inch
precipitation
Collector0.032 Alameda 61
Freeway0.02 Contra Costa 60
Local 0.32 Marin 66
Major0.032 Napa 68
San Francisco 67
San Mateo 60
Santa Clara 64
Solano 54
Sonoma 69
136
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Highway 101
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions
Year =2025
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)
Diesel
ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
NB-101 Northbound Hwy 101 N4 7856820.6 3.4 2,340 variable
SB-101 Southbound Hwy 101 S4 7896820.6 3.4 2,340 variable
2025 Hourly Diesel Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - NB & SB Hwy-101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 3.13%730.0507 9 6.88%1610.0679176.85%1600.0709
2 2.38%560.0455108.33%1950.0480184.26%1000.0562
3 1.48%350.0287116.48%1520.0452192.85%670.0309
4 0.79%180.0484127.72%1810.0472201.98%460.0246
5 0.72%170.0426137.32%1710.0471212.34%550.0514
6 2.00%470.0575146.86%1610.0464224.42%1030.0551
7 4.32%1010.0575156.54%1530.0470232.89%680.0513
8 3.99%930.0607164.84%1130.0433240.63%150.0462
Total 2,340
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Highway 101
PM2.5 & TOG Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year =2025
Group Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
NB-101 Northbound Hwy 101 N4 7856820.6 1.4 123,210 variable
SB-101 Southbound Hwy 101 S4 7896820.6 1.4 123,210 variable
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - NB & SB Hwy-101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.09%13480.0231 9 7.10%87430.0220177.40%91180.0214
2 0.38%4630.0261104.31%53150.0224188.27%101940.0208
3 0.30%3700.0227114.61%56840.0213195.78%71230.0200
4 0.16%1990.0250125.87%72290.0214204.35%53600.0199
5 0.44%5440.0210136.18%76200.0209213.28%40400.0204
6 0.82%10110.0243146.04%74450.0209223.32%40920.0212
7 3.75%46250.0211157.09%87380.0207232.49%30620.0209
8 7.86%96800.0205167.22%88900.0203241.88%23200.0198
Total 123,210
137
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Highway 101
Entrained PM2.5 Road Dust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year =2025
Group Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
NB-101 Northbound Hwy 101 N4 7856820.6 0.0 123,210 variable
SB-101 Southbound Hwy 101 S4 7896820.6 0.0 123,210 variable
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Road Dust PM2.5 Emissions - NB & SB Hwy-101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.09%13480.0100 9 7.10%87430.0100177.40%91180.0100
2 0.38%4630.0100104.31%53150.0100188.27%101940.0100
3 0.30%3700.0100114.61%56840.0100195.78%71230.0100
4 0.16%1990.0100125.87%72290.0100204.35%53600.0100
5 0.44%5440.0100136.18%76200.0100213.28%40400.0100
6 0.82%10110.0100146.04%74450.0100223.32%40920.0100
7 3.75%46250.0100157.09%87380.0100232.49%30620.0100
8 7.86%96800.0100167.22%88900.0100241.88%23200.0100
Total 123,210
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Hwy 101 Traffic Data and PM2.5 & TOG Emission Factors - 60 mph Trucks & 65 mph Other Vehicles
Analysis Year = 2025
Emission Factors
2014 Caltrans 2025 Number Diesel All Vehicles Gas Vehicles
NumberNumber 2025DieselVehicleVehicles Total Exhaust Exhaust Running
Vehicle VehiclesVehiclesPercent VehiclesSpeed DPM PM2.5 PM2.5 TOGTOG
Type (veh/day)(veh/day)Diesel (veh/day)(mph)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)
LDA 150,517167,0740.40%676650.00840.01930.00160.01680.033
LDT 61,71568,5030.08%52650.01540.01940.00170.02700.072
MDT 5,9056,5546.37%418600.01560.02170.00270.03220.119
HDT 3,8634,28882.42%3,534600.05750.09720.04870.05560.141
Total 222,000246,420 -4,68062.5 ----
Mix Avg Emission Factor 0.046200.020760.002450.020220.04658
1.11
Vehicles/Direction 123,210 2,340
Avg Vehicles/Hour/Direction 5,134 97
Traffic Data Year = 2014
Caltrans Truck AADT & Vehicle ADT Total Truck by Axle
TotalTruck 2 3 45
SR 101 S. San francisco, Grand Ave 222,0009,7685,9057563872,720
60.45%7.74%3.96%27.85%
Percent of Total Vehicles 4.40%2.66%0.34%0.17%1.23%
1.00%
Increase From 2014
Traffic Increase per Year (%) =
138
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Highway 101 Traffic Data and PM2.5 & TOG Emission Factors - 30 mph
Analysis Year = 2025
Emission Factors
2014 Caltrans 2025 Number Diesel All Vehicles Gas Ve
NumberNumber 2025DieselVehicleVehicles Total Exhaust Exhaust
Vehicle VehiclesVehiclesPercent VehiclesSpeed DPM PM2.5 PM2.5 TOG
Type (veh/day)(veh/day)Diesel (veh/day)(mph)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)
LDA 150,517167,0740.40%676300.00740.01970.00200.0219
LDT 61,71568,5030.08%52300.01990.02000.00220.0358
MDT 5,9056,5546.37%418300.02570.02180.00280.0522
HDT 3,8634,28882.42%3,534300.08690.12190.07340.3180
Total 222,000246,420 -4,68030 ---
Mix Avg Emission Factor 0.069180.021640.003320.02751
139
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Highway 101
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions
Year =2030
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)
Diesel
ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
NB-101 Northbound Hwy 101 N4 7856820.6 3.4 2,467 variable
SB-101 Southbound Hwy 101 S4 7896820.6 3.4 2,467 variable
2030 Hourly Diesel Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - NB & SB Hwy-101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 3.21%790.0486 9 8.13%2010.0495178.40%2070.0524
2 2.57%630.0427107.11%1750.0532185.56%1370.0366
3 1.49%370.0258115.34%1320.0523191.58%390.0452
4 0.90%220.0484126.52%1610.0530200.75%180.0469
5 0.68%170.0409136.14%1520.0533212.46%610.0491
6 2.06%510.0562145.70%1410.0531224.36%1080.0538
7 4.27%1050.0562157.81%1930.0387232.91%720.0502
8 5.38%1330.0401166.19%1530.0341240.46%110.0409
Total 2,467
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Highway 101
PM2.5 & TOG Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year =2030
Group Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
NB-101 Northbound Hwy 101 N4 7856820.6 1.4 128,760 variable
SB-101 Southbound Hwy 101 S4 7896820.6 1.4 128,760 variable
2030 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - NB & SB Hwy-101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.10%14110.0230 9 7.10%91400.0220177.40%95300.0214
2 0.38%4890.0263104.32%55570.0225188.27%106520.0208
3 0.30%3910.0225114.61%59390.0213195.78%74430.0200
4 0.17%2160.0259125.87%75590.0215204.35%56010.0200
5 0.44%5630.0210136.18%79540.0209213.28%42200.0204
6 0.82%10600.0242146.04%77830.0210223.32%42780.0213
7 3.75%48300.0212157.08%91180.0207232.48%31970.0210
8 7.85%101120.0205167.22%92970.0204241.88%24220.0197
Total 128,760
140
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Highway 101
Entrained PM2.5 Road Dust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year =2030
Group Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
NB-101 Northbound Hwy 101 N4 7856820.6 0.0 128,760 variable
SB-101 Southbound Hwy 101 S4 7896820.6 0.0 128,760 variable
2030 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Road Dust PM2.5 Emissions - NB & SB Hwy-101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.10%14110.0100 9 7.10%91400.0100177.40%95300.0100
2 0.38%4890.0100104.32%55570.0100188.27%106520.0100
3 0.30%3910.0100114.61%59390.0100195.78%74430.0100
4 0.17%2160.0100125.87%75590.0100204.35%56010.0100
5 0.44%5630.0100136.18%79540.0100213.28%42200.0100
6 0.82%10600.0100146.04%77830.0100223.32%42780.0100
7 3.75%48300.0100157.08%91180.0100232.48%31970.0100
8 7.85%101120.0100167.22%92970.0100241.88%24220.0100
Total 128,760
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Hwy 101 Traffic Data and PM2.5 & TOG Emission Factors - 60 mph Trucks & 65 mph Other Vehicles
Analysis Year = 2030
Emission Factors
2014 Caltrans 2030 Number Diesel All Vehicles Gas Vehicles
NumberNumber 2030DieselVehicleVehicles Total Exhaust Exhaust Running
Vehicle VehiclesVehiclesPercent VehiclesSpeed DPM PM2.5 PM2.5 TOGTOG
Type (veh/day)(veh/day)Diesel (veh/day)(mph)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)
LDA 150,979175,1350.40%705650.00690.01940.00170.01540.030
LDT 61,25371,0540.08%55650.00710.01940.00170.02210.064
MDT 5,9056,8506.43%441600.01300.02140.00240.02470.108
HDT 3,8634,48183.31%3,733600.05620.09660.04790.03210.133
Total 222,000257,520 -4,93362.5 ----
Mix Avg Emission Factor 0.044730.020830.002510.017540.04208
1.16
Vehicles/Direction 128,760 2,467
Avg Vehicles/Hour/Direction 5,365 103
Traffic Data Year = 2014
Caltrans Truck AADT & Vehicle ADT Total Truck by Axle
TotalTruck 2 3 45
SR 101 S. San francisco, Grand Ave 222,0009,7685,9057563872,720
60.45%7.74%3.96%27.85%
Percent of Total Vehicles 4.40%2.66%0.34%0.17%1.23%
1.00%
Increase From 2014
Traffic Increase per Year (%) =
141
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Highway 101 Traffic Data and PM2.5 & TOG Emission Factors - 30 mph
Analysis Year = 2030
Emission Factors
2014 Caltrans 2030 Number Diesel All Vehicles Gas Vehicles
NumberNumber 2030DieselVehicleVehicles Total Exhaust Exhaust Running
Vehicle VehiclesVehiclesPercent VehiclesSpeed DPM PM2.5 PM2.5 TOGTOG
Type (veh/day)(veh/day)Diesel (veh/day)(mph)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)
LDA 150,979175,1350.40%705300.00440.01990.00210.01990.030
LDT 61,25371,0540.08%55300.00450.01990.00220.02890.064
MDT 5,9056,8506.43%441300.02140.02160.00270.03980.108
HDT 3,8634,48183.31%3,733300.07580.11310.06440.19080.133
Total 222,000257,520 -4,93330 ----
Mix Avg Emission Factor 0.059950.021580.003260.023430.04208
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Highway 101 Traffic Data and Entrained PM2.5 Road Dust Emission Factors
E2.5 = [k(sL)^0.91 x (W)^1.02 x (1-P/4N) x 453.59
where:
E2.5 = PM2.5 emission factor (g/VMT)
k = particle size multiplier (g/VMT) [kPM2.5 = kPM10 x (0.0686/0.4572) = 1.0 x 0.15 = 0.15 g/VMT]a
sL = roadway specific silt loading (g/m2)
W = average weight of vehicles on road (Bay Area default = 2.4 tons)a
P = number of days with at least 0.01 inch of precipitation in the annual averaging period
N = number of days in the annual averaging period (default = 365)
Notes: a CARB 2014, Miscellaneous Process Methodology 7.9, Entrained Road Travel, Paved Road Dust (Revised and updated, April 2014)
PM2.5
Silt Average Emission
LoadingWeight No. Days Factor
Road Type (g/m2)(tons)County ppt > 0.01"(g/VMT)
Freeway0.022.4 San Mateo 600.00999
SFBAABa SFBAAB a
Road Type
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)County
>0.01 inch
precipitation
Collector0.032 Alameda 61
Freeway0.02 Contra Costa 60
Local 0.32 Marin 66
Major0.032 Napa 68
San Francisco 67
San Mateo 60
Santa Clara 64
Solano 54
Sonoma 69
142
Miller Avenue Parcel A, First Floor - Hwy 101 DPM, PM2.5 & TOG TACs
CAL3QHCR Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Cancer Risk in Project Area
Receptor Information
Number of Receptors 7
Receptor Heights = 1.5 m (4.9 feet)
Receptor distances =10 meter (33 feet) spacing
Meteorological Conditions
San Francisco Airport Hourly Data 1991 - 1995
Land Use Classification urban
Wind speed =variable
Wind direction =variable
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Inhalation Dose Factors
Value1
DBR A ExposureExposureExposureEFED AT
Exposure Type (L/kg BW-day)(-)(hr/day)(days/week)(week/year)(days/yr)(Years)(days)
Residential (70-Year)302 1 24 7 503507025,550
1 Default values recommended by OEHHA& Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cancer Risk (per million) = Inhalation Dose x CRAF x CPF x 106
= URF x Cair
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
CRAF = Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor [adjustment factors are dependent on emissions period and duration of exposure]
URF =Unit risk factor (cancer risk per μg/m3)
Unit Risk Factors (risk per million per µg/m 3 ) for DPM and Organic TACs from Vehicles
CPF Exhaust Evaporative
Exposure Type (mg/kg-day)-1 DPM TOG TACsTOG TACs
Residential (70-Yr Exposure)1.10E+00318.5 1.8 0.107
MEI Cancer Risk Calculations - Receptor Height = 1.5 m
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Total Maximum Road Dust Maximum Vehicle
Meteorological
DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
Exhaust TOG
Concentration µg/m3)
Evaporative TOG
Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)
Data Year 202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030
1991 0.00790.00690.00670.17820.14090.12730.34440.32200.29080.19520.20340.21290.06230.06520.06820.13300.13820.1447
1992 0.00930.00810.00790.21000.16610.15010.40590.37950.34280.23010.23980.25090.07340.07690.08030.15670.16290.1706
1993 0.00950.00820.00810.21170.16740.15120.40910.38240.34550.23180.24150.25270.07390.07740.08090.15800.16410.1719
1994 0.00930.00800.00790.21000.16620.15010.40600.37960.34290.23020.23980.25090.07340.07690.08040.15680.16290.1706
1995 0.00750.00650.00640.16780.13280.11990.32440.30330.27400.18390.19160.20050.05860.06140.06420.12530.13020.1363
Average 0.008700.007530.007390.19550.15470.13970.37800.35330.31920.21430.22320.23360.06830.07160.07480.14590.15170.1588
Unadjusted Cancer Riska 2.772.402.350.350.280.250.040.040.03
Age Sensitivity Weighting Factor 0.4390.2141.0360.4390.2141.0360.4390.2141.036
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk 1.220.512.440.160.06 0.3 0.02 0.00.0
70-yr Cumulative Riskb 4.17 0.48 0.06 Average PM2.5 = 0.22 Average PM2.5 = 0.07 Average PM2.5 = 0.15
4.71 per million
Notes:
Maximum DPM & PM2.5 concentrations occur at receptors closest to Hwy 101 in western portion site
a Cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming constant 70-year exposure to concentration for year of analysis - without age sensitivity adjustments.
b Cumulative cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming variable exposure over a 70-year period due to decreased concentrations over time
and incorporating age adjustment factors.
Total Risk From All TACs =
143
Miller Avenue Parcel A, Second Floor - Hwy 101 DPM, PM2.5 & TOG TACs
CAL3QHCR Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Cancer Risk in Project Area
Receptor Information
Number of Receptors 7
Receptor Heights = 4.85 m (16 feet)
Receptor distances =10 meter (33 feet) spacing
Meteorological Conditions
San Francisco Airport Hourly Data 1991 - 1995
Land Use Classification urban
Wind speed =variable
Wind direction =variable
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Inhalation Dose Factors
Value1
DBR A ExposureExposureExposureEFED AT
Exposure Type (L/kg BW-day)(-)(hr/day)(days/week)(week/year)(days/yr)(Years)(days)
Residential (70-Year)302 1 24 7 503507025,550
1 Default values recommended by OEHHA& Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cancer Risk (per million) = Inhalation Dose x CRAF x CPF x 106
= URF x Cair
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
CRAF = Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor [adjustment factors are dependent on emissions period and duration of exposure]
URF =Unit risk factor (cancer risk per μg/m3)
Unit Risk Factors (risk per million per µg/m 3 ) for DPM and Organic TACs from Vehicles
CPF Exhaust Evaporative
Exposure Type (mg/kg-day)-1 DPM TOG TACsTOG TACs
Residential (70-Yr Exposure)1.10E+00318.5 1.8 0.107
MEI Cancer Risk Calculations - Receptor Height = 4.85 m
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Total Maximum Road Dust Maximum Vehicle
Meteorological
DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
Exhaust TOG
Concentration µg/m3)
Evaporative TOG
Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)
Data Year 202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030
1991 0.00770.00670.00650.17320.13700.12380.33480.31300.28270.18980.19780.20690.06060.06340.06630.12930.13430.1407
1992 0.00910.00780.00770.20410.16150.14590.39460.36890.33320.22370.23310.24390.07140.07470.07810.15240.15830.1658
1993 0.00920.00800.00780.20550.16250.14680.39720.37130.33540.22510.23450.24540.07170.07510.07850.15340.15940.1669
1994 0.00900.00780.00770.20390.16130.14570.39410.36840.33280.22340.23280.24360.07130.07460.07800.15220.15810.1656
1995 0.00730.00630.00620.16300.12890.11650.31510.29460.26610.17860.18610.19570.05700.05960.06330.12170.12640.1324
Average 0.008450.007310.007180.19000.15030.13570.36720.34320.31010.20810.21680.22710.06640.06950.07280.14180.14730.1543
Unadjusted Cancer Riska 2.692.332.290.340.270.250.040.040.03
Age Sensitivity Weighting Factor 0.4390.2141.0360.4390.2141.0360.4390.2141.036
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk 1.180.502.370.150.06 0.3 0.02 0.00.0
70-yr Cumulative Riskb 4.05 0.46 0.06 Average PM2.5 = 0.22 Average PM2.5 = 0.07 Average PM2.5 = 0.15
4.57 per million
Notes:
Maximum DPM & PM2.5 concentrations occur at receptors closest to Hwy 101 in western portion site
a Cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming constant 70-year exposure to concentration for year of analysis - without age sensitivity adjustments.
b Cumulative cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming variable exposure over a 70-year period due to decreased concentrations over time
and incorporating age adjustment factors.
Total Risk From All TACs =
144
Miller Avenue Parcel A, Second Floor - Hwy 101 DPM, PM2.5 & TOG TACs
CAL3QHCR Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Cancer Risk in Project Area
Receptor Information
Number of Receptors 7
Receptor Heights = 4.85 m (16 feet)
Receptor distances =10 meter (33 feet) spacing
Meteorological Conditions
San Francisco Airport Hourly Data 1991 - 1995
Land Use Classification urban
Wind speed =variable
Wind direction =variable
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Inhalation Dose Factors
Value1
DBR A ExposureExposureExposureEFED AT
Exposure Type (L/kg BW-day)(-)(hr/day)(days/week)(week/year)(days/yr)(Years)(days)
Residential (70-Year)302 1 24 7 503507025,550
1 Default values recommended by OEHHA& Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cancer Risk (per million) = Inhalation Dose x CRAF x CPF x 106
= URF x Cair
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
CRAF = Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor [adjustment factors are dependent on emissions period and duration of exposure]
URF =Unit risk factor (cancer risk per μg/m3)
Unit Risk Factors (risk per million per µg/m 3 ) for DPM and Organic TACs from Vehicles
CPF Exhaust Evaporative
Exposure Type (mg/kg-day)-1 DPM TOG TACsTOG TACs
Residential (70-Yr Exposure)1.10E+00318.5 1.8 0.107
MEI Cancer Risk Calculations - Receptor Height = 4.85 m
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Total Maximum Road Dust Maximum Vehicle
Meteorological
DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
Exhaust TOG
Concentration µg/m3)
Evaporative TOG
Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)
Data Year 202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030
1991 0.00770.00670.00650.17320.13700.12380.33480.31300.28270.18980.19780.20690.06060.06340.06630.12930.13430.1407
1992 0.00910.00780.00770.20410.16150.14590.39460.36890.33320.22370.23310.24390.07140.07470.07810.15240.15830.1658
1993 0.00920.00800.00780.20550.16250.14680.39720.37130.33540.22510.23450.24540.07170.07510.07850.15340.15940.1669
1994 0.00900.00780.00770.20390.16130.14570.39410.36840.33280.22340.23280.24360.07130.07460.07800.15220.15810.1656
1995 0.00730.00630.00620.16300.12890.11650.31510.29460.26610.17860.18610.19570.05700.05960.06330.12170.12640.1324
Average 0.008450.007310.007180.19000.15030.13570.36720.34320.31010.20810.21680.22710.06640.06950.07280.14180.14730.1543
Unadjusted Cancer Riska 2.692.332.290.340.270.250.040.040.03
Age Sensitivity Weighting Factor 0.4390.2141.0360.4390.2141.0360.4390.2141.036
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk 1.180.502.370.150.06 0.3 0.02 0.00.0
70-yr Cumulative Riskb 4.05 0.46 0.06 Average PM2.5 = 0.22 Average PM2.5 = 0.07 Average PM2.5 = 0.15
4.57 per million
Notes:
Maximum DPM & PM2.5 concentrations occur at receptors closest to Hwy 101 in western portion site
a Cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming constant 70-year exposure to concentration for year of analysis - without age sensitivity adjustments.
b Cumulative cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming variable exposure over a 70-year period due to decreased concentrations over time
and incorporating age adjustment factors.
Total Risk From All TACs =
145
Miller Avenue Parcel A, 3rd Floor - Hwy 101 DPM, PM2.5 & TOG TACs
CAL3QHCR Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Cancer Risk in Project Area
Receptor Information
Number of Receptors 45
Receptor Heights = 8.5 m (28 feet)
Receptor distances =10 meter (33 feet) spacing
Meteorological Conditions
San Francisco Airport Hourly Data 1991 - 1995
Land Use Classification urban
Wind speed =variable
Wind direction =variable
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Inhalation Dose Factors
Value1
DBR A ExposureExposureExposureEFED AT
Exposure Type (L/kg BW-day)(-)(hr/day)(days/week)(week/year)(days/yr)(Years)(days)
Residential (70-Year)302 1 24 7 503507025,550
1 Default values recommended by OEHHA& Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cancer Risk (per million) = Inhalation Dose x CRAF x CPF x 106
= URF x Cair
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
CRAF = Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor [adjustment factors are dependent on emissions period and duration of exposure]
URF =Unit risk factor (cancer risk per μg/m3)
Unit Risk Factors (risk per million per µg/m 3 ) for DPM and Organic TACs from Vehicles
CPF Exhaust Evaporative
Exposure Type (mg/kg-day)-1 DPM TOG TACsTOG TACs
Residential (70-Yr Exposure)1.10E+00318.5 1.8 0.107
MEI Cancer Risk Calculations - Receptor Height = 8.5 m
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Total Maximum Road Dust Maximum Vehicle
Meteorological
DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
Exhaust TOG
Concentration µg/m3)
Evaporative TOG
Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)
Data Year 202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030
1991 0.01090.00940.00930.24480.19370.17500.47320.44240.39960.26830.27950.29250.08560.08960.09370.18270.18990.1988
1992 0.01270.01100.01080.28780.22770.20570.55630.52020.46990.31550.32870.34400.10070.10550.11020.21480.22330.2338
1993 0.01280.01100.01080.28480.22530.20350.55050.51460.46490.31200.32500.34010.09950.10410.10880.21260.22090.2313
1994 0.01230.01060.01040.27770.21970.19850.53680.50190.45340.30440.31710.33190.09710.10170.10630.20730.21540.2256
1995 0.01040.00900.00880.23290.18420.16640.45010.42070.38010.25510.26580.27810.08140.08520.08900.17380.18060.1891
Average 0.011800.010210.010030.26560.21010.18980.51340.48000.43360.29110.30320.31730.09280.09720.10160.19820.20600.2157
Unadjusted Cancer Riska 3.763.253.200.480.380.340.050.050.05
Age Sensitivity Weighting Factor 0.4390.2141.0360.4390.2141.0360.4390.2141.036
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk 1.650.703.310.210.08 0.4 0.02 0.00.0
70-yr Cumulative Riskb 5.66 0.65 0.08 Average PM2.5 = 0.30 Average PM2.5 = 0.10 Average PM2.5 = 0.21
6.39 per million
Notes:
Maximum DPM & PM2.5 concentrations occur at receptors closest to Hwy 101 in eastern portion site
a Cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming constant 70-year exposure to concentration for year of analysis - without age sensitivity adjustments.
b Cumulative cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming variable exposure over a 70-year period due to decreased concentrations over time
and incorporating age adjustment factors.
Total Risk From All TACs =
146
Miller Avenue Parcel D, Third Floor - Hwy 101 DPM, PM2.5 & TOG TACs
CAL3QHCR Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Cancer Risk in Project Area
Receptor Information
Number of Receptors 25
Receptor Heights = 8.5 m (28 feet)
Receptor distances =10 meter (33 feet) spacing
Meteorological Conditions
San Francisco Airport Hourly Data 1991 - 1995
Land Use Classification urban
Wind speed =variable
Wind direction =variable
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Inhalation Dose Factors
Value1
DBR A ExposureExposureExposureEFED AT
Exposure Type (L/kg BW-day)(-)(hr/day)(days/week)(week/year)(days/yr)(Years)(days)
Residential (70-Year)302 1 24 7 503507025,550
1 Default values recommended by OEHHA& Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cancer Risk (per million) = Inhalation Dose x CRAF x CPF x 106
= URF x Cair
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
CRAF = Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor [adjustment factors are dependent on emissions period and duration of exposure]
URF =Unit risk factor (cancer risk per μg/m3)
Unit Risk Factors (risk per million per µg/m 3 ) for DPM and Organic TACs from Vehicles
CPF Exhaust Evaporative
Exposure Type (mg/kg-day)-1 DPM TOG TACsTOG TACs
Residential (70-Yr Exposure)1.10E+00318.5 1.8 0.107
MEI Cancer Risk Calculations - Receptor Height = 8.5 m
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Total Maximum Road Dust Maximum Vehicle
Meteorological
DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
Exhaust TOG
Concentration µg/m3)
Evaporative TOG
Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)
Data Year 202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030202020252030
1991 0.00950.00820.00810.21270.16830.15200.41120.38440.34720.23310.24280.25410.07430.07780.08130.15880.16500.1727
1992 0.01100.00950.00930.24830.19640.17750.47990.44870.40530.27210.28350.29670.08680.09090.09500.18530.19260.2017
1993 0.01110.00960.00950.24720.19550.17670.47790.44670.40350.27080.28210.29520.08630.09030.09440.18450.19170.2007
1994 0.01090.00950.00930.24720.19560.17670.47790.44670.40360.27090.28220.29540.08640.09050.09460.18450.19170.2008
1995 0.00940.00810.00800.21050.16650.15040.40690.38030.34360.23060.24020.25140.07350.07700.08050.15710.16320.1710
Average 0.010380.008990.008830.23320.18450.16660.45080.42140.38060.25550.26620.27850.08150.08530.08920.17400.18080.1894
Unadjusted Cancer Riska 3.312.862.810.420.330.300.050.050.04
Age Sensitivity Weighting Factor 0.4390.2141.0360.4390.2141.0360.4390.2141.036
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk 1.450.612.910.190.07 0.3 0.02 0.00.0
70-yr Cumulative Riskb 4.98 0.57 0.07 Average PM2.5 = 0.27 Average PM2.5 = 0.09 Average PM2.5 = 0.18
5.62 per million
Notes:
Maximum DPM & PM2.5 concentrations occur at receptors closest to Hwy 101 in eastern portion site
a Cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming constant 70-year exposure to concentration for year of analysis - without age sensitivity adjustments.
b Cumulative cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming variable exposure over a 70-year period due to decreased concentrations over time
and incorporating age adjustment factors.
Total Risk From All TACs =
147
26
Attachment 5: Caltrain Modeling Summaries and Cancer Risk Calculations
148
Miller Avenue Parcels, South San Francisco
DPM Modeling - Rail Line Information and DPM and PM2.5 Emission Rates
Caltrain Electrification and Diesel-Powered Freight Trains
Sensitivity Weighted DPM Emission Rates
Year Description No. Lines
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Length
(ft)
Link
Length
(miles)
Link
Length
(m)
Release
Height
(m)
No.
Trains
per Day
Train
Travel
Speed
(mph)
Average Daily
Emission Rate
(g/mi/day)
Average Daily
Emission Rate
(g/day)
Link
Emission
Rate
(g/s)
Link
Emission
Rate
(lb/hr)
2020-2024 Passenger - Caltrain 1 12 3.7 2,9430.56897 5.0 142038.7 21.62.50E-041.98E-03
Passenger - Other 1 12 3.7 2,9430.56897 5.0 0 20 0.0 0.0 0.00E+000.00E+00
Freight Trains 1 12 3.7 2,9410.56897 5.0 4 2019.1 10.71.23E-049.79E-04
Total 57.9 32.23.73E-042.96E-03
2025+Passenger 1 10 3.0 2,9430.56897 5.0 2 204.40 2.5 2.84E-052.25E-04
Passenger - Other 1 10 3.0 2,9430.56897 5.0 0 20 0.0 0.0 0.00E+000.00E+00
Freight Trains 1 10 3.0 2,9410.56897 5.0 4 2017.14 9.5 1.11E-048.77E-04
Total 21.5 12.01.39E-041.10E-03
Notes:Emission based on Emission Factors for Locomotives, USEPA 2009 (EPA-420-F-09-025)
Average emissions calculated for periods 2018-2019, 2020-2024, and 2025-2088 incorporating age sensitivity factors.
Fuel correction factors from Offroad Modeling Change Technical memo, Changes to the Locomotive Inventory, CARB July 2006.
DPM & PM2.5 calculated as 92% of PM emissions (CARB CEIDERS PM2.5 fractions)
25% of Caltrain trains assumed to be diesel in 2020. This represents about 7 trains of the current rolling stock of 29 trains. These will be operated only during weekday peak periods.
After 2025 it is assumed that on an annual average basis there would be 2 diesel train trips per day between San Francisco and San Jose.
Passenger trains assumed to operate for
Freight trains assumed to operate for
Caltrain - with electrification
Arrive/Depart Station Diesel Electric Total Arrive/Depart Station Diesel
Passenger trains - weekday = 197392 Passenger trains - weekday = 0
Passenger trains - weekend = 0 3232 Passenger trains - weekend = 0
Passenger trains - Sat only = 044 Passenger trains - Sat only = 0
Total Trains =19109128 Total Trains =0
Annual average daily trains =146275 Annual average daily trains =0
Locomotive horsepower = 3285 (before 2020)
Locomotive horsepower = 3600 (2020 and later)Locomotive horsepower = 3200
Locomotives per train =1 Locomotives per train =1
Locomotive engine load = 0.6 Locomotive engine load = 0.6
Freight
Freight trains per day = 47 days/week
Locomotive horsepower = 2300 (note: average hp for UPRR locomotive in CA in 2009 was 2,200 hp)
Locomotives per train =2
Total horsepower =4600
Locomotive engine load = 0.6
Locomotive Emission Factors (g/hp-hr) - Sensitivity Weighted
Train Type 2020-2024 2025 - 2089
Passenger 0.041 0.031
Freight 0.045 0.040
PM2.5 to PM ratio =0.92
CARB Fuel Adj Factor
20102011+
Passenger 0.7170.709
Freight 0.8510.840
24 hours per day
24 hours per day
Other Passenger Trains
149
Diesel Locomotive Emission Factors and Age Sensitivity Weighted Emission Factor Calculations
Sensitivity Weighted Locomotive Emission Factors
Large Passenger/
Line Haul Commuter
SensitivitySensitivity
WeightedWeighted
EPA Locomotive Emission Factorsa ASF EmissionEmission
Operation Large Line Haul Passenger/Commuter Exposure Age Sensitivity Factors (ASF)Adjustment Rate Rate
Year (g/gal)(g/hp-hr)b (g/gal)(g/hp-hr)b Year 10 31 Factor (g/hp-hr)(g/hp-hr)
2020 2.3 0.11 2.1 0.10 1 1.0 0.1430.01580.0144
2021 2.2 0.11 2 0.10 2 1.0 0.1430.01510.0137
2022 2 0.10 1.8 0.09 3 0.250.75 0.0680.00650.0059
2023 1.9 0.09 1.7 0.08 4 1.0 0.0430.00390.0035
2024 1.7 0.08 1.5 0.07 5 1.0 0.0430.00350.0031
2025 1.6 0.08 1.4 0.07 6 1.0 0.0430.00330.0029
2026 1.5 0.07 1.2 0.06 7 1.0 0.0430.00310.0025
2027 1.4 0.07 1.1 0.05 8 1.0 0.0430.00290.0023
2028 1.3 0.06 1 0.05 9 1.0 0.0430.00270.0021
2029 1.1 0.05 0.9 0.04 10 1.0 0.0430.00230.0019
2030 1 0.05 0.8 0.04 11 1.0 0.0430.00210.0016
2031 1 0.05 0.7 0.03 12 1.0 0.0430.00210.0014
2032 0.9 0.04 0.7 0.03 13 1.0 0.0430.00190.0014
2033 0.8 0.04 0.6 0.03 14 1.0 0.0430.00160.0012
2034 0.7 0.03 0.6 0.03 15 1.0 0.0430.00140.0012
2035 0.7 0.03 0.5 0.02 16 1.0 0.0430.00140.0010
2036 0.6 0.03 0.5 0.02 17 0.250.750.0210.00060.0005
2037 0.6 0.03 0.4 0.02 18 1.00.0140.00040.0003
2038 0.5 0.02 0.4 0.02 19 1.00.0140.00030.0003
2039 0.5 0.02 0.4 0.02 20 1.00.0140.00030.0003
2040 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 21 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2041 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 22 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2042 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 23 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2043 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 24 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2044 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 25 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2045 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 26 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2046 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 27 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2047 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 28 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2048 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 29 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2049 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 30 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2050 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 31 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2051 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 32 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2052 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 33 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2053 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 34 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2054 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 35 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2055 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 36 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2056 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 37 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2057 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 38 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2058 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 39 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2059 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 40 1.00.014 0.00030.0002
2060 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 41 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2061 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 42 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2062 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 43 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2063 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 44 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2064 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 45 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2065 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 46 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2066 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 47 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2067 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 48 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2068 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 49 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2069 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 50 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2070 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 51 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2071 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 52 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2072 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 53 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2073 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 54 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2074 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 55 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2075 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 56 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2076 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 57 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2077 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 58 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2078 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 59 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2079 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 60 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2080 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 61 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2081 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 62 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2082 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 63 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2083 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 64 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2084 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 65 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2085 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 66 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2086 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 67 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2087 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 68 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2088 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 69 1.00.0140.00030.0002
2089 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.01 70 1.00.0140.00030.0002
a Emission based on Emission Factors for Locomotives, USEPA 2009 (EPA-420-F-09-025) 70-Year Total 0.085 0.072
b grams per horsepower-hour calculated using fuel use of 20.8 hp-hr/gal (EPA, 2009)
150
Miller Avenue Parcels, South San Francisco
PM2.5 Modeling - Rail Line Information and PM2.5 Emission Rates
PM Emission Rates
Year Description No. Lines
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Length
(ft)
Link
Length
(miles)
Link
Length
(m)
Release
Height
(m)
No.
Trains
per Day
Train
Travel
Speed
(mph)
Average Daily
Emission Rate
(g/mi/day)
Average Daily
Emission Rate
(g/day)
Link
Emission
Rate
(g/s)
Link
Emission
Rate
(lb/hr)
2020-2024 Passenger - Caltrain 1 10 3.0 2,3790.45725 5.0 142096.3 43.45.02E-043.98E-03
Passenger - Other 1 10 3.0 2,3790.45725 5.0 0 50 0.0 0.0 0.00E+000.00E+00
Freight Trains 1 10 3.0 2,3790.45725 5.0 4 2047.2 21.22.46E-041.95E-03
Total 143.464.67.48E-045.94E-03
2025+Passenger 1 10 3.0 2,3790.45725 5.0 2 209.48 4.3 4.94E-053.92E-04
Passenger - Other 1 10 3.0 2,3790.45725 5.0 0 50 0.0 0.0 0.00E+000.00E+00
Freight Trains 1 10 3.0 2,3790.45725 5.0 4 2032.8114.81.71E-041.36E-03
Total 42.3 19.12.21E-041.75E-03
Notes:Emission based on Emission Factors for Locomotives, USEPA 2009 (EPA-420-F-09-025)
Average emissions calculated for periods 2018-2019, 2020-2024, and 2025-2088 incorporating age sensitivity factors.
Fuel correction factors from Offroad Modeling Change Technical memo, Changes to the Locomotive Inventory, CARB July 2006.
DPM & PM2.5 calculated as 92% of PM emissions (CARB CEIDERS PM2.5 fractions)
25% of Caltrain trains assumed to be diesel in 2020. This represents about 7 trains of the current rolling stock of 29 trains. These will be operated only during weekday peak periods.
After 2025 it is assumed that on an annual average basis there would be 2 diesel train trips per day between San Francisco and San Jose.
Passenger trains assumed to operate for
Freight trains assumed to operate for
Caltrain - with electrification
Arrive/Depart Station Diesel Electric Total Arrive/Depart Station Diesel
Passenger trains - weekday = 197392 Passenger trains - weekday = 0
Passenger trains - weekend = 0 3232 Passenger trains - weekend = 0
Passenger trains - Sat only = 044 Passenger trains - Sat only = 0
Total Trains =19109128 Total Trains =0
Annual average daily trains =146275 Annual average daily trains =0
Locomotive horsepower = 3285 (before 2020)
Locomotive horsepower = 3600 (2020 and later)Locomotive horsepower = 3200
Locomotives per train =1 Locomotives per train =1
Locomotive engine load = 0.6 Locomotive engine load = 0.6
Freight
Freight trains per day = 47 days/week
Locomotive horsepower = 2300 (note: average hp for UPRR locomotive in CA in 2009 was 2,200 hp)
Locomotives per train =2
Total horsepower =4600
Locomotive engine load = 0.6
Locomotive PM Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)
Train Type 20202025
Passenger 0.1010.067
Freight 0.1110.077
PM2.5 to PM ratio =0.92
CARB Fuel Adj Factor
20102011+
Passenger 0.7170.709
Freight 0.8510.840
24 hours per day
24 hours per day
Other Passenger Trains
151
Miller Avenue Parcel A, South San Francisco - Ground Floor Residential Receptors (1.5 meter receptor height)
AERMOD Railroad DPM Risk & PM2.5 Modeling Parameters and Maximum Cancer Risk at Project Site
Caltrain Electrification and Diesel-Powered Freight Trains
Receptor Information
Number of Receptors 7
Receptor Spacing =10 meter spacing
Receptor Height = 1.5 meters (ground floor residential)
Meteorological Conditions
San Francisco Airport Hourly 2009-2013
Land Use Classification urban
Wind speed =variable
Wind direction =variable
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Inhalation Dose Factors
Value1
DBR A ExposureExposureExposureEFED AT
Exposure Type (L/kg BW-day)(-)(hr/day)(days/week)(week/year)(days/yr)(Years)(days)
Residential (70-Year)302 1 24 7 50 3507025,550
1 Default values recommended by OEHHA& Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cancer Risk (per million) = Inhalation Dose x CRAF x SWF x 106
= URF x Cair
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
SWFi = Sensitivity weighting factor dependent on emissions period i and duration of exposure
(note: sensitivity weighting factors were appied to the emissions for each period)
URF =Unit risk factor (cancer risk per μg/m3)
Unit Risk Factors (unadjusted for age sensitivity) for DPM
CPFURF
Exposure Type (mg/kg-day)-1 DPM
Residential (70-Yr Exposure)1.10E+00318.5
MEI Cancer Risk Calculations
Maximum Annual Maximum Annual
Meteorological
DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
PM2.5 Concentration
(µg/m3)
Data Year 2020-20242025-2089 2020-20242025-2087
2009-2013 0.00180.0006 0.0040.001
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk 0.560.20
70-yr Cumulative Risk a 0.76 Max PM2.5 = 0.004
Notes:
Receptor Heights = 1.5 m
Maximum DPM & PM2.5 concentrations occur at residential units along Cypress Ave
a Cumulative cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming variable exposure over a 70-year period due to decreased emissions over time.
152
Miller Avenue Parcel A, South San Francisco - 2nd Floor Residential Receptors (4.85 meter receptor height)
AERMOD Railroad DPM Risk & PM2.5 Modeling Parameters and Maximum Cancer Risk at Project Site
Caltrain Electrification and Diesel-Powered Freight Trains
Receptor Information
Number of Receptors 7
Receptor Spacing =10 meter spacing
Receptor Height = 4.85 meters (ground floor residential)
Meteorological Conditions
San Francisco Airport Hourly 2009-2013
Land Use Classification urban
Wind speed =variable
Wind direction =variable
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Inhalation Dose Factors
Value1
DBR A ExposureExposureExposureEFED AT
Exposure Type (L/kg BW-day)(-)(hr/day)(days/week)(week/year)(days/yr)(Years)(days)
Residential (70-Year)302 1 24 7 50 3507025,550
1 Default values recommended by OEHHA& Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cancer Risk (per million) = Inhalation Dose x CRAF x SWF x 106
= URF x Cair
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
SWFi = Sensitivity weighting factor dependent on emissions period i and duration of exposure
(note: sensitivity weighting factors were appied to the emissions for each period)
URF =Unit risk factor (cancer risk per μg/m3)
Unit Risk Factors (unadjusted for age sensitivity) for DPM
CPFURF
Exposure Type (mg/kg-day)-1 DPM
Residential (70-Yr Exposure)1.10E+00318.5
MEI Cancer Risk Calculations
Maximum Annual Maximum Annual
Meteorological
DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
PM2.5 Concentration
(µg/m3)
Data Year 2020-20242025-2089 2020-20242025-2087
1968-1972 0.00170.0006 0.0030.001
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk 0.55 0.2
70-yr Cumulative Risk a 0.75 Max PM2.5 = 0.003
Notes:
Receptor Heights = 4.85 m
Maximum DPM & PM2.5 concentrations occur at residential units along Cypress Ave
a Cumulative cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming variable exposure over a 70-year period due to decreased emissions over time.
153
Miller Avenue Parcel A, South San Francisco - 3rd Floor Residential Receptors (8.5 meter receptor height)
AERMOD Railroad DPM Risk & PM2.5 Modeling Parameters and Maximum Cancer Risk at Project Site
Caltrain Electrification and Diesel-Powered Freight Trains
Receptor Information
Number of Receptors 45
Receptor Spacing =10 meter spacing
Receptor Height = 8.5 meters (ground floor residential)
Meteorological Conditions
San Francisco Airport Hourly 2009-2013
Land Use Classification urban
Wind speed =variable
Wind direction =variable
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Inhalation Dose Factors
Value1
DBR A ExposureExposureExposureEFED AT
Exposure Type (L/kg BW-day)(-)(hr/day)(days/week)(week/year)(days/yr)(Years)(days)
Residential (70-Year)302 1 24 7 50 3507025,550
1 Default values recommended by OEHHA& Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cancer Risk (per million) = Inhalation Dose x CRAF x SWF x 106
= URF x Cair
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
SWFi = Sensitivity weighting factor dependent on emissions period i and duration of exposure
(note: sensitivity weighting factors were appied to the emissions for each period)
URF =Unit risk factor (cancer risk per μg/m3)
Unit Risk Factors (unadjusted for age sensitivity) for DPM
CPFURF
Exposure Type (mg/kg-day)-1 DPM
Residential (70-Yr Exposure)1.10E+00318.5
MEI Cancer Risk Calculations
Maximum Annual Maximum Annual
Meteorological
DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
PM2.5 Concentration
(µg/m3)
Data Year 2020-20242025-2089 2020-20242025-2087
1968-1972 0.00140.0005 0.0030.001
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk 0.44 0.2
70-yr Cumulative Risk a 0.60 Max PM2.5 = 0.003
Notes:
Receptor Heights = 8.5 m
Maximum DPM & PM2.5 concentrations occur at residential units along Airport Blvd closest to rail line
a Cumulative cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming variable exposure over a 70-year period due to decreased emissions over time.
154
Miller Avenue Parcel D, South San Francisco - 2nd Floor Residential Receptors (4.85 meter receptor height)
AERMOD Railroad DPM Risk & PM2.5 Modeling Parameters and Maximum Cancer Risk at Project Site
Caltrain Electrification and Diesel-Powered Freight Trains
Receptor Information
Number of Receptors 25
Receptor Spacing =10 meter spacing
Receptor Height = 4.85 meters (ground floor residential)
Meteorological Conditions
San Francisco Airport Hourly 2009-2013
Land Use Classification urban
Wind speed =variable
Wind direction =variable
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Inhalation Dose Factors
Value1
DBR A ExposureExposureExposureEFED AT
Exposure Type (L/kg BW-day)(-)(hr/day)(days/week)(week/year)(days/yr)(Years)(days)
Residential (70-Year)302 1 24 7 50 3507025,550
1 Default values recommended by OEHHA& Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cancer Risk (per million) = Inhalation Dose x CRAF x SWF x 106
= URF x Cair
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
SWFi = Sensitivity weighting factor dependent on emissions period i and duration of exposure
(note: sensitivity weighting factors were appied to the emissions for each period)
URF =Unit risk factor (cancer risk per μg/m3)
Unit Risk Factors (unadjusted for age sensitivity) for DPM
CPFURF
Exposure Type (mg/kg-day)-1 DPM
Residential (70-Yr Exposure)1.10E+00318.5
MEI Cancer Risk Calculations
Maximum Annual Maximum Annual
Meteorological
DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
PM2.5 Concentration
(µg/m3)
Data Year 2020-20242025-2089 2020-20242025-2089
1968-1972 0.00150.0005 0.0030.001
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk 0.47 0.2
70-yr Cumulative Risk a 0.64 Max PM2.5 = 0.003
Notes:
Receptor Heights = 4.85 m
Maximum DPM & PM2.5 concentrations occur at residential site alongAirport Blvd closest to rail line
a Cumulative cancer risk (per million) calculated assuming variable exposure over a 70-year period due to decreased emissions over time.
155
Archaeological Resource Management
Robert R. Cartier, Ph.D.
496 North 5th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone (408) 295-1373
Fax (408) 286-2040
email: armcartier@netscape.net
Attn: Mr. Ken Busch November 20, 2015
Sares-Regis Group of Northern California
901 Mariners Island Blvd, #700
San Mateo, CA 94404
RE: HISTORIC EVALUATION OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FORD BUILDINGS
AND ASSOCIATED MURAL ON AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Dear Mr. Busch:
As per your request our firm is submitting the enclosed historical evaluation of the South City
Ford Buildings and associated mural on Airport Boulevard. Based upon the requirements of the
City of South San Francisco, a methodology was designed which included the following services:
- interior and exterior photography of the structures at 315 and 415 Airport Boulevard
- evaluation of the mural ‘Transporting Oneself”
- historic background research to determine past ownership and associations
- completion of State Historic Resources Evaluation forms (DPR) 523 for the structures
- a cover letter describing the findings and making recommendations
- expedited time line for completion
Based upon the results of this investigation, it was determined that the South San Francisco Ford
Buildings are not listed on the City of South San Francisco Historic Resources Inventory, the
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). In addition, the structures do not appear to be eligible for inclusion in any of these
registers. However, as the dealership was operated by the Lautze family for over 50 years in
South San Francisco, it is recommended that a plaque be erected at or in front of the site of the
original 1925 structure, describing the history of Fred J. Lautze and the dealership.
Sincerely,
Robert Cartier, Ph.D.
RC/dj Principal Investigator
156
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ______________________________
NRHP Status Code ______________________
Other Listings ________________________________________
Review Code ________ Reviewer __________ Date ________
Page _1_ of 30 Resource Name or # ____South San Francisco Ford
P1. Other Identifier: ___Lautze Ford___________________
P2. Location: ____ Not for Publication __x Unrestricted *a. County _San Mateo___
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: San Francisco S. Date: 2015 T ; R ; 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec ; BM
c. Address: 415 Airport Blvd. City: South San Francisco Zip:94080
d. UTM: 10N 5 52 253mE/41 67 797mN
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
Located between Airport Boulevard and Cypress Avenue, on the north and south sides of Miller Avenue.
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
The original structure at 315 Airport Boulevard was constructed in 1925. This structure is rectangular in shape, with a
flat roof. The front facade, along Cypress Avenue, is built in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, with an ornamental
parapet and a centrally placed diamond shaped window. The large central garage bay is flanked by sets of three large
multi-paned windows. Continued on Page 5
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP06: Commercial Building
*P4. Resources Present: x_Building __Structure __Object __District __Element of District __Site __Other
P5a. Photo or drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, objects.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)
Oblique view of the Ford Commercial Truck Center at
415 Airport
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources
Historic x Prehistoric Both
315 Airport Blvd constructed 1925
415 Airport Blvd constructed circa 1960
*P7. Owner and Address:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
*P8. Recorded by:
Robert Cartier
Archaeological Resource Management
496 North 5th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
*P9. Date Recorded: 11/20/2015
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite Survey Report and other sources, or enter "none.")
None
* Attachments: __None x_Location Map __Sketch Map x_Continuation Sheet x_Building, Structure, and Object Record
__Archaeological Record __District Record __Linear Feature Record __Milling Station Record __Rock Art Record __Artifact
Record __Photographic Record __Other (List):
157
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page _2_ of 30 *NRHP Status Code _________________________
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___315 Airport Blvd._____
B1. Historic Name: ____Lautze Ford Dealership__________________________
B2. Common Name: ____Lautze Ford_________________________________________________
B3. Original Use: ___Automotive sales/repair___ B4. Present Use: _____vacant/storage______
*B5. Architectural Style: ___Spanish Colonial Revival/Modern ____________
*B6. Construction History:
The original portion of the Ford dealership was constructed in 1925. The front façade of the original portion was heavily
modified, circa the 1950’s. Also in the 1954 and 1958, the large garage storage and showroom areas were added.
*B7. Moved? _x No ___ Yes ___ Unknown Date: _______ Original Location: __________________
*B8. Related Features:
None.
B9a. Architect: ________unknown______________ b. Builder: ______Richard Stickle_(original 1925 portion)__
*B10. Significance: Theme __Transportation________ Area ____South San Francisco___
Period of Significance __Post War_ Property Type ___Commercial _ Applicable Criteria ____N/A____
The Ford Dealership on Airport Boulevard was originally operated by Fred J. Lautze. Fred Lautze was born in San
Francisco California on April 10, 1889. He was originally trained as a plumber, and worked for M. Levy & Co. of San
Francisco. Subsequently, he was employed by Pacific Hardware & Steel Company. His start in the automobile industry
came in 1914; he was employed in the assembly department of the Ford Motor Company in San Francisco, later
switching to automotive sales. He was soon offered a partnership in a Ford dealership in Fresno, however after a brief
time there, he and his family moved to South San Francisco in 1920. That same year he opened a Ford Dealership
(known originally as the Depot Garage) at 410 San Bruno Road. After learning of a proposed road widening, Fred
purchased the lot across the street, now known as 315 Airport Boulevard.
See Continuation Sheet, Page 5
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) _____N/A_______________________________
*B12. References:
See Continuation Sheet, Page 9
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: ______Robert R. Cartier________
*Date of Evaluation: ______11/20/2015___________
(This space reserved for official comments.)
158
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page _3_ of 30 *NRHP Status Code _________________________
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___415 Airport Blvd._____
B1. Historic Name: ____Lautze Ford Commercial Truck Center___________________________
B2. Common Name: ____Lautze Ford_________________________________________________
B3. Original Use: ___Automotive sales/repair___ B4. Present Use: _____vacant/storage______
*B5. Architectural Style: ___modern vernacular____________
*B6. Construction History:
Based upon visual evaluation and available documentation, the Commercial Truck Center was constructed circa 1960.
Although the structure appears to have been re-roofed, no significant modifications appear to have been made to the
structure since that time.
*B7. Moved? _x No ___ Yes ___ Unknown Date: _______ Original Location: __________________
*B8. Related Features:
Also present on the property is a small automotive repair garage. This structure is built on a slab foundation and
features a flat roof with broadly cantilevered eaves. The exterior walls include areas of narrow brick façade, and
painted plywood. A curvilinear brick later wraps around the southwest side of the structure. The majority of the exterior
walls are opened by large plate glass ribbon windows. The rear side of the structure includes two large roll-up bay
doors.
B9a. Architect: ______unknown__________ b. Builder: _______unknown__________
*B10. Significance: Theme __Transportation________ Area ____South San Francisco___
Period of Significance __Post War_ Property Type ___Commercial _ Applicable Criteria ____N/A____
The Ford Dealership on Airport Boulevard was originally operated by Fred J. Lautze. Fred Lautze was born in San
Francisco California on April 10, 1889. He was originally trained as a plumber, and worked for M. Levy & Co. of San
Francisco. Subsequently, he was employed by Pacific Hardware & Steel Company. His start in the automobile industry
came in 1914; he was employed in the assembly department of the Ford Motor Company in San Francisco, later
switching to automotive sales. He was soon offered a partnership in a Ford dealership in Fresno, however after a brief
time there, he and his family moved to South San Francisco in 1920. That same year he opened a Ford Dealership
(known originally as the Depot Garage) at 410 San Bruno Road. After learning of a proposed road widening, Fred
purchased the lot across the street, now known as 315 Airport Boulevard.
See Continuation Sheet, Page 5
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) _____N/A_______________________________
*B12. References:
See Continuation Sheet, Page 9
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: ______Robert R. Cartier________
*Date of Evaluation: ______11/20/2015__________
(This space reserved for official comments.)
159
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
LOCATION MAP Trinomial ________________________________
Page _4_ of 30 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) South San Francisco Ford
*Map Name: ___San Francisco South__ *Scale: __7.5 Minute_____ *Date of Map: __2015____
160
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _5_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ South San Francisco Ford.______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/2015 Continuation x Update
Continued from P3a:
Attached to this original structure are the warehouse and showroom additions, constructed in 1954 and 1958.
The warehouse features a barrel vaulted roof, supported by wooden trusses. The showroom portion of the structure is
notable for the very large plate glass windows along the northern and eastern facades, designed to display the vehicles
inside.
The primary structure at 415 Airport Blvd. is the former Ford Commercial Truck Center. This structure is built on a
concrete slab foundation. The roof is flat, and lacks overhanging eaves. The exterior walls along the front and rear of
the structure are surfaced with a quartz gravel façade. The side walls are painted concrete. The front façade features
one large roll-up garage bay door, as well as a set of glass double doors and a large plate glass shop window beneath
an unadorned cantilevered awning. Two sets of four-paned windows are located on the second story above this
awning. The rear façade includes a second large roll-up bay door, and three sets of multi-paned windows. Aside from
one small window on the northeast façade, the side walls of the structure are lacking in fenestration. Windows
throughout the structure are aluminum framed. The front of the interior of the structure includes a small customer area
and offices on the lower floor, with storage above. The remainder of the structure is an open warehouse, with exposed
roofing.
Commissioned by the City Redevelopment Agency, the mural on the northern façade of 415 Airport Boulevard is
entitled “Transporting Oneself” and was completed by Catalina Gonzalez in 1999. The mural depicts advances and
changes in transportation from prehistoric times to the space age. Moving from left to right across the mural, the first
portion depicts a cave dwelling man with fire. This blends into an image of migration on foot, as well as an early sailing
vessel. The next portion of the mural depicts a stagecoach and a railroad tunnel and train. It then moves on to depict
automotive transport, showing a mid-century era automobile and motorcycle. The final portion of the mural shows air
travel with a propeller plane, and space travel in the form of the Space Shuttle. The mural is signed at the bottom right
corner, “Catalina ’99.”
Continued from B10:
In 1925 the original structure at 315 Airport Boulevard was constructed as his new dealership; the building was
constructed by a local contractor, Mr. Richard Stickle. In 1947, after a period of extended illness, Fred Lautze turned
over the business to his youngest son, Fred C. Lautze. Large additions to the original structure at 315 Airport
Boulevard were made in 1954 and 1958. Around 1960, the structure at 415 Airport Boulevard was constructed. The
dealership remained in the Lautze family until it was sold in July, 1979. The properties were purchased by the City of
South San Francisco, the current owners, and are currently used for storage purposes.
161
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _6_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/2015 Continuation x Update
California Register of Historic Resources Criteria
A cultural resource is considered "significant" if it qualifies as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR). Properties that are eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional
history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. Association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history;
3. Embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method
of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high
artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
A property may be automatically listed in the CRHR if it is formally determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. Properties that are formally determined eligible for the NRHP are those that are designated as such
through one of the federal preservation programs administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (i.e., the
National Register, Tax Certification, and Section 106 review of federal undertakings). The CRHR interprets the integrity
of a cultural resource based upon its physical authenticity. An historic cultural resource must retain its historic
character or appearance and thus be recognizable as an historic resource. Integrity is evaluated by examining the
subject's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If the subject has retained these
qualities, it may be said to have integrity. It is possible that a cultural resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be
listed in the National Register of Historic Places yet still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If a cultural resource retains
the potential to convey significant historical/scientific data, it may be said to retain sufficient integrity for potential listing
in the CRHR.
The Ford dealership buildings on Airport Boulevard are not currently listed on the California Register of Historical
Resources. In addition, the structures do not appear to be potentially eligible for listing in this register. The structures
are not associated with any known significant historical events thus they do not appear to qualify as potentially eligible
under criterion 1. No historically significant persons appear to have been associated with the property, thus it does not
appear to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion 2. The structures are not notable examples of any architectural
style, thus they do not appear to be eligible under criterion 3. In addition, the structures do not appear to have the
potential to yield significant historical information, and thus do not appear eligible under criterion 4.
162
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _7_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/2015 Continuation x Update
National Register Criteria
The National Register of Historic Places was first established in 1966, with major revisions in 1976. The register is set
forth in 36 CFR 60 which establishes the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), standards
for their staffs and review boards, and describes the statewide survey and planning process for historic preservation.
Within this regulation guidelines are set forth concerning the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.6). In
addition, further regulations are found in 36 CFR 63-66, 800, and Bulletin 15 which define procedures for determination
of eligibility, identification of historic properties, recovery, reporting, and protection procedures. The National Register
of Historic Places was established to recognize resources associated with the accomplishments of all peoples who
have contributed to the country's history and heritage. Guidelines were designed for Federal and State agencies in
nominating cultural resources to the National Register. These guidelines are based upon integrity and significance of
the resource. Integrity applies to specific items such as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association. Quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in
resources that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet
at least one of the following criteria:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our
history:
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. That embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction;
D. That have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Integrity is defined in Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service 1982) as:
the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical
characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period. If a
property retains the physical characteristics it possessed in the past then it has the
capacity to convey association with historical patterns or persons, architectural or
engineering design and technology, or information about a culture or peoples.
There are also seven aspects of integrity which are used. These aspects are:
1. location 5. workmanship
2. design 6. feeling
3. setting 7. association
4. materials
The Ford Dealership buildings on Airport Boulevard are not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
In addition, the properties do not appear to be potentially eligible for listing in this register. The structures are not
associated with significant historic events or persons, thus they do not appear to be potentially eligible for listing under
criteria A or B. The structures are not notable examples of any architectural style, thus they do not appear eligible for
inclusion under Criterion C. The properties do not appear to be likely to yield information important in prehistory or
history, thus they do not appear to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion D.
163
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _8_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/2015 Continuation x Update
South San Francisco Historic Resource Criteria
The Historic Preservation Program began in 1986 with the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. City
Council appointed a five-member Historic Preservation Commission to carry out the task of identifying South San
Francisco's most important historic sites and structures, and protecting them from needless neglect, exterior alteration
that might destroy their historic and architectural value, or demolition.
The goals are accomplished by designating landmarks as Historic Resources. Specific criteria have been established
to define how a property qualifies for nominations as a historic resource. The criteria relate to the property's
significance to the heritage of the City, the involvement of important people who may have designed, built, resided in,
or worked in the structure, its exemplification of a special architectural style, or its careful attention to detail and
craftsmanship. Its relationship to other historic buildings or to a historic district is also considered.
In considering a proposal for designation as an historic resource, the commission shall apply any or all of the following
criteria:
(a) Its character, interest or value as a significant part of the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; and
(b) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or
(c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the
city, the state or the nation; or
(d) Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or
(e) Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the city; or
(f) Its identification as the creation, design or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly
influenced the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; or
(g) Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural and/or engineering
design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or
(h) Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic
resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity and
character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood); or
(i) Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of
the city; or
(j) Its potential of yielding significant information of archeological interest; or
(k) Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of the city, the state,
or the nation. For example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or some
other feature which contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco. (Ord. 1440 § 2, 2011)
The Ford Dealership buildings on Airport Boulevard are not currently listed as historic resources for the City of South
San Francisco. In addition, they do not appear to be eligible for inclusion in this local register under any of the criteria
listed above.
164
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _9_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/2015 Continuation x Update
Continued from B12:
Assessor's Office, County of San Mateo
2015 Record search of assessed value and associated taxes for the properties at 315 & 415 Airport Blvd.
Brown, M.
2010 San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement.
San Francisco City and County Planning Department.
Ervin, G.
N.D. Fred Lautze 1889-1971. Undated biographical sketch.
Hoover, M. et al
1966 Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford California.
McAlester, V. and L. McAlester
1997 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Recorder's Office, County of San Mateo
2015 Record search of recorded information for the properties at 315 & 415 Airport Blvd.
South San Francisco Historical Society Museum
2015 Review of clipping, photography, and other materials regarding the Lautze Ford buildings.
US Department of the Interior
1990 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings
US Department of the Interior
1982 Bulletin 15 - "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation."
Whiffen, Marcus
1992 American Architecture since 1780, Revised Edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
165
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 10_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 1: View of the front facade of 415 Airport Boulevard.
Photo 2: View of the front facade from across Airport Boulevard.
166
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 11_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 3: Oblique view of 415 Airport Boulevard from the northeast.
Photo 4: View of the mural “Transporting Oneself.”
167
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 12_ of _30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 5: View of the first portion of “Transporting Oneself” showing
cave dwelling and early water transport (Catalina Gonzalez, 1999).
Photo 6: 2nd portion of the mural showing stagecoach.
168
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 13_ of _30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 7: 3rd portion of the mural showing railway and automotive
transport.
Photo 8: Final portion of the mural showing aviation and space flight.
169
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 14_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 9: View of the north facade, showing mural.
Photo 10: View of the rear facade, note roll-up garage bay.
170
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 15_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 11: Oblique view of 415 Airport Boulevard from the southwest.
Photo 12: View of the eastern portion of the southern facade.
171
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 16_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 13: Interior view of the sales office at 415 Airport Boulevard.
Photo 14: The front of the warehouse area at 415 Airport Blvd.
172
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 17_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 15: Looking back at the sales office area from the warehouse.
Photo 16: View across the main warehouse area.
173
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 18_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 17: View of the service garage at 413 Airport Boulevard.
Photo 18: View of the southern facade of the service garage.
174
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 19_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 19: View of the rear facade of the service garage.
Photo 20: Oblique view of the service garage from the southwest.
175
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 20_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 21: Interior view of the office area in the service garage.
Photo 22: View of the garage area in the service garage.
176
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 21_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 23: View of front facade of original portion, 315 Airport Blvd.
Photo 24: Detail of diamond window and parapet at 315 Airport Blvd.
177
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 22_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 25: View of the southern wall of the original building.
Photo 26: View of warehouse area of 315 Airport Blvd from the west.
178
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 23_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 27: View of the western portion of the north facade.
Photo 28: View of the eastern portion of north facade; the showroom.
179
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 24_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 29: View along the eastern facade showing showroom windows.
Photo 30: Oblique view of the showroom from the northeast.
180
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 25_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 31: View of the southern portion of the east facade.
Photo 32: Interior view of the showroom, looking north.
181
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 26_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 33: View of the showroom, looking south towards the offices.
Photo 34: Interior view of the large warehouse addition.
182
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 27_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 35: View of support trestles in the warehouse.
Photo 36: Another view of the warehouse area.
183
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 28_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 37: Interior view of the original portion of 315 Airport Blvd.
Photo 38: View of conference room in the offices at 315 Airport Blvd.
184
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 29_ of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 39: Historic photo of the 1925 structure, 315 Airport Blvd.
Photo 40: Historic interior view of 315 Airport Boulevard.
185
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 30_ of _30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____South San Francisco Ford
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 11/20/15 Continuation X Update
Photo 41: Lautze presenting a car to police chief Louis Belloni, 1940.
Photo 42: Undated view of the showroom, circa 1970’s
186
Archaeological Resource Management
Robert R. Cartier, Ph.D.
496 North 5th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone (408) 295-1373
Fax (408) 286-2040
email: armcartier@netscape.net
Attn: Mr. Ken Busch January 15, 2016
Sares-Regis Group of Northern California
901 Mariners Island Blvd, #700
San Mateo, CA 94404
RE: AN UPDATED HISTORIC EVALUATION OF THE BERTOLUCCI’S BUILDING IN
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Dear Mr. Busch:
As per your request our firm is submitting the enclosed updated historical evaluation of the
Bertolucci’s building in South San Francisco. Based upon the requirements of the City of South
San Francisco, a methodology was designed which included the following services:
1. Exterior photography of the Bertolucci’s building
2. Historic background research to determine past ownership
3. Analysis and description of architectural characteristics of the building
4. Analysis of construction chronology for the structure, the sign and Highway 101
5. Discussion of historic associations of the structure
6. Communications with B. Bamberg, author of the original California Department of Parks
and Recreation DPR forms
7. Completion of DPR 523 for the building
8. Discussion of potential significance of the Bertolucci building, including the sign.
The Bertolucci’s Restaurant building at 421 Cypress Avenue is located across Cypress Avenue
(approximately 45 feet) from the proposed Parcel A residential building and adjacent to
(separated by an approximately 20 foot alley) the proposed Parcel B parking lot. As described in
187
our report prepared for the proposed project dated November 20, 2015, the proposed project does
not remove or otherwise impact the Bertolucci’s building or any buildings that relate to or
contribute to the Bertolucci’s building. The proposed project will, however, block the existing
view of the sign on top of the building from the adjacent elevated portion of Highway 101. The
purpose of this evaluation is to determine if blocking the view from Highway 101 is a significant
impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on our research and analysis
described below, we conclude that it is not.
Based upon the results of this investigation, it was determined that the Bertolucci’s building is
currently listed on the City of South San Francisco Historic Resources Inventory as a potential
historic resource. It appears to be eligible for inclusion in this local register under three criteria,
including: a. significance to the heritage of the City, d. as a unique blend of architectural styles,
and h. its relationship to the historic character of the downtown area. The Bertolucci’s building is
not currently listed in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). However, it
appears to be potentially eligible for inclusion in this register under two criteria. The structure is
closely associated with the growth and importance of the Italian American community in South
San Francisco, thus it appears to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion 1. The structure is
a unique blend of Spanish Colonial Revival and Neoclassical architectural elements, and thus
appears to be eligible under criterion 3. The structure is not currently listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, the structure does not appear to be eligible for
inclusion in this register.
The original portion of the Bertolucci’s building was constructed in 1924 and was operated by
the Bertolucci’s beginning in 1928 as the Liberty Hotel. The original Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) forms completed for the Bertolucci’s Restaurant building (Bamberg 1986)
states that the Bertolucci’s sign “has been visible from the heavily traveled Highway 101 for over
30 years.” However, as the sign was not constructed until 1962, this statement was (at that time)
not fully accurate. In addition, at the time the sign was constructed in 1962, the view of the sign
from Highway 101 was different from the view today, due to several factors. (1) at the time in
1962 and continuing until the early 1990’s, the overpass at Grand Avenue was smaller than it is
today. The current configuration of the overpass was completed in approximately 1994, (2)
based upon the 1956 and 1970 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of the City of South San Francisco,
commercial buildings (primarily 2-story) were present along the majority of Airport Parkway
between Grand Avenue and California Avenue throughout this time period, most of which
appear to be extant today, and (3) a small complex of row houses and a restaurant were present
on the site of the current parking lot in front of the Bertolucci's building in 1956. By 1970 the
rowhouses were demolished and a clear view of the sign was likely present from the highway. It
was not until 1994 that the current view of the sign was established from Highway 101, when the
overpass at Grand Avenue reached its current configuration (Personal Communication, S.
Bautista 2016). It should also be noted that the sign itself has been altered multiple times in
188
appearance to reflect changes in ownership. A brief chronology of these events is provided
below:
Timeline of Events, Bertolucci’s Restaurant
- 1924: Construction of the original portion of the Bertolucci’s restaurant building.
- 1925-1950: Construction of initial overpass over Grand Avenue and railroad tracks.
- 1950: Rowhouses and a restaurant present in the lot in front of Bertolucci’s (1950
Sanborn).
- 1962: Restaurant name changed to Bertolucci’s, construction of the single story
portions of the restaurant.
- 1962: Construction of the Bertolucci’s sign.
- 1970: As of this year, the row houses in the lot in front of Bertolucci’s
are no longer present (1970 Sanborn),
- 1986: Completion of the original DPR forms for the Bertolucci’s building. As of this
year the sign reads “Cucina Toscana Bertolucci’s.”
- 1994: Completion of Grand Avenue overpass in its current configuration,
today’s view of the Bertolucci’s sign is established.
- 2003: Closure of Bertolucci’s upon the retirement of Lawrence Bertolucci and Lola
Bertolucci Fox.
- 2006: Reopening of Bertolucci’s under the ownership of Peter and Victoria Sodini.
The Bertolucci’s sign is altered to read “Sodini’s Bertolucci’s.”
- 2014: The Bertolucci’s sign is altered to its current format, reading “Italian Food
Bertolucci’s.”
Based upon the chronology described above it is clear that the existing signage was not present
for the first 38 years of the history of the structure. Since that time, the sign itself has been
modified multiple times before the current version of the sign and view that exists today was
established.
During a telephone conversation (Personal Communication with B. Bamberg January 8th, 2016),
Ms. Bamberg stated that she did not feel that visibility from Highway 101 is a significant aspect
189
of the historic character of the structure. She noted that the architecture and historical
associations of the restaurant building were more salient to its historic status.
As per CEQA Guidelines, in order for an impact to be considered significant, the impact must
pose a “substantially adverse” change to that resource. A “substantially adverse” impact in the
context of historic resources is one which affects the resource “such that the significance of an
historical resource would be impaired” (PRC Section 5020.1(q)). The Bertolucci’s sign is one
several elements of the Bertolucci’s building which contribute to the historic character of the
property, however, the current view of the sign from Highway 101 is not an essential factor in
maintaining the significance of the structure or what makes the sign a contributing element to the
building given the relatively recent (1994) creation of extent of the current view and the
modifications to the sign itself. The contributing aspects of the sign to the building are based on
the age and the design of the sign itself and its relationship to the historical use of the building.
Based on our review of the characteristics of building and sign, it appears the Bertolucci’s
building would retain eligibility for both the CRHR and the local historic register regardless of
whether the sign remains visible from Highway 101 or not, due to its architecture and historic
associations.
Thus, while the proposed project would block the existing view of the sign from Highway 101,
this impact does not appear to be significant under CEQA because the lack of visibility from the
Highway would not jeopardize the structure’s eligibility for the CRHR, or its eligibility for
listing on the local register of the City of South San Francisco. Therefore, it is our professional
opinion that the proposed project would not pose any direct or indirect significant adverse impact
the historic merit of the Bertolucci’s building according to CEQA guidelines.
Sincerely,
Robert Cartier, Ph.D.
RC/dj Principal Investigator
190
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ______________________________
NRHP Status Code ______________________
Other Listings ________________________________________
Review Code ________ Reviewer __________ Date ________
Page 1_ of 24 Resource Name or # ___Bertolucci’s Restaurant___
P1. Other Identifier: ___None___________________________________________
P2. Location: ____ Not for Publication _x_ Unrestricted *a. County _San Mateo___
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: San Francisco S. Date: 2015 T ; R ; 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec ; BM
c. Address: 421 Cypress Avenue City: South San Francisco Zip: 94080
d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
APNs: 012-314-070, 012-314-080, & 012-314-090
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
The Bertolucci’s Restaurant building at 421 Cypress Avenue is a two story commercial structure in good condition.
The original portion of the structure appears to have originally been constructed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style,
with subsequent modifications adding Neoclassical elements (in keeping with the Italian theme of the restaurant).
The roof is flat and surfaced with tarpaper, with a decorative parapet along the original two story portion, featuring a
wooden balustrade with turned spindles. The upper story features extending angled bay windows on the south and
east sides, emphasizing an Italianate appearance.
See Continuation Sheet, Page 4
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP06 (Commercial Building 1-3 stories), HP36 (Ethnic Minority Property
*P4. Resources Present: xBuilding __Structure __Object __District __Element of District __Site __Other
P5a. Photo or drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, objects.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)
View of the front façade of Bertolucci’s from the
corner of Cypress and Lux.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources
Historic x Prehistoric Both
F. 1924 based upon County of San Mateo
Building permit files.
*P7. Owner and Address:
Peter and Victoria Sodini
421 Cypress Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
*P8. Recorded by:
Robert Cartier
Archaeological Resource Management
496 North 5th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
*P9. Date Recorded: 1/12/16
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite Survey Report and other sources, or enter "none.")
None
* Attachments: __None x_Location Map __Sketch Map x_Continuation Sheet x_Building, Structure, and Object Record
__Archaeological Record __District Record __Linear Feature Record __Milling Station Record __Rock Art Record __Artifact
Record __Photographic Record __Other (List):
191
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 2_ of 24 *NRHP Status Code _________________________
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _Bertolucci’s Restaurant____
B1. Historic Name: __Liberty Hotel, Joe’s Blue Room___________________________
B2. Common Name: ___Bertolucci’s Restaurant______________________________________
B3. Original Use: __Boarding House____ B4. Present Use: __Restaurant__
*B5. Architectural Style: _Spanish Colonial Revival, Neolassical___
*B6. Construction History:
Based upon visual evaluation and County of San Mateo building permit files, the original portion of the Bertolucci’s
Restaurant building was constructed in 1924. Since that time many additions and modifications have been made to the
property. Additions and new construction on the property include the construction of a garage, storage shed, and BBQ
building in 1945, alterations to the front bar in 1947, the construction of two additional garage buildings in 1952 and
1956, respectively (both demolished by 1962). The single story portion of the structure which is now used as the main
restaurant was constructed in 1962, as was the Bertolucci’s sign. The first floor of the original building was entirely
remodeled at that time, however the apartments above were unchanged. A walk-in cooler was also added in that year.
See Continuation Sheet, Page 4
*B7. Moved? _x No ___ Yes ___ Unknown Date: _______ Original Location: __________________
*B8. Related Features:
None
B9a. Architect: _____unknown______ b. Builder: ____unknown_________
*B10. Significance: Theme ___Commerce________ Area ___South San Francisco_____
Period of Significance _Inter-War___ Property Type __Private commercial_ Applicable Criteria ___CR1, CR3
The land on which the Bertolucci’s Restaurant building now stands was designated as Lot 18 of Block 138 on South
San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Plat Map No.1 (1895) filed in Book 2 of Maps, Page 52. Based upon
Sanborn fire insurance maps, the parcel remained empty until 1924, when the original portion of what is now the
Bertolucci’s building was constructed. Beginning in 1928, it was operated by Joseph and Tisbe Bertolucci as a
boarding house, as well as serving meals, under the name of the Liberty Hotel. Joesph and Tisbe Bertolucci were both
immigrants from Italy. By midcentury, the hotel also operated a bar and restaurant, which was known as Joe’s Blue
Room. In the early 1960’s, management of the establishment was turned over to the Burtolucci’s children, Lawrence
Bertolucci and Lola Bogdan, later Lola Bertolucci Fox.
See Continuation Sheet, Page 10
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) ___N/A_________________________________
*B12. References:
See Continuation Sheet, Page 14
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: ____Robert R. Cartier__________
*Date of Evaluation: _____1/12/2016__________
(This space reserved for official comments.)
192
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
LOCATION MAP Trinomial ________________________________
Page 3_ of 24 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Bertolucci’s Restaurant _________
*Map Name: __San Francisco, South___ *Scale: _7.5 Minute__ *Date of Map: ___2015____
193
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 4_ of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_____
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Continued from P3a:
The exterior walls throughout the structure are surfaced primarily with stucco, although stone cladding has been added along the
front façade of the newer portion of the building. Round arches line the lower story façade along Lux Avenue. Fenestration
consists primarily of simple aluminum framed windows, primarily in a tripartite configuration. None of the existing windows appear
to be original to the older portion of the structure. Neoclassical elements include the balustrade parapet, the tripartite windows and
associated decorative scrollwork, the largely symmetrical appearance of the front façade (of the original portion of the structure) as
well as the decorative arches along the northern façade. Spanish Colonial Revival elements include the red ceramic roof tiles
above the extending bays, and the stucco wall cladding.
The building is topped by a large neon sign, which reads “Bertolucci’s” in large letters with “Italian Food” in a smaller font above.
The sign is illuminated with neon lights, and is well known within the community.
Continued from B6:
Additional modifications noted since that time include minor renovations in 1966, additions to the existing sign in 1967, alterations to
the restaurant interior in 1968, addition of an ice maker unit in 1970, and remodeling of the upstairs apartments in 1971. Additional
interior remodeling was noted in 1973. The interior of the restaurant underwent significant updates and remodeling in 2006 after the
purchase of the property by the current owners. After its construction in 1962, the Bertolucci’s sign has also been subject to
multiple modifications. Based upon the original DPR forms (Bamberg 1986), at that time the sign read “Cucina Tuscana” on the
small upper panel, and “Bertolucci’s” on the main panel. In 2006, after transfer of the restaurant to the current owners, upper panel
was modified so the sign read “Sodini’s Bertolucci’s.” In 2014 the upper panel was changed again, and the sign now reads “Italian
Food Bertolucci’s.”
Major elements of the Bertolucci’s Restaurant building construction history can be seen on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. A
selection of Sanborn maps illustrating this construction chronology are included below:
1925 Sanborn Map of the subject property: The Bertolucci’s Restaurant structure is not yet shown (it was constructed in 1924,
information for the 1925 Sanborns was likely compiled the previous year). The parcel to the rear of the current restaurant (now
parking) is shown as the location of an earlier boarding house, here labeled “lodgings.”
194
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 5 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
1950 Sanborn Map of the Subject Property: Showing the original two-story portion of the current restaurant building.
What is now Bertolucci’s parking lot was at that time another boarding house known as the “Oxford Hotel.”
195
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 6 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Expanded view of the subject structure in 1950: The original portion of the building is labeled “Liberty Hotel and
Restaurant” with a smaller area at the corner of Lux and Cypress designated as the “Bar.” The BBQ building noted in
County Building Permit files as having been constructed in 1945 is also shown.
196
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 7 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
1970 Sanborn Map of the Subject Property: Showing the large single story addition to the restaurant, expanding the
structure to roughly its current dimension. The former lodging buildings to the rear of the property have been
demolished and a parking lot has been built in their place.
197
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 8 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Expanded view of the subject structure in 1970. Note that the former BBQ structure has been integrated into the new
restaurant addition.
198
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 9 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Detail of the Bertolucci’s Restaurant building layout as shown on the County of San Mateo Building Permit files for the
structure (1973).
199
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 10 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Continued from B10:
In 1962, major additions and renovations were made to the structure, adding the single story portion of the restaurant
which extends along Cypress (Building Permit #04280). The structure re-opened as Bertolucci’s Restaurant in that
year. The iconic Bertolucci’s sign was also erected at that time (Building Permit #04539). Joseph Bertolucci died on
November 3, 1969. Tisbe, known by patrons and the community as “Mama” Bertolucci continued to work in the
restaurant into her eighties. Even after she stopped cooking, she would observe each dish as it was brought from the
kitchen, and if it did not meet her standards it would be returned and remade (personal communication with B.
Bamberg, 2016). Mama Bertolucci died in 1990, at the age of 93. Lawrence and Lola continued to operate the
restaurant until they retired in 2003. After being briefly closed, on December 27, 2005 the property was purchased by
the current owners, Peter and Victoria Sodini. Peter Sodini is a well-known restaurateur, previously opening
establishments such as Golden Boy Pizza and Sodini’s Green Valley Restaurant in North Beach, San Francisco. The
Sodini’s re-opened the restaurant in 2006, rebranded as “Sodini’s Bertolucci’s.” The interior was heavily remodeled at
that time, although some elements such as the chandeliers were retained.
The Bertolucci’s Restaurant building is closely associated with the development of South San Francisco. During the
early years of its existence as a boarding house, the structure housed steel workers employed by Pacific Coast Steel
Company (later Bethlehem Steel), located only a few blocks to the east. At that time, steel was the largest and most
significant industry in the city.
As the boarding house transitioned into a restaurant and bar, it became a gathering place for many in South San
Francisco, particularly within the Italian American community, which made up a significant proportion of the city’s
population. Italian Americans were a prominent community in the development of South San Francisco. Along with
other European immigrants in the early 20th century (notably the Greeks), Italians in the area were employed in large
numbers both in the steel industry noted above, as well as at Western Meat Co. (later Swift &Co.), founded by G.F.
Swift in 1892. Italians were represented in social and political life by organizations such as the South San Francisco
Italian American Citizens Club (founded 1918).
The original portion of the Bertolucci’s building was constructed in 1924 and was operated by the Bertolucci’s
beginning in 1928 as the Liberty Hotel. The original Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms completed for
the Bertolucci’s Restaurant building (Bamberg 1986) states that the Bertolucci’s sign “has been visible from the heavily
traveled Highway 101 for over 30 years.” However, as the sign was not constructed until 1962, this statement was (at
that time) not fully accurate. In addition, at the time the sign was constructed in 1962, the view of the sign from
Highway 101 was different from the view today, due to several factors. (1) at the time in 1962 and continuing until the
early 1990’s, the overpass at Grand Avenue was smaller than it is today. The current configuration of the overpass
was completed in 1994, (2) based upon the 1956 and 1970 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of the City of South San
Francisco, commercial buildings (primarily 2-story) were present along the majority of Airport Parkway between Grand
Avenue and California Avenue throughout this time period, most of which appear to be extant today, and (3) a small
complex of row houses and a restaurant were present on the site of the current parking lot in front of the Bertolucci's
building in 1956. By 1970 the rowhouses were demolished and a clear view of the sign was likely present from the
highway. It was not until 1994 that the current view of the sign was established from Highway 101, when the overpass
at Grand Avenue reached its current configuration (Personal Communication, S. Bautista 2016). It should also be
noted that the sign itself has been altered multiple times in appearance to reflect changes in ownership.
Based upon the chronology described above it is clear that the existing signage was not present for the first 38 years
of the history of the structure. Since that time, the sign itself has been modified multiple times before the current
version of the sign and view that exists today was established.
During a telephone conversation (Personal Communication with B. Bamberg January 8th, 2016), Ms. Bamberg stated
that she did not feel that visibility from Highway 101 is a significant aspect of the historic character of the
structure. She noted that the architecture and historical associations of the restaurant building were more salient to its
historic status.
200
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 11 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
California Register of Historic Resources Criteria
A cultural resource is considered "significant" if it qualifies as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR). Properties that are eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional
history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. Association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history;
3. Embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method
of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high
artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
A property may be automatically listed in the CRHR if it is formally determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. Properties that are formally determined eligible for the NRHP are those that are designated as such
through one of the federal preservation programs administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (i.e.,
the National Register, Tax Certification, and Section 106 review of federal undertakings). The CRHR interprets the
integrity of a cultural resource based upon its physical authenticity. An historic cultural resource must retain its historic
character or appearance and thus be recognizable as an historic resource. Integrity is evaluated by examining the
subject's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If the subject has retained these
qualities, it may be said to have integrity. It is possible that a cultural resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be
listed in the National Register of Historic Places yet still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If a cultural resource retains
the potential to convey significant historical/scientific data, it may be said to retain sufficient integrity for potential listing
in the CRHR.
The Bertolucci’s Restaurant building at 421 Cypress Avenue is not currently listed on the California Register of
Historical Resources. However, the structure does appear to be potentially eligible for listing in this register. The
structure is closely associated with the growth and importance of the Italian American community in South San
Francisco, thus it appears to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion 1. No historically significant persons appear
to have been associated with the property, thus it does not appear to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion 2.
The structure is a unique blend of Spanish Colonial Revival and Neoclassical architectural elements, and thus appears
to be eligible under criterion 3. The structure does not appear to have the potential to yield significant historical
information, and thus does not appear eligible under criterion 4.
201
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 12 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
National Register Criteria
The National Register of Historic Places was first established in 1966, with major revisions in 1976. The register is set
forth in 36 CFR 60 which establishes the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), standards
for their staffs and review boards, and describes the statewide survey and planning process for historic preservation.
Within this regulation guidelines are set forth concerning the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.6). In
addition, further regulations are found in 36 CFR 63-66, 800, and Bulletin 15 which define procedures for determination
of eligibility, identification of historic properties, recovery, reporting, and protection procedures. The National Register
of Historic Places was established to recognize resources associated with the accomplishments of all peoples who
have contributed to the country's history and heritage. Guidelines were designed for Federal and State agencies in
nominating cultural resources to the National Register. These guidelines are based upon integrity and significance of
the resource. Integrity applies to specific items such as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association. Quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present
in resources that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and
meet at least one of the following criteria:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our
history:
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. That embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction;
D. That have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Integrity is defined in Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service 1982) as:
the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical
characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period. If a
property retains the physical characteristics it possessed in the past then it has the
capacity to convey association with historical patterns or persons, architectural or
engineering design and technology, or information about a culture or peoples.
There are also seven aspects of integrity which are used. These aspects are:
1. location 5. workmanship
2. design 6. feeling
3. setting 7. association
4. materials
The Bertolucci’s Restaurant building at 421 Cypress Avenue is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. In addition, the property does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing in this register. Although the
structure is associated with the growth of the Italian American community in South San Francisco, these associations
do not appear strong enough to warrant inclusion under criterion A. The structure is not associated with persons of
historic significance, thus it does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing under criterion B. Although a blend of
Spanish Colonial Revival and Neoclassical architectural styles, it does not appear to be a significant enough example
of either of these styles to warrant inclusion under criterion C. The property does not appear to be likely to yield
information important in prehistory or history, thus it doesnot appear to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion D.
202
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 13 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
South San Francisco Historic Resource Criteria
The Historic Preservation Program began in 1986 with the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. City
Council appointed a five-member Historic Preservation Commission to carry out the task of identifying South San
Francisco's most important historic sites and structures, and protecting them from needless neglect, exterior alteration
that might destroy their historic and architectural value, or demolition. The Historic Preservation Commission has
since been dissolved, and all associated duties are under the purview of the Planning Commision.
The goals are accomplished by designating landmarks as Historic Resources. Specific criteria have been established
to define how a property qualifies for nominations as a historic resource. The criteria relate to the property's
significance to the heritage of the City, the involvement of important people who may have designed, built, resided in,
or worked in the structure, its exemplification of a special architectural style, or its careful attention to detail and
craftsmanship. Its relationship to other historic buildings or to a historic district is also considered.
In considering a proposal for designation as an historic resource, the commission shall apply any or all of the following
criteria:
(a) Its character, interest or value as a significant part of the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; and
(b) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or
(c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the
city, the state or the nation; or
(d) Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or
(e) Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the city; or
(f) Its identification as the creation, design or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly
influenced the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; or
(g) Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural and/or engineering
design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or
(h) Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic
resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose
integrity and character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential
neighborhood); or
(i) Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of
the city; or
(j) Its potential of yielding significant information of archeological interest; or
(k) Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of the city, the
state, or the nation. For example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign
Hill, or some other feature which contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco. (Ord. 1440 § 2, 2011)
The Bertolucci’s restaurant building is currently listed as a potential historic resource on the City of South San
Francisco Historic Resource Inventory. It appears to be eligible for inclusion in this local register under three of the
criteria listed above, including: a. significance to the heritage of the City, d. as a unique blend of architectural styles,
and h. its relationship to the historic character of the downtown area.
203
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 14 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Continued from B12:
Assessor's Office, County of San Mateo
2015 Record search of assessed value and associated taxes for the property at 421 Cypress Avenue.
Bamberg, B.
1986 Department of Parks and Recreation forms for Bertolucci’s restaurant.
2015 Personal communication with Bonnie Bamberg regarding the history and character of the Bertolucci’s
restaurant building and clarifying aspects of her 1986 report.
Bautista, Sam
2016 Personal communication with Sam Bautista of the City of South San Francisco Engineering Division
regarding the construction of the current configuration of Highway 101 at Grand Avenue.
Bertolucci’s Ristorante Website
2015 History page of the Bertolucci’s Ristorante website, http://www.sodinisbertoluccis.com/history.html.
Accessed 1/11/2016.
City of South San Francisco
2015 City of South San Francisco General Plan. Section 1.2: The Evolution of South San Francisco.
Accessed online on January 11, 2016 at http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/Home/View/561.
Erikson, M.
2006 Décor, fare a throwback at Sodini’s Bertolucci’s. Article in the San Francisco Chronicle, 2/10/2006.
Hoover, M. et al
1966 Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford California.
McAlester, V. and L. McAlester
1997 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
1984 Peninsula Route 101 Study: Final Report.
Police and Peace Officers Journal of the State of California
1952 Listing for Joe’s Blue Room in the Police and Peace Officer’s Journal of the State of California, August
1952, Page 352.
Recorder's Office, County of San Mateo
2015 Record search of recorded information for the property at 421 Cypress Avenue.
San Francisco Chronicle
2010 Obituary for Lawrence Bertolucci in the San Francisco Chronicle, August 2010.
San Mateo County Building Permit Files
2015 Review of building permit files for the property at 421 Cypress Avenue.
San Mateo County Times
2005 Bertolucci’s Reborn. Article posted online on 12/16/2005 at:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_3315291. Accessed 1/11/2016.
204
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 15 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
San Mateo Daily Journal
2005 South City’s Bertolucci’s Returns. Article posted online on 12/2/2005 at:
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2005-12-02/south-citys-bertoluccis-returns/51759.html.
Accessed 1/11/2016.
San Mateo Times
1962 Bertolucci’s Grand Opening Set for Tonight. Article in the San Mateo Times, 9/7/1962, page 25.
1968 Brief note announcing construction of the new VIP room at Bertolucci’s. San Mateo Times, 3/15/1968,
page 10.
1969 Obituary for Joseph Bertolucci. San Mateo Times, 11/5/1969, page 11.
Stireman Dewart, M. L.
1983 South San Francisco’s Seventy-Fifth Anniversary 1983. The Soroptimist Society of North San Mateo
County.
Taylor, D. and J. A. Williams (Eds.)
1992 Old Ties, New Attachements: Italian-American Folklife in the West. American Folklife Center, the
Library of Congress.
US Department of the Interior
1990 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings
US Department of the Interior
1982 Bulletin 15 - "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation."
Whiffen, Marcus
1992 American Architecture since 1780, Revised Edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
205
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 16 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Photo 1: View of the full front façade of the Bertolucci’s building.
Photo 1: View of the front façade of the original, two story building.
206
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 17 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Photo 3: View along the front façade of the single story 1962 addition.
Photo 4: View of the secondary sign at the parking entrance.
207
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 18 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Photo 5: View of the eastern portion of the west façade.
Photo 6: View of covered entrance along the rear (west) façade.
208
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 19 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Photo 7: Oblique view of the rear and southern facades.
Photo 8: View along the northern façade.
209
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 20 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Photo 9: Detail of extending window bay on the upper story.
Photo 10: Detail of a multi-paned window on the upper story.
210
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 21 of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Photo 11: Detail of decorative arches along the lower story.
Photo 12: Oblique view of the building from the northeast.
211
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 22 of 24_ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Photo 13: Long view of the southern façade from Miller Avenue.
Photo 14: View of the rear and north façades from along Lux Avenue.
212
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 23_ of 24 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Photo 15: Detail of the Bertolucci’s sign from the front.
Photo 16: Detail of the Bertolucci’s sign from the rear.
213
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 24_ of 24_ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __Bertolucci’s Restaurant_______
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 1/12/2016 Continuation x Update
Photo 17: Undated Photograph of Tisbe “Mama” Bertolucci.
214
Memorandum
Date: November 6, 2015, Revised December 11, 2015
To: Ken Busch, Sares Regis
From: Trisha Dudala, P.E. and Gary Black
Subject: Miller Cypress Residential Project Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA
Introduction
This report presents the results of the traffic study for the proposed Miller Cypress Residential
project in South San Francisco, CA. The project consists of multifamily condominiums on three
separate parcels identified as Parcel A (401-421 Airport Boulevard), Parcel C (405 Cypress
Avenue) and Parcel D (Miller Avenue) totaling 272 dwelling units. Parcel A would consist of 160
dwelling units. Access to the building on Parcel A would be provided via full access driveways on
Lux Avenue and Miller Avenue. Parcel C would consist of 12 dwelling units. Access to the building
on Parcel C would be provided via full access driveways on Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane.
Parcel D would consist of 100 dwelling units and access would be provided via a full access
driveway on Cypress Avenue.
The project is located in the area covered by the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which
covers properties within 0.5 miles of the City’s Caltrain Station. The City of South San Francisco
has completed the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) and EIR that was adopted in
February 2015. The land uses proposed for this project are consistent with those set forth in the
DSASP EIR.
Scope of Study
Although the project is consistent with the DSASP EIR, this traffic study was conducted to
determine if the mitigation measures of the DSASP EIR are consistent with the project development
or if any additional mitigation measures would be required with the development of the proposed
project.
The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by
the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, Caltrans, and the applicable provisions of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In consultation with the City staff, the following 11
intersections were analyzed. Mitigation measures were identified at all of these intersections in the
DSASP Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP).
Study Intersections
1. Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue
2. Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard
3. Grand Avenue/Spruce Avenue
4. Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue
5. Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard
6. E. Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue
215
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 2
7. E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard
8. Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue
9. San Mateo Avenue/Poletti Way/US-101 Northbound off-ramp
10. S. Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard
11. S. Airport Boulevard/US 101 Northbound Ramps/Wonder Color Lane
The project site location and study intersections are shown on Figure 1. Traffic conditions at the
intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of
traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and
6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average
weekday.
Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
1. Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions were evaluated based on the level of
service analysis described in the DSASP EIR.
2. Existing Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic was added to the existing
traffic volumes to analyze existing plus project conditions. Project generated traffic was
estimated using the vehicular trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Since the
existing uses on the project site are vacant, the study does not assume any credit for
trips generated by existing uses. Intersection impacts associated with the development of
the proposed project were evaluated relative to existing conditions. The results of the
Existing + Project conditions scenario were compared to the Existing + Project scenario
in the DSASP EIR.
3. Background Conditions. This condition analyzes traffic volumes that will exist with the
completion of approved projects in the study area. Based on consultations with City staff,
three approved projects were identified in the study area. Trip generation for the
approved projects was either based on traffic studies conducted for these projects or
based on the ITE trip generation manual. Trips generated by approved projects were
added to existing conditions to analyze background conditions.
4. Background Plus Project Conditions. Traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called
project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding trips generated by the proposed
residential project to the background conditions. Intersection impacts associated with the
development of the proposed project were evaluated relative to background conditions.
216
217
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 4
Methodology
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of
Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow
conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The City of
South San Francisco evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. This method evaluates signalized
intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection.
Table 1 shows the level of service definitions for signalized intersections. The City of South San
Francisco defines LOS A through D as acceptable, and LOS E and F as unacceptable. Intersection
traffic operations were analyzed using Synchro traffic analysis software. HCM 2000 methodology
was chosen for intersection analysis based on direction from City staff and to maintain consistency
with the South San Francisco DSASP EIR.
Table 1 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16.
Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per
Vehicle (sec.)
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the
green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to
the very low vehicle delay.
10.0 or lessA
B
Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle
lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average
vehicle delay.
10.1 to 20.0
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle
lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number
of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the
intersection without stopping.
20.1 to 35.0C
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition
often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.
greater than 80.0F
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle
lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and
individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0D
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values
generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.
55.1 to 80.0E
Vehicle Queuing at Intersections
95th percentile queue lengths were analyzed for study intersections in the vicinity of the freeway
interchanges. Chapter 16 of the HCM 2000 outlines a methodology for calculating the 95th
percentile queues at signalized intersections. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle
218
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 5
backups for each movement would only extend beyond this length 5 percent of the time during the
analysis hour. The Synchro software program was used to determine 95th percentile vehicle queues
in accordance with the HCM 2000 methodology. The standard adopted by the City of South San
Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95th percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within
available storage for each off-ramp and on the approaches to intersections nearby each off-ramp
that accommodate a significant amount of off-ramp traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is allowed
to back up to the freeway mainline during the entire AM or PM peak traffic hour. 95th percentile
vehicle queues were analyzed for the following five study intersections in the vicinity of freeway
interchanges:
#2. Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard
#5. Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard
#9. San Mateo Avenue/Poletti Way/US-101 Northbound off-ramp
#10. S. Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard
#11. S. Airport Boulevard/US 101 Northbound Ramps/Wonder Color Lane
Regulatory Framework
Existing policies, laws and regulations that apply to the proposed project are summarized below.
The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all City streets and City-operated traffic
signals. State Routes, including US-101, are under the jurisdiction of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). Public transit agencies with operations in the study area are SamTrans,
Caltrain, and BART.
Caltrans
Caltrans is responsible for the maintenance and operations of State routes and highways. In South
San Francisco, Caltrans’s facilities include US-101. The City recognizes that “Caltrans endeavors to
maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities”;
however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the
lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. In addition, Caltrans
states that for existing State highway facilities operating at less than the target LOS, the existing
LOS should be maintained.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The transportation and Circulation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan
addresses the location and extent of existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and
other public utilities and facilities. The General Plan identifies roadway and transit goals and policies
that have been adopted to ensure that the transportation system of the City will have adequate
capacity to serve planned growth. These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and
implementation measures for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that will safely and
efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the City.
Thresholds of Significance
The City of South San Francisco defines LOS A through D as acceptable, and LOS E and F as
unacceptable. The following guidelines have been outlined in the City of South San Francisco
General Plan (City of South San Francisco 1999):
Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets.
219
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 6
Accept LOS E or F after finding that there is no feasible and practical way to mitigate the
lower level of service, and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear overall
public benefit.
Exempt development within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a ferry terminal from
LOS standards.
According to CEQA guidelines, a project would also have a significant impact if it would:
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit.
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to,
level-of-service standards, and travel demand measures, or other standards established by
a county congestion management agency for designated roadways.
Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Result in an internal circulation system design that does not meet City standards.
The significance criteria below are used to determine whether implementation of the proposed
project would result in significant environmental impacts that require mitigation.
Intersection Impact Criteria
A project will result in a significant traffic impact at intersections:
If a signalized intersection with base traffic volumes is operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS
D or better) deteriorates to an unacceptable operation (LOS E or F) with the addition of
project traffic and the total traffic volume through the intersection increases by at least two
percent (2%); or
If a signalized intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS and the proposed
project increases the total traffic volume at the intersection by at least two percent (2%); or
If the addition of project traffic at intersections in the vicinity of freeway interchanges would
increase acceptable baseline 95th percentile vehicle queues to unacceptable levels (as
determined by the Synchro software program and the storage length of each movement), or,
if baseline 95th percentile vehicle queues are already at unacceptable levels, the project
would increase the traffic volume in the queue by at least one percent (1%).
Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project study area is provided by US 101.
US 101 is a north-south major freeway through eastern San Mateo County between San Francisco
and San Jose. It is the primary north/south route connection to I-280 and I-80 north of South San
Francisco. US-101 is typically congested in both directions during both peak periods as people
commute to and from San Francisco and the Silicon Valley. Access to the freeway from the project
site is provided via interchanges at Miller Avenue, Airport Boulevard, and E. Grand Avenue.
220
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 7
The following roadways provide local access to the site:
Airport Boulevard is a major north/south arterial route through South San Francisco parallel to US-
101. North of Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction. Airport
Boulevard is immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of Parcels A and D and intersects Miller
Avenue and Lux Avenue in the vicinity of the project site.
Grand Avenue is a two- to six-lane roadway that extends from Mission Road, to its termination point
at Point San Bruno Park. Near the project site, west of US-101, Grand Avenue has one travel lane
in each direction with on-street angled parking on both sides of the street. Grand Avenue intersects
Airport Boulevard and Cypress Avenue in the vicinity of the project site.
Miller Avenue is a two-lane local roadway that extends west from Airport Boulevard and terminates
at Chestnut Avenue. There are traffic signals at its intersections with Airport Boulevard, Spruce
Avenue, and Walnut Avenue, but the other intersections are controlled by stop signs. Miller Avenue
is immediately adjacent to the southern project boundary of Parcels A and C and the northern
boundary of Parcel D,
Linden Avenue is a two-lane local roadway that extends north from San Mateo Avenue at the city
limits and terminates at Airport Boulevard. There are traffic signals at most major intersections with
the remainder of its intersections controlled by stop signs. Linden Avenue intersects Grand Avenue,
4th Lane, Miller Avenue, Tamarack Lane and Lux Avenue in the vicinity of the project site.
Lux Avenue is a two-lane roadway that extends from Airport Boulevard to Spruce Avenue. Lux
Avenue is immediately adjacent to the northern project boundary of Parcel A and provides direct
access to the site via a single full-access driveway.
Cypress Avenue is a one way northbound road that extends from Armour Avenue to Baden
Avenue. Cypress Avenue is immediately adjacent to the western project boundary of Parcels A and
D and provides direct access to Parcel D via a single full-access driveway.
Tamarack Lane is a one way westbound road that extends from Cypress Avenue and terminates
near Laurel Avenue. Tamarack Lane is immediately adjacent to the northern project boundary of
Parcel C and provides direct access to Parcel C via a single full-access driveway.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are
pathways, separate from roadways, which are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these
pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways
designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike
routes (Class III) are existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from
the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs.
In the project study area there are existing bike lanes (Class II) in both directions on Airport
Boulevard that begin north of Miller Avenue. Miller Avenue and Linden Avenue are marked as Class
III bicycle routes. The Bike route on Linden Avenue extends from Airport Boulevard to San Mateo
Avenue. The Bike route on Miller Avenue extends from Airport Boulevard to Chestnut Avenue,
passing by City Hall.
221
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 8
Sidewalks are provided on all streets in the immediate vicinity of the project except on Tamarack
Lane and 4th Lane. The proposed project would construct a sidewalk along the project frontage on
Tamarack Lane.
Existing Transit Service
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the San Mateo County Transit District
(SamTrans), and Caltrain.
Bus transit in the area is provided by SamTrans. The following lines serve the project area:
SamTrans 131 stops at the Linden Avenue / Miller Avenue intersection, and connects to Downtown
South San Francisco, South San Francisco BART station, and Daly City. This line provides service
in both directions between 5:45 AM and 10:45 PM with 15-minute headways during peak weekday
hours.
SamTrans 133 stops at the Linden Avenue/ Miller Avenue intersection and connects to Downtown
South San Francisco and San Bruno BART station. This line provides service in both directions
between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM with 30-minute headways during peak weekday hours.
SamTrans 37 stops at the Linden Avenue/ Miller Avenue intersection and connects Alta Loma
Middle School and Hillside Drive twice a day – before and after school. Service is provided only on
school days.
SamTrans 292 stops at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue, and
Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue intersections and connects to San Francisco to the north and
Hillsdale/San Mateo to the south. This line provides service in both directions between 4:00 AM and
2:00 AM, with 20- to 30-minute headways during peak weekday hours.
SamTrans 397 stops at the Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue intersection, and connects to San
Francisco to the north and Palo Alto to the south. This line provides service between 1:00 AM and
6:00 AM with 60-minute headways.
The nearest bus stop on Linden Avenue is located less than one-quarter mile from the proposed
three parcels while the nearest bus stop on Airport Boulevard is located less than one-quarter mile
from the project sites. Continuous sidewalks are available for pedestrians walking between the
proposed project and the nearest bus stops.
Caltrain
Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project is located
about 0.25 miles southwest of the South San Francisco Caltrain station, which is located at 590
Dubuque Avenue, on the east side of US-101, immediately north of East Grand Avenue. Caltrain
provides service at this station with approximately 30 to 60-minute headways during the weekday
commute hours.
Existing Intersection Operations
This section describes the existing operations analysis based on the analysis presented in the
South San Francisco DSASP EIR. Each study intersection was analyzed using existing lane
configurations, existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts and existing traffic signal
timing data. The existing lane configurations at the study intersections are shown on Figure 2 and
222
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 9
the existing traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3. Existing traffic volumes are based on the
DSASP EIR.
The existing intersection LOS analysis is show in Table 2. The analysis shows that all study
intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS D or better during both the AM and PM
peak hours except for the intersection of Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue. The analysis shows that
the intersection of Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue currently operates at LOS F during the PM peak
hour. The poor level of service at this intersection during the PM peak hour is primarily because of
the heavy westbound left-turn traffic volume and permitted signal phasing at this intersection.
Although the LOS is shown to be D, occasionally traffic operates at near-capacity conditions along
Airport Boulevard. The LOS shown in Table 2 is based on the average weighted delay for all
movements at the intersection. Although the average weighted delay is acceptable at most of the
study intersections, at some intersections, some vehicle movements may operate worse than the
total intersection, which indicates congestion and queues on some approaches but not others.
223
224
225
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 12
Table 2
Existing Conditions Intersection LOS Analysis
IDIntersection
Peak
PeriodDelay 1 LOS
1Miller Ave/Linden AveAM21.2C
PM34.9C
2Miller Ave/Airport BlvdAM28.2C
PM19.3B
3Grand Ave/Spruce AveAM19.2B
PM16.5B
4Grand Ave/Linden Ave AM11.5B
PM12.7B
5Grand Ave/Airport Blvd AM40.7D
PM44.6D
6Grand Ave/E. Grand Ave AM19.5B
PM16.8B
7E. Grand Ave/Gateway Blvd AM33.5C
PM36D
8Baden Ave/Linden Ave AM39.2D
PM 85.2 (0.92)F
9San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd AM37.1D
PM51.2D
10So. Airport Blvd/Gateway Blvd AM38.4D
PM42.5D
11101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport BlvdAM29.4C
PM34.8C
Existing
1 Delay reported is the weighted average delay for all movements in seconds reported by Synchro 9 using
HCM 2000 Methodology. For intersections performing at LOS F, volume/capacity ratio for the overall
intersection is shown in parenthesis.
Vehicle queues for the five study intersections in the vicinity of freeway ramps were analyzed under
existing AM and PM peak hours using Synchro software. The results of the existing intersection
queuing analysis are presented in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, at all of the study intersections in
the vicinity of freeway ramps, the 95th percentile vehicular queues for all turning movements are
accommodated within the available storage length during the AM and PM peak hours except for the
intersection of San Mateo Avenue and Airport Boulevard. At the intersection of San Mateo Avenue
and Airport Boulevard, the existing conditions analysis shows that the 95th percentile queue lengths
for the westbound right-turn lane, northbound left-turn lane, and southbound left-turn exceed the
available storage capacities during at least one of the peak hour periods.
226
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 13
Table 3
Existing Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections
IDIntersection ‐ Movement AM Peak PM Peak
2
Eastbound Right Turn 680124 68
Westbound Left Turn 465213 153
Westbound Through 465217 254
Northbound Through 22077 82
Southbound Through 360200 77
5
Eastbound Through 665392 222
Eastbound Right Turn 66537 39
Westbound Left Turn 67046 425
Westbound Through 67054 269
Westbound Right Turn 24013 51
Northbound Left Turn 15041 49
Northbound Through 410188 262
Northbound Right Turn410119 15
Southbound Left Turn 390335 118
Southbound Through 390230 228
Southbound Right Turn18045 43
9
Eastbound Left Turn 15069 121
Eastbound Through 37097 102
Eastbound Right Turn 15049 104
Westbound Left Turn 225196 529
Westbound Through 810165 341
Westbound Right Turn 85 100 243
Northbound Left Turn 130 177 109
Northbound Through 30056 40
Southbound Left Turn 150119 179
Southbound Through 1550360 546
Southbound Right Turn155012 26
10
Eastbound Left Turn 14088 56
Eastbound Through 730294 248
Eastbound Right Turn 730147 91
Northbound Left Turn 30098 183
Northbound Through 93072 42
Northbound Right Turn930 0 0
11
Eastbound Left Turn 800375 272
Eastbound Through 800366 273
Eastbound Right Turn 22542 23
Westbound Through 200 0 0
Westbound Right Turn 200 0 0
Northbound Left Turn 29571 159
Northbound Through 63538 96
Southbound Left Turn 10018 39
Southbound Through 1080183 379
Southbound Right Turn12537 81
101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd
Bold and shaded= 95th percentile queue exceeds storage length.
Existing
Miller Ave/Airport Blvd
Grand Ave/Airport Blvd
San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd
Storage
Distance
(feet)
95th Percentile Queue (feet)
So. Airport Blvd/Gateway Blvd
227
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 14
Existing Plus Project Conditions
This section describes the impacts of the proposed project on existing conditions.
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would
appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip
assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the
site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate
is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip
assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described
further in the following sections.
Project Trip Generation
AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are based on trip rates
obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation, Ninth
Edition for Condominium/Townhouse (ITE Land Use 230) and are shown in Table 4. Since the
project is located in the downtown area within walking distance of numerous transit connections, the
vehicle trip rate per unit is expected to be less than the rates shown in Table 4. However, to be
conservative, no reductions were applied to the trip generation analysis. Also no credit was given
for existing uses as the existing buildings/surface parking lots are currently vacant and do not
generate any trips.
It is estimated that the proposed project will generate 137 AM peak hour trips and 159 PM peak
hour trips on a regular weekday.
Table 4
Project Trip Generation
DailyDailyPk-Hr Pk-Hr
Land Use Trip Rates1 TripsRate1 InOutInOutTotalRate1 InOutInOutTotal
Parcel A160units6.059680.4717%83%1362750.5567%33%592988
Parcel D100units6.436430.5217%83%943520.6067%33%402060
Parcel C12units8.471020.8317%83%28100.8867%33%7411
Total24114137 10653159
Source: ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012.
Size
1Trip generation using fitted curve equation(am and pm) from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (Land Use 230, Residential Condominium /
Townhouse)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Splits Trips Splits Trips
Trip Distribution Pattern and Trip Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated consistent with the trip distribution
assumptions presented in the DSASP EIR for the West area (west of US 101) and shown on Figure
4. These distribution estimates were developed based on the location of complementary land uses,
existing travel patterns in the area and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) regional
travel demand model. The net project trips assigned to the study intersections are shown on Figure
5.
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
The project trips were added to the existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic
volumes (see Figure 6).
228
229
230
231
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 18
Existing plus Project Intersection Operations
The results of the intersection levels of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are
shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Existing plus Project Intersection Operations
IDIntersection
Peak
PeriodDelay 1 LOSDelay 1 LOS
1Miller Ave/Linden Ave AM21.4C24.9C
PM35.2D43.6D
2Miller Ave/Airport Blvd AM28.2C29.5C
PM19.3B20.7C
3Grand Ave/Spruce Ave AM16.0B16.4B
PM18.2B18.3B
4Grand Ave/Linden Ave AM12.9B13.0B
PM13.5B13.7B
5Grand Ave/Airport Blvd AM41.1D43.5D
PM44.7D48.4D
6Grand Ave/E. Grand Ave AM20.5C20.1C
PM16.9B18.1B
7E. Grand Ave/Gateway Blvd AM34.3C34.2C
PM34.9C36.0D
8Baden Ave/Linden Ave AM39.5D39.5D
PM 85.9 (0.92)F86.0 (0.92)F
9San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd AM38.3D37.3D
PM51.6D53.5D
10So. Airport Blvd/Gateway BlvdAM37.4D37.4D
PM43.0D43.0D
11 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp &
So. Airport Blvd AM30.1C30.1C
PM33.2C33.2C
ExistingExisting Plus Project
1 Delay reported is the weighted average delay for all movements in seconds reported by Synchro 9 using HCM
2000 Methodology. For intersections performing at LOS F, volume/capacity ratio for the overall intersection is
shown in parenthesis.
As shown in Table 5, with the addition of project trips, all study intersection would continue to
operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hour periods except for
the following intersection.
Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue – This intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS F during the
PM peak hour under existing conditions and would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F
during the PM peak hour with the proposed project. The project would add trips less than 2% of
existing traffic volumes to this intersection and would increase the average delay at the intersection
232
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 19
by only 0.1 seconds during the PM peak hour. The volume to capacity ratio would not change with
the proposed project. Based on the impact criteria, the project would create a less than significant
impact at this intersection. The following mitigation measures were identified for this intersection in
the DSASP EIR.
Mitigation Measure MM4.10-4 in DSASP EIR – With the implementation of the DSASP
EIR, traffic conditions at the intersection of Baden Avenue and Linden Avenue would
exacerbate the unacceptable LOS F in the PM peak hour under existing plus project
conditions. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.10-4 in the DSASP EIR would
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level during the PM peak hour. The mitigation
includes adding a southbound left-turn pocket by removing existing parking and retime and
optimize the traffic signal to reallocate green time to better serve future volumes.
95th percentile vehicle queues for the five study intersections in the vicinity of freeway ramps were
analyzed under existing plus project AM and PM peak hours using Synchro software. The results of
the existing intersection queuing analysis are presented in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, under
existing plus project conditions, the 95th percentile vehicular queues for all turning movements
would be accommodated within the available storage capacities during the AM and PM peak hours
at all intersections except for the intersection of San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection.
However, the project would not add any traffic to this intersection and would not cause any impacts.
The following mitigation measures were identified for this intersection in the DSASP EIR.
Mitigation Measure MM4.10-5 in DSASP EIR - With the implementation of the DSASP
EIR, the intersection of San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard is expected to operate at
unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under existing plus project conditions.
Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.10-5 would improve traffic operations at this
intersection during the AM and PM peak hours. The mitigation includes modifying the
westbound approach to add a left-turn pocket, modifying the approach to include three left-
turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane, and optimizing the traffic signal to
reallocate green time to better serve future volumes. Implementation of this mitigation
measure would cause the intersection to operate at acceptable conditions and
accommodate the 95th percentile queues for all turning movements within the available
storage capacity.
233
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 20
Table 6
Existing plus Project 95th Percentile Vehicular Queues
IDIntersection ‐ MovementAM Peak PM Peak AM PeakPM PeakAM PeakPM Peak
2
Eastbound Right Turn6801246815679 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn465213153234175 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through 465217254233276 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through 220778281100 ‐ ‐
Southbound Through 3602007720678 ‐ ‐
5
Eastbound Through 665392222444238 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn 66537393839 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn 6704642546431 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through 6705426955301 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn 24013511562 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn 15041494558 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through 410188262188262 ‐ ‐
Northbound Right Turn4101191512116 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn 390335118371117 ‐
Southbound Through 390230228280243 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn18045435649 ‐ ‐
9
Eastbound Left Turn 1506912170123 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through 3709710297104 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn 1504910449104 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn 225196 529 196 529 ‐ 0%
Westbound Through 810165341165341 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn 85 100243100243 0%0%
Northbound Left Turn 130 177 109 177 1090% ‐
Northbound Through 30056405640 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn 150119 179 115 179 ‐ 0%
Southbound Through 1550360546391560 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn155022261228 ‐ ‐
10
Eastbound Left Turn 14088568856 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through 730294248294248 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn 7301479114791 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn 3009818398183 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through 93072427242 ‐ ‐
Northbound Ri ght Turn93000 00 ‐ ‐
11
Eastbound Left Turn 800375272375272 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through 800366273366273 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn 22542234223 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through 20000 00 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn 20000 00 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn 2957115971159 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through 63538963896 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn 10018391839 ‐ ‐
Southbound Through 1080183379183379 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn12537813781 ‐ ‐
Existing
Storage
Distance
(feet)
95th Percentile Queue (feet)
Existing plus Project Volume Increasea
Miller Ave/Airport Blvd
Grand Ave/Airport Blvd
San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd
So. Airport Blvd/Gateway Blvd
101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd
In existing condition, Bold and shaded= 95th percentile queue exceeds storage length; In Existing plus project, Bold and
shaded = potentially significant impact
aVolume Increased is calculated as the increase in volume for that particular movement, and is only shown for movements
that are already exceeding storage under baseline conditions.
234
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 21
Background and Background plus Project Conditions
Traffic volumes for background conditions were developed by adding trips from approved projects
in the vicinity of the proposed project to the existing traffic volumes. Based on discussion with City
staff, the following projects were identified as approved projects for consideration under background
conditions.
418 Linden Avenue (Renamed to 488 Linden Avenue) – 38 apartment units
300 Miller Avenue – 81 senior housing units
211 Airport Boulevard – 83 apartment units
Trip generation for the approved projects is shown in Table 7. As shown in Table 7, the three
approved projects are expected to generate a total of 46 trips during the AM peak hour and 74 trips
during the PM peak hour. These trips were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain traffic
volumes for analysis under background conditions. Trips from approved projects were assigned to
the study intersections based on the trip distribution assumptions developed for the West area in
the DSASP EIR.
Table 7
Approved Project Trips
Daily
Land UseTripsInOutTotalInOutTotal
418 / 488 Linden 1 3853993544402262
300 Miller Avenue 2 812794121611920
211 Airport Apt 3 83-77-2410-144-12-8
Total-115746551974
Notes:
3 Trip generation based on Trip Generation Analysis for the 211 Airport Boulevard, prepared by LSA Associates in
May 2015.
AM Trips PM TripsResidential
Units
1Trip generation based on fitted curve equation for Land Use 220 - 'Apartment' from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition).
2 Trip generation based on Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project prepared by
Abrams Associates in September 2015.
Traffic volumes under background conditions are shown on Figure 7. Background plus project traffic
volumes were developed by adding project trips to background volumes. Background plus project
traffic volumes are shown on Figure 8.
Intersection operations analysis for background and background plus project conditions are shown
in Table 8.
235
236
237
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 24
Table 8
Background and Background Plus Project Intersection Operations
IDIntersection
Peak
PeriodDelay 1 LOSDelay 1 LOS
1Miller Ave/Linden Ave AM21.8C25.3C
PM36.2D44.8D
2Miller Ave/Airport Blvd AM28.5C29.7C
PM20.0B21.8C
3Grand Ave/Spruce Ave AM16.1B16.5B
PM18.3B18.6B
4Grand Ave/Linden Ave AM13.3B13.6B
PM13.8B14.0B
5Grand Ave/Airport Blvd AM41.8D45.0D
PM45.9D50.0D
6Grand Ave/E. Grand Ave AM20.6C20.0B
PM17.5B18.7B
7E. Grand Ave/Gateway Blvd AM34.3C34.2C
PM35.5D36.4D
8Baden Ave/Linden Ave AM39.6D39.7D
PM 86.1 (0.93)F86.3 (0.93)F
9San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd AM37.4D37.0D
PM52.4D54.1D
10So. Airport Blvd/Gateway BlvdAM37.5D37.5D
PM43.0D43.0D
11 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp &
So. Airport Blvd AM30.3C30.3C
PM33.3C33.3C
Background
Background Plus
Project
1 Delay reported is the weighted average delay for all movements in seconds reported by Synchro 9 using HCM
2000 Methodology. For intersections performing at LOS F, volume/capacity ratio for the overall intersection is
shown in parenthesis.
As shown in Table 8, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or
better during the AM and PM peak hours under background conditions and would continue to
operate at acceptable conditions with the proposed project except for the intersection of Baden
Avenue and Linden Avenue. The intersection of Baden Avenue and Linden Avenue would operate
at unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under background conditions and would continue
to operate at unacceptable LOS F with the proposed project. Based upon the impact criteria, the
proposed project would add less than 2% of the background traffic volumes and therefore would not
create a significant impact at this intersection. The proposed project would increase the average
delay at this intersection by only 0.2 seconds during the PM peak hour period under background
plus project conditions. The DSASP EIR identified mitigation measures (MM4.10-4) at this
intersection, which include adding a southbound left-turn pocket by removing existing parking and
retiming and optimizing the traffic signal to reallocate green time to better serve future volumes. The
238
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 25
implementation of these mitigation measures are expected to improve traffic operations during the
PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile vehicle queues for the five study intersections in the vicinity of freeway ramps
under background and background plus project conditions during the AM and PM peak hours are
shown in Table 9. As shown in Table 9, under background and background plus project conditions,
the 95th percentile vehicular queues for all turning movements are accommodated within the
available storage length during the AM and PM peak hours except for the intersection of San Mateo
Avenue/Airport Boulevard. However the project would not add any traffic to this intersection and
would not cause any impacts. The proposed mitigation measures for this intersection identified as
MM4.10-5 in the DSASP EIR includes modifying the westbound approach to add a left-turn pocket,
modifying the approach to include three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane,
and optimizing the traffic signal to reallocate green time to better serve future volumes.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would allow the intersection to accommodate the 95th
percentile queues for all turning movements within the available storage capacity under background
conditions.
239
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 26
Table 9
Background and Background plus Project Conditions 95th Percentile Queue Lengths
IDIntersection ‐ Movement AM Peak PM Peak AM PeakPM PeakAM PeakPM Peak
2
Eastbound Right Turn68013172 162 82 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn465215154 233175 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through465217272 238291 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through22076 87 81115 ‐ ‐
Southbound Through36020077 206 78 ‐ ‐
5
Eastbound Through665422227 476244 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn66540 39 40 39 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn67046428 46432 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through67054292 57325 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn24014 57 15 70 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn15043 51 47 59 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through410188263 187262 ‐ ‐
Northbound Right Turn41012016 123 16 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn390335117 372117 ‐
Southbound Through390234232 282247 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn18047 40 56 48 ‐ ‐
9
Eastbound Left Turn15069121 69125 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through37097103 97104 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn15049104 49105 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn225196 530 196 530 ‐ 0%
Westbound Through810165342 165342 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn85 97242 97242 0%0%
Northbound Left Turn130 177 109 177 1090% ‐
Northbound Through30056 40 56 40 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn150119 178 116 178 ‐ 0%
Southbound Through1550375552 406566 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn155013 27 13 28 ‐ ‐
10
Eastbound Left Turn14088 55 88 56 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through730294248 294248 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn73014791 147 91 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn30095184 95184 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through93070 42 70 42 ‐ ‐
Northbound Right Turn9300 0 0 0 ‐ ‐
11
Eastbound Left Turn800373272 373272 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through800366273 366273 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn22542 23 42 23 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through2000 0 0 0 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn2000 0 0 0 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn29572159 72159 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through63538 96 38 96 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn10018 39 18 39 ‐ ‐
Southbound Through1080177379 177380 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn12537 81 37 81 ‐ ‐
In Background condition, Bold and Shaded= 95th percentile queue exceeds storage length; In Background plus project
condition, Bold and Shaded = potentially significant impact
aVolume Increased is calculated as the increase in volume for that particular movement, and is only shown for movements
that are already exceeding storage under baseline conditions.
Miller Ave/Airport Blvd
Grand Ave/Airport Blvd
San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd
Background plus Project Volume Increasea
95th Percentile Queue (feet)Storage
Distance
(feet)
Background
So. Airport Blvd/Gateway Blvd
101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd
240
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 27
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
The site access and on-site circulation evaluation is based on the October 19, 2015 Entitlement
Submittal Set site plans for Parcel A, Parcel C and Parcel D prepared by TCA Architects (Figures 9,
10 and 11).
Site Access
Project trips that would be generated at driveways to Parcels A, C and D based on the trip
generation estimates in Table 4 are shown on Figure 12.
Parcel A – Access to the building on Parcel A would be provided via a full access driveway on Miller
Avenue and also via a full access driveway on Lux Avenue. The driveway on Miller Avenue would
provide access to level 1 and the driveway on Lux Avenue would provide access to level 2 of the
parking garage. The two parking garages are not shown to be connected. Providing no connection
between the two parking levels should not pose a problem, as long as all resident parking is
assigned. If parking is not assigned, then some vehicle circulation would need to occur between the
two parking levels via Cypress Avenue. The two parking levels would contain a total of 177 parking
stalls. Long term bicycle parking is provided on parking level 2.
Parcel C – Access to the 12 townhomes on Parcel C would be provided via one driveway on Miller
Avenue and one driveway on Tamarack Lane. These driveways would provide access to 21 on-site
parking spaces (16 parking spaces in individual garages and 5 open parking stalls). The site plan
shows that for townhomes fronting Tamarack Lane, the garages can be directly accessed from
Tamarack Lane. This should not pose a problem given the low traffic volumes and one-directional
traffic flow on Tamarack Lane. It is our understanding that the City does not favor the driveway on
Miller Avenue. Site access to Parcel C would be adequate with just one driveway provided on
Tamarack Lane.
Parcel D – Access to the building on Parcel D would be provided via two driveways on Cypress
Avenue. The driveway on the south would provide access to level 1 and the driveway to the north
would provide access to level 2 of the parking garage. The two parking garages are not shown to
be connected. Providing no connection between the two parking levels should not pose a problem,
so long as all resident parking is assigned. If parking is not assigned, then some vehicle circulation
would need to occur between the two parking levels via Cypress Avenue. The two parking levels
would contain a total of 122 parking spaces. It is noted that the project is considering relocating the
driveway to parking level 2 onto Airport Boulevard. Due to the median, the driveway on Airport
Boulevard would be restricted to right turns only into and out of the project. Site access would be
adequate with the proposed relocation of the driveway to Airport Boulevard.
The site plan shows that all driveways to the three parcels vary between 20 feet and 30 feet
measured at the throat, which would be adequate for vehicle ingress and egress for residential
development.
Sight Distance at the Project Driveways
In general, the project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight
distance. Hexagon recommends that standard no parking zones be established adjacent to the
project driveways to ensure that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk, as well as
vehicles on the road. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an
unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. Since the site plan shows no building set-backs, it
appears that a pedestrian warning system would be required at the project driveways for Parcels A
and D to alert pedestrians when a vehicle is exiting the project driveways.
241
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 28
On-Site Circulation
On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with City of South San Francisco Zoning
Ordinance and generally accepted traffic engineering standards.
All parking garage levels would contain 90-degree parking. The City’s standard width for two-way
drive aisles is 25 feet wide where 90-degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for
vehicles to back out of parking spaces. According to the site plan, the drive aisles on all parking
levels measure 24 feet wide. Based on generally accepted traffic engineering standards, a two-way
drive aisle that is 24 feet wide would be adequate for vehicles to maneuver in and out of the 90-
degree parking stalls. Other neighboring cities have allowed two-way drive aisles less than 25 feet.
Since the City of South San Francisco evaluates each project design on a case-by-case basis, the
project applicant should coordinate with City staff to determine if the proposed drive aisle widths are
acceptable to serve the project. Overall, vehicular circulation on all parking garage levels would be
adequate.
The site plan for Parcel A shows two dead-end drive aisles on level 1 and one dead-end drive aisle
on level 2 of the parking garage. The site plan for Parcel D shows two dead-end drive aisles on
level 1 and two dead-end parking aisles on level 2 of the parking garage. In general, dead-end
aisles can be problematic if they contain unassigned parking spaces, since drivers can enter the
aisle and upon discovering that there is no available parking must either back out or conduct three-
point maneuvers. Dead-end aisles typically are less problematic and would not create any on-site
circulation issues as long as the parking spaces are assigned to residents. The site plan shows that
adequate space is provided at the end of all dead-end parking aisles adjacent to the last parking
stall to enable vehicles to back out of these stalls.
Truck Access
Garbage truck access for Parcel A would occur on Lux Avenue and for Parcel D on Cypress
Avenue. For Parcel C, garbage truck access would be provided on site. The garbage truck can
access the trash enclosure provided at the back end of townhomes along Tamarack Lane by
entering via either of the project driveways on Miller Avenue or Tamarack Lane and back out 90-
degress along the parking aisle adjacent to the on-site open parking spaces in order to egress
Parcel C.
The site plan does not show any on-site loading zones. The project should provide designated
areas along the project frontage for moving/delivery trucks. Fire and emergency access to the
buildings on Parcels A and D would likely occur from the streets fronting the project.
Pedestrian Access and Circulation
The site plan shows that sidewalks would be constructed along the project frontages on Airport
Boulevard, Miller Avenue, Cypress Avenue and Lux Avenue for Parcel A, along the project
frontages on Cypress Avenue, Miller Avenue and Airport Boulevard for Parcel D and along the
project frontage on Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane for Parcel C.
The site plans show that the project would construct pedestrian bulbouts on all four corners of the
Miller Avenue/Cypress Avenue intersection. The project would also build pedestrian bulbouts on
two corners of the Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection, west of Airport Boulevard.
242
24
3
24
4
24
5
24
6
24
7
248
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 35
Parking
Calculation of Vehicular Parking Requirement
The proposed project is located within the downtown area. Parking analysis for the proposed
project was based on the parking requirement consistent with the City of South Francisco Parking
Ordinance (20.330.007 - Downtown Parking). Parking requirements for the proposed project were
calculated based on the following parking ratios for multi-family dwelling units:
:
Studio and less than 500 sq ft – 1 space per unit maximum.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800 sq ft - 1 space minimum.
Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100 sq ft - 1.5 spaces minimum
Three or more bedrooms and 1,101 sq ft or larger - 2 plus an additional .5 space for each
additional sleeping room over 3
Parking calculations for the individual parcels are shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Proposed Project – Vehicular Parking
Parcel Studio /
1 bed 2 bed3 bed
A87694199174
C ‐ 842021
D5644 ‐ 122122
B* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25
Total1431218341342
# of units
*Additional parking required for Parcel A will be accommodated in the surface
parking lot provided on Parcel B. Parcel B would be located across from Parcel
A on the other side of Cypress Avenue between Miller Avenue and Tamarack
L
Required
Vehicular
Parking
Parking
Provided
As shown in Table 10, per the parking ordinance, a total of 341 parking stalls will be required for the
proposed project, and the project proposes to provide a total of 342 parking spaces, 1 space more
than the required number of parking spaces. It is noted that for Parcel A, only 174 parking spaces of
the required 199 parking spaces will be provided within the parking garage on site. Additional
parking spaces for Parcel A will be accommodated on a surface parking lot that will be provided on
Parcel B. Parcel B is located across from Parcel A, on the other side of Cypress Avenue, between
Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane. The surface parking lot on Parcel B will have 25 parking
spaces. Parcel C and Parcel D will have the required number of parking spaces on site. The
parking code requires that one guest parking space be provided on site for every four dwelling units
for projects greater than 10 units. For 272 proposed dwelling units, the project should provide at
least 68 guest parking spaces. Of the total required 341 parking spaces, 68 parking spaces should
be guest parking spaces. It is not clear from the site plan where the guest parking spaces would be
provided on Parcels A and D.
Parking Dimensions
Based on the site plan, the proposed parking would consist of a mix of standard, compact, tandem
and ADA (American Disability Act) compliant parking stalls. Table 11 shows the dimensions and the
proposed parking mix for the individual parcels. As shown in Table 11, the total number of parking
spaces would consist of 241 standard parking spaces, 54 compact spaces, 36 tandem spaces and
249
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 36
11 ADA compliant parking spaces. It is noted that the parking requirement of the zoning ordinance
does not provide any guidelines for compact spaces. The site plan for Parcel A shows a total of 54
compact parking spaces. The site plan shows that the compact spaces would have a dimension of
8.5 feet wide by 16 feet depth. Within the parking industry, compact spaces are typically specified to
be 7.5 feet wide and 15 feet long. Therefore, the proposed compact spaces are larger than typical
compact spaces but not as large as standard spaces. In Hexagon’s experience, compact ratios of
up to 30% are workable and commonly allowed in many zoning ordinances. Therefore, Hexagon
believes that having 54 compact spaces out of 177 total spaces will work. It is recommended that
these spaces be marked as compact spaces.
The site plan shows a total of 14 tandem parking bays within Parcel A and 4 tandem parking bays
within Parcel D. The tandem parking spaces show a maximum of two vehicles that can be parked
one behind the other. The parking code requires that the tandem parking bay measures a minimum
of 10 feet by 40 feet. The site plan shows that all tandem bays measure 8.5 feet by 34 feet and
therefore do not meet the code. The dimension provided for the tandem parking bay is equivalent to
the sum of dimensions of one standard parking space and one compact parking space (8.5 feet x
18 feet plus 8.5 feet by 16 feet). The dimension of the parking bays should be adequate provided
the tandem bays are assigned to residents with one compact and one full size vehicle. The parking
code also requires that both the spaces in the tandem parking bay be assigned to a single dwelling
unit. The parking code requires that where tandem parking spaces are provided, the total number of
tandem parking spaces should be less than 50% of the total required parking spaces. The total
number of tandem parking spaces in Parcel A is 28 parking spaces, which calculates to 16% of the
total required parking spaces for Parcel A and meets the code. The percentage of tandem parking
spaces in Parcel D is only 6%.
Table 11
Parking Stall Dimensions
Parking Stall
Dimension Parcel AParcel BParcel CParcel DTotal
Standard Space8.5'x18'852521110241
Compact Space8.5'x16'54 ‐ ‐ ‐ 54
Tandem Bay8.5'x34'28 ‐ ‐ 836
ADA7 ‐ ‐ 411
Total 1742521122342
Calculation of Bicycle Parking Spaces
The site plan shows that bike racks would be provided for both short term and long term bicycle
parking at all three parcels. Bicycle parking requirements were calculated based on the following
criteria from the zoning ordinance.
Short-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at a rate of 10 percent of the
number of required automobile parking spaces
A minimum of one long term bicycle parking space shall be provided for every four
units for multi-unit residential and group residential projects
The bicycle parking calculations for the three parcels are shown in Table 12. The proposed project
would require a total of 34 short term bicycle parking spaces and 68 long term bicycle parking
spaces. The proposed project would provide an adequate number of long term bicycle parking
spaces. However, the site plan shows the project to be 8 spaces short of the short-term bicycle
parking requirement.
250
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 37
Table 12
Proposed Project – Bicycle Parking
Parcel Short
Term
Long
Term
Short
Term
Long
Term
A19920401542
C202323
D1221225928
Total34134682673
Required
Vehicular
Parking
Required Bicycle
Parking
Bicycle Parking
Provided
Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts
The project would not have an adverse effect on existing transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities in
the study area. Due to the project’s proximity (within a ¼ mile) of the Caltrain station, the project is
expected to generate some demand for transit use. The existing transit service in the study area
would be able to accommodate the transit demand generated by the project. The proposed project
would add some pedestrian and bicyclists who would utilize sidewalks and bicycle facilities in the
area and would not significantly impact or require changes to the design of any existing bicycle or
pedestrian facilities.
Conclusions
The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by
the City of South San Francisco and consistent with the analysis methodologies presented in the
DSASP EIR. The study included the analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic operations for 11
signalized intersections, for which mitigations were identified in the DSASP EIR. Project impacts on
other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit service, were determined on the
basis of engineering judgment.
The analysis of traffic operations under existing and background conditions showed that the project
would not cause any significant impacts at any of the study intersections.
The project would not have an adverse effect on existing transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities in
the study area.
A review of the site plans for the proposed project for parcels A, C and D showed that adequate
circulation would be provided on site. The site plans do not show any loading zones. The project
should provide designated areas along the project frontage for moving/delivery trucks and also for
emergency/fire access in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The project would provide adequate parking on site. Where tandem parking spaces are provided,
the parking code requires that the total number of tandem parking spaces should be less than 50%
of the total required parking spaces. The total number of tandem parking spaces is less than 50% of
the total required parking spaces, thus meeting the parking code. The compact parking spaces
would not be problematic and should be marked as compact spaces.
A review of the parking stall dimensions showed that the tandem parking spaces do not meet the
code. The code requires that where tandem parking spaces are provided, the tandem parking bay
should measure at least 10 feet by 40 feet. The tandem parking bays shown on the site plans
measure 8.5 feet by 34 feet. These dimensions would be adequate provided the tandem bays are
assigned to residents with one full-size and one compact vehicle.
251
Miller Cypress Residential Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 11, 2015
Page | 38
A review of the bicycle parking calculations showed that the project is short of 8 spaces for short-
term bicycle parking.
252
Memorandum
Date: December 28, 2015
To: Ken Busch
From: Gary Black
Trisha Dudala
Subject: Miller Avenue Residential Project, South San Francisco – Impact on Tamarack Lane
This memorandum has been prepared to describe the impacts of developing Parcel C of the proposed Miller
Avenue Residential Project on Tamarack Lane in South San Francisco. Parcel C is located to the east of
Linden Avenue between Miller Avenue to the south and Tamarack Lane to the north, as shown on Figure 1.
The proposed project would replace a parking lot that is currently closed. The project would develop this site
to include 12 townhouses. The site plan shows that vehicular access to the 12 townhomes on Parcel C would
be provided via one driveway on Tamarack Lane. This driveway would provide access to 21 on-site parking
spaces (16 parking spaces in individual garages and 5 open parking stalls). The site plan shows that for
townhomes fronting Tamarack Lane, the garages can be directly accessed from Tamarack Lane. Only
pedestrian access would be provided along Miller Avenue. The impacts of the proposed project on Tamarack
Lane are discussed in this memorandum.
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis report that was recently completed for the Miller Avenue Residential
project that includes the development of Parcel C, Parcel C would generate a total of 10 trips during the AM
peak hour (2 inbound and 8 outbound) and 11 trips during the PM peak hour (7 inbound and 4 outbound). The
project would generate a total of 102 daily trips. These trip generation estimates were based on the trip rates
published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition. Tamarack
Lane is a one-way street in the westbound direction. All traffic from the proposed project on Parcel C would
enter and exit via Tamarack Lane. During the AM peak hour the project would add a maximum of 8 vehicles
on Tamarack Lane (approximately 2 vehicles east of the project driveway and 8 vehicles west of the project
driveway). During the PM peak hour, the project would add a maximum of 7 vehicles on Tamarack Lane (7
vehicles east of the project driveway and 4 vehicles west of the project driveway). Because of the one
directional traffic flow on Tamarack Lane, vehicles would not have to wait for any gaps in order to turn into the
project driveway and would cause minimal delay to the through traffic on Tamarack Lane. Also, vehicles
exiting the project driveway would not have difficulty turning onto Tamarack Lane as they would have to find
gaps in only one direction. Given the low traffic volumes and one-directional traffic flow on Tamarack Lane,
the project would not create any significant impacts on Tamarack Lane.
253
254
VA
C
A
N
T
F
O
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
EN
T
I
T
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
S
E
T
JA
N
U
A
R
Y
0
4
,
2
0
1
6
TC
A
#
2
0
1
4
-
0
3
0
SOLAR ACCESS REPORT
8
A
M
10
A
M
8
A
M
10
A
M
SU
M
M
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
WI
N
T
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
G-6.0
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
s
h
a
d
e
an
d
w
i
n
d
a
r
e
a
l
w
a
y
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
de
s
i
g
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
.
I
n
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
V
a
c
a
n
t
Fo
r
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
a
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
s
h
a
d
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
w
a
s
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
i
s
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
he
r
e
i
n
.
I
n
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
t
w
o
s
i
t
e
s
(
A
a
n
d
D
)
ar
e
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
S
o
u
t
h
t
o
N
o
r
t
h
al
o
n
g
b
o
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
.
a
n
d
C
y
p
r
e
s
s
Av
e
n
u
e
,
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
h
a
d
e
s
t
u
d
y
sh
o
w
l
i
t
t
l
e
o
r
n
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
a
d
j
o
i
n
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
,
a
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
th
e
r
e
i
s
t
h
e
1
0
1
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
.
T
h
e
o
n
l
y
sh
a
d
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
t
o
th
e
w
e
s
t
o
c
c
u
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
8
A
M
a
n
d
No
o
n
a
t
t
h
e
W
i
n
t
e
r
S
o
l
s
t
i
c
e
.
A
t
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
ti
m
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
v
i
r
t
u
a
l
l
y
n
o
im
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
ho
u
r
s
.
25
5
VA
C
A
N
T
F
O
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
EN
T
I
T
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
S
E
T
JA
N
U
A
R
Y
0
4
,
2
0
1
6
TC
A
#
2
0
1
4
-
0
3
0
SOLAR ACCESS REPORT
12
P
M
2
P
M
12
P
M
2
P
M
SU
M
M
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
WI
N
T
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
G-6.1
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
s
h
a
d
e
an
d
w
i
n
d
a
r
e
a
l
w
a
y
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
de
s
i
g
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
.
I
n
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
V
a
c
a
n
t
Fo
r
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
a
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
s
h
a
d
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
w
a
s
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
i
s
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
he
r
e
i
n
.
I
n
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
t
w
o
s
i
t
e
s
(
A
a
n
d
D
)
ar
e
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
S
o
u
t
h
t
o
N
o
r
t
h
al
o
n
g
b
o
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
.
a
n
d
C
y
p
r
e
s
s
Av
e
n
u
e
,
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
h
a
d
e
s
t
u
d
y
sh
o
w
l
i
t
t
l
e
o
r
n
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
a
d
j
o
i
n
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
,
a
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
th
e
r
e
i
s
t
h
e
1
0
1
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
.
T
h
e
o
n
l
y
sh
a
d
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
t
o
th
e
w
e
s
t
o
c
c
u
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
8
A
M
a
n
d
No
o
n
a
t
t
h
e
W
i
n
t
e
r
S
o
l
s
t
i
c
e
.
A
t
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
ti
m
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
v
i
r
t
u
a
l
l
y
n
o
im
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
ho
u
r
s
.
25
6
VA
C
A
N
T
F
O
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
EN
T
I
T
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
S
E
T
JA
N
U
A
R
Y
0
4
,
2
0
1
6
TC
A
#
2
0
1
4
-
0
3
0
SOLAR ACCESS REPORT
4
P
M
4
P
M
SU
M
M
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
WI
N
T
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
G-6.1
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
s
h
a
d
e
an
d
w
i
n
d
a
r
e
a
l
w
a
y
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
de
s
i
g
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
.
I
n
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
V
a
c
a
n
t
Fo
r
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
a
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
s
h
a
d
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
w
a
s
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
i
s
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
he
r
e
i
n
.
I
n
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
t
w
o
s
i
t
e
s
(
A
a
n
d
D
)
ar
e
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
S
o
u
t
h
t
o
N
o
r
t
h
al
o
n
g
b
o
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
.
a
n
d
C
y
p
r
e
s
s
Av
e
n
u
e
,
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
h
a
d
e
s
t
u
d
y
sh
o
w
l
i
t
t
l
e
o
r
n
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
a
d
j
o
i
n
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
,
a
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
th
e
r
e
i
s
t
h
e
1
0
1
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
.
T
h
e
o
n
l
y
sh
a
d
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
t
o
th
e
w
e
s
t
o
c
c
u
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
8
A
M
a
n
d
No
o
n
a
t
t
h
e
W
i
n
t
e
r
S
o
l
s
t
i
c
e
.
A
t
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
ti
m
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
v
i
r
t
u
a
l
l
y
n
o
im
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
n
o
r
m
a
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
ho
u
r
s
.
25
7
1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120
Petaluma, California 94954
Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0490
www.illingworthrodkin.com illro@illingworthrodkin.com
January 12, 2016
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
901 Mariners Island Blvd #700
San Mateo, CA 94404
VIA E-mail: kbusch@srgnc.com
SUBJECT: Parcels A, C and D in South San Francisco, CA --
Wind Issues Associated with the Project
Dear Ken:
This letter is in response to a comment regarding the potential wind effects that may be caused by
your project in South San Francisco. Specifically, any potential “wind tunnel” effects that could
affect Bertolucci’s Restaurant. This restaurant is located immediately west-northwest of Parcel A,
across Cypress Avenue near Miller Avenue between Lux Avenue and Tamarack Lane. Parcel A
would include a 7-story building (approximately 80 feet tall) that would be located about 40 to 50
feet east-southeast of the restaurant.
Wind Conditions
Wind conditions in the project area are described using historical wind data collected at San
Francisco International Airport. The airport is located less than 3 miles to the southeast and is
appropriately assumed to experience the same wind conditions that occur at the project site. A west-
northwest wind is the typical wind condition experienced in the area. This is also the strongest wind
that occurs, although some winter storm systems may generate strong southerly winds on a very brief
basis. A common illustrative aid to describe wind conditions in an area is a wind rose. The wind
rose shows the frequency of wind direction and speed. The “petals” are oriented in the 32 directions,
where a longer length reflects a higher percentage of the time that the wind blows from that direction.
The petals are extended in the direction that the wind blows from. Various colors of the petal relate
to the speed. A wind rose for San Francisco Airport that represents 5 years of hourly wind
measurements from 2009- through 2013 was used to describe wind in the project area (see
Attachment 1). The wind rose shows that winds with a westerly component occur about 60 percent
of the time, with the most dominant winds being from the west-northwest. Winds from easterly
directions occur less than 15 percent of the time and are generally light. Winter storm systems can
bring relatively brief periods of strong south or southeast winds to the area. Winds are considered
calm about 13 percent of the time. The average wind speed is 11 miles per hour or 4.75 meters per
second.
258
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
January 12, 2016 - Page 2 of 5
Building Effects on Wind Flow
In general, tall slab shape buildings have the greatest potential for accelerating wind as they can
deflect wind downward toward the ground. A fontal vortex can form upwind at street level in front
of the building. Winds increase near the surface at upstream corners of the building where the
prevailing flow and the outflow from the vortex combine. Buildings with unusual shapes, openings,
rounded edges, or elevated setbacks result in lower winds speeds. Trees and building canopies, street
furniture, large-scale artwork strategically placed will further reduce descending airflow and interrupt
the formation of a frontal vortex near the surface.
Wind speeds around a particular building are dependent on various factors, but in large part depend
on the height and width of building. A different wind flow pattern emerges when wind encounters a
single tall slab-like building, as shown in Figure 1. The wind divides at about three quarters of the
building height and creates a stagnation region. Above this, the air flows up the face of the building
and over the roof; below, it flows down to form a vortex in front of the building before accelerating
around the windward corners.
Figure 1. Flow patterns around tall, slab-like building. Note areas of increased wind speeds at pedestrian level.
Potential Impacts
We are aware of only two cities in Northern California that have developed criteria for evaluating
wind impacts from new structures: San Francisco and Oakland. Both cities base their criteria on
potential hazards to street-level pedestrians. In San Francisco, the criterion for wind hazard is a one-
minute mean wind speed of 36 miles per hour (mph). Based on our understanding of their criteria
and guidance, these cities only require wind tunnel testing for the largest buildings that are over 100
feet, unless there are unusual circumstances.
The tallest project buildings (Parcels A and D) are about 80 feet high, while existing buildings to the
west are about 20 to 25 feet high. While taller than the existing buildings, the project would not be
considered a “tall” building, because it is less than 100 feet 1. There are no buildings immediately to
the east. The area downwind of the project site is Airport Boulevard and U.S. 101. The greatest
wind effects would be experienced adjacent and downwind of building corners, where wind flow
interrupted by the building would flow fast around the corners (referred to as a corner stream). Wind
1 There really is no definition of a “Tall” building. There are references by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban
Habitat to 14 stories or 165 feet as being the threshold for tall.
259
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
January 12, 2016 - Page 3 of 5
could also be accelerated over the top of the building, but this is not a concern to pedestrians. The
area in front of the building along Cypress Avenue would experience what is referred to as the frontal
vortex, where wind would actually be opposite the prevailing wind direction. This effect already
occurs to some extent, since the existing upstream buildings block wind flow on Cypress Avenue and
create a wake zone. Although wind flow would be affected along Cypress Avenue, the wind speeds
would not be considered hazardous to pedestrians.
Several features of the project would lessen the downward acceleration of wind caused by the
building:
• The substantial elevated opening in the Parcel A Building (above the 2nd story);
• Building facades would include articulations, balconies and canopies; and
• Large street-level trees would be placed along the building portions facing Cypress Avenue
Figure 2. Parcel A Building View from Cypress Avenue
For these reasons, we do not believe that a “wind tunnel” effect will be caused the proposed project.
* * *
Sincerely yours,
James A. Reyff
Senior Consultant, Principal
ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC.
15-112
Attachment: Wind Rose for San Francisco International Airport 2009-2013
260
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
January 12, 2016 - Page 4 of 5
Attachment
261
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
January 12, 2016 - Page 5 of 5
262
11-1
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.1 Introduction
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
11.1 INTRODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2013102001 identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse
effects of the proposed project in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, recreation, and
transportation/traffic.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that agencies adopting environmental
impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project
approval. Specifically, the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for
mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must
be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation
(Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by City of South San Francisco
staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the proposed Plan.
Monitoring will consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the
party responsible for implementation or by field observation of the mitigation measure during
implementation.
11.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MATRIX
Table 11-1 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix) identifies the mitigation measures by
resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including
implementation documentation, monitoring activity, timing and responsible monitoring party.
Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor,
together with date of verification.
263
11-2
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
AIR QUALITY
MM4.2-1 Construction emissions for all future development under the Specific Plan shall be
quantified prior to the start of construction. For projects where construction emissions are
anticipated to exceed the most recent City-adopted thresholds, in addition to the BAAQMD
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, construction activities shall implement the BAAQMD
Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction emissions of criteria air
pollutants to below significance criteria. Mitigation reductions shall be quantified prior to the start
of construction to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project
emissions. The Additional Construction Mitigation Measures include the following:
1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil
moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind
speeds exceed 20 mph.
3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively
disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air
porosity.
4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in
disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is
established.
5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction
activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to
reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-
inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.
9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.
10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than
50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and
subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX
reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent California ARB fleet
average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines,
low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after -treatment
Verification of
construction plan
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
264
11-3
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become
available.
11. Use low-ROG coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3:
Architectural Coatings).
12. All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best
Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM.
13. All contractors shall use equipment that meets California ARB’s most recent certification
standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
MM4.2-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for future development projects under the
Specific Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of recommended BAAQMD
operational mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria a ir
pollutants to below significance criteria. Operational emissions and mitigation reductions will be
quantified prior to issuance of the building permit to demonstrate that adequate measures have
been identified to reduce project emissions. The recommended measures include, but are not
limited to, any of the following:
1. Increase on-street parking fees.
2. Daily parking charge for employees.
3. Provide a parking “cash-out” incentive for employees who use alternative transportation to
commute.
4. Provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees.
5. Encourage alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuting.
6. Provide a ridesharing program.
Verification of
construction plan
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.2-3 Siting Sensitive Receptors near Potential TAC Source. A Health Risk Assessment
(HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional for development of a project that
would introduce new sensitive receptors in the study area within the siting distance for any use
listed in ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced here as Table 4.2-11
[Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]). Sensitive receptors include day care
centers, schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential homes, or other
facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by
changes in air quality. Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an HR A has
been completed and approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of
HRAs. If a potentially significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate
measures to reduce the potential health risk to below a significant level or the sensitive receptor
shall be sited in another location.
Preparation and
approval of Health
Risk Assessment
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
265
11-4
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
Table 4.2-11 Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive
Land Uses
Source Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High-
Traffic Roads
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway,
urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000
vehicles/day.
Distribution Centers
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution
center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than
40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day,
or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week)
Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers
and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses
near entry and exit points.
Rail Yards
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major
service and maintenance rail yard.
Within 1 mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and
mitigation approaches.
Ports
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports
in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the
ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.
Refineries
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of
petroleum refineries. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the
status of pending analyses of health risks.
Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome
plater.
Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry
cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines
provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines consult
with the local air district.
Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with
perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.
266
11-5
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas
station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons
per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical
gas dispensing facilities.
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective (April 2005).
These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other
considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development
priorities, and other quality of life issues.
Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposures
addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as much as 80% with the
recommended separation.
The relative risk for these categories varies greatly. To determine the actual risk near a
particular facility, a site-specific analysis would be required. Risk from diesel PM will
decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in.
These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing
facilities may not be readily available and are not designed to substitute for more
specific information if it exists. The recommended distances take into account other
factors in addition to the available health risk data.
Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and
should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses.
This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in
general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known problems like dry cleaners using
perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable preventative actions.
267
11-6
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.2-4 Siting of New Toxic Air Contaminant Sources Near Sensitive Receptors. Prior to
approval of any project that includes potential sources of significant TAC emissions that is not
subject to a BAAQMD permit, that is proposed in a close proximity to a sensitive receptor, a
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional. The
land uses listed in ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced above as
Table 4.2-11 [Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]), shall be considered
potentially significant sources of TAC emissions. Such a proposed project will be considered in
close proximity to a sensitive receptor if it would be located within the siting distance outline for
the use in Table 1-1 of the ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Sensitive receptors
include day care centers, schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential
homes, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be
adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Such a project shall not be considered for
approval until an HRA has been completed and approved by the City. The methodology for the
HRA shall follow the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD
guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If a potentially significant health risk is identified, the
HRA shall identify appropriate measures to reduce the potential health risk to below a
significant level, or the proposed facility shall be sited in another location.
Preparation and
approval of Health
Risk Assessment
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.2-5 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new industrial land uses identified in
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a typical source
of odors, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of best management practices to
minimize odors. Best management practices vary by industrial type. In all cases, exhaust vents
should be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. Best management practices
recommended by the BAAQMD in the CEQA Guidelines shall be implemented as applicable,
and may include the following:
■ Vapor Recovery Systems
■ Injection of masking odorants into process streams
■ Thermal oxidation
■ Carbon absorption
■ Scrubbers
■ Catalytic oxidation
Verification of
implementation of best
management
practices to control
odors
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
268
11-7
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM4.3-1 Prior to development activities that would demolish or otherwise physically affect
buildings or structures 45 years old or older, the project applicant shall retain a cultural resource
professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
Architectural History to determine if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The
investigation shall include, as determined appropriate by the cultural resource professional and
the City of South San Francisco, the appropriate archival research, including, if necessary, an
updated records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical
Resources Information System and a pedestrian survey of the proposed development area to
determine if any significant historic-period resources would be adversely affected by the
proposed development. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical
report or memorandum that identifies and evaluates any historical resources within the
development area and includes recommendations and methods for eliminating or reducing
impacts on historical resources. The technical report or memorandum shall be sub mitted to the
City of South San Francisco for approval. As determined necessary by the City, environmental
documentation (e.g., CEQA documentation) prepared for future development within the project
site shall reference or incorporate the findings and recommendations of the technical report or
memorandum. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for
eliminating or reducing impacts on historical resources identified in the technical report or
memorandum.
Historic resource
evaluation and report
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
269
11-8
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.3-2 Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could
encounter previously undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a City approved
archaeologist to determine if the project could result in a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The
results of the cultural resources investigation shall be documented in a technical report or
memorandum that identifies and evaluates any archaeological resources within the
development area and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding impacts on
archaeological resources or reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. The technical
report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval. The
project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing
impacts on archaeological resources identified in the technical report or memorandum. Projects
under the Specific Plan that would not encounter previously undisturbed soils and would
therefore not be required to retain an archaeologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the
City through the appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth -
disturbing activities. Projects that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed
soils) shall comply with mitigation measure MM4.3-3.
Archaeological
resource evaluation
and report
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.3-3 If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected historical resource as defined
by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are discovered during any project-related earth-
disturbing activities (including projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils), all earth-
disturbing activity within 100 feet of the find shall be halted and the City of South San Francisco
shall be notified. The project applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to assess the
significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level through methods determined adequate by the archaeologist as approved by the
City.
Cessation of
construction activities
and archaeological
investigation
Ongoing during
construction
Developer/contractor Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.3-4 Prior to start of construction, all construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing
activities and the supervision of such activities will undergo worker environmental awareness
training. The archaeological resources training components will be presented by a City-
approved cultural resources consultant. The training will describe the types of archaeological
resources that may be found in the proposed study area and how to recognize such resources;
the protocols to be followed if archaeological resources are found, including communication
protocols; and the laws relevant to the protection of archaeological resources and the
associated penalties for breaking these laws. Additionally, prior to construction, City-approved
archaeological resources consultants will meet with the applicant’s grading and excavation
contractors to provide comments and suggestions concerning monitoring plans and to discuss
excavation and grading plans.
Verification of worker
environmental
awareness training
Prior to
commencement of
construction activities
Developer/contractor Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
270
11-9
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.3-5 Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could
encounter undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist to
determine if the project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a
technical report or memorandum that identifies the paleontological sensitivity of the
development area and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding or reducing
impacts to a less-than-significant level for paleontological resources or unique geologic
features. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City for approval. The
project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing
impacts on paleontological resources or unique geologic features identified in the technical
report or memorandum. Projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils and would
therefore not be required to retain a paleontologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the
City through the appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth-
disturbing activities. Projects that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed
soils) shall comply with mitigation measure MM4.3-6.
Paleontological
investigation and
report
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.3-6 Should paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) or unique geologic features be
identified at a particular site during project construction, construction shall cease within 100 feet
of the find and the City of South San Francisco shall be notified. The project applicant shall
retain a City approved paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any
significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods
determined adequate by the paleontologist, and as approved by the City.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of
South San Francisco staff shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light
of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, applicable regulations, policies
and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible,
other appropriate measures (e.g., monitoring and/or data recovery) shall be instituted.
Cessation of
construction and
paleontological
investigation
Ongoing during
construction
Developer/contractor Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
271
11-10
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
MM4.4-1 All construction projects shall incorporate, to the greatest extent feasible, the most
recent Best Management Practices for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as indicated by the
BAAQMD.1 Best Management Practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction may
include, but are not limited to:
■ Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment of at
least 15 percent of the fleet
■ Using local building materials of at least 10 percent
■ Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials
Verification of GHG
best management
practices
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-2 Support Expansion of Public and Private Transit Programs to Reduce Employee
Commutes (1.2). Employers within the study area shall subscribe to the South San Francisco
TDM Ordinance such that a minimum of 25 percent of all employees are included. The South
San Francisco TDM Ordinance requires that all nonresidential developments producing 100
average trips per day or more meet a 28 percent non-drive-alone peak hour requirement with
fees assessed for noncompliance.
Verification of
compliance with TDM
ordinance
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-3 Reduce Dependence on Autos through Smart Parking Policies (1.3). This measure
would implement Smart Parking Policies, such as shared parking, to reduce available parking
by 10 percent.
Implementation of
Smart Parking Policies
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-4 Expand the Use of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles (2.1). Nonresidential and residential land
uses can encourage the use of alternative-fueled vehicles by providing charging stations. In
support of this measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 60
electric vehicle chargers are installed within nonresidential land uses and within the residential
units electric charging capabilities are available for a minimum of 200 vehicles.
Verification of
inclusion of charging
stations
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-5 Reduce Emissions from Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment (2.2). In support of this
measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 25 percent of all
lawnmowers and leaf blowers acquired/used within the study area would be electric. This
requires that there be sufficient electrical outlets outside of all residential and nonresidential
units to encourage the use of non-gas-fueled lawn maintenance equipment.
Verification of
electrical plans
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
1 Above BMPs are subject to change over time. Bay Area Air Quality Management District will post updates to this list at www.baaqmd.gov.
272
11-11
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.4-6 Maximize Energy Efficiency in the Built Environment through Standards and the Plan
Review Process (3.1). All new development within the study area shall, at a minimum, comply
with the CALGreen Tier 1 standards and exceed 2013 Title 24 by a minimum of 10 percent.
Verification of
compliance
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-7 Address Heat Island Issues and Expand the Urban Forest (3.4). At a minimum,
322,000 square feet of all new nonresidential development and 75 new residential units shall
address heat island effect issues by using high albedo surfaces and technologie s identified in
the voluntary CALGreen Standards. This is in addition to the requirements of all new
development to plant trees in accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 13.30 with placement used
to maximize building shading.
Verification of
compliance
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-8 Promote Energy Information Sharing and Educate the Community about Energy-
Efficient Behaviors and Construction (3.5). Develop as part of the Specific Plan an educational
information packet that will be distributed to residential and nonresidential land owners. These
information packets shall detail potential behavioral changes that can be instituted to save
energy, such as unplugging appliances, air-drying clothes, and daylighting strategies.
Verification of
compliance
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-9 Energy Reduction (4.1). In addition to complying with MM4.4-6, the development
within the study area shall include the use of solar panels such that a minimum of
35,000 square feet of nonresidential land use roof space is converted to solar panels, 205
residential units are equipped with solar hot water heaters, and the electricity of an additional 75
dwelling units is offset by solar panel arrays associated with the new residential development.
Verification of
compliance
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-10 Water Reduction (6.1). Nonresidential and residential land uses shall reduce per
capita water consumption by 40 gallons per day. Measures to be implemented to reduce water
consumption may include, but are not limited to:
■ Limiting turf area in commercial and multi-family projects
■ Restricting hours of irrigation to between 3:00 AM and 2 hours after sunrise (suggestion to
be included in the energy information saving package)
■ Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors
■ Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants
■ Installing drip irrigation systems
■ Reducing impervious surfaces
■ Installing high-efficiency, water-saving appliances
Verification of
compliance
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
273
11-12
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
NOISE
MM4.6-1 HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Prior to the approval of building permits for
non-residential development, the applicant shall submit a design plan for the project
demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the
exterior noise level limits for a designated receiving land use category as specified in Noise
Ordinance Section 8.32.030. Noise control measures may include, but are not limited to, the
selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical louvers.
Verification of
compliance
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.6-2 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Nonresidential Development. Prior to the approval of
building permits for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise level exceeds 70 dBA
CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to determine appropriate noise reduction
measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced to be below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a
higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by
the City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that will be
implemented to ensure exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Measures
that may be implemented to ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to,
setbacks to separate the proposed nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or
construction of noise barriers on site.
Completion and
approval of acoustical
analysis
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
274
11-13
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.6-3 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Multifamily Residences. Prior to the approval of
building permits for the following uses, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that
interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources shall be below 45 dBA CNEL:
■ Multifamily residences where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL or where noise
contours identified in the General Plan Noise Element project a CNEL between 65 and
70 dBA
■ Multifamily residential units that are located within the same building as commercial
development
■ Multifamily residential units located near a structure requiring an HVAC system
■ Building plans shall be available during design review and shall demonstrate the accurate
calculation of noise attenuation for habitable rooms. For these areas, it may be necessary
for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the
interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, based on the results of the interior
acoustical analysis, the design for buildings in these areas may need to include a ventilation
or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows
closed. Additionally, for new multifamily residences on properties where train horns and
railroad crossing warning signals are audible, the acoustical analysis shall ensure that
interior noise levels during crossing events do not exceed the Interior Noise Standards in
Noise Ordinance Section 8.32.040.
Completion and
approval of acoustical
analysis
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.6-4 Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the
construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction:
a. The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of
construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants
within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and
duration of vibration-generating construction activities.
b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site
receptors as possible.
c. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.
Verification of
compliance
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer/contractor Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
275
11-14
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.6-5 Rail Line Groundborne Vibration. Implement the current FTA and Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive
uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration-
sensitive equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (residences and
buildings where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land
uses) within 155 feet of the rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis
conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA
and FRA guidelines prior to obtaining a building permit. Vibration control measures deemed
appropriate by the site-specific groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and
75 VdB respectively for Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by
the project applicant and approved by the City prior to receiving a building permit.
Completion and
approval of
groundborne vibration
analysis
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
MM4.10-1 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at #1 Miller
Avenue/Linden Avenue. This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D in
the PM peak hour.
Completion of timing
adjustment
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-2 Convert one westbound through lane to a second westbound left-turn lane, and
retime and optimize the traffic signal at E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-3 Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket and one through-right
shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard to
reallocate green time.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-4 Add a southbound left-turn pocket by removing existing parking and retime and
optimize the traffic signal at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue to reallocate green time to better
serve future volumes.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
276
11-15
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.10-5 Modify the westbound approach to add a left-turn pocket, modifying the approach to
include three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane, and optimize the traffic
signal at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future
volumes.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-6 Include an additional westbound through lane, add a second southbound right-turn
pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at South Airport Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future traffic volumes.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-7 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce queuing at the southbound right-turn movement. This would cause the
intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D and with acceptable queue lengths during the
PM peak hour.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-8 intentionally omitted
2MM4.10-9 Repurpose the eastbound and westbound approaches to include one left-turn
pocket and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Miller
Avenue/Linden Avenue. This lane modification would not require any additional right-of-way.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-10 A signal timing adjustment to optimize cycle length and redistribute green time to
better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve
operations at this intersection.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-11 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at this intersection.
This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.
2 Mitigation measures MM4.10-9 through MM4.10-19 were not renumbered in the Final EIR to account for the elimination of MM4.10-8 since publication of the DEIR.
277
11-16
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.10-12 Construct an additional northbound right-turn lane, southbound left-turn lane,
southbound right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at E. Grand
Avenue/Gateway Boulevard.
MM4.10-13 Convert the westbound approach to include one left-turn lane and one through-right
shared lane.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-14 Modify the eastbound and westbound approach to each have one left-turn pocket
and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand
Avenue/Linden Avenue.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-15 Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket, one through lane,
and one right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand Avenue/Airport
Boulevard. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce vehicle delay at
the intersection, and improve operations at #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-16 Retime and optimize the traffic signals at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue. Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-17 Construct an additional westbound left-turn lane, provide a northbound right-turn
pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-18 Construct an additional northbound left-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic
signals at So. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
278
11-17
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.10-19 Modify the eastbound approach to include two left-turn lanes, one through-left
shared lane, and one right-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at US-101
NB/So. Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/So. Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better
serve future volumes.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
279
11-18
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
280
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
2
CI
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
E
N
T
I
T
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
R
E
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
WI
T
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
S
28
1
RESOLUTION NO. _________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT; DESIGN
REVIEW; WAIVER AND MODIFICATION, AND A PARKING REDUCTION FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SEVEN-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH
A TOTAL OF 260 RENTAL UNITS AT BOTH CORNERS OF AIRPORT
BOULEVARD AND MILLER AVENUE (309, 315, 401-421 AIRPORT BLVD.), A
PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PARKING LOT AT 405 CYPRESS AVENUE, AND
TWELVE (12) TOWNHOME UNITS AT 216 MILLER AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco (“Agency”) is the owner of certain real property located in the City of South San Francisco
(“City”), California, known as County Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-317-110 (“401 Airport
Boulevard”), 012-317-100 (“411 Airport Boulevard”), 012-317-090 (“421 Airport Boulevard”), 012-
314-100 (“405 Cypress Avenue”), 012-314-220 (“216 Miller Avenue”), 012-318-080 (“315 Airport
Boulevard”) and collectively referred to as the “Agency Property”; and,
WHEREAS, in August, 2014, the Agency and Miller Cypress SSF, LLC (“Developer”) entered
into an Exclusive Negotiation Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) that established a mutual understanding
among the City, the Agency, and the Developer regarding the potential development of the Agency
Property; and,
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the potential acquisition of the Agency Property, the Developer
has acquired rights to entitle and develop County Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-318-040 (“309 Airport
Boulevard”); and,
WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed construction of a high-density residential development,
consisting of 260 residential apartments in Phase 1, 12 for-sale residential townhomes in Phase 2, and
342 total vehicle parking spaces (“Project”) over 2.34 acres at the following addresses: 309 Airport
Blvd., 315 Airport Blvd., 401-421 Airport Blvd., 405 Cypress Ave., and 216 Miller Ave. (collectively
“Project Site”) in the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer now wish to enter into a Development Agreement
(“Agreement”), addressed through a separate Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, Developer seeks approval of a Use Permit (UP15-0027), Design Review (DR15-
0032), Waiver and Modification (WM15-0001), and Parking Reduction (PE15-0004) for the Project
(“Land Use Entitlements”); and,
WHEREAS, approval of the Project and the related Development Agreement and Land Use
Entitlements is considered a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub.
Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
282
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015 the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report
(“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse number 2013102001) in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines,
which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan; and,
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (“SOC”) in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which carefully considered
each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant
environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project’s economic, legal, social, technological and
other benefits; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project and
concluded that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR certified by City Council nor would any new
mitigation measures be required; and,
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco
held a lawfully noticed public hearing to take public testimony and solicit public comment and
recommended approval of the Development Agreement, the Environmental Consistency Analysis and
the proposed Land Use Entitlements; and,
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2016 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Land Use
Entitlements and Development Agreement, take public testimony, and adopt this resolution approving
the Land Use Entitlements and Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,
which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
§21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et
seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan Program EIR; the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal
Code; the Project applications; the Project Plans, as prepared by TCA Architects, dated December 7,
2015; the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff, dated February 10, 2016
including all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted
as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 21, 2016 meeting; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed February 10, 2016 meeting and
any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
283
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Conditions of Project Approval
(Exhibit A), and the Vacant Ford Properties Entitlement Submittal Project Plans (Exhibit B) and all final
Land Use Entitlements documents are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this
Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are
located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
4. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review and
consideration of the environmental documentation provided, including but not limited to the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff, dated February 10, 2016, the City
Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that the Project is consistent with the
analysis presented in the certified Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR, and that the
Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required
for the Project. This is supported by the fact that, consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the project prepared Toxic Air Contaminants
(TAC) and Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment, a Historic Resources Analysis, an Updated
Historic Evaluation, and a Traffic and Circulation Analysis, all of which determined that the Project
would not result in any new impacts not adequately evaluated and addressed by the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan Program EIR.
B. Conditional Use Permit Findings
1. The proposed Project, as modified by the Land Use Entitlements, is allowed within the
Downtown Transit Core and Grand Ave Core Zoning Districts and is consistent with the standards and
requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Downtown Transit Core and
Grand Avenue Core Zoning Districts and all other titles of the SSFMC. The Project meets or exceeds
all of the general development standards of the Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue Core
Districts, with the exception of the increased density, FAR bonus, and modification to the height and
private storage standards. However, the increased density and FAR is permissible and warranted by the
City’s Zoning Ordinance subject to the provision of sufficient public benefits included as part of the
development project. Approval of a modification to the private storage standards and height allowance
284
is discussed in sections E and F, respectively, and allowable through a waiver and modification request.
2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan by creating a high-density residential environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity
with buildings built up to the property line and providing a well-articulated and visually engaging
development that implements the goals of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, and is consistent
with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and articulation.
3. The proposed residential use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the
proposed use is consistent with the approved uses in both the General Plan and Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan. The Project proposes high-density residential uses located in the City’s Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan District, which is intended for this type of use, and the largest buildings in the
proposed development would be located entirely on their own blocks with little or no impacts on shared
property lines. The General Plan has analyzed this type of use and concluded that such residential uses
are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is consistent with other
residential land uses in the Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue Core Zoning Districts, approval
of the Project will not be detrimental to nearby properties.
4. The proposed Project complies with applicable design and development standards and
requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the increased density and FAR
request that is evaluated under the Conditional Use Permit, and the modifications to the private storage
and height standards that are evaluated under the Waiver and Modification process. The stated density
and FAR exceptions are permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance subject to the
provision of sufficient public benefits included as part of the development project. The proposed Project
is located in the Downtown Transit Core and the Grand Avenue Core Zoning Districts and subject to the
discussion on the exception and waiver requests below, meets the minimum standards and requirements
for the zoning districts.
5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project are
compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the
Project proposes residential uses in the Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue Core Zoning
Districts, which are specifically intended for such uses.
6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the
residential use will benefit from being located in close proximity to the South San Francisco Caltrain
Station, Grand Avenue and the overall Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Area, and the size and
development is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land use and zoning standards, as
amended by the Conditional Use Permit or Waiver and Modification process. Access to the site via
existing roadways is sufficient as the project is within a built-out urban environment, utilities are
285
provided on-site or proposed for minor upgrades, and no physical constraints such as topography or lack
of facilities exists that would prevent suitable development.
7. On January 28, 2015, a program environmental impact report (EIR) was certified by the
City Council of South San Francisco (Final Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse #2013102001). The program EIR assessed
the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the DSASP. The DSASP
established new land use, development, and urban design regulations for the area for a 20-year planning
period. The DSASP Program EIR also established a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
(MMRP) with mitigation measures for any project meeting certain thresholds. CEQA allows for limited
environmental review of subsequent projects under a program EIR when an agency finds that a project
would not create any new environmental effects beyond those previously analyzed under a program EIR
and would not require any new mitigation measures. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been
prepared to consider whether any new environmental effects not identified in the DSASP Program EIR
might be created by construction and operation of the Project. The analysis concluded that the proposed
Project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations, will comply with the DSASP Program
EIR MMRP and would not create any additional environmental impacts in excess of those addressed by
the DSASP program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations nor would new mitigation
measures be required.
8. The proposal would result in a Project whose proposed public benefits and requested
development incentives are suitable to the site as envisioned by the Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan and relate appropriately to adjacent uses and structures. The provision of new pedestrian crossings,
bicycle lane restriping, and landscaping will enhance the public realm and is consistent with Urban
Design Strategy UD-16 and Guiding Principles 17 and 41. The provision of funds for public art will
further enhance the Downtown area and is consistent with Urban Design Strategy UD-48. Finally, the
provision of additional residential units through the increased density will house more residents within
the downtown to create a vibrant community for Downtown and is consistent with Land Use Strategies
LU-4, LU-5, and LU-8.
9. The proposed Project would be consistent with the accepted list of public benefits
outlined in Section 20.280.004(A) and such benefits would not otherwise result through provisions of
the City’s policies, ordinances, or other requirements. The proposed payment of the proposed Parks and
Recreation in-lieu fee represents a substantial payment towards park and recreation investment; and the
proposed public infrastructure enhancements are encouraged within the Pedestrian Priority Zone but not
required, and the addition of public art will be a cultural contribution to the Downtown area that would
not otherwise exist.
10. The proposed Project reflects a fair financial balance of costs and benefits to the applicant
and the City. The monetary value of the community benefits to the City exceeds the anticipated financial
286
gain to the Developer for the addition of 45 units above the base density .
C. Design Review Findings
1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a high-density residential project
which will provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment with sustainability elements
incorporated.
2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed high-density residential development is consistent with the policies and design direction
provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue
Core land use designations by encouraging the development of new residential units within close
proximity to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and within the Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan area.
3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan Design Guidelines, as evaluated in the Zoning Ordinance Compliance analysis for the
Project.
4. The Project is consistent with the proposed Use Permit, Waiver and Modification, and
Parking Reduction for the reasons stated in Section C, D, E, and F respectively.
5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San
Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been
evaluated by the Design Review Board on November 17, 2015, and found to be consistent with each of
the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance, and
the Design Review Board.
D. Waiver and Modification for Private Storage Requirement Findings
1. The Waiver and Modification request to reduce the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
District Private Storage requirement by 10% is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the
proposed developments on Parcels A (401-421 Airport Boulevard) and D (309-315 Airport Boulevard)
that are constrained by high traffic roads and therefore have limited parking circulation options within
the proposed buildings’ footprints. As a result, the provision of private storage areas would come at the
expense of providing required parking for both parcels since the recently adopted Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan District zoning requires a minimum depth of 4’-0” for each storage unit and cannot
be located above a parking space due to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The proposed reduction
287
would reduce the total number of private storage spaces from 272 to 245 units and to mitigate this
reduction, staff has recommended a Condition of Approval requiring that if the proposed reduction to
the Private Storage requirement results in unfavorable conditions related to storage on balconies, or
within approved on-site parking spaces, the applicant shall provide off-site storage options to residents,
with prior approval by the Chief Planner.
2. Due to the Project’s tight floor plate design for the structured parking, there are no
alternatives to the Waiver and Modification to reduce the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District
Private Storage requirement by 10% that could provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant
with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the general public. Since this
requirement relates to private storage, the impact to surrounding owners and occupants, as well as the
general public, is minimal since few or no residents would contemplate storing valuable goods within
the public right-of-way, and a Condition of Approval has been included to prevent storage on balconies
or within on-site parking spaces.
3. The granting of the requested Waiver and Modification would not be detrimental to the
health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property given the minor Private Storage
requirement reduction of 10% and the proposed Condition of Approval to require off-site storage if
unfavorable conditions arise within the development. The reduction in on-site private storage will allow
for additional on-site parking spaces and preserve the public right-of-way for surrounding residents.
E. Waiver and Modification for Height in the Grand Avenue Core Zoning District Findings
1. The Waiver and Modification request to allow a 10% increase in the overall height limit
of 65’-0” within the Grand Avenue Core would result in a maximum height of 72’-0” for the portion of
the Parcel D building located on 309 Airport Boulevard. This Waiver and Modification request is
necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed design of the residential
building; the heights of the two levels of structured parking at the ground and 2nd level have been
reduced as much as possible, and set below grade as much as possible without disrupting both the
existing water table, and a large quantity of soil, which contains high levels of lead and makes further
excavation difficult and cost-prohibitive.
2. The Waiver and Modification request to allow a 10% increase in the overall height limit
of 65’-0” within the Grand Avenue Core is the only option that ensures the building design can be
constructed. While the applicant could reduce the height of the proposed Parcel D building on the
portion of property zoned Grand Avenue Core, this would reduce the overall number of units provided
and result in a reduced project benefit to the City and developer. The applicant could also propose a
Zoning and General Plan Amendment to adjust the boundaries of the Downtown Transit Core Zoning
District, but this type of revision would require additional environmental analysis and is not likely to be
supported by the City. Therefore, using the Waiver and Modification request provides the developer
288
with the only reasonable option for design of the project. Because of the isolated location of the Project
away from sensitive residential uses and adjacent to Airport Boulevard to the east and a parking lot to
the west, the important gateway location to the Downtown, and the relatively small footprint of the 309
Airport Boulevard parcel (7,600 SF), the modification to allow a height increase of 7’-0” represents a
small adjustment that preserves a high-quality project and there are no alternatives to the Waiver and
Modification request that would provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant with less
potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the general public. All other portions of
the project are consistent with the zoning height requirements.
3. The granting of the requested Waiver and Modification would not be detrimental to the
health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or density
that would be inconsistent with other zoning requirements given that the Project use is permitted, the
density is permitted through the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District regulations, and the
height increase of 7’-0” will have minimal or no impact on the rest of the development, which meets all
zoning height requirements. Instead, this Waiver and Modification request preserves proposed
residential units that will benefit the Downtown area and such height increase should not result in
shadow impacts on surrounding properties, given the block configuration and project design.
F. Parking Reduction Findings
1. Although the Project requests a 25% reduction in overall required parking spaces, this
reduction would account for the 21% of proposed parking spaces that would be tandem or compact
spaces and not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. A total of 337 parking spaces are required and the
applicant has proposed 342 parking spaces; however, 73 spaces would be compact or tandem. With the
proposed Conditions of Approval to require parking signage and manage the parking assignment for
tenants, the Project will provide sufficient on-site parking. Additionally, the Caltrain commuter station
and SamTrans bus routes, along with a proposed bicycle share program, represent alternative travel
modes that will support residents without vehicles and encourage visitors to the Project to take
alternative modes of transportation; thus, there is sufficient parking within the site and the surrounding
District to accommodate the proposed use. Further, as the Project is conveniently located to transit and
there is sufficient parking on-site, the 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South
San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and approves the Use Permit
(UP15-0027), Design Review (DR15-0032), Waiver and Modification (WM15-0001), and Parking
Reduction (PE15-0004) contained in the Land Use Entitlements, subject to the draft Conditions of
Approval, attached as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
289
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of February, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
290
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
291
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
P15-0036: UP15-0027, DR15-0032, WM15-0001, PE15-0004, & DA15-0003
309, 315, 401-421 Airport Blvd., 405 Cypress Ave., 216 Miller Ave.
(As recommended by City Staff on February 10, 2016)
A) Planning Division requirements shall be as follows:
1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Divisions standard Conditions and Limitations
for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects.
2. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set
prepared by TCA Architects, dated December 7, 2015.
3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
4. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Miller-Cypress SSF Parcels
TAC and GHG Emissions Assessment, prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated
November 11, 2015 and the following for Parcel C (216 Miller Avenue):
Implement the following measures to minimize emissions from diesel equipment:
a) All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the
site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter
emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent.
b) All portable pieces of construction equipment (i.e., air compressors, cement mixers,
concrete/industrial saws, generators, and welders) meet U.S. EPA particulate matter
emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent.
c) Avoid staging equipment adjacent to residences.
5. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the Development
Agreement.
6. The applicant shall notify all prospective tenants in writing that the project is within an urban
downtown with regular and typical noise and emissions due to its location.
7. Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San
Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Any removal or pruning of
protected trees shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and obtain a permit for
any tree removals or alterations of protected trees, and avoid tree roots during trenching for
utilities.
292
8. The applicant shall erect a plaque at or in front of the site of the original 1925 structure (315
Airport Boulevard) describing the history of Fred J. Lautze and the Ford dealership. The
final design for the plaque shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner.
9. The applicant shall comply with the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) and any applicable
provisions of the California Art Preservation Act (CAPA) in connection with the rights under
said statutes of artist Catalina Gonzalez, creator of the mural “Transporting Oneself” located
at 415 Airport Boulevard prior to building demolition. Written confirmation of compliance
with said statutes shall be transmitted to the City prior to issuance of a demolition or building
permit.
10. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the developer shall include in the
development plans the following Climate Action Plan requirements, subject to review and
approval by the Chief Planner or designee:
a) Install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
b) Use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the
voluntary CALGreen standards.
c) Implement the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
11. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Noise Assessment Study for the
Planned “Miller Ace” Multi-Family Development, prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates,
Inc., dated June 26, 2015 and the following:
a) Maintain closed at all times, all windows and glass doors of living spaces on the outer
periphery of the buildings on Parcels A, C and D that face south, east or north. Install
windows and glass doors with the Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings indicated on
Figures 2, 3 and 4 on pages 8, 9 and 10.
b) Provide some type of mechanical ventilation for all living spaces with a closed window
condition.
c) Unshielded entry doors having a direct or side orientation toward the primary noise
source must be 1-5/8" or 1-3/4" thick, insulated metal or solid-core wood construction
with effective weather seals around the full perimeter.
d) If any penetrations in the building shell are required for vents, piping, conduit, etc., sound
leakage around these penetrations can be controlled by sealing all cracks and clearance
spaces with a non-hardening caulking compound.
e) Ventilation openings shall not compromise the acoustical integrity of the building shell.
12. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Miller Cypress Residential
Project Traffic Study, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated
293
November 6, 2015 and revised December 11, 2015; the Miller Avenue Residential Project
Impact on Tamarack Lane, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated
December 28, 2015; and the following:
a) No loading spaces are provided for this project. The applicant shall secure on-street
temporary parking permits to reserve spaces through the Finance Department during
initial move-in or move-in phases of the project.
b) Proposed tandem parking spaces shall be labeled and assigned to residents of the same
unit with one full-size and one compact vehicle. Proposed compact parking shall be
labeled and assigned/leased to residents with compact vehicles, as much as possible to
ensure proper circulation on-site.
c) Provide signage for the proposed parking lot at Parcel B (405 Cypress Avenue) that
indicates “Restricted Parking” for residents and guests, with final approval by the Chief
Planner.
d) Exiting driveways from the structured parking of Parcels A and D shall include some
type of pedestrian notification or be designed to ensure safe pedestrian crossing, subject
to final approval of the Chief Planner and Engineering Division.
13. Per SSFMC 20.280.006.G, parking in excess of one space per unit may be sold or rented
separate from the residential unit. For apartment developments, 50 percent of the required
parking may be unbundled. All spaces shall be reserved for residential tenants and
authorized guests within the development.
14. All parking areas are to be maintained free and clear of litter and storage and shall remain
clear for parking at all times. No outdoor storage of materials or personal items is permitted.
15. The public art installation proposed for the project shall be designed and installed through a
separate public review process with the City, at the direction of the Chief Planner and the
Parks and Recreation Director.
16. If the proposed reduction to the Private Storage requirement results in unfavorable conditions
related to storage on balconies, or within approved on-site parking spaces, the applicant shall
provide off-site storage options to residents, with prior approval by the Chief Planner.
17. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view
through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and
landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall. Equipment
enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior to issuance of a
building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility locations, stand-pipes,
equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for review and approval by the
Chief Planner.
294
18. No signs are included in this permit application. Prior to installation of any signage, the
applicant shall submit an appropriate sign application per Chapter 20.360 of the Zoning
Ordinance for review and approval.
19. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public
improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer and Chief Planner.
20. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the
applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and
Chief Planner.
21. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements, the
applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the
Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with SSFMC §
20.300.007 “Landscaping”, including Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation
calculations.
22. Prior to the issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall contact the
South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash enclosures and
work with staff to locate the trash enclosure in accordance with the zoning ordinance,
SSFMC 20.300.014. An approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger shall be
provided to the Chief Planner.
23. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for residential uses, the applicant shall pay any
applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter
20.115. This fee is subject to annual adjustment, and presently is assessed at $1,851.00 per
high density residential unit.
24. The applicant shall provide a full-scale mockup of a section of exterior wall that shows the
cladding materials and finishes, windows, trim, and any other architectural features of the
building to fully illustrate building fenestration. A site inspection by Planning Division staff
will be required prior to proceeding with exterior construction.
25. Any standpipe system proposed for the building shall be enclosed or recessed in a manner
consistent with the proposed building’s architecture and subject to Chief Planner approval.
26. Any modification to the approved plans shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012
(“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. All exterior
design modifications, including any and all utilities, shall be presented to the Chief Planner
for a determination.
27. Before issuance of a building permit for development of the twelve (12) for-sale units at 216
Miller Avenue in Phase II, the applicant shall execute an Affordable Housing Agreement
with the City dedicating the required number of units pursuant to South San Francisco
Municipal Code Chapter 20.380 and shall record said Affordable Housing Agreement.
295
Planning Division contact: Tony Rozzi, Senior Planner (650) 877-8535
B) Fire Department requirements shall be as follows:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing the following
improvements for review and approval by the Fire Marshal or designee:
a) Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan
check and permit for overhead and underground.
b) The maximum elevation of 60 feet is permitted with combustible construction - either
reduce the elevation or submit an Alternate materials and methods of construction
addressing this issue.
c) Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section
1003.3.
d) Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan
check and permit.
e) Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
f) Elevator if provided shall not contain shunt-trips.
g) At least one elevator shall be sized for a gurney the minimum size shall be in
accordance with the CFC.
h) Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code.
i) Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building.
j) All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications
k) Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of
75,000 pounds.
l) Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined.
m) Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 300 feet between hydrants.
n) The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3000 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure for duration of 4 hours.
296
o) All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal
code section 15.24.100.
p) Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors,
electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined.
q) The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
r) All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in
compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
2. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permit, the applicant shall pay any
applicable Public Safety Impact Fee in accordance with City Council Resolution 97-2012.
This fee is subject to annual adjustment, and presently the amounts for high density
residential are $168.90 per unit for the Police Department and $394.10 per unit for the Fire
Department.
Fire Prevention contact: Luis DaSilva, Fire Marshal (650) 829-6645
C) Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows:
1. The building permit application plans shall conform to the standards of the Engineering
Division’s “Building Permit Typical Plan Check Submittals” requirements, copies of which
are available from the Engineering Division.
2. The owner shall, at his/her expense, replace any broken sidewalk, curb, and gutter fronting
the property. The City of SSF shall be the sole judge of whether any such replacement is
necessary.
3. For any work performed in the City’s right-of-way, the Owner shall apply for and obtain an
encroachment permit, and shall be responsible for all fees and deposits for the permit.
4. Pay sewer lateral connection fee.
5. If excavation and grading work involves movement of more than 50 cubic yards of soil, a
grading permit is required. Owner is responsible for all associated fees and deposits.
6. Applicant needs to do sewer study to verify that the existing sewer mains can handle the
additional flow the new developments on the various parcels.
Engineering Division contact: Robert T. Hahn, Senior Engineer (650) 829-6652
D) Police Department requirements shall be as follows:
1. Municipal Code Compliance. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised
May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety
conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed / revised building plans.
297
2. Any leasing or sales offices within the building shall be alarmed with a central station silent
intruder alarm system.
3. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code 15.48.085 -Additional Security Measures, the
following conditions will also be required:
a) Security Camera System
Pedestrian entrance/exits, parking garage entrance/exits, any loading docks or other
points of entry into the building shall have video surveillance cameras installed to record
the persons or vehicles who enter those areas. The video surveillance cameras will be
used as a crime deterrent and assist with the identification and apprehension of criminals
if a crime is committed on the property.
The video surveillance systems shall be:
i. Maintained in proper working order at all times; and
ii. Kept in continuous operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; and
iii. Have enough memory to retain the data from all cameras for a period of 30 days;
and
iv. Have the ability to view and retrieve data while the system remains in operation.
4. The Police Department reserves the right to review and comment upon the submission of
revised and updated plans.
Police Department contact: Lieutenant Adam Plank (650) 877-7248
E) Water Quality Control Plant requirements shall be as follows:
1. Fire sprinkler test drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer.
2. Condensate drains from HVAC system must be connected to the sanitary sewer.
3. Site is subject to Low impact development requirements; site must treat storm water prior to it
entering the storm water system. Complete applicable forms for low impact development.
4. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Storm
water Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
5. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the
project site:
a) Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by
incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide
detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged
298
exposure to water shall be specified.
b) Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil
type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air
movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure
successful establishment.
c) Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the
landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
d) Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility
of the property owner.
e) Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part
of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM principles
and techniques include:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making
these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as
seasonal changes.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants.
iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the
entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects.
6. No decorative bark shall be used in landscaping.
7. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted.
8. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted.
Water Quality contact: Rob Lecel (650) 877-8555
299
Exhibit B
Vacant Ford Properties Entitlement Submittal
Project Plans
2599196.1
300
30
1
30
2
30
3
30
4
30
5
30
6
30
7
30
8
30
9
31
0
31
1
31
2
31
3
31
4
31
5
31
6
31
7
31
8
31
9
32
0
32
1
32
2
32
3
32
4
32
5
32
6
32
7
32
8
32
9
33
0
33
1
33
2
33
3
33
4
33
5
33
6
33
7
33
8
33
9
34
0
34
1
34
2
34
3
34
4
34
5
34
6
34
7
34
8
34
9
35
0
35
1
35
2
35
3
35
4
35
5
35
6
35
7
35
8
35
9
36
0
36
1
36
2
36
3
36
4
36
5
36
6
36
7
36
8
36
9
37
0
37
1
37
2
37
3
37
4
37
5
37
6
VA
C
A
N
T
F
O
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
EN
T
I
T
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
S
E
T
JA
N
U
A
R
Y
0
4
,
2
0
1
6
TC
A
#
2
0
1
4
-
0
3
0
SOLAR ACCESS REPORT
8
A
M
10
A
M
8
A
M
10
A
M
SU
M
M
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
WI
N
T
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
G-6.0
37
7
VA
C
A
N
T
F
O
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
EN
T
I
T
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
S
E
T
JA
N
U
A
R
Y
0
4
,
2
0
1
6
TC
A
#
2
0
1
4
-
0
3
0
SOLAR ACCESS REPORT
12
P
M
2
P
M
12
P
M
2
P
M
SU
M
M
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
WI
N
T
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
G-6.1
37
8
VA
C
A
N
T
F
O
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
EN
T
I
T
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
S
E
T
JA
N
U
A
R
Y
0
4
,
2
0
1
6
TC
A
#
2
0
1
4
-
0
3
0
SOLAR ACCESS REPORT
4
P
M
4
P
M
SU
M
M
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
WI
N
T
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
G-6.1
37
9
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION EXHIBITS
380
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FOR JANUARY 21, 2016
381
Planning Commission
Staff Report
DATE: January 21, 2016
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Ford Properties Residential Development - Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Design
Review to construct two new seven-story residential buildings with a total of 260 units at both
corners of Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue (309, 315, 401-421 Airport Boulevard), a
private residential parking lot at 405 Cypress Avenue, and twelve (12) townhome units at 216
Miller Avenue; request for Modification to private storage and building height zoning standards;
request for a Parking Reduction to reduce provided parking by 25% to accommodate a portion of
compact parking spaces designed for the project; and consideration of an Environmental
Consistency Analysis and a Development Agreement. Parcels are located in the Downtown
Transit Core (DTC) or Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zoning Districts and the Conditional Use
Permit, Design Review, Waiver and Modification, Parking Reduction requests and Development
Agreement are in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.280, 20.330, 20.480, 20.490, 20.510 &
19.60.
Address: 309, 315, 401-421 Airport Blvd., 405 Cypress Ave., 216 Miller Ave.
Owner: South San Francisco Successor Agency
Applicant: Miller Cypress SSF, LLC
Case No.: P15-0036: UP15-0027, DR15-0032, WM15-0001, PE15-0004, &
DA15-0003
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve the
Development Agreement with Miller Cypress SSF, LLC for the development of four downtown
area sites, approve the Environmental Consistency Analysis, and approve entitlements UP15-0027,
DR15-0032, WM15-0001, PE15-0004, & DA15-0003 based on the attached draft findings and
subject to the attached draft conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
Introduction
The project site consists of seven separate lots, totaling 101,980 square feet and approximately 2.34 acres. The
properties that were originally acquired by the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (“Redevelopment
Agency”) include the former Ford Vehicle dealership properties at 315, 401-421 Airport Boulevard, and 405
Cypress Avenue. Additionally, a private parking lot at 216 Miller Avenue was acquired. The properties were
assembled by the Redevelopment Agency to facilitate a major transit oriented development in the Downtown
for a City-selected commercial or residential developer.
382
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 2 of 22
Upon the dissolution of redevelopment agencies by the State of California, the California Department of
Finance (“DOF”) authorized the transfer of the former Redevelopment Agency’s property assets to the South
San Francisco Successor Agency (“Successor Agency”). The Successor Agency was then required to develop a
Long Range Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”) that governs the disposition and use of all former
redevelopment agency properties. The LRPMP calls for the subject sites to be retained by the City for future
development; the LRPMP has been approved by both the Oversight Board and the DOF. The properties are
now owned by the Successor Agency to the City.
The Successor Agency has previously authorized an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) with
the Sares Regis Group which will result in a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) to acquire the properties
and a Development Agreement (“DA) for development of the 315, 401-421 Airport Boulevard, 405 Cypress
Avenue, and 216 Miller Avenue properties. The property at 309 Airport Avenue was separately acquired by the
Sares Regis Group. The PSA includes specific terms for the development and timeline. The Planning
Commission is asked to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Development
Agreement, as well as the other requested entitlements.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The applicant and the City have negotiated a Development Agreement to clarify and obligate Project features
and mitigation measures.
The key features of the DA include:
• The term of the DA shall be ten (10) years.
• Payment of applicable fees, including the Public Safety Impact Fee and Child Care Impact Fee.
• Payment of the following Community Enhancement Payments:
o Public Art Commitment - Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)
o Community Benefit Payment - Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)
o Park In-Lieu Payment - Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per residential unit constructed
The proposed Development Agreement is attached as Attachment 1, Exhibit B to the Entitlements Resolution.
Note that, pursuant to SSFMC section 19.60.100, the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City
Council shall include the Commission’s determination that the DA:
1. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan
and any applicable specific plan;
2. Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in
which the real property is located;
3. Is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice;
4. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare; and
5. Will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property valued.
The findings have been made and are included in the draft Resolution for the Planning Commission’s
consideration.
383
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 3 of 22
ENTITLEMENT DISCUSSION
Project Overview
The project site is in the western portion of the DSASP area. The immediate vicinity includes the nearby South
San Francisco Caltrain station, US-101, Airport Boulevard and a mixture of low-density mixed-use and
commercial development along Airport Boulevard, Grand Avenue, and Miller Avenue.
As shown in the image below, the proposed project is split among four locations and located at the intersection
of Airport Boulevard, Miller and Cypress Avenues (Parcels A, D), and 216 Miller Avenue (Parcel C).
Figure 1 - Project Aerial
The project sites include a vacant, two-story Ford Vehicle dealership building; a vacant, two-story 21-room
Single-Room Occupancy Hotel; and two private surface parking lots that are unavailable to the public.
The applicant proposes the development of 272 units in two phases over 2.34 acres. Phase 1 at Parcels A and D
includes the redevelopment of the property containing the former Ford Vehicle dealership and supporting
buildings, as well as an acquired single-room occupancy hotel. The two residential apartment buildings
proposed to be built on the sites would be seven stories in height. Each building will have five residential stories
over two garage levels. The building at Parcel A (401-421 Airport Boulevard) will have 160 apartment homes
and the building at Parcel D (309/315 Airport Boulevard) will have 100 apartment homes. The vacant Parcel B
at 405 Cypress Avenue would be converted into a private residential parking lot to support the apartment
384
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 4 of 22
community. Phase 2 of the project would develop the vacant Parcel C (216 Miller) into twelve (12) for-sale
townhomes. This phase of the project will require a separate and future subdivision map and affordable housing
agreement before the Planning Commission and City Council. For the purposes of this application, the site
plan, floor plan, and elevations for Parcel C are only being considered.
The applicant proposes approximately 342 supporting vehicle parking spaces, 26 short-term bicycle parking
spaces, and 73 secure bike rack spaces. A portion of the vehicle parking spaces are proposed to be compact,
measuring 8’-6” by 16’ instead of the standard 8’-6” by 18’; the applicant has requested a Parking Reduction to
reduce the number of required parking spaces by 25% to allow for the compact space design, which is not a
recognized dimension in the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the project includes:
• 15,259 sq. ft. of Courtyard space;
• 802 sq. ft. of rooftop decking;
• 5,510 sq. ft. in private apartment decks;
• A club/fitness room, measuring nearly 5,200 sq. ft.; and
• A lounge area of 1,000 sq. ft.
The sidewalks would be replaced along the project site perimeter to meet the minimum sidewalk standards set
forth in the DSASP and pedestrian improvements include bulb out extensions at all four corners of the
intersection at Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue. Some on-site trees will remain, as possible, and the
landscaping plan proposes over forty new street trees and additional landscaping. Sidewalk amenities would
also include new street and pedestrian lighting, landscaping, public bicycle racks and sidewalk corner
treatments (e.g., crossing ramps) that would comply with City and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements. A new storm drain system is also proposed on Miller Avenue to manage new runoff.
Figure 2 – Parcels A, C, & D Rendering View from Cypress Avenue
385
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 5 of 22
Figure 3 – Parcels A & D Rendering View from Airport Boulevard
Building Architecture
The architectural style of building speaks to the industrial heritage of South San Francisco, combining both
modern and traditional cladding materials. The design in some ways borrows from the clean, modern design of
new loft and apartment design for the millennial generation with large storefront and apartment windows, and
communal space. This is a departure from the more traditional, two-story architecture along Grand Avenue and
focuses the greatest density of the development proposal along Airport Boulevard nearest to the Caltrain
commuter station. The project would be visible from the US-101 and proposes an anchoring element at the
corner of the Parcel A building at Airport Boulevard and Lux Avenue.
For Parcels A and D, the first two stories of the buildings will be structured parking along Airport Boulevard
with green screening and landscaping. Along the Cypress Avenue elevation, both buildings would create active
entry space to the lobby, shared exercise facility, and townhome entrances. A mixture of cementious faux wood
and concrete siding, concrete paneling, window storefront system, and metal awnings anchor the street level
design. The upper floors would be dedicated to residential units and would utilize a similar combination of
cladding materials to create a design rhythm along both Cypress Avenue and Airport Boulevard. Parcels A & D
are not identical; instead, the cladding materials are shared but use distinct and complementary color schemes.
The project proposes that Parcel C is developed with 12 for-sale townhomes. Similar materials to the other
buildings would clad the facades, although the scale of the buildings would be only three stories. Garage access
would be predominant on the Tamarack Lane elevation but the Miller Avenue elevation would cater to
pedestrians with home entrances, landscaping, and a pedestrian paseo.
386
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 6 of 22
Figure 3 – Parcel C Elevations
Parking/Loading
Residential parking will be provided on-site for the
townhome proposal at Parcel C, and within structured
garages on Parcels A and D. Additionally, the applicant has
proposed a landscaped parking lot at Parcel B with 25 spaces
for the residents and guests of the Parcel A and D
development. The vehicle entrance for Parcel C will be from
Tamarack Lane, a one-way access; no vehicle access will
occur from Miller Avenue for Parcel C.
Parcel A’s 160 units will be primarily parked on two levels
of structured parking containing 174 spaces with recessed
access from Miller Avenue and Lux Avenue. A gate is
proposed for the garage entrances but is recessed to prevent
queuing congestion onto Miller or Lux Avenue. Evaluation
from Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Attachment 1,
Exhibit C iii) and peer review by the Engineering Division
suggests that circulation should not interfere with road traffic
on Miller Avenue or vehicles exiting the US-101 southbound
off-ramp at Grand Avenue. The parking spaces are composed of 95 standard spaces, 14 tandem spaces, 56
compact spaces, and 9 spaces compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The
applicant has requested a Parking Reduction to permit the portion of parking spaces that are tandem and
compact, however, since the dimensions are not compliant with the parking standards of the City’s Zoning
Ordinance. This is discussed in more detail within the Zoning Consistency section of the report.
Parcel D’s 100 units are also parked on two levels of structured parking containing 122 spaces with access from
Cypress Avenue. Hexagon Transportation Consultants also reviewed this circulation design and recommended
that the layout was appropriate based on the one-way traffic demand on Cypress Avenue.
Landscaping/Open Space
Open space areas for residents will be shared among the podium courtyards, rooftop decking, and also provided
through private balconies. The courtyard includes a mixture of public areas with seating and outdoor activity
space, and will also have direct access to the fitness room for Parcel A and to the courtyard residential units for
Parcel D. Both courtyards will be surrounded by the 3rd – 7th floors of residential units at Parcels A and D.
On the street level, the applicant is proposing a combination of street trees and large planters along Cypress
Avenue, Miller Avenue, and Lux Avenue to scale the proposed buildings and enhance the proposed parking lot
at Parcel B. The 10’-0” sidewalks propose 4’-0” of buffer landscaping at the street side to enhance and protect
pedestrians. The applicant is also proposing accent paving and intersection curb extensions, or bulbouts, at the
Airport Boulevard, and at the intersection of Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue. The parking garages will
have a planting strip for screening and as shown in Figure 4, and the Airport Avenue bicycle lane will be
updated and painted green for added bicycle safety. A detail of the proposed species is included in the project
plans (Attachment 1, Exhibit D - Sheet L-8). A public art installation is also proposed for the northwest corner
387
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 7 of 22
of Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue and would be designed and installed through a separate public review
process with the City (included as a Condition of Approval).
Figure 4 – Landscaping/Open Space Example for Parcel D
ZONING CONSISTENCY
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
In February, 2015, the City Council adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”), as well as
amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, adding Chapter 20.280 “Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
District” to implement the policies and goals in the DSASP. The DSASP covers properties within 0.5 miles of
the City’s Caltrain Station, which includes the subject property. The General Plan amendments created separate
land use designations consistent with the DSASP.
For this project, all of the properties except for 309 Airport Boulevard are within the Downtown Transit Core
(DTC) zoning district, which permits the tallest and densest development to support the Caltrain commuter
station. The Downtown Transit Core sub-district is focused within a ¼ radius of a point just east of US 101 at
East Grand Avenue. This location corresponds to the planned extension of the Caltrain Station and
accompanying pedestrian/bicycle rail undercrossing. It is intended to provide sites for mixed-use development
at high intensities in proximity to the Caltrain Station. It encourages active ground floor uses (but does not
require them) and high intensity developments that will generate pedestrian traffic in the area. The Downtown
Transit Core District will provide additional population and activities to support Grand Avenue uses, increase
Caltrain transit ridership, and provide housing with high amenity value for new residents. The DTC zoning
district allows up to 120 dwelling units per acre and a maximum building height of 85’-0”.
The former single-room occupancy hotel at 309 Airport, now unoccupied, is the single parcel outside of the
DTC zoning district – this property is designated as Grand Avenue Core (“GAC”). This designation typically
388
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 8 of 22
applies to properties with frontage on Grand Ave between Airport Boulevard and Spruce Avenue, but includes
edge properties near Grand Avenue. The GAC allows a maximum building height of 65’-0” and up to 60
dwelling units per acre, but can allow up to 80 dwelling units per acre with community benefits. A package is
proposed and discussed below.
The DSASP includes the following principles guiding the proposed project and analyzed by staff:
• Guiding Principle 1: Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco as a citywide destination that is
economically vital, diverse, active, and that encompasses a variety of uses.
• Guiding Principle 2: Increase development intensities in the Downtown to grow the resident
population and thus support a variety of commercial and service uses.
• Guiding Principle 3: Encourage variety in new housing development.
• Guiding Principle 7: Focus public investments in the historic core of the City, along Grand Avenue and
on adjoining streets in the Pedestrian Priority Zone to create an attractive pedestrian environment to
support businesses Downtown.
• Guiding Principle 8: Focus increases in residential and mixed-use densities within ¼ mile of the
Caltrain Station and in areas proximate to Grand Avenue to increase patronage of Caltrain as well as
Grand Avenue businesses.
Upon construction, the proposed project will entail a high-density residential development that fulfills all of the
principles of the DSASP. The project will revitalize a defunct and vacant set of buildings; add a robust
population of new downtown residents or space for existing residents to relocate; provide a mixture of studio,
one, two and three bedroom apartments, and for-sale townhomes; focus investment at the core of Downtown
and make improvements within the Pedestrian Priority Zone; and centralize new development close to the
Caltrain commuter station.
General Development Standards
The DSASP zoning district also includes a variety of general development standards and supplemental
regulations that would be applicable to the proposed project. Subject to approval of the Parking Reduction and
Waiver and Modification requests, as discussed below, the project would comply with all of the applicable
standards. As reference, an attachment verifying the zoning standards is included (Attachment 2).
One standard that should be clarified is the density calculation, since Parcel D is made of two lots with separate
zoning districts (both DTC and GAC). A total of 274 units are permitted under the blended density of the
parcels that are zoned DTC (260 units) and 309 Airport Boulevard (14 units), which is zoned GAC, and the
project is therefore consistent with the density standards allowed with approval of a community benefits
package.
Parking Reduction Request
The parking standards for Downtown districts are included in SSFMC Table 20.330.007 “Required Parking
Spaces, Downtown Districts”. For residential units within the Downtown, the table includes a range of
minimum and maximum parking ratios based on the number of bedrooms and total square footage of each unit.
389
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 9 of 22
For example, a studio unit less than 500 square feet in area has a maximum parking ratio of one space per unit,
while a unit with 3+ bedrooms or more than 1,101 square feet of area has a minimum requirement of 1.5
parking spaces and a maximum of 2 parking spaces per unit.
Based on the stated ratios above, the total parking required for the proposed project would be a minimum of 337
spaces and a maximum of 428 spaces, as shown in Figure 5 below:
Figure 5 – Downtown Parking Requirement for Proposed Project
# of Units Downtown
Standards
Parking Req’t Parking Provided
Studio or
Less than 500 sf
42 1 per unit max 42 max
1-Bdrm or
500-800 sf
101 1 – 1.5 per unit 101 min, 152 max
2-Bdrm or
801-1,100 sf
121 1.5 – 1.8 per unit 182 min, 218 max
3-Bdrm or more,
1,101 sf or larger
8 1.5 – 2 per unit 12 min, 16 max
Total 272 337 – 428 Spaces 342 Total Spaces
The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 342 spaces within the structured garages on Parcels A and D, the
surface parking lot at Parcel B, and within the private townhome garages at Parcel C. Although the total
number of spaces exceeds the minimum number of spaces, a portion of these spaces have been designed to be
tandem spaces shared by a single unit, or the spaces are compact; neither of these designs is allowed by the
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has proposed 17 tandem spaces, measuring 8.5’x32’ rather than the standard
10’x40’ and 56 compact spaces, measuring 8.5’x16’ rather than the standard 8.5’x18’. In order to allow the
substandard parking spaces, the applicant has requested a Parking Reductionto reduce the overall parking
demand by 25%, which accounts for these spaces (approximately 21% as proposed). Unique to this request, the
number of available parking spaces on-site will be 342 spaces but the smaller compact and tandem spaces
cannot be counted towards their overall total.
The applicant has provided a traffic and on-site circulation analysis by Hexagon Transportation Consultants
(Attachment 1, Exhibit A iii). The Hexagon analysis notes the following aspects of the project that support the
current parking design and allocation:
• It is noted that for Parcel A, only 174 parking spaces of the required 199 parking spaces will be provided
within the parking garage on site. Additional parking spaces for Parcel A will be accommodated on a
surface parking lot that will be provided on Parcel B. Parcel B is located across from Parcel A, on the
other side of Cypress Avenue, between Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane. The surface parking lot on
Parcel B will have 25 parking spaces. Parcel C and Parcel D will have the required number of parking
spaces on site.
• The site plan for Parcel A shows a total of 54 compact parking spaces (Since the report analysis,
compact parking total has changed to 56). The site plan shows that the compact spaces would have a
dimension of 8.5 feet wide by 16 feet depth. Within the parking industry, compact spaces are typically
specified to be 7.5 feet wide and 15 feet long. Therefore, the proposed compact spaces are larger than
390
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 10 of 22
typical compact spaces but not as large as standard spaces. In Hexagon’s experience, compact ratios of
up to 30% are workable and commonly allowed in many zoning ordinances. Therefore, Hexagon
believes that having 56 (compact spaces out of 174 total spaces on Parcel A will not negatively impact
circulation. It is recommended that these spaces be marked as compact spaces.
• The site plan shows a total of 14 tandem parking bays within Parcel A and 4 tandem parking bays within
Parcel D (Since the report analysis, tandem parking total has changed to 3 spaces). The tandem parking
spaces show a maximum of two vehicles that can be parked one behind the other. The parking code
requires that the tandem parking bay measures a minimum of 10 feet by 40 feet. The site plan shows
that all tandem bays measure 8.5 feet by 34 feet and therefore do not meet the code. The dimension
provided for the tandem parking bay is equivalent to the sum of dimensions of one standard parking
space and one compact parking space (8.5 feet x 18 feet plus 8.5 feet by 16 feet). The dimension of the
parking bays should be adequate provided the tandem bays are assigned to residents with one compact
and one full size vehicle. The parking code also requires that both the spaces in the tandem parking bay
be assigned to a single dwelling unit. The parking code requires that where tandem parking spaces are
provided, the total number of tandem parking spaces should be less than 50% of the total required
parking spaces. The total number of tandem parking spaces in Parcel A is 28 parking spaces, which
calculates to 16% of the total required parking spaces for Parcel A and meets the code. The percentage
of tandem parking spaces in Parcel D is only 6%.
Despite the unconventional parking design that is not recognized by the City’s zoning ordinance, the applicant
has designed for slightly more than the minimum required parking for the project and will be actively managing
and assigning the parking on-site to ensure appropriate use. This will be required as a draft Condition of
Approval with ongoing monitoring. Analysis by Hexagon Transportation and peer review by the Engineering
Division suggests that the proposed circulation on-site will allow safe ingress and egress for resident vehicles.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Parking Reduction be considered for approval given the balance required
between on-site parking and desire for new units within walking distance of the Caltrain commuter station.
Approval will permit the design variance for on-site parking to meet the anticipated parking demand of the
project. Rather than seeking a parking reduction to simply not provide all required parking spaces, the applicant
has designed this project based on their experience with other developments and will provide an appropriate
number of standard and compact spaces on-site.
Waivers and Modification Request
The Waivers and Modifications process requires that the City make certain findings:
1. The waiver or modification is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the
proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise
exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual circumstance;
2. There are no alternatives to the requested waiver or modification that could provide an equivalent level
of benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the
general public; and
3. The granting of the requested waiver or modification would not be detrimental to the health or safety of
the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or density that would be
inconsistent with the requirements of this title.
391
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 11 of 22
These findings are discussed in the section below for both the Private Storage Space reduction and height
increase for 309 Airport Boulevard, which is located in the Grand Avenue Core Zoning District and permits a
maximum height of 65’-0”. Additionally, a full analysis is included as part of the draft Resolution for the
Planning Commission’s consideration.
Private Storage Space 10% Reduction
The applicant has requested that the City consider a reduction in the storage requirement for individual
residential units. The DSASP District (SSFMC 20.280) requires that each residential unit have at least 200
cubic feet of enclosed, weather-proofed, and lockable private storage space with a minimum depth of four feet.
In an attempt to balance the project’s supply of parking and the private storage requirement, the applicant has
requested a 10% reduction of the total number of storage units. With 272 units, a 10% reduction would result in
245 storage units over the four parcels. The applicant has provided a waiver memorandum (Attachment 2,
Exhibit A) suggesting that the requirement is a difficult provision to meet, and relative to other San Mateo
County cities, is unique. Only Redwood City (180 CF) and San Carlos (200 CF) have similar requirements.
The applicant further asserts that “to meet this requirement, the building elevations and floor plans would
require significant modifications and potentially be compromised.”
The Waiver and Modification request to reduce the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District Private
Storage requirement by 10% was not the first option for this project, but due to the tight floor plate design for
the structured parking, there were no alternatives to the requested waiver and modification that could provide an
equivalent level of benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or
to the general public. Since this requirement relates to private storage, the impact to surrounding owners and
occupants, as well as the general public, is minimal since few or no residents would contemplate storing
valuable goods within the public right-of-way, and a Condition of Approval has been included to prevent
storage on balconies or within on-site parking spaces. If the proposed reduction to the Private Storage
requirement results in unfavorable conditions related to storage on balconies, or within approved on-site parking
spaces, the applicant shall provide off-site storage options to residents as a recommended Condition of
Approval. As such, staff recommends approval of the Waiver and Modification request to allow a 10%
reduction in private storage space.
Height Increase of 10% within the Grand Avenue Core Zoning District
The applicant has requested that the City consider a 10% increase in the height limit of 65’-0” for the Grand
Avenue Core Zoning District, which if granted, would result in a maximum height of 72’-0”. The applicant has
provided a waiver memorandum (Attachment 2, Exhibit B) suggesting that allowing this height increase would
provide the project with additional density and units close to the Caltrain commuter station and help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by promoting mass transit use and walkability within the Downtown area. The
applicant further asserts that the physical characteristics of the site, including a high water table and soil
contamination, make it difficult to set the building further below grade.
The Waiver and Modification request to allow a 10% increase in the overall height limit of 65’-0” within the
Grand Avenue Core is the only option that ensures the building design can be constructed. While the applicant
could reduce the height of the proposed Parcel D building on the portion of property zoned Grand Avenue Core,
this would reduce the overall number of units provided and result in a reduced project benefit to the City and
developer. The applicant could also propose a Zoning and General Plan Amendment to adjust the boundaries of
the Downtown Transit Core Zoning District, but this type of revision would require additional environmental
analysis and is not likely to be supported by the City. Therefore, using the Waiver and Modification request
392
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 12 of 22
provides the developer with the only reasonable option for design of the project. Because of the isolated
location of the Project away from sensitive residential uses and adjacent to Airport Boulevard to the east and a
parking lot to the west, the important gateway location to the Downtown, and the relatively small footprint of
the 309 Airport Boulevard parcel (7,600 SF), the modification to allow a height increase of 7’-0” represented a
small adjustment that preserves a high-quality project and provides an equivalent level of benefit to the
applicant with minimal detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the general public. All other
portions of the project are consistent with the zoning height requirements. As such, staff recommends approval
of the Waiver and Modification request to allow a 10% increase in the allowable height within the Grand
Avenue Core Zoning District.
Community Benefits
SSFMC Section 20.280.005.A “Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program” allows an increase to the
maximum density and FAR permitted for a building with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit if the public
benefits that are included as part of a development project demonstrate a positive contribution that is above and
beyond the minimum required impact fees and other requirements of the particular project. The project
proposes a maximum density of 116 units per acre and an FAR of 3.19, exclusive of structured parking and
storage areas. The density and FAR must comply with the DTC zoning district for all parcels except for 309
Airport Boulevard, which is within the GAC zoning district and has slightly more restrictive standards.
Figure 6 – FAR and Density Standards
Standard DTC GAC Proposed Project
Maximum FAR 6.0 3.0
Maximum FAR with
Incentive Program 8.0 4.0 3.19
Maximum Density 100 units/acre 60 units/acre
Maximum Density with
Incentive Program 120 units/acre 80 units/acre 116 units/acre
To allow the increased density increased FAR, the applicant is proposing all of the following public benefits
with a total cost impact of $6,066,000:
• Payment of $2,720,000 to the Parks and Recreation Department ($10,000/unit) to support recreation
facilities and new parks;
• Payment of $500,000 contribution to the City for plaza/pedestrian connection improvements;
• Streetscape improvements on the east side of Cypress Avenue, along Miller Avenue between Airport
Blvd. and Cypress Avenue, and along Lux Avenue adjacent to the project (1,278,000 including utility
lines as detailed below);
• Undergrounding utility lines on the east side of Cypress Avenue adjacent to the project, on Miller
Avenue between Cypress Avenue and Airport Boulevard;
• Installation of utilities to be dedicated to the City for a water line and storm drain on Miller Avenue
($300,000);
• LEED rated community with energy efficiency of more than 10% above CA 2013 Title 24 requirements
($500,000);
• Pedestrian lighting along Airport Avenue in addition to the City required street lighting;
• Mitigate environmental contamination of properties for residential development ($340,000);
393
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 13 of 22
• Provide upgraded construction fencing during construction ($50,000); and
• Public Art commitment of $25,000 at the Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue corner or other suitable
area.
The applicant has provided a “Vacant Ford Property Application Proposed Community Benefits” memorandum
(Attachment 3) that describes the proposed public benefit to allow the additional density. These benefits have
been borne out of the DA and PSA negotiations with the City and will ultimately be accepted by the City
Council, who exercises discretionary authority over the project. Staff’s analysis of the proposed public benefits
appears to further a number of City objectives outlined in the DSASP, outlined below:
• DSASP Land Use Strategy LU-4: Establish the highest intensity land uses within ¼ mile of the
Caltrain Station. Here densities up to 120 dwelling units per acre will be encouraged.
• DSASP Land Use Strategy LU-5: Designate a high-density district north and south of Grand Avenue
and in proximity to the station and allow up to 80 dwelling units per acre.
• DSASP Land Use Strategy LU-8: Encourage a mix of housing types including ownership, rental,
family, and senior housing, and also encourage provision of units accessible to persons with disabilities.
• DSASP Guiding Principle 17: Throughout the Specific Plan area, provide an attractive public realm that
is accessible to persons of all abilities, including improved sidewalks, streetscapes, pedestrian crossings,
plazas and open spaces.
• DSASP Guiding Principle 18: Within the Pedestrian Priority Zone, implement street and intersection
improvements to create a safe, attractive, and accessible environment for all pedestrians.
• DSASP Urban Design Strategy UD-16: Corner extensions or bulb-outs are encouraged; these act to
reduce the distance between the sidewalk on either side of a crossing, making it easier for the disabled or
elderly to cross safely. These corner extensions must include ramps and can also include street
furnishings.
• DSASP Urban Design Strategy UD-48: Consider implementing a public art program to encourage
public art in the Downtown area.
• DSASP Guiding Principle 41: Ensure that bicycling to the Specific Plan area is convenient and safe
through improvements to existing bicycle facilities and additions of new connections.
City staff has reviewed the proposed public benefits and believes that they are sufficient. The applicant
indicates that the density bonus will provide up to 45 additional units, reflecting a potential profit of $25,000 per
unit for a total of $1,125,000. While that profit estimate may be low, assigning a benefit of as high as $100,000
per unit still provides a profit of $4,500,000 which is lower than the committed public benefit costs. Staff
supports the proposed Use Permit to allow increased density and FAR for the project because the proposed
public benefits and requested development incentives are suitable to the site and to adjacent uses and structures,
the proposed public benefits are consistent with the accepted list of public benefits, and reflect a fair investment
and benefit to the applicant and to the City.
394
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 14 of 22
In addition, while not part of the public benefits associated with the increased density, the proposed project
proposes to pay area standard wages which is consistent with the permissive policy:
• DSASP Land Use Strategy LU-1: Encourage the use of local workforce and local business sourcing for
development in the plan area that generates quality construction and service jobs with career pathways,
that provides job training opportunities for the local workforce, and that pays area standard wages for
construction so that money in wages and materials used in the construction of these developments is
invested in the local economy.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
As discussed above in the Zoning Consistency section, the General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is
Grand Avenue Core. The General Plan includes specific policies related to development within the Downtown,
in an effort to “encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center with
retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal services, government and professional offices, civic uses,
and a variety of residential types and densities.”
The General Plan Downtown Sub-Area includes the following guiding policies in relation to the Downtown:
• Guiding Policy 3.1-G-1: Promote Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being, and its presence as the
city’s center;
• Guiding Policy 3.1.-G-2: Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use
activity center with retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal services, government and
professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential types and densities;
• Guiding Policy 3.1-G-3: Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently
underutilized sites; and
• Guiding Policy 3.1.-G-5: Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan as a guide
for General Plan policies for the Downtown Station Area.
The proposed project will conform to the General Plan Land Use Policies by reusing a set of underutilized sites
to construct a high-density residential development that will provide a pedestrian-friendly streetscape close to
the center of Downtown and in close proximity to the Caltrain commuter station. The project also provides a
strong architectural statement that will act as a gateway development adjacent to the US-101 Grand Avenue
exit. The project implements the goals of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the project design is
consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as it relates to building design, form and articulation.
Housing Element Opportunity Sites
The Housing Element is one of the seven State-mandated Elements of the General Plan. Unlike other elements,
the Housing Element must be updated by deadlines set by the State; the Housing Element for the housing cycle
of 2015-2022 was certified by the State in April 2015. The Housing Element is the blueprint for future housing
development in the city and includes goals, policies, and programs that direct residential decision-making. The
Housing Element is required by state law to identify how and where the housing needs of each community will
395
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 15 of 22
be met. For the upcoming housing cycle, the City of South San Francisco has a Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (“RHNA”) of 1,864 units.
To show that the City has properly zoned land to meet the RHNA numbers, the City is required to identify
adequate opportunity sites throughout the jurisdiction. The available site inventory focuses on sites with near-
term development potential, typically where the site is currently vacant or highly underutilized. In the recently
certified Housing Element, the Downtown area was identified as providing many potential opportunity sites,
including the proposed project, which was evaluated as Sites 14, 15, 16, & 17. Utilizing an estimated actual
buildout for these parcels, the sites identified the potential for 174 new units. The proposed project would
exceed this projection by building at a higher density, and therefore would comply with the General Plan
Housing Element.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Review Board reviewed the project at their meeting of November 17, 2015. The Board was
supportive of the overall project, with the following general comments:
1. On the building frontage, add some type of pattern of trees that will scale the building, as the proposed
trees listed on you plant list will not grow very tall.
2. Consider taller species of street trees such as Platanus acerifolia ‘Columbia’, London Plane Tree, as this
species can grow up to 40 feet tall.
3. The landscaping plan is showing species that will not survive the SSF elements. Re-examine your plant
list.
4. The ground floor wall facing Airport Blvd. is plain. Add some screen panels along the parking garage
with some landscaping to help screen the garage.
5. Along Cypress Ave., there are no street trees. To mitigate the scale of the building and to account for the
location of the utilities, extend the proposed bulb outs on the sidewalk at 4 or more locations to
incorporate additional tall street trees or planter boxes, large enough (8’x8’x3’ deep) to allow street tree
planting to create continuous landscape and scale the area the entire length of the project on Cypress
Avenue.
The Project Plans attached to this staff report (Attachment 1, Exhibit D of the Entitlements Resolution) have
been modified in response to comments made by the Design Review Board. The tree species have been
updated to species that will achieve a 40’ to 50’ height that appropriately scales the building. These species
include the New Zealand Christmas Tree, Chinese Elm and Chinese Hackberry. A screen planting space has
been provided on the Airport Boulevard side to provide screening for the two story parking garage. In
examining Comment 5 from the DRB, the landscape architect has indicated that in ground planting is not
possible due to utility lines and that large planter boxes would still not support the tree size needed to scale the
proposed buildings at Parcel A and D. As such, this comment by the DRB remains outstanding. In total, staff
finds the current landscaping proposal as a substantial improvement to the pedestrian experience and
appropriate for the proposed development scenario.
396
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 16 of 22
COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
Housing Sub-Committee Meeting
A Housing Sub-Committee meeting was held on June 1, 2015 to share the preliminary designs with
representatives from the City Council and Planning Commission. Feedback was generally positive and
suggested that this was an appropriate design for the development location. The Sub-Committee suggested
adding a public art component and enhanced landscaping for the project.
Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was held on November 5, 2015 in which approximately a dozen residents attended.
As it was an open house, there was not a formal Q&A discussion with the applicant that staff could observe. In
general, however, the comments were generally supportive of the project as long appropriate parking was
provided for the site. The applicant indicated that some homeowners on Tamarack Lane, which is adjacent to
the proposed townhome development on Parcel C, were concerned with traffic on Tamarack Lane. The
applicant chose to address this concern with an additional analysis of modeled traffic conditions on Tamarack
Lane and this updated information has been included in the Environmental Consistency Analysis. The traffic
analysis identified that new traffic would result in a minor increase in new vehicles during the peak AM and PM
hours and given the one-way design of Tamarack Lane, would not result in any traffic queuing or any
significant impacts on Tamarack Lane or current residents. This has been peer reviewed by the Engineering
Division, which concurs with the modeling approach and assessment.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
The applicant attended the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meeting held on December 2,
2015 to present the project and highlight bicycle infrastructure. The BPAC was supportive of the project and
suggested that the project include internal circulation guidance for bicyclists within the structured parking to
promote safety between cyclists and drivers.
Correspondence Received and City Response
The Developer has provided a list of signatures indicating support from their Neighborhood Meeting, Kiwanis
Club Meeting, and outreach to the business and residential community. It has been included as Attachment 4,
Exhibit A. Additionally, three comments have been received by staff to date, speaking in opposition to the
project. This correspondence has been included as Attachment 4, Exhibit B. Additionally the concerns
identified in the letters are listed below with a short response from staff:
John Martoni Resident Letter
Staff received one comment via email from a resident expressing concern that this project would not provide
workforce affordable housing, would be too expensive for existing residents, and would result in high turnover
and raise rental rates in the City. It is true that this project does not propose any affordable rental units and is not
required to under current regulations.
319 Lux Avenue Property Manager Letter
The property manager for 319 Lux Avenue remarked that approving a parking reduction for the proposed
project would impact on-street parking, which is an important resource for her building and surrounding
residents. Staff has indicated in the staff report that although the applicant is requesting a parking reduction, it
is only to allow compact spaces that are not legally recognized by the City’s regulations. The project proposes
adequate parking consistent with the standards of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District.
397
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 17 of 22
Kass & Kass Attorney Representing Bertolucci’s Restaurant Letter
Attorney for the Bertolucci’s Restaurant at 421 Cypress Avenue has expressed a number of concerns related to
the proposed development, including parking problems, wind tunnel effect, natural light impacts, security
concerns, and obscuring the view of the Bertolucci’s sign from US-101.
• Parking: Staff has addressed this issue within the staff report and does not believe that on-street parking
will be impacted with the proposed development. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of
337 spaces. The applicant has proposed 342 total parking spaces, however, a portion of these spaces
(21%) would be compact spaces. The applicant has proposed 17 tandem spaces, measuring 8.5’x32’
rather than the standard 10’x40’ and 56 compact spaces, measuring 8.5’x16’ rather than the standard
8.5’x18’. In order to allow the substandard parking spaces, the applicant has requested a Parking
Reduction to reduce the overall parking demand by 25%, which accounts for these spaces
(approximately 21% as proposed). Unique to this request, the number of available parking spaces on-
site will be 342 spaces but the smaller compact and tandem spaces cannot be counted towards their
overall total. The site is within ¼ mile of the Caltrain commuter station and this station is expected to
provide transit opportunities and reduce daily vehicle use. On-street parking is governed by time limits
and very little spillover parking is anticipated as part of this development.
• Wind Tunnel Effect: To address this concern, the applicant provided a wind analysis that was formally
submitted to the City on January 14, 2016. The wind analysis, provided by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc
and attached with the project plans, concludes that the predominant westerly winds should not create a
wind tunnel effect and would not create hazardous wind conditions for pedestrians on Cypress Avenue
due to the 80’-0” height of the building (buildings at least 100’-0” are considered tall), articulation, open
podium above the second floor, and street tree plantings. It further states:
The greatest wind effects would be experienced adjacent and downwind of building corners, where wind
flow interrupted by the building would flow fast around the corners (referred to as a corner stream).
Wind could also be accelerated over the top of the building, but this is not a concern to pedestrians.
The area in front of the building along Cypress Avenue would experience what is referred to as the
frontal vortex, where wind would actually be opposite the prevailing wind direction. This effect already
occurs to some extent, since the existing upstream buildings block wind flow on Cypress Avenue and
create a wake zone. Although wind flow would be affected along Cypress Avenue, the wind speeds
would not be considered hazardous to pedestrians.
• Natural Light Impacts: The applicant submitted a shadow and light analysis to the City on January 14,
2016 demonstrating that there will be little to no adverse shading effects to adjacent properties as a
result of the proposed project. The shadow and light analysis, provided by TCA Architects and attached
with the project plans, states the following: “In the case of the Vacant Ford Properties, a detailed shade
analysis was conducted and is attached herein. In that the two sites (A and D) are oriented effectively
South to North along both Airport Blvd. and Cypress Avenue, the effects of the shade study show little
or no impact on the adjoining properties to the west, and to the east there is the 101 freeway. The only
shade impact on adjacent properties to the west occurs between 8 AM and Noon at the Winter Solstice.
At all other times of the year, there is virtually no impact on the adjacent property especially during
normal business hours.”
398
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 18 of 22
• Security Concerns: It is anticipated that the influx of new residents will be a benefit to the Downtown
area, providing additional persons for surrounding restaurant and retail opportunities. Additionally, the
South San Francisco Police Department has reviewed this project and provided Conditions of Approval
to ensure safe operation of the residential complex.
• Sign Visibility: The applicant submitted an expanded historic evaluation of Bertolucci’s Restaurant at
421 Cypress Avenue to the City on January 14, 2016. . The report by Archaeological Resource
Management updates the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523, and
analyzed the historic background of the property, architectural characteristics, construction chronology
of the structure and the sign, freeway construction, and historic associations of the structure. Using this
research, the report indicates that the Bertolucci’s Restaurant building is listed on the City of South San
Francisco’s Historic Resources Inventory as a potential historic resource and is eligible for inclusion in
the local register. This is consistent with the analysis of the initial survey by a City consultant in 1986.
The structure is also eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), but
does not appear to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Further, the report
concludes that obstructing visibility of the sign from the 101 would not constitute a significant impact on
a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. A summary of the report findings by Archaeological
Resource Management states the following:
The Bertolucci’s Restaurant building at 421 Cypress Avenue is located across Cypress Avenue
(approximately 45 feet) from the proposed Parcel A residential building and adjacent to(separated by
an approximately 20 foot alley) the proposed Parcel B parking lot. As described in our report prepared
for the proposed project dated November 20, 2015, the proposed project does not remove or otherwise
impact the Bertolucci’s building or any buildings that relate to or contribute to the Bertolucci’s
building. The proposed project will, however, block the existing view of the sign on top of the building
from the adjacent elevated portion of Highway 101. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if
blocking the view from Highway 101 is a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality
Act. Based on our research and analysis described below, we conclude that it is not.”
Additionally, the report concludes: “As per CEQA Guidelines, in order for an impact to be considered
significant, the impact must pose a “substantially adverse” change to that resource. A “substantially
adverse” impact in the context of historic resources is one which affects the resource “such that the
significance of an historical resource would be impaired” (PRC Section 5020.1(q)). The Bertolucci’s
sign is one several elements of the Bertolucci’s building which contribute to the historic character of the
property, however, the current view of the sign from Highway 101 is not an essential factor in
maintaining the significance of the structure or what makes the sign a contributing element to the
building given the relatively recent (1994) creation of extent of the current view and the modifications to
the sign itself. The contributing aspects of the sign to the building are based on the age and the design of
the sign itself and its relationship to the historical use of the building. Based on our review of the
characteristics of building and sign, it appears the Bertolucci’s building would retain eligibility for both
the CRHR and the local historic register regardless of whether the sign remains visible from Highway
101 or not, due to its architecture and historic associations. Thus, while the proposed project would
block the existing view of the sign from Highway 101, this impact does not appear to be significant
under CEQA because the lack of visibility from the Highway would not jeopardize the structure’s
eligibility for the CRHR, or its eligibility for listing on the local register of the City of South San
399
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 19 of 22
Francisco. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project would not pose any direct
or indirect significant adverse impact the historic merit of the Bertolucci’s building according to CEQA
guidelines.”
A draft of the report was transmitted to Atkins North America, Inc for peer review. Atkins North
America, Inc was responsible for the DSASP Program EIR and their team of cultural resource specialists
provided the following substantive comments and recommendations:
“Include additional facts showing the locations where visibility has been blocked from 101 in the
past, due to previous locations of the highway and prior structures.”
“ARM concludes that obstructing visibility of the sign from 101 would not be a significant impact
under CEQA. The ARM letter report describes the CEQA Guidelines and what would constitute a
significant impact to a historical resource, last paragraph of the letter, “in order for an impact to be
considered significant, the impact must pose a “substantially adverse” change to that resource. A
“substantially adverse” impact in the context of historic resources is one which affects the resource
“such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired” (PRC Section
5020.1(q)). While ARM concludes that there will not be a “significant impact,” both ARM and
Atkins acknowledge that construction of the project will diminish and/or obstruct the visibility of the
sign. Atkins believes that the sign and visibility of the sign is a contributing element to the historic
character of the building. Thus, in order to preserve some element of the visibility, Atkins
recommends that the City and/or the applicant take actions to highlight the sign, either by placing
appropriate signage for Bertolucci’s on the new building or incorporating some other element into
the new project that would acknowledge the visibility of the sign.”
Additional information was incorporated into the final version of the report in response to Atkins’
comments (Attachment 1A (ii)).
SUSTAINABILITY / CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The proposed project is consistent with recent sustainability regulations that have been adopted at both the
State, regional and local levels. Examples include Senate Bill 375, passed in 2008, which aims to create more
efficient communities that provide residents with alternatives to using single occupancy vehicles. Projects that
link higher density development to transit are in keeping with this goal. At the local level, the DSASP area
aims to link the downtown with the Caltrain Station and other regional transit, including SamTrans. The
applicant is proposing a high-density residential project that will be located within ¼ mile of the Caltrain station
and within walking distance of regional and local bus routes, consistent with all of the above mentioned
sustainability goals.
The applicant has indicated that the preliminary sustainability goal is LEED Certification. The building
incorporates a variety of green building features such as passive ventilation, large windows to provide natural
daylight, robust insulation, high performance glazing, and a selection of sustainably-produced materials.
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.
400
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 20 of 22
• 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; and
• Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
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;
• Work with developers of multi-family properties and nonprofit groups to maximize energy efficiency in
new construction;
• Encourage the use of CALGreen energy efficiency measures as a preferred mitigation for CAP
streamlining; and
• 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 staff will
continue to work with the applicant to incorporate as many sustainable features as possible into the project.
Staff has included a Condition of Approval that requires the applicant to include the CAP requirements stated
above subject to Chief Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Subject to the
conditions of approval, the project is consistent with the City’s CAP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows for limited environmental review of subsequent
projects under a program Environmental Impact Report. (EIR) (CEQA Guidelines section 15168.) Subsequent
activities in a proposed project must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an
additional environmental document must be prepared. The CEQA Guidelines require agencies to use checklists
or similar mechanisms to conduct this analysis. The Environmental Consistency Analysis (ECA) attached as
Attachment 1A satisfies the CEQA Guidelines. Under the ECA, the City of South San Francisco (City) uses a
written checklist to evaluate the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the
proposed project were sufficiently analyzed under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) program
EIR. (CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c)(4).)
On January 28, 2015, a program EIR was certified by the City Council. (Final Environmental Impact Report for
the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), State Clearinghouse #2013102001.)
The program EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the DSASP.
The DSASP established new land use, development, and urban design regulations for the area for a 20-year
planning period. The ECA was prepared to consider whether any new environmental effects not identified in
the DSASP program EIR might be created by construction and operation of the Sares-Regis Ford Properties
Redevelopment project and concludes that all environmental effects were previously analyzed and no additional
environmental review is required. The analysis established:
401
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 21 of 22
1. The proposed project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations, and as a result, would not
create any additional environmental impacts in excess of those addressed by the DSASP program EIR
and Statement of Overriding Considerations;
2. The DSASP program EIR MMRP applies to the project and requires identified mitigations related to:
a. Air Quality: A Health Risk Assessment was required and confirmed that construction related
and temporary air quality impacts, and future resident exposure would be below applicable
thresholds with mitigation measures as identified in the DSASP program EIR;
b. Biological Resources: Compliance with tree removal regulations related to nesting season, as
required by the California Fish and Game Code and Tree Preservation Ordinance;
c. Cultural Resources: The City required the applicant to prepare a Historic Resources
Assessment (Attachment 1, Exhibit A), The Historic Resources Assessment confirmed that the
subject buildings within the project area were not historic or eligible for historic status and did
not meet applicable thresholds. In addition, an Updated Historic Evaluation of the Bertolucci’s
Building was conducted by Archaeological Resource Management, which analyzed the nearby
Bertolucci’s restaurant building and concludes that the proposed project would not result in any
significant impacts to the Bertolucci’s building under the CEQA guidelines.
d. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A condition of approval to require conformance with the Climate
Action Plan;
e. Noise: A Noise Study was required and confirmed that residential exposure was below
applicable thresholds by utilizing window controls, mechanical ventilation, and appropriate
sealing;
f. Transportation/Traffic: A traffic analysis was required and confirmed that certain intersections
would potentially be impacted by the project and would require improvements per the
mitigations identified in the DSASP program EIR;
3. Focused analysis of the project resulted in in additional \recommendations for the project, including:
a. Installing a plaque commemorating the history of Fred J. Lautze and the Ford Dealership’s
original 1925 structure at 315 Airport Boulevard, which although not historic, represents a
unique history for South San Francisco;
The ECA and supplemental reports are included for reference as Attachment 1, Exhibit A. A copy of the
MMRP is also attached and a Condition of Approval requiring that the project comply with all applicable
Mitigation Measures identified in the MMRP and through the ECA has been included. The Conditions of
Approval and requirements that the project comply with existing MMRP mitigation measures does not
constitute implementing new mitigation. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (c)(2) the
project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR and no additional environmental
review is required.
402
Staff Report
Subject: Ford Properties Residential Development
Date: January 21, 2015
Page 22 of 22
CONCLUSION
The proposed project seeks to transform an underutilized collection of sites into a high-density residential
development that will serve as a gateway project to Miller Avenue, bring new residents into close proximity to
existing transit providers, and assist in creating a pedestrian-friendly downtown. The 272-unit, high-quality
residential development furthers the City’s goals for transit-oriented development in close proximity to the
South San Francisco Caltrain commuter station. In addition, the proposed development conforms to the vision
articulated in the General Plan, (including the Housing Element), and is consistent with the standards and
guidelines of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District, as applicable with the modification requests.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve of the
Development Agreement with Miller Cypress SSF, LLC for the development of four downtown
area sites, approve the Environmental Consistency Analysis and entitlements UP15-0027, DR15-
0032, WM15-0001, PE15-0004, & DA15-0003 based on the attached draft findings and subject to
the attached draft conditions of approval.
By:
Tony Rozzi, AICP, Senior Planner
Attachments: Click on the links below to move forward in the e-version of the Staff Report and Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Development Agreement & Entitlement Resolution with Exhibits
a. Environmental Consistency Analysis
i. TAC and GHG Emissions Assessment – Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc.
ii. Historic Resources Analysis – Archaeological Resource Management
iii. Traffic and Circulation Analysis – Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
iv. Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from DSASP EIR
b. Draft Development Agreement
c. Conditions of Approval
d. Vacant Ford Properties Entitlement Submittal Project Plans, dated December 7, 2015
i. Shadow Analysis
ii. Wind Analysis
2. Ford Properties Redevelopment – Zoning Ordinance Compliance
a. Accessory Storage Modification Request Memorandum
b. Height within the Grand Avenue Core Zoning District Modification Request Memorandum
3. Proposed Community Benefits Memorandum
4. Public Comments
a. Community Support Letters and Signatures submitted by Developer
b. Community Letters in Opposition
2593545.1
403
EXHIBIT B
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2782-2016
404
RESOLUTION NO. _2782-2016__
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY
ANALYSIS; FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO NEW SEVEN-STORY
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL OF 260 RENTAL UNITS AT
BOTH CORNERS OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND MILLER AVENUE (309,
315, 401-421 AIRPORT BLVD.), A PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PARKING LOT AT
405 CYPRESS AVENUE, AND TWELVE (12) TOWNHOME UNITS AT 216
MILLER AVENUE AND APPROVE A USE PERMIT; DESIGN REVIEW;
ZONING MODIFICATION; AND A PARKING REDUCTION FOR PHASE 1 OF
SAID DEVELOPMENT; AND A FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South
San Francisco (“Agency”) is the owner of certain real property located in the City of South San
Francisco (“City”), California, known as County Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-317-110 (“401
Airport Boulevard”), 012-317-100 (“411 Airport Boulevard”), 012-317-090 (“421 Airport
Boulevard”), 012-314-100 (“405 Cypress Avenue”), 012-314-220 (“216 Miller Avenue”), 012-
318-080 (“315 Airport Boulevard”) and collectively referred to as the “Agency Properties”; and,
WHEREAS, in August, 2014, the Agency and Miller Cypress SSF, LLC (“Developer”) entered
into an Exclusive Negotiation Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) that established a mutual understanding
among the City, the Agency, and the Developer regarding the potential development of the Agency
Properties; and,
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the potential acquisition of the Agency Properties, the
Developer has acquired rights to entitle and develop County Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-318-040
(“309 Airport Boulevard”); and,
WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed construction of a high-density residential
development, consisting of 260 residential apartments in Phase 1, 12 for-sale residential townhomes in
Phase 2, and 342 total vehicle parking spaces (“Project”) over 2.34 acres at the following addresses:
309 Airport Blvd., 315 Airport Blvd., 401-421 Airport Blvd., 405 Cypress Ave., and 216 Miller Ave.
(collectively “Project Site”) in the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency, is interested in selling the Agency Properties to the Developer as
contemplated in the ENRA, contingent upon approval of a Development Agreement by the City
Council, Developer securing all funding for the Project, and Developer obtaining all applicable land
use entitlements from the City necessary to construct the Project on the Project Site; and,
405
WHEREAS, the Agency and the Developer now wish to enter into a Development Agreement
between the City and the Developer (“Agreement”); and,
WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the Project (“Phase 1 of the Project”) includes the construction of two
new seven story residential apartment buildings with a total of 260 rental units at both corners of
Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue (309, 315, 401, 421 Airport Boulevard) and a private parking lot
at 405 Cypress Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Developer also seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review,
Waiver and Modification, and Parking Exemption for Phase 1 of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, approval of the Developer’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) on January
28, 2015 (State Clearinghouse number 2013102001) in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and
CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”)
on January 28, 2015 in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which carefully
considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant
environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project’s economic, legal, social, technological
and other benefits; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project and
concluded that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and
analyzed in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR certified by City Council nor would any
new mitigation measures be required; and,
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
Development Agreement and proposed entitlements and take public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,
which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
§21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et
seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal
Code; the Project applications; the Project Plans, as prepared by TCA Architects, dated December 7,
2015; the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff, dated January 21, 2016
including all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted
406
as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 21, 2016 meeting; and any other evidence
(within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of
the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Environmental Consistency
Analysis, as prepared by City staff, dated January 21, 2016 (Exhibit A), the draft Development
Agreement (Exhibit B), Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit C), and the Vacant Ford Properties
Entitlement Submittal Project Plans (Exhibit D) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of
this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are
located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
4. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review
and consideration of the environmental documentation provided, including but not limited to the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff, dated January 21, 2016 attached
hereto as Exhibit A, the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis,
recommends that the City Council find that the Project falls within the environmental parameters
analyzed in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, and that the Project would not result in any
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously
identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
EIR certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required for the Project. This is supported
by the fact that, consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, the project prepared Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) and Green House Gas
(GHG) Emissions Assessment, a Historic Resources Analysis, and a Traffic and Circulation Analysis,
all of which determined that the Project would not result in any new impacts not adequately evaluated
and addressed by the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR.
B. Development Agreement
1. The Development Agreement, as proposed, is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan, both of which envision a high-density residential project adjacent to the Caltrain commuter
station that can revitalize underused parcels and support economic activity in the Downtown area.
407
2. The Development Agreement, as proposed, is compatible with the proposed high-
density residential use authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the two land use districts
(Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue Core) in which the real property is located.
3. The Development Agreement, as proposed, remains in conformity with public
convenience, general welfare and good land use practice, since the project would provide adequate
parking, conform to the height, density, and floor area ratio (FAR) standards set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance, and confirm the land use goals of both the General Plan and Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan that support new residential development adjacent to the Caltrain commuter station.
4. The Development Agreement, as proposed, will not be detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare since the project will redevelop vacant and underutilized parcels and remove
blight, will conform to the development regulations with minor modifications to the standards that do
not endanger the surrounding area, and will support the community goals for new development and
revitalization as outlined in the General Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
5. The Development Agreement, as proposed, will not adversely affect the orderly
development of property or the preservation of property values since the project must conform to the
City’s development standards, new pedestrian improvements are proposed that will enhance the
existing City infrastructure in the Downtown area, the Project will not preclude similar development
from occurring on adjacent parcels, and the Project will enhance property values since long-term
vacant parcels and blighted conditions will be redeveloped.
C. Conditional Use Permit
1. The proposed Project, as modified by the entitlement request, is consistent with the
standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Downtown
Transit Core and Grand Avenue Core Zoning Districts and all other titles of the SSFMC. The Project
meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the Grand Avenue Core District, with the
exception of the increased density, FAR bonus, and modification to the height and private storage
standards. However, the increased density and FAR is permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning
Ordinance subject to the provision of sufficient public benefits included as part of the development
project. Approval of a modification to the private storage standards and height allowance is discussed
in sections E and F, respectively, and allowable through a waiver and modification request.
2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan by creating a high-density residential environment that emphasizes pedestrian-
activity with buildings built up to the property line and providing a well-articulated and visually
engaging development that implements the goals of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, and is
consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and articulation.
Further, the Project will pay area standard wages, which is consistent with the permissive DSASP
Land Use Strategy LU-1 policy, which encourages the use of local workforce and local business
408
sourcing for development in the plan area and the paying of area standard wages for construction.
3. The proposed residential use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the
proposed use is consistent with the approved uses in both the General Plan and Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan. The Project proposes high-density residential uses located in the City’s Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan District, which is intended for this type of use, and the largest buildings in
the proposed development would be located entirely on their own blocks with little or no impacts on
shared property lines. The General Plan has analyzed this type of use and concluded that such
residential uses are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is
consistent with other residential land uses in the Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue Core
Zoning Districts, approval of the Project will not be detrimental to nearby properties.
4. The proposed Project complies with applicable design and development standards and
requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the increased density and FAR
request that is evaluated under the Conditional Use Permit, and the modifications to the private storage
and height standards that are evaluated under the Waiver and Modification process. The stated density
and FAR exceptions are permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance subject to the
provision of sufficient public benefits included as part of the development project. The proposed
Project is located in the Downtown Transit Core and the Grand Avenue Core Zoning Districts and
subject to the discussion on the exception and waiver requests below, meets the minimum standards
and requirements for the zoning districts.
5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project are
compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the
Project proposes residential uses in the Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue Core Zoning
Districts, which are specifically intended for such uses.
6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the
residential use will benefit from being located in close proximity to the South San Francisco Caltrain
Station, Grand Avenue and the overall Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Area, and the size and
development is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land use and zoning standards, as
amended by the Conditional Use Permit or Waiver and Modification process. Access to the site via
existing roadways is sufficient as the project is within a built-out urban environment, utilities are
provided on-site or proposed for minor upgrades, and no physical constraints such as topography or
lack of facilities exists that would prevent suitable development.
7. On January 28, 2015, a program environmental impact report (EIR) was certified by the
City Council of South San Francisco (Final Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse #2013102001). The program EIR assessed
the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the DSASP. The DSASP
established new land use, development, and urban design regulations for the area for a 20-year
409
planning period. The DSASP also established a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
(MMRP) with mitigation measures for any project meeting certain thresholds. An Environmental
Consistency Analysis has been prepared to consider whether any new environmental effects not
identified in the DSASP program EIR might be created by construction and operation of the Project.
The analysis established that the proposed Project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP
regulations, and as a result, would not create any additional environmental impacts in excess of those
addressed by the DSASP program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
8. The proposal would result in a Project whose proposed public benefits and requested
development incentives are suitable to the site as envisioned by the Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan and relate appropriately to adjacent uses and structures. The provision of new pedestrian
crossings, bicycle lane restriping, and landscaping will enhance the public realm and is consistent with
Urban Design Strategy UD-16 and Guiding Principles 17 and 41. The provision of monies for public
art will further enhance the Downtown area and is consistent with Urban Design Strategy UD-48.
Finally, the provision of additional residential units through the increased density will provide more
residents within the downtown to create a vibrant community for Downtown and is consistent with
Land Use Strategies LU-4, LU-5, and LU-8.
9. The proposed Project would be consistent with the accepted list of public benefits
outlined in Section 20.280.004(A) and such benefits would not otherwise result through provisions of
the City’s policies, ordinances, or other requirements. The proposed Parks and Recreation in-lieu fee
is not currently applicable to rental developments and represents a substantial payment towards park
and recreation investment; and the proposed public infrastructure enhancements are encouraged within
the Pedestrian Priority Zone but not required, and the addition of public art will be a cultural
contribution to the Downtown area.
10. The proposed Project reflects a fair financial balance of costs and benefits to the
applicant and the City, given the community benefits could cost as much as $6M and the addition of 45
units above the base density represents a smaller financial gain for the Project.
D. Design Review
1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a high-density residential project
which will provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment with sustainability elements
incorporated.
2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed high-density residential development is consistent with the policies and design direction
provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue
Core land use designations by encouraging the development of new residential units within close
proximity to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and within the Downtown Station Area Specific
410
Plan area.
3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan Design Guidelines, as evaluated in the Zoning Ordinance Compliance
analysis for the Project.
4. The Project is consistent with the Use Permit for the reasons stated in Section C, above.
5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San
Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has
been evaluated by the Design Review Board on November 17, 2015, and found to be consistent with
each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the
Ordinance, and the Design Review Board.
E. Waiver and Modification for Private Storage Requirement
1. The Waiver and Modification request to reduce the Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan District Private Storage requirement by 10% is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the
proposed developments on Parcels A (401-421 Airport Boulevard) and D (309-315 Airport Boulevard)
that are constrained by high traffic roads and therefore have limited parking circulation options within
the proposed buildings’ footprints. As a result, the provision of private storage areas would come at
the expense of providing required parking for both parcels since the recently adopted Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan District zoning requires a minimum depth of 4’-0” for each storage unit and
cannot be located above a parking space due to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The proposed
reduction would reduce the total number of private storage spaces from 272 to 245 units and to
mitigate this reduction, staff has recommended a Condition of Approval requiring that if the proposed
reduction to the Private Storage requirement results in unfavorable conditions related to storage on
balconies, or within approved on-site parking spaces, the applicant shall provide off-site storage
options to residents, with prior approval by the Chief Planner.
2. There are no alternatives to the Waiver and Modification to reduce the Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan District Private Storage requirement by 10% because due to the tight floor
plate design for the structured parking, there are no alternatives that could provide an equivalent level
of benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the
general public. Since this requirement relates to private storage, the impact to surrounding owners and
occupants, as well as the general public, is minimal since few or no residents would contemplate
storing valuable goods within the public right-of-way, and a Condition of Approval has been included
to prevent storage on balconies or within on-site parking spaces.
3. The granting of the requested waiver and modification would not be detrimental to the
health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property given the minor Private Storage
411
requirement reduction of 10% and the proposed Condition of Approval to require off-site storage if
unfavorable conditions arise within the development. The reduction in on-site private storage will
allow for additional on-site parking spaces and preserve the public right-of-way for the surrounding
residents.
F. Waiver and Modification for Height in the Grand Avenue Core Zoning District
1. The Waiver and Modification request to allow a 10% increase in the overall height limit
of 65’-0” within the Grand Avenue Core would result in a maximum height of 72’-0” for the portion of
the Parcel D building located on 309 Airport Boulevard. This waiver and modification request is
necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed design of the residential
building; the heights of the two levels of structured parking at the ground and 2nd level have been
reduced as much as possible, and set below grade as much as possible without disrupting both the
existing water table, and a large quantity of soil, which contains high levels of lead and makes further
excavation difficult and cost-prohibitive.
2. The Waiver and Modification request to allow a 10% increase in the overall height limit
of 65’-0” within the Grand Avenue Core is the only option that ensures the building design can be
constructed. While the applicant could reduce the height of the proposed Parcel D building on the
portion of property zoned Grand Avenue Core, this would reduce the overall number of units provided
and result in a reduced project benefit to the City and developer. The applicant could also propose a
Zoning and General Plan Amendment to adjust the boundaries of the Downtown Transit Core Zoning
District, but this type of revision would require additional environmental analysis and is not likely to
be supported by the City. Therefore, using the Waiver and Modification request provides the
developer with the only reasonable option for design of the project. Because of the isolated location of
the Project away from sensitive residential uses and adjacent to Airport Boulevard to the east and a
parking lot to the west, the important gateway location to the Downtown, and the relatively small
footprint of the 309 Airport Boulevard parcel (7,600 SF), the modification to allow a height increase of
7’-0” represented a small adjustment that preserves a high-quality project and provides an equivalent
level of benefit to the applicant with minimal detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the
general public. All other portions of the project are consistent with the zoning height requirements.
3. The granting of the requested waiver and modification would not be detrimental to the
health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or
density that would be inconsistent with other zoning requirements given that the Project use is
permitted, the density is permitted through the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District
regulations, and the height increase of 7’-0” will have minimal or no impact on the rest of the
development that meets all zoning height requirements. Instead, this waiver and modification request
preserves proposed residential units that will benefit the Downtown area and should not result in
shadow impacts on surrounding properties, given the block configuration and project design.
412
G. Parking Reduction
1. Although the Project requests a 25% reduction in overall required parking spaces, this
reduction would account for the 21% of proposed parking spaces that would be tandem or compact
spaces and not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. A total of 337 parking spaces are required and
the applicant has proposed 342 parking spaces; 73 spaces would be compact or tandem. With the
proposed Conditions of Approval to require parking signage and manage the parking assignment for
tenants, the Project will provide sufficient on-site parking. Additionally, the Caltrain commuter station
and SamTrans bus routes, along with a proposed bicycle share program, represent alternative travel
modes that will support residents without vehicles; thus, there is sufficient parking within the site and
the surrounding District to accommodate the proposed use.
H. California Government Code Section 65402 Findings
1. The location, purpose and extent of any real property to be disposed of by the Agency
related to the development of the Project is in accordance with the City’s General Plan and the
applicable Specific Plan(s), consistent with California Government Code section 65402, for the reasons
set forth above, including, but not limited to Findings B.1 and C.2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of
Approval, attached as Exhibit C to this resolution, and conditioned upon the approval of the
Development Agreement on terms acceptable to the City Council, the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends
approval of the following:
1. the Development Agreement, substantially in the form of the Development Agreement,
attached as Exhibit B;
2. a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Waiver and Modification, and a Parking
Reduction for Phase 1 of the Project; and.
3. the Environmental Consistency Analysis, attached as Exhibit A
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon
its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 21st day of January, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:_____Chairperson Wong, Vice-Chairperson Khalfin, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner
Lujan, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Nagales
NOES: ____________
413
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT: Commissioner Ruiz
Attest: /s/Sailesh Mehra
Sailesh Mehra
Secretary to the Planning Commission
414
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
ORDINANCE
415
1
ORDINANCE NO. __________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH MILLER CYPRESS SSF, LLC
FOR 309 AIRPORT BLVD., 315 AIRPORT BLVD., 401-
421 AIRPORT BLVD., 405 CYPRESS AVE., AND 216
MILLER AVE
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco (“Agency”) is the owner of certain real property located in the City of South San Francisco
(“City”), California, known as County Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-317-110 (“401 Airport
Boulevard”), 012-317-100 (“411 Airport Boulevard”), 012-317-090 (“421 Airport Boulevard”), 012-
314-100 (“405 Cypress Avenue”), 012-314-220 (“216 Miller Avenue”), 012-318-080 (“315 Airport
Boulevard”) and collectively referred to as the “Agency Property”; and,
WHEREAS, in August, 2014, the Agency and Miller Cypress SSF, LLC (“Developer”) entered
into an Exclusive Negotiation Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) that established a mutual understanding
among the City, the Agency, and the Developer regarding the potential development of the Agency
Property; and,
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the potential acquisition of the Agency Property, the Developer
has acquired rights to entitle and develop County Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-318-040 (“309 Airport
Boulevard”); and,
WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed construction of a high-density residential development,
consisting of 260 residential apartments in Phase 1, 12 for-sale residential townhomes in Phase 2, and
342 total vehicle parking spaces (“Project”) over 2.34 acres at the following addresses: 309 Airport
Blvd., 315 Airport Blvd., 401-421 Airport Blvd., 405 Cypress Ave., and 216 Miller Ave. (collectively
“Project Site”) in the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency, is interested in selling the Agency Property to the Developer as
contemplated in the ENRA, contingent upon approval of this Development Agreement by the City
Council, Developer securing all funding for the Project, and Developer obtaining all applicable land use
entitlements from the City necessary to construct the Project on the Project Site; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer now wish to enter into a Development Agreement
(DA15-0003A) (“Development Agreement”) that will supersede any points of agreement contained
within the ENRA; and,
WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the Project (“Phase 1 of the Project”) includes the construction of two
seven story residential apartment buildings with a total of 260 rental units at both corners of Airport
Boulevard and Miller Avenue (309, 315, 401, 421 Airport Boulevard) and a private parking lot at 405
Cypress Avenue; and,
416
2
WHEREAS, Phase 2 of the Project (“Phase 2 of the Project”) includes the construction of twelve
(12) new for-sale residential townhomes at 216 Miller Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, Developer seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Waiver and
Modification, and Parking Reduction for the Project (“Land Use Entitlements ”) through a separate
resolution; and,
WHEREAS, approval of the Developer’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report
(“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse number 2013102001) in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines,
which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan; and,
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (“SOC”) in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which carefully considered
each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant
environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project’s economic, legal, social, technological and
other benefits; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project and
concluded that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR certified by City Council nor would any new
mitigation measures be required; and,
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco
held a lawfully noticed public hearing, solicited public comment and considered the proposed
Development Agreement, took public testimony, and made a recommendation that the City Council
adopt the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before it, as
described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS
Based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA
Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan
and General Plan Program EIR; the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Project
Plans, as prepared by TCA Architects, dated December 7, 2015; the Development Agreement, the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff, dated February 10, 2016 including all
417
3
appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 21, 2016 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed February 10, 2016 meeting and any other
evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of
the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
I. General Findings.
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance;
1. The Development Agreement, attached hereto as Attachment 1, is incorporated herein by
reference and made a part of this Ordinance as if set forth fully herein.
2. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at
the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
3. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review and
consideration of the environmental documentation provided, including but not limited to the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff, dated February 10, 2016, the
City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that the Project is
consistent with the analysis presented in the certified Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Program EIR, and that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond
those disclosed and analyzed in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR
certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required for the Project. This is
supported by the fact that, consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the project prepared Toxic Air Contaminants
(TAC) and Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment, a Historic Resources Analysis,
an Updated Historic Evaluation, and a Traffic and Circulation Analysis, all of which
determined that the Project would not result in any new impacts not adequately evaluated and
addressed by the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR.
II. Development Agreement Findings
1. The Development Agreement, as proposed, is consistent with the objectives, policies, general
land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan, both of which envision a high-density residential project adjacent to the
Caltrain commuter station that can revitalize underused parcels and support economic
activity in the Downtown area. Further, the land uses, development standards, densities and
intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and
land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov’t Code, § 65860), and none of
the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures will
operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use
designations established in the General Plan.
418
4
2. The Development Agreement, as proposed, is compatible with the proposed high-density
residential use authorized in and the regulations prescribed for the two land use districts
(Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue Core) in which the real property is located and
complies with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations and with the
guiding policies of the General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
3. The Development Agreement states:
a. the duration of the Agreement shall be ten years, as specified in Section 2.2 of the
Agreement;
b. the permitted uses of the Project Site, with the exception of 309 Airport Boulevard, shall
include those uses listed as “permitted” in the Downtown Transit Core zoning sub-
district. Permitted uses for the parcel located at 309 Airport Boulevard shall include those
uses listed as “permitted” in the Grand Avenue zoning sub-district, as specified in Section
6.2 of the Agreement;
c. the density and intensity of use of the Project Site shall be as set for in the Project
Approvals and, as and when they are issued, any subsequent approvals, as specified in
Section 6.2 of the Agreement;
d. the maximum height, bulk and size of the proposed buildings on the Project Site shall be
as set for in the Project Approvals and, as and when they are issued, any subsequent
approvals, as specified in Section 6.2 of the Agreement;
e. provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the location of public
improvements, and the general location of public utilities shall be as set for in the Project
Approvals and, as and when they are issued, any subsequent approvals, as specified in
Section 6.2 of the Agreement;
SECTION II. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby:
1. Approves the Development Agreement (DA15-0003A) with Miller Cypress SSF, LLC
attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by reference; and
2. Authorizes the City Manager to enter into and execute the Development Agreement on
behalf of the City Council in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Attachment
1; to make any revisions, amendments, or modifications, subject to the approval of the City
Attorney, deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this Ordinance and which do not
materially alter or increase the City’s obligations thereunder.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY
419
5
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part
or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full
force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of
South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision,
paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or
unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance
shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this
Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the
City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this
Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk ’s Office a
certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members
voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty
(30) days from and after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the
10th day of February, 2016.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City
Council held the _____ day of _____________, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this
_____ day of _____________, 2016.
Mayor
420
6
ATTACHMENT 1
Development Agreement
2599090.1
421
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
______________________________________________________________________________
(Space Above This Line Reserved For Recorder’s Use)
This instrument is exempt from recording fees pursuant to Government Code section 27383.
Documentary Transfer Tax is $0.00 (exempt per Revenue & Taxation Code section 11922, Transfer to
Municipality).
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
AND
MILLER CYPRESS SSF, LLC
309 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
315 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
401–421 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
405 CYPRESS AVENUE
216 MILLER AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
422
1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of January ___,
2016 by and between Miller Cypress SSF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(“Developer”), and the City of South San Francisco (“City”), pursuant to California Government
Code (“Government Code”) sections 65864 et seq. Miller Cypress SSF, LLC and the City are
sometimes collectively referred to herein as “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in
comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the
State of California enacted California Government Code sections 65864 et seq. (the
“Development Agreements Statute”), which authorizes the City to enter into an agreement with
any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such
property.
B. Pursuant to Government Code section 65865, City has adopted procedures and
requirements for the consideration of development agreements (South San Francisco Municipal
Code (“SSFMC”) Chapter 19.60). This Agreement has been processed, considered, and
executed in accordance with such procedures and requirements.
C. Developer has, or will acquire pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement, a legal
and/or equitable interest in certain real property located on six parcels in the downtown area of
the City of South San Francisco, west of US 101 at 309 Airport Boulevard, 315 Airport
Boulevard, 401 Airport Boulevard, 411 Airport Boulevard, 421 Airport Boulevard, 405 Cypress
Avenue, and 216 Miller Avenue, in the central part of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
District, and specifically within the Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue Core zoning sub-
districts, consisting of 2.36 total acres with frontages on Airport Boulevard, Cypress Avenue,
and Miller Avenue, and as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit A (“Project
Site”).
D. The proposed Project (“Project”) consists of removal of existing buildings and
construction at full buildout of two (2) new seven-story multi-unit residential buildings, a private
residential parking lot, and twelve (12) townhome units. The building at 401–421 Airport
Boulevard will contain 160 apartment homes in five residential levels over two garage levels (up
to 85 feet in height). The building at 309–315 Cypress Avenue will contain 100 apartment homes
in five residential levels over two garage levels (up to 72 feet in height). A private residential
parking lot will be built at 405 Cypress Avenue to support the apartment communities. After the
two apartment buildings are complete and fully leased, twelve for-sale townhomes will be built
at 216 Miller Avenue. The total proposed building area is approximately 300,000 square feet. A
total of approximately 347 parking spaces will provide parking for the commercial and
residential components of the project. Additionally, 26 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 73
secure bike rack spaces will be provided throughout the Project Site.
E. Development of the Project requires that the Developer obtain from the City the
following land use entitlements: Conditional Use Permit; Design Review; Modification to
423
2
Private Storage and Building Height Zoning Standards; Parking Exemption to Reduce Provided
Parking by 25%; and a Development Agreement. The entitlements listed in this Recital E are
collectively referred to herein as the “Project Approvals.” The Project Approvals are shown in
Exhibit B. The Project Site is located in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) and Grand Avenue
Core (GAC) Zoning Sub-Districts and the Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Waiver and
Modification, and Parking Exemption requests are in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.280,
20.330, 20.480, 20.490 & 20.510.
F. City has determined that the Project presents certain public benefits and
opportunities which are advanced by City and Developer entering into this Agreement. This
Agreement will, among other things, (1) reduce uncertainties in planning and provide for the
orderly development of the Project; (2) provide needed residential development along the Airport
Boulevard corridor; (3) mitigate any significant environmental impacts; (4) provide for and
generate substantial revenues for the City in the form of one time and annual fees and exactions
and other fiscal benefits; and (5) otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the
Development Agreement Statute was enacted.
G. In exchange for the benefits to City described in the preceding Recital, together
with the other public benefits that will result from the development of the Project, Developer will
receive by this Agreement assurance that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with the
“Applicable Law” (defined in section 6.3 below), and therefore desires to enter into this
Agreement.
H. On December [XX], 2015, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. [XXXX]-2015, recommending that the City Council
approve this Agreement.
I. The City Council, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, has found that
this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and has conducted all
necessary proceedings in accordance with the City’s rules and regulations for the approval of this
Agreement. In accordance with SSFMC section 19.60.120, the City Council, at a duly noticed
public hearing, adopted Ordinance No. [XXXX]-2015, approving and authorizing the execution
of this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code
sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code
and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows:
424
3
ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS
1.1 “Administrative Project Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7.1
of this Agreement.
1.2 “Administrative Agreement Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in
Section 7.2 of this Agreement.
1.3 “Agreement” shall mean this Development Agreement.
1.4 “Applicable Law” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.3 of this Agreement.
1.5 “Assessments” shall have that meaning set forth in Exhibit C.
1.6 “City” shall mean the City of South San Francisco.
1.7 “City Law” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.5 of this Agreement.
1.8 “Claims” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.10 of this Agreement.
1.9 “Deficiencies” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.2 of this Agreement.
1.10 “Developer” shall mean Miller Cypress SSF, LLC.
1.11 “Development Agreements Statute” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital A of
this Agreement.
1.12 “Development Fees” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.2 of this Agreement.
1.13 “Effective Date” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
1.14 “Indemnitees” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.10 of this Agreement.
1.15 “Judgment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.2 of this Agreement.
1.16 “Parties” shall mean the Developer and City, collectively.
1.17 “Periodic Review” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.5 of this Agreement.
1.18 “Prevailing Wage Laws” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.10 of this
Agreement.
1.19 “Project” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital D of this Agreement.
1.20 “Project Approvals” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital E of this Agreement.
1.21 “Project Site” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital C of this Agreement.
425
4
1.22 “Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions Between South San
Francisco Successor Agency and Miller Cypress SSF, LLC” or “PSA” is defined as
the “Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions between the South San
Francisco Successor Agency and Miller Cypress SSF, LLC dated ______ and approved
pursuant to South San Francisco Oversight Board Resolution No. ______.
1.23 “Subsequent Approvals” shall mean those certain other land use approvals,
entitlements, and permits in addition to the Project Approvals that are necessary or
desirable for the Project. In particular, for example, the parties contemplate that
Developer may, at its election, seek approvals for the following: amendments of the
Project Approvals, design review approvals, unless determined not required pursuant to
the further provisions of this Agreement, improvement agreements, grading permits,
building permits, lot line adjustments, sewer and water connection permits, certificates
of occupancy, subdivision maps, rezonings, development agreements, use permits, sign
permits and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing.
1.24 “Tax” and “Taxes” shall not include any generally applicable City Business License
Tax or locally imposed Sales Tax.
1.25 “Term” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.2 of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM
2.1 Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the later of the date the
ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective or the date upon which the
Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions between the South San
Francisco Successor Agency and Developer becomes effective. (“Effective Date”). In
the event the PSA is not effective by March 31, 2016, this Agreement shall terminate
and have no further force of effect unless the Developer and City Manager have
mutually agreed in writing to extend the date.
2.2 Term. The term of this Agreement (“Term”) shall commence upon the Effective Date
and continue for a period of ten (10) years.
ARTICLE 3. OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER
3.1 Obligations of Developer Generally. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the City’s
agreement to perform and abide by the covenants and obligations of City set forth in this
Agreement is a material consideration for Developer’s agreement to perform and abide
by its long term covenants and obligations, as set forth herein. The parties acknowledge
that many of Developer’s long term obligations set forth in this Agreement are in
addition to Developer’s agreement to perform all the applicable mitigation measures
identified in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”) Environmental
Impact Report (“EIR”).
426
5
3.2 City Fees.
(a) Developer shall pay those processing, inspection and plan checking fees and
charges required by the City for processing applications and requests for
Subsequent Approvals under the applicable non-discriminatory regulations in
effect at the time such applications and requests are submitted to the City.
(b) Consistent with the terms of the Agreement, City shall have the right to impose
only such development fees (“Development Fees”) as have been adopted by
City as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, or as to which City has
initiated formal studies and proposals pursuant to City Council action, and
which are identified in Exhibit C. This shall not prohibit City from imposing
on Developer any fee or obligation that is imposed by a regional agency in
accordance with state or federal obligations and required to be implemented by
City. Development Fees shall be due upon issuance of building permits or
certificates of occupancy for the Project, as may be required under the adopting
ordinance for such Development Fees, except as otherwise provided under the
Agreement or the Project Approvals.
3.3 Mitigation Measures. Developer shall comply with the Mitigation Measures identified
and approved in the Downtown Station Area Plan EIR (see also the Environmental
Consistency Analysis (“ECA”) for the Project), in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) or other law.
3.4 Compliance with Terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Developer shall comply
with all terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions entered
into between Developer and the South San Francisco Successor Agency and approved
by Oversight Board Resolution No ___________. A material default by Developer
under the PSA shall be a material default under this Agreement. In the event the PSA is
terminated under its terms prior to the transfer of real property to the Developer, this
Agreement shall terminate and have no further force or effect.
ARTICLE 4. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
4.1 Obligations of City Generally. The parties acknowledge and agree that Developer’s
agreement to perform and abide by its covenants and obligations set forth in this
Agreement, including Developer’s decision to process the siting of the Project in the
City, is a material consideration for City’s agreement to perform and abide by the long
term covenants and obligations of City, as set forth herein.
4.2 Protection of Vested Rights. To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall take
any and all actions as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the vested rights
provided by this Agreement can be enjoyed by Developer and to prevent any City Law,
as defined above, from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement.
City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be
necessary to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect. Except as
authorized in Section 6.9, City shall not support, adopt, or enact any City Law, or take
427
6
any other action which would violate the express provisions or intent of the Project
Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals.
4.3 Availability of Public Services. To the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent
with its authority, City shall assist Developer in reserving such capacity for sewer and
water services as may be necessary to serve the Project.
4.4 Developer’s Right to Rebuild. City agrees that Developer may renovate or rebuild all or
any part of the Project within the Term of this Agreement should it become necessary
due to damage or destruction. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to the
square footage and height limitations vested by this Agreement, and shall comply with
the Project Approvals, the building codes existing at the time of such rebuilding or
reconstruction, and the requirements of CEQA.
4.5 Expedited Plan Check Process. The City agrees to provide an expedited plan check
process for the approval of Project drawings consistent with its existing practices for
expedited plan checks. The City shall use reasonable efforts to provide such plan
checks within 3 weeks of a submittal that meets the requirements of Section 5.2. The
City acknowledges that the City’s timely processing of Subsequent Approvals and plan
checks is essential to the Developer’s ability to achieve the schedule under the PSA.
ARTICLE 5. COOPERATION - IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Processing Application for Subsequent Approvals. By approving the Project Approvals,
City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the public
health, safety and general welfare. Accordingly, City shall not use its discretionary
authority in considering any application for a Subsequent Approval to change the policy
decisions reflected by the Project Approvals or otherwise to prevent or delay
development of the Project as set forth in the Project Approvals. Instead, the Subsequent
Approvals shall be deemed to be tools to implement those final policy decisions.
5.2 Timely Submittals By Developer. Developer acknowledges that City cannot expedite
processing Subsequent Approvals until Developer submits complete applications on a
timely basis. Developer shall use its best efforts to (i) provide to City in a timely manner
any and all documents, applications, plans, and other information necessary for City to
carry out its obligations hereunder; and (ii) cause Developer’s planners, engineers, and
all other consultants to provide to City in a timely manner all such documents,
applications, plans and other necessary required materials as set forth in the Applicable
Law. It is the express intent of Developer and City to cooperate and diligently work to
obtain any and all Subsequent Approvals.
5.3 Timely Processing By City. Upon submission by Developer of all appropriate
applications and processing fees for any Subsequent Approval, City shall promptly and
diligently commence and complete all steps necessary to act on the Subsequent
Approval application including, without limitation: (i) providing at Developer’s expense
and subject to Developer’s request and prior approval, reasonable overtime staff
assistance and/or staff consultants for planning and processing of each Subsequent
428
7
Approval application; (ii) if legally required, providing notice and holding public
hearings; and (iii) acting on any such Subsequent Approval application. City shall
ensure that adequate staff is available, and shall authorize overtime staff assistance as
may be necessary, to timely process such Subsequent Approval application.
5.4 Denial of Subsequent Approval Application. The City may deny an application for a
Subsequent Approval only if such application does not comply with the Agreement or
Applicable Law (as defined below) or with any state or federal law, regulations, plans, or
policies as set forth in Section 6.9.
5.5 Other Government Permits. At Developer’s sole discretion and in accordance with
Developer’s construction schedule, Developer shall apply for such other permits and
approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental entities in
connection with the development of, or the provision of services to, the Project. City
shall cooperate with Developer in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals and
shall, from time to time, at the request of Developer, use its reasonable efforts to assist
Developer to ensure the timely availability of such permits and approvals.
5.6 Assessment Districts or Other Funding Mechanisms.
(a) Existing Fees. The Parties understand and agree that as of the Effective Date
the fees, exactions, and payments listed in Exhibit C are the only City fees and
exactions. Except for those fees and exactions listed in Exhibit C, City is
unaware of any pending efforts to initiate, or consider applications for new or
increased fees, exactions, or assessments covering the Project Site, or any
portion thereof.
(b) Future Fees, Taxes, and Assessments. City understands that long term
assurances by City concerning fees, taxes and assessments were a material
consideration for Developer agreeing to enter this Agreement and to pay long
term fees, taxes and assessments described in this Agreement. City shall retain
the ability to initiate or process applications for the formation of new
assessment districts covering all or any portion of the Project Site.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer retains all its rights to oppose the
formation or proposed assessment of any new assessment district or increased
assessment. In the event an assessment district is lawfully formed to provide
funding for services, improvements, maintenance or facilities which are
substantially the same as those services, improvements, maintenance or
facilities being funded by the fees or assessments to be paid by Developer
under the Project Approvals or this Agreement, such fees or assessments to be
paid by Developer shall be subject to reduction/credit in an amount equal to
Developer’s new or increased assessment under the assessment district.
Alternatively, the new assessment district shall reduce/credit Developer’s new
assessment in an amount equal to such fees or assessments to be paid by
Developer under the Project Approvals or this Agreement.
429
8
ARTICLE 6. STANDARDS, LAWS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROJECT
6.1 Vested Right to Develop. Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Project on
the Project Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Nothing
in this section shall be deemed to eliminate or diminish the requirement of Developer to
obtain any required Subsequent Approvals.
6.2 Permitted Uses Vested by This Agreement. The permitted uses of the Project Site; the
density and intensity of use of the Project Site; the maximum height, bulk, and size of
proposed buildings; provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes
and the location of public improvements; the general location of public utilities; and
other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Project, shall be as set forth
in the Project Approvals and, as and when they are issued (but not in limitation of any
right to develop as set forth in the Project Approvals), the Subsequent Approvals,
provided, however, that no further design review or other discretionary approvals or
public hearings shall be required except for review of minor changes to the Project
Approvals by the Chief Planner as provided in this Agreement.
Permitted uses for all Project parcels, with the exception of the parcel located at 309
Airport Boulevard, shall include, without limitation, those uses listed as “permitted” in
the Downtown Transit Core zoning sub-district. Permitted uses for the parcel located at
309 Airport Boulevard shall include, without limitation those uses listed as “permitted”
in the Grand Avenue Core zoning sub-district.
6.3 Applicable Law. The rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications
applicable to the Project (the “Applicable Law”) shall be those set forth in this
Agreement and the Project Approvals, and, with respect to matters not addressed by this
Agreement or the Project Approvals, those rules, regulations, official policies, standards
and specifications (including City ordinances and resolutions) governing permitted uses,
building locations, timing of construction, densities, design, heights, fees, exactions, and
taxes in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement.
6.4 Uniform Codes. City may apply to the Project Site, at any time during the Term, then
current Uniform Building Code and other uniform construction codes, and City’s then
current design and construction standards for road and storm drain facilities, provided
any such uniform code or standard has been adopted and uniformly applied by City on a
citywide basis and provided that no such code or standard is adopted for the purpose of
preventing or otherwise limiting construction of all or any part of the Project.
6.5 No Conflicting Enactments. Except as authorized in Section 6.9, City shall not impose
on the Project (whether by action of the City Council or by initiative, referendum or
other means) any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, standard, directive, condition or
other measure (each individually, a “City Law”) that is in conflict with Applicable Law
or this Agreement or that reduces the development rights or assurances provided by this
Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any City Law shall be
deemed to conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the development
rights provided hereby if it would accomplish any of the following results, either by
430
9
specific reference to the Project or as part of a general enactment which applies to or
affects the Project:
(a) Change any land use designation or permitted use of the Project Site;
(b) Limit or control the availability of public utilities, services, or facilities, or any
privileges or rights to public utilities, services, or facilities (for example, water
rights, water connections or sewage capacity rights, sewer connections, etc.) for
the Project;
(c) Limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other
improvements of the Project in a manner that is inconsistent with or more
restrictive than the limitations included in the Project Approvals or the
Subsequent Approvals (as and when they are issued);
(d) Limit or control the rate, timing, phasing, or sequencing of the approval,
development or construction of all or any part of the Project in any manner;
(e) Result in Developer having to substantially delay construction of the Project or
require the issuance of additional permits or approvals by the City other than
those required by Applicable Law;
(f) Establish, enact, increase, or impose against the Project or Project Site any fees,
taxes (including without limitation general, special and excise taxes but
excluding any increased local sales tax or increases city business license tax),
assessments, liens or other monetary obligations (including generating
demolition permit fees, encroachment permit and grading permit fees) other
than those specifically permitted by this Agreement or other connection fees
imposed by third party utilities;
(g) Impose against the Project any condition, dedication or other exaction not
specifically authorized by Applicable Law; or
(h) Limit the processing or procuring of applications and approvals of Subsequent
Approvals.
6.6 Initiatives and Referenda.
(a) If any City Law is enacted or imposed by initiative or referendum, or by the
City Council directly or indirectly in connection with any proposed initiative or
referendum, which City Law would conflict with Applicable Law or this
Agreement or reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement, such
Law shall not apply to the Project.
(b) Except as authorized in Section 6.9, without limiting the generality of any of
the foregoing, no moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate,
timing, phasing or sequencing of development) affecting subdivision maps,
building permits or other entitlements to use that are approved or to be
431
10
approved, issued or granted within the City, or portions of the City, shall apply
to the Project.
(c) To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall prevent any City Law
from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement, and City
shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be
necessary to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect.
(d) Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any City Law that would
conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the development
rights provided by this Agreement.
6.7 Environmental Mitigation. The parties understand that the DSASP EIR and the ECA
were intended to be used in connection with each of the Project Approvals and
Subsequent Approvals needed for the Project. Consistent with the CEQA policies and
requirements applicable to the DSASP EIR and the ECA, City agrees to use the DSASP
EIR and ECA in connection with the processing of any Subsequent Approval to the
maximum extent allowed by law and not to impose on the Project any mitigation
measures or conditions of approval other than those specifically imposed by the Project
Approvals, ECA, and DSASP EIR, or specifically required by CEQA or other
Applicable Law.
6.8 Life of Subdivision Maps, Development Approvals, and Permits. The term of any
subdivision map or any other map, permit, rezoning, or other land use entitlement
approved as a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall automatically be extended
for the longer of the duration of this Agreement (including any extensions) or the term
otherwise applicable to such Project Approval or Subsequent Approval if this Agreement
is no longer in effect. The term of this Agreement and any subdivision map or other
Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall not include any period of time during
which a development moratorium (including, but not limited to, a water or sewer
moratorium or water and sewer moratorium) or the actions of other public agencies that
regulate land use, development or the provision of services to the land, prevents,
prohibits or delays the construction of the Project or a lawsuit involving any such
development approvals or permits is pending.
6.9 State and Federal Law. As provided in Government Code section 65869.5, this
Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project of changes in laws,
regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated
and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations. Not in limitation of the
foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City from imposing on Developer
any fee specifically mandated and required by state or federal laws and regulations.
6.10 Prevailing Wage. To the full extent required by all applicable state and federal laws,
rules and regulations, Developer and its contractors and agents shall comply with
California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq. and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto
(“Prevailing Wage Laws”), and shall be responsible for carrying out the requirements
432
11
of such provisions. If applicable, Developer shall submit to City a plan for monitoring
payment of prevailing wages and shall implement such plan at Developer’s expense.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel
approved by City) and hold the City, and their respective elected and appointed officers,
officials, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors (collectively, the
“Indemnitees”) harmless from and against all liability, loss, cost, expense (including
without limitation attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation), claim, demand, action, suit,
judicial or administrative proceeding, penalty, deficiency, fine, order, and damage (all of
the foregoing collectively “Claims”) which directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, are
caused by, arise in connection with, result from, relate to, or are alleged to be caused by,
arise in connection with, or relate to, the payment or requirement of payment of
prevailing wages (including without limitation, all claims that may be made by
contractors, subcontractors or other third party claimants pursuant to Labor Code
Sections 1726 and 1781), the failure to comply with any state or federal labor laws,
regulations or standards in connection with this Agreement, including but not limited to
the Prevailing Wage Laws, or any act or omission of Developer related to this
Agreement with respect to the payment or requirement of payment of prevailing wages,
whether or not any insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any
such Claims. It is further agreed that the City does not and shall not waive any rights
against Developer which they may have by reason of this indemnity and hold harmless
agreement because of the acceptance by the City, or Developer’s deposit with the City of
any of the insurance policies described in this Agreement. The provisions of this Section
6.10 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement and the
issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Project. Developer’s indemnification
obligations set forth in this section shall not apply to Claims arising solely from the gross
negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees.
6.11 Timing and Review of Project Construction and Completion.
(a) The Project consists of two phases. Phasing will occur in such a manner as to
always preserve the potential for 272 residential units on the site during the
term of the Agreement.
(i) Phase 1 shall include:
• Two seven-story residential buildings on Parcels A & D, with a
minimum of 260 apartment units between them and two levels of
parking garages in each building.
• A parking lot on Parcel B at 405 Cypress Avenue.
• All site improvements and design features as shown on the Project
Approvals for Phase 1.
(ii) Phase 2 shall include:
433
12
• Twelve (12) For-Sale Townhomes at 216 Miller Avenue.
• All site improvements and design features as shown on the Project
Approvals for Phase 2.
6.12 No Housing Restrictions on Rental Residential Component. City acknowledges and
agrees that the residential component of the Project, other than the twelve townhomes, is
proposed for, approved as, and will be constructed as market-rate rental housing. City
represents and warrants that no inclusionary housing, occupancy limitation or control,
and no rent control requirement applies to the Project so long as the residential
component is comprised solely of rental housing. City covenants that it will not adopt or
attempt to apply any such restrictions, requirements or controls to the Project, other than
the twelve townhomes, so long as the residential component is solely comprised of rental
housing.
ARTICLE 7. AMENDMENT
7.1 To the extent permitted by state and federal law, any Project Approval or Subsequent
Approval may, from time to time, be amended or modified in the following manner:
(a) Administrative Project Amendments. Upon the written request of Developer
for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent
Approval, the Chief Planner or his/her designee shall determine: (i) whether
the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light of
the Project as a whole; and (ii) whether the requested amendment or
modification is consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law. If the
Chief Planner or his/her designee finds that the proposed amendment or
modification is minor, consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law, and
will result in no new significant impacts not addressed and mitigated in the
ECA or DSASP EIR, the amendment shall be determined to be an
“Administrative Project Amendment” and the Chief Planner or his designee
may, except to the extent otherwise required by law, approve the
Administrative Project Amendment without notice and public hearing. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, lot line adjustments, minor alterations
in vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, location of parking stalls
on the site, number of required parking stalls if city development standards
allow, substitutions of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on
any final development plan or landscape plan, variations in the location of
structures that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project,
variations in the residential unit mix (number of one, two or three bedroom
units), location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections or
facilities that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, and
minor adjustments to the Project Site diagram or Project Site legal description
shall be treated as Administrative Project Amendments.
434
13
(b) Non-Administrative Project Amendments. Any request by Developer for an
amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval
which is determined not to be an Administrative Project Amendment as set
forth above shall be subject to review, consideration and action pursuant to the
Applicable Law and this Agreement.
7.2 Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, in
whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the parties hereto or their successors in
interest, as follows:
(a) Administrative Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement
which does not substantially affect (i) the Term of this Agreement,
(ii) permitted uses of the Project Site, (iii) provisions for the reservation or
dedication of land, (iv) conditions, terms, restrictions, or requirements for
subsequent discretionary actions, (v) the density or intensity of use of the
Project Site or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings or
(vi) monetary contributions by Developer, shall be considered an
“Administrative Agreement Amendment” and shall not, except to the extent
otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before the parties
may execute an amendment hereto. Such amendment may be approved by City
resolution.
(b) Other Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement other than
an Administrative Agreement Amendment shall be subject to recommendation
by the Planning Commission (by advisory resolution) and approval by the City
Council (by ordinance) following a duly noticed public hearing before the
Planning Commission and City Council, consistent with Government Code
sections 65867 and 65867.5.
(c) Amendment Exemptions. No amendment of a Project Approval or Subsequent
Approval, or a Subsequent Approval shall require an amendment to this
Agreement. Instead, any such matter automatically shall be deemed to be
incorporated into the Project and vested under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 8. ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE
8.1 Assignment and Transfer. Developer may transfer or assign all or any portion of its
interests, rights, or obligations under the Agreement and the Project approvals to third
parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Project or any portion thereof including,
without limitation, purchasers or lessees of lots, parcels, or facilities. Prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for all or any portion of the Property, Developer
will seek City's prior written consent to any transfer, which consent will not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed. City may refuse to give consent only if, in light of the
proposed transferee's reputation and financial resources, such transferee would not, in
City's reasonable opinion, be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by
435
14
such transferee. Such determination will be made by the City Manager and will be
appealable by Developer to the City Council.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, each of
following Transfers are permitted and shall not require City consent under this Section
8.1:
(a) Any transfer for financing purposes to secure the funds necessary for construction
and/or permanent financing of the Project;
(b) An assignment of this Agreement to an Affiliate of Developer;
(c) The sale of one or more of the completed residential units to an occupant thereof;
(d) Transfers of common area to a homeowners or property owners association; or
(e) Dedications and grants of easements and rights of way required in accordance
with the Project Approvals.
For the purposes of this Section 8.1, “Affiliate of Developer” means an entity or person
that is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with
Developer. For the purposes of this definition, “control” means the possession, direct or
indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of
an entity or a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or
otherwise, and the terms “controlling” and “controlled” have the meanings correlative to
the foregoing
436
15
ARTICLE 9. COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE
9.1 Cooperation. In the event of any administrative, legal, or equitable action or other
proceeding instituted by any person not a party to the Agreement challenging the validity
of any provision of the Agreement or any Project approval, the parties will cooperate in
defending such action or proceeding. City shall promptly notify Developer of any such
action against City. If City fails promptly to notify Developer of any legal action against
City or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Developer will not thereafter be
responsible for City's defense. The parties will use best efforts to select mutually
agreeable legal counsel to defend such action, and Developer will pay compensation for
such legal counsel (including City Attorney time and overhead for the defense of such
action), but will exclude other City staff overhead costs and normal day-to-day business
expenses incurred by City. Developer's obligation to pay for legal counsel will extend to
fees incurred on appeal. In the event City and Developer are unable to select mutually
agreeable legal counsel to defend such action or proceeding, each party may select its
own legal counsel and Developer will pay its and the City's legal fees and costs.
Developer shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees
expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding or payable to any
prevailing plaintiff/petitioner.
9.2 Reapproval. If, as a result of any administrative, legal, or equitable action or other
proceeding, all or any portion of the Agreement or the Project approvals are set aside or
otherwise made ineffective by any judgment in such action or proceeding ("Judgment"),
based on procedural, substantive or other deficiencies ("Deficiencies"), the parties will
use their respective best efforts to sustain and reenact or readopt the Agreement, and/or
the Project approvals, that the Deficiencies related to, unless the Parties mutually agree
in writing to act otherwise:
(a) If any Judgment requires reconsideration or consideration by City of the
Agreement or any Project approval, then the City will consider or reconsider
that matter in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement and with
Applicable Law. If any such Judgment invalidates or otherwise makes
ineffective all or any portion of the Agreement or Project approval, then the
parties will cooperate and will cure any Deficiencies identified in the Judgment
or upon which the Judgment is based in a manner consistent with the intent of
the Agreement and with Applicable Law. City will then consider readopting or
reenacting the Agreement, or the Project approval, or any portion thereof, to
which the Deficiencies related.
(b) Acting in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement includes,
but is not limited to, recognizing that the parties intend that Developer may
develop the Project as described in the Agreement, and adopting such
ordinances, resolutions, and other enactments as are necessary to readopt
or reenact all or any portion of the Agreement or Project approvals without
contravening the Judgment.
437
16
ARTICLE 10. DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION
10.1 Defaults. Any failure by either party to perform any term or provision of the Agreement,
which failure continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days following written notice
of such failure from the other party (unless such period is extended by mutual written
consent), will constitute a default under the Agreement. Any notice given will specify
the nature of the alleged failure and, where appropriate, the manner in which said failure
satisfactorily may be cured. If the nature of the alleged failure is such that it cannot
reasonably be cured within such 30-day period, then the commencement of the cure
within such time period, and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure
thereafter, will be deemed to be a cure within such 30-day period. Upon the occurrence
of a default under the Agreement, the non-defaulting party may institute legal
proceedings to enforce the terms of the Agreement or, in the event of a material default,
terminate the Agreement. If the default is cured, then no default will exist and the
noticing party shall take no further action.
10.2 Termination. If City elects to consider terminating the Agreement due to a material
default of Developer, then City will give a notice of intent to terminate the Agreement
and the matter will be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council at a
duly noticed and conducted public hearing. Developer will have the right to offer written
and oral evidence prior to or at the time of said public hearings. If the City Council
determines that a material default has occurred and is continuing, and elects to terminate
the Agreement, City will give written notice of termination of the Agreement to
Developer by certified mail and the Agreement will thereby be terminated sixty (60)
days thereafter.
10.3 Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance. In addition to specific provisions of
the Agreement, neither party will be deemed to be in default where delays in
performance or failures to perform are due to, and a necessary outcome of, war,
insurrection, strikes or other labor disturbances, walk-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes,
fires, casualties, acts of God, restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental
entities (including new or supplemental environmental regulations), enactment of
conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, judicial decisions, or similar basis for
excused performance which is not within the reasonable control of the party to be
excused. Litigation attacking the validity of the Agreement or any of the Project
approvals, or any permit, ordinance, entitlement or other action of a governmental
agency other than City necessary for the development of the Project pursuant to the
Agreement will be deemed to create an excusable delay as to Developer. Upon the
request of either party hereto, an extension of time for the performance of any obligation
whose performance has been so prevented or delayed will be memorialized in writing.
The term of any such extension will be equal to the period of the excusable delay, or
longer, as may be mutually agreed upon. Subject to the limitations set forth below,
performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default, and all
performance and other dates specified in this Agreement shall be extended, where delays
are due to: war; insurrection; strikes and labor disputes; lockouts; riots; floods;
earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy; epidemics;
quarantine restrictions; freight embargoes; governmental restrictions or priority;
438
17
litigation and arbitration, including court delays; legal challenges to this Agreement, the
PSA, the Project Approvals, or any other approval required for the Project or any
initiatives or referenda regarding the same; environmental conditions, pre-existing or
discovered, delaying the construction or development of the Property or any portion
thereof; unusually severe weather but only to the extent that such weather or its effects
(including, without limitation, dry out time) result in delays that cumulatively exceed
thirty (30) days for every winter season occurring after commencement of construction
of the Project; acts or omissions of the other party; or acts or failures to act of any public
or governmental agency or entity (except that acts or failures to act of City shall not
excuse performance by City); moratorium; or a Severe Economic Recession (each a
“Force Majeure Delay”). An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period
of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of
the cause, if Notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within
sixty (60) days of the commencement of the cause. If Notice is sent after such sixty (60)
day period, then the extension shall commence to run no sooner than sixty (60) days
prior to the giving of such Notice. Times of performance under this Agreement may
also be extended in writing by the mutual agreement of City and Developer.
Developer’s inability or failure to obtain financing or otherwise timely satisfy shall not
be deemed to be a cause outside the reasonable control of the Developer and shall not be
the basis for an excused delay unless such inability, failure or delay is a direct result of a
Severe Economic Recession. “Severe Economic Recession” means a decline in the
monetary value of all finished goods and services produced in the United States, as
measured by initial quarterly estimates of US Gross Domestic Project (“GDP”)
published by the US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (and not
BEA’s subsequent monthly revisions), lasting more than four (4) consecutive calendar
quarters. Any quarter of flat or positive GDP growth shall end the period of such Severe
Economic Recession
10.4 Legal Action. Either party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any
default, enforce any covenant or agreement in the Agreement, enjoin any threatened or
attempted violation thereof, and enforce by specific performance the obligations and
rights of the parties thereto. The sole and exclusive remedy for any default or violation
of the Agreement will be specific performance. In any proceeding brought to enforce the
Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover from the unsuccessful party
all costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the prevailing party in the
enforcement proceeding.
10.5 Periodic Review.
(a) Conducting the Periodic Review. Throughout the Term of this Agreement, at
least once every twelve (12) months following the execution of this Agreement,
City shall review the extent of good-faith compliance by Developer with the
terms of this Agreement. This review (“Periodic Review”) shall be conducted
by the Chief Planner or his/her designee and shall be limited in scope to
compliance with the terms of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code
section 65865.1.
439
18
(b) Notice. At least five (5) days prior to the Periodic Review, and in the manner
prescribed in Section 11.9 of this Agreement, City shall deposit in the mail to
Developer a copy of any staff reports and documents to be used or relied upon
in conducting the review and, to the extent practical, related exhibits
concerning Developer’s performance hereunder. Developer shall be permitted
an opportunity to respond to City’s evaluation of Developer’s performance,
either orally at a public hearing or in a written statement, at Developer’s
election. Such response shall be made to the Chief Planner.
(c) Good Faith Compliance. During the Periodic Review, the Chief Planner shall
review Developer’s good-faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
At the conclusion of the Periodic Review, the Chief Planner shall make written
findings and determinations, on the basis of substantial evidence, as to whether
or not Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement. The decision of the Chief Planner shall be appealable to the
City Council. If the Chief Planner finds and determines that Developer has not
complied with such terms and conditions, the Chief Planner may recommend to
the City Council that it terminate or modify this Agreement by giving notice of
its intention to do so, in the manner set forth in Government Code sections
65867 and 65868. The costs incurred by City in connection with the Periodic
Review process described herein shall be borne by Developer.
(d) Failure to Properly Conduct Periodic Review. If City fails, during any calendar
year, to either: (i) conduct the Periodic Review or (ii) notify Developer in
writing of City’s determination, pursuant to a Periodic Review, as to
Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement and such failure
remains uncured as of December 31 of any year during the term of this
Agreement, such failure shall be conclusively deemed an approval by City of
Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
(e) Written Notice of Compliance. With respect to any year for which Developer
has been determined or deemed to have complied with this Agreement, City
shall, within thirty (30) days following request by Developer, provide
Developer with a written notice of compliance, in recordable form, duly
executed and acknowledged by City. Developer shall have the right, in
Developer’s sole discretion, to record such notice of compliance.
10.6 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State of California. Any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall
be filed and heard in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, California.
10.7 Resolution of Disputes. With regard to any dispute involving development of the
Project, the resolution of which is not provided for by this Agreement or Applicable
Law, Developer shall, at City’s request, meet with City. The parties to any such
meetings shall attempt in good faith to resolve any such disputes. Nothing in this
section 10.8 shall in any way be interpreted as requiring that Developer and City and/or
City’s designee reach agreement with regard to those matters being addressed, nor shall
440
19
the outcome of these meetings be binding in any way on City or Developer unless
expressly agreed to by the parties to such meetings.
10.8 Attorneys’ Fees. In any legal action or other proceeding brought by either party to
enforce or interpret a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to
reasonable attorneys’ fees and any other costs incurred in that proceeding in addition to
any other relief to which it is entitled.
10.9 Hold Harmless. Developer shall hold City and its elected and appointed officers, agents,
employees, and representatives harmless from claims, costs, and liabilities for any
personal injury, death, or property damage which is a result of, or alleged to be the result
of, the construction of the Project, or of operations performed under this Agreement by
Developer or by Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, whether
such operations were performed by Developer or any of Developer’s contractors,
subcontractors, agents or employees. Nothing in this section shall be construed to mean
that Developer shall hold City harmless from any claims of personal injury, death or
property damage arising from, or alleged to arise from, any gross negligence or willful
misconduct on the part of City, its elected and appointed representatives, offices, agents
and employees.
ARTICLE 11. MISCELLANEOUS
11.1 Incorporation of Recitals and Introductory Paragraph. The Recitals contained in this
Agreement, and the introductory paragraph preceding the Recitals, are hereby
incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
11.2 No Agency. It is specifically understood and agreed to by and between the parties
hereto that: (i) the subject development is a private development; (ii) City has no
interest or responsibilities for, or duty to, third parties concerning any improvements
until such time, and only until such time, that City accepts the same pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement or in connection with the various Project Approvals or
Subsequent Approvals; (iii) Developer shall have full power over and exclusive control
of the Project herein described, subject only to the limitations and obligations of
Developer under this Agreement, the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, and
Applicable Law; and (iv) City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form
of agency relationship, joint venture or partnership between City and Developer and
agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith
shall be construed as creating any such relationship between City and Developer.
11.3 Enforceability. City and Developer agree that unless this Agreement is amended or
terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be
enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter enacted or
adopted (whether by ordinance, resolution, initiative, or any other means) in any
applicable general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or any
other land use ordinance or building ordinance, resolution or other rule, regulation or
441
20
policy adopted by City that changes, alters or amends the rules, regulations, and policies
applicable to the development of the Project Site at the time of the approval of this
Agreement as provided by Government Code section 65866.
11.4 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term
or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of
this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situations, shall continue in
full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material provision of this Agreement, or the
application of such provision to a particular situation, is held to be invalid, void or
unenforceable, either City or Developer may (in their sole and absolute discretion)
terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to the other
party.
11.5 Other Necessary Acts. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other
further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the
Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals and this Agreement and to provide and secure
to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder.
11.6 Construction. Each reference in this Agreement to this Agreement or any of the Project
Approvals or Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to refer to the Agreement, Project
Approval, or Subsequent Approval as it may be amended from time to time, whether or
not the particular reference refers to such possible amendment. This Agreement has
been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both City and Developer, and no
presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting party shall
apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement.
11.7 Other Miscellaneous Terms. The singular shall include the plural; the masculine gender
shall include the feminine; “shall” is mandatory; “may” is permissive. If there is more
than one signer of this Agreement, the signer obligations are joint and several.
11.8 Covenants Running with the Land. All of the provisions contained in this Agreement
shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns,
representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring all or a portion of the Project, or
any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of
the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes
and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to California law
including, without limitation, Civil Code section 1468. Each covenant herein to act or
refrain from acting is for the benefit of or a burden upon the Project, as appropriate, runs
with the Project Site, and is binding upon the owner of all or a portion of the Project Site
and each successive owner during its ownership of such property.
11.9 Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between City or Developer
must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by telefacsimile (with original
forwarded by regular U.S. Mail), by registered or certified mail (return receipt
requested), or by Federal Express or other similar courier promising overnight delivery.
442
21
If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to
the party to whom it is addressed. If given by facsimile transmission, a notice or
communication shall be deemed to have been given and received upon actual physical
receipt of the entire document by the receiving party’s facsimile machine. Notices
transmitted by facsimile after 5:00 p.m. on a normal business day or on a Saturday,
Sunday, or holiday shall be deemed to have been given and received on the next normal
business day. If given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication
shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of: (i) actual
receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be
sent, or (ii) five (5) days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice,
properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If given
by Federal Express or similar courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to
have been given and received on the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the
courier. Any party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the
other party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which
such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be
given to the parties at their addresses set forth below:
If to City, to: City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
Attn: City Manager
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Phone: (650) 877-8500
Fax: (650) 829-6609
With a Copy to: Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson
575 Market Street, Suite 2080
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attn: Jason S. Rosenberg, City Attorney
Phone: (415) 421-3711
Fax: (415) 421-3767
If to Developer, to: Miller Cypress SSF, LLC
Sares-Regis Group of Northern California
901 Mariners Island Blvd., 7th Floor
Attn: Ken Busch
San Mateo, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 377-5805
Email: kbusch@srgnc.com
With Copies to: Holland & Knight
50 California Street, #2500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attn: Tamsen Plume
Phone: (415) 743-9461
Email: tamsen.plume@hklaw.com
443
22
11.10 Entire Agreement, Counterparts And Exhibits. This Agreement is executed in two
(2) duplicate counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement
consists of [XX] pages and three (3) exhibits which constitute in full, the final and
exclusive understanding and agreement of the parties and supersedes all negotiations or
previous agreements of the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter
hereof. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by
the appropriate authorities of City and the Developer. The following exhibits are
attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein for all purposes:
Exhibit A: Description and Diagram of Project Site
Exhibit B: Existing Land Use Entitlements and Approvals
Exhibit C: Applicable Laws & City Fees, Exactions, and Payments
11.11 Recordation Of Development Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code
section 65868.5, no later than ten (10) days after City enters into this Agreement, the
City Clerk shall record an executed copy of this Agreement in the Official Records of
the County of San Mateo.
444
23
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between Developer and
City as of the day and year first above written.
CITY
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation
By: ___________________________
Name: ______________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
By: ___________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ___________________________
City Attorney
DEVELOPER
MILLER CYPRESS SSF, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company
By: ___________________________
Name: ___________________________
Its: ___________________________
2561624.1
445
24
Exhibit A: Description and Diagram of Project Site
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California,
described as follows:
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING
[TO BE FILLED IN WHEN EXACT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION IS DETERMINED]
APN:
JPN:
446
25
Exhibit B: Existing Land Use Entitlements and Approvals
[To be completed when the exact titles and resolution numbers for entitlements approved by the
Planning Commission and the City Council are known.]
447
26
Exhibit C: Applicable Laws & City Fees, Exactions, and Payments
CURRENT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LAWS
Developer shall comply with the following City regulations and provisions applicable to
the Property as of the Effective Date (except as modified by this Agreement and the Project
Approvals).
1.1 South San Francisco General Plan. The Developer will develop the Project in a manner
consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the
South San Francisco General Plan, as adopted on October 13, 1999 and as amended
from time to time.
1.2 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Developer will develop the Project in a
manner consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified
in the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, as adopted in January
2015.
1.3 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning District. The Developer shall construct
the Project in a manner consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning
District applicable to the Project as of the Effective Date (except as modified by this
Agreement).
1.4 South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Developer shall construct the Project in a
manner consistent with the South San Francisco Municipal Code provisions, as
applicable to the Project as of the Effective Date (except as modified by this
Agreement).
FEES, EXACTIONS, & PAYMENTS
Subject to the terms of Section 5.6(b) of this Agreement, Developer agrees that
Developer shall be responsible for the payment of the following fees, charges, exactions, taxes,
and assessments (collectively, “Assessments”). From time to time, the City may update, revise,
or change its Assessments. Further, nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property
from common benefit assessments levied against it and similarly situated properties by the City
pursuant to and in accordance with any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay
for infrastructure and/or services that benefit the Property. Except as indicated below, the amount
paid for a particular Assessment, shall be the amount owed, based on the calculation or formula
in place at the time payment is due, as specified below.
2.1 Administrative/Processing Fees. The Developer shall pay the applicable application,
processing, administrative, legal and inspection fees and charges, as currently adopted
pursuant to City’s Master Fee Schedule and required by the City for processing of land
use entitlements, including without limitation, General Plan amendments, zoning
changes, precise plans, development agreements, conditional use permits, variances,
transportation demand management plans, tentative subdivision maps, parcel maps, lot
448
27
line adjustments, general plan maintenance fee, demolition permits, and building
permits.
2.2 Impact Fees (Existing Fees). Except as modified below and as set forth in Section 3.2(b)
of this Agreement, the following existing impact fees shall be paid for net new square
footage at the rates and at the times prescribed in the resolution(s) or ordinance(s)
adopting and implementing the fees.
(a) Child Care Impact Fee. (SSFMC Chapter 20.310; Ordinance 1432-2001).
(b) Public Safety Impact Fee. (Resolution 97-2012) Prior to receiving a building
permit the Project, the Developer shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as set
forth in Resolution No. 97-2012, adopted on December 10, 2012, to assist the
City’s Fire Department and Police Department with funding the acquisition and
maintenance of Police and Fire Department vehicles, apparatus, equipment, and
similar needs for the provision of public safety services.
(c) Sewer Capacity Charge. (Resolution 39-2010) Prior to receiving a building
permit for Tenant Improvements for the Project, the Developer shall pay the
Sewer Capacity Charge, as set forth in Resolution No. 39-2010.
(d) General Plan Maintenance Fee. (Resolution 74-2007).
2.3 User Fees.
(a) Sewer Service Charges. (assessed as part of property tax bill)
(b) Stormwater Charges. (assessed as part of property tax bill)
2.4 Community Enhancement Payments.
(a) Public Art Commitment. Developer agrees to (i) either install public art as part
of the Project worth a minimum of $25,000 or, if such public art is not installed
by the certificate of occupancy, then (ii) pay twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000.00) to the City in order to support the development of public art in the
City.
(b) Community Benefit Payment. At issuance of the first building permit,
Developer agrees to pay five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) to the
City to support increased pedestrian connectivity to the South San Francisco
Caltrain station.
(c) Park In-Lieu Payment. Developer agrees to pay ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00) per residential unit constructed, to the City, in order to support the
development of parks and open space areas in the City. Developer agrees to
pay this fee for all of each parcel’s residential units prior to issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy for such parcel. For example, the Park In-Lieu
449
28
Payments for all units on Parcel A shall be paid at the issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy for Parcel A.
2.5 Business License Tax Modifications. In the event that the City’s business license tax is
modified and duly approved by voters, and any subsequent tax modifications become
applicable to the properties on the Project during the term of this Agreement, Developer
shall be responsible to pay the applicable business license tax amounts, as modified.
450
ATTACHMENT 5
FORD PROPERTIES REDEVELOPMENT
ZONING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
451
SARES-REGIS FORD PROPERTIES REDEVELOPMENT
309, 315, 401-421 AIRPORT BLVD., 405 CYPRESS AVE., 216 MILLER AVE. – ZONING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
Zoning District: Downtown Transit Core (DTC) for 315, 401-421 Airport Blvd., 405 Cypress Ave., 216 Miller Ave.
Grand Avenue Core (GAC) for 309 Airport Blvd.
DTC Base Dev Standards DTC / GAC Proposed
Minimum Lot Size 5,000sf 2.34 acres across 4 parcels
Minimum Lot Width 50’ Complies
Floor Area Ratio
Min FAR 2.0 / 1.5
Max FAR 8.0 / 4.0 with incentives 4.0 exclusive of structured
parking
Residential Density (units/acre)
Min Density 80 / 14 Complies
Max Density 120 / 80 with incentives 116 du/acre combined
Height
Max Bldg Height 85’ / 65’ or 72’ with waiver 79’ to roof on Parcel A
72’ to roof on Parcel D
Min Ground Floor Height 15’; 12’ min clearance 15’ complies
Yards
Grand Ave Frontage n/a 0
Ped Priority Zone Street Frontage Property line or 10’ 10’ for all streets
Interior Side 0 0
Rear 0 0
Maximum Lot Coverage 100% 100%
Min Amount of Landscaping n/a n/a
Additional Development Standards Requirement/Allowed Proposed
Increased Density, FAR Public Benefits Complies
Heights and Building Setbacks
Ground Floor Height 15’ (12’ clearance floor/ceiling) Complies
Finished Floor Height 1st Floor Res, 5’ above grade Complies
Min Usable Open Space 100sf per unit 102sf per unit
Build-to Line 65% of linear street frontage Complies
Corner Build Area Must meet setbacks Complies
Residential Usable Open Space 100sf per unit Complies
Private Storage Space 200 cubic feet/unit 245 units provided with storage
Requested waiver to comply
Limitations on Curb Cuts Min 10’ from intersection Complies
Truck Docks, Loading, and Service Located at rear or interior sides Complies
Supplemental Regulations Requirement/Allowed Proposed
Building Transparency 60% of frontage , w/ garage exception Complies
Architectural Articulation:
Variety in Wall Plane Complies
452
Variety in Height or Roof Complies
Façade Design Complies
Balconies Complies
Blank Walls No more than 20’ w/ garage exception Complies
Exterior Building Materials/Colors High Durable, high quality Complies
Building Orientation/Entrancies Oriented to face street Complies
Unbundled Parking 50% of req’d parking permitted Complies
Limitation on Parking Locations Limit curb cuts on Miller Ave Complies
Max Block Length Do not consolidate blocks Complies
Site and Development Regulations Requirement/Allowed Proposed
Landscaping (20.300.007) Complies
Lighting and Illumination (20.300.008) Complies
Screening (20.300.012) Complies
Trash and Refuse Collection (20.300.014) Complies
Parking Standards (20.330) Requirement/Allowed Proposed
Location of Required Parking Complies
Parking Reductions See below Requested reduction to comply
Bicycle Parking (20.330.008) 1 space/ 4 units Complies
On-Site Loading (20.330.009) Complies
Parking Area Design and Dev Standards (20.330.010) Requested reduction to comply
Residential Parking Requirements – Downtown Districts
# of Units Downtown
Standards
Parking Req’t Parking Provided
Studio or
Less than 500 sf
42 1 per unit max 42 max
1-Bdrm or
500-800 sf
101 1 – 1.5 per unit 101 min, 152 max
2-Bdrm or
801-1,100 sf
121 1.5 – 1.8 per unit 182 min, 218 max
3-Bdrm or more,
1,101 sf or larger
8 1.5 – 2 per unit 12 min, 16 max
Total 272 337 – 428 Spaces 342 Total Spaces
Proposed Parking Provided
The applicant proposes 342 parking spaces. Per SSFMC 20.280.006.G, for apartment developments, 50 percent of
the required parking may be unbundled.
Additionally, the applicant has proposed 17 tandem spaces, measuring 8.5’x32’ rather than the standard 10’x40’
and 56 compact spaces, measuring 8.5’x16’ rather than the standard 8.5’x18’. In order to allow the substandard
parking spaces, the applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit to reduce the overall parking demand by
25%, which accounts for these spaces. In this case, the number of available parking spaces on-site will be 342
spaces but the smaller compact and tandem spaces can only be allowed with the CUP approval since the City’s
Zoning Ordinance is silent on compact space dimensions.
453
EXHIBIT A
ACCESSORY STORAGE MODIFICATION
REQUEST MEMORANDUM
454
sARESlnrcrs
November 23,zOLs
Mr. Tony Rossi
Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94083
RE Request for a waiver of storage requirements
Vacant Ford Property Application
Dear Tony
We request a ten (10%) percent reduction of the required number of storage units at the proposed 272
unit community proposed at the Vacant Ford Properties. This reduction will reduce the required
number of storage units from 272 to 245 over the four parcels.
The 245 provided storage spaces is consistent with our experience of luxury apartment communities we
manage and in the marketplace and exceeds the requirements of the majority of San Mateo cities.
Achieving the requirement of 200 CF with a minimum 4 feet horizontal distance cannot be met
exclusively in the garage without significantly reducing the number of parking spaces. To meet this
requirement the building elevations and floorplans would require significant modifications and
potentially be compromised. Below is a summary of the storage requirements of other cities in San
Mateo County.
' 3t I"/{ /
Sares Regis Group of Northern California, LLC
901 Mariners Island Boulevard, 7'l' Floor, San Mateo, California 94404
'f : 650-378-2800 F: 650-570-2233
San Mateo City City Requirement
Brisbane No Storage Requirement
No storage requirementColma
Daly City No storage requirement
Millbrae No storage requirement
Foster City No storage requirement
180 CF per unitRedwood City
San Bruno No storage requirement
San Carlos Private Storage Space. Each unit shall have at least two
hundred cubic feet of enclosed, weather-proofed, and
lockable private storage space with a minimum horizontal
dimension of four feet.
No storage requirementCity of San Mateo
of building excellence
455
Reducing the number of storage units will not be a detrimental effect to the health or safety of the
public or occupants.
Please grant the request for a waiver to reduce the number of storage units to 245 storage units. lf
there are any questions I can be reached at 415-250-5515 or kbusch@srsnc.com.
Sincerely,
Busch
Senior Vice President
456
EXHIBIT B
HEIGHT WITHIN THE GRAND AVENUE CORE ZONING DISTRICT
MODIFICATION REQUEST MEMORANDUM
457
sARESlnncrs
RE
December 3, 201-5
Mr. Tony Rossi
Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Vacant Ford Property Application: Request for a 10 percent waiver of building height on a small
portion of Parcel D in the Grand Avenue Core
Dear Mr. Rossi:
As we have discussed, this letter transmits our formal request for a ten (10%) percent increase in the
height of a small portion of Parcel D located in the Grand Avenue Core zone. This will increase the
allowable height from 65 feet to 72 feeL The Height will be measured per section 20.040.005 where the
average levelof the "highest pointand lowest pointof that portion of the lotcovered bythe building".
The lot is considered the entire outline of building D. This height increase is required for a number of
reasons:
1) lncrease the number of residents to a close proximity of the CalTrain station. This project
locates residential units near the CalTrain station which helps to encourage mass transit
ridership and reduce greenhouse gas emission.
2) Meet many of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan goals including:
a. Support transit ridership as part of a sustainable future for the City and the region.
b. Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized
sites
c. lncrease development intensities in the Downtown to grow the resident population
and thus support a variety of commercial and service uses (Guiding Principle #2).
d. Establish the highest intensity land uses within % mile of the Caltrain Station. ln this
location, densities of up to 120 DUA are encouraged (Guiding Principle #2).
e. Focus increases in residential and mixed -use densities within % mile of the Caltrain
Station and in areas proximate to Grand Avenue to increase patronage of Caltrain as
well as Grand Avenue businesses (Guiding Principle #8).
f. Provide an attractive public realm that is accessible to persons of all abilities
including improved sidewalks, streetscapes, pedestrian crossings, plazas and open
spaces.
3) The directly adjacent Downtown Residential Core has a height limit of 85 feet. The majority
of the building is in the Downtown Residential Core and only a small portion is within the
Grand Avenue Core.
Sares Regis Group of Northern CaliÊornia, LLC
90 1 Mariners Island Boulevard, 7'l' Floor, San Ma¡eo, Ca,lifornia 94404
T: 650-378-2800 F: 650-570-2233 of building excellence
458
4) The proposed building is located approximately 140 feet from the center line of Grand
Avenue, so light and shadow will not have an impact on Grand Avenue.
5) The water table is located approximately 7 feet below grade and the soil contains high levels
of lead. Both of which make lowering the building infeasible.
Please grant the request for a waiver to increase the height limit 10% from 65 feet to 72 feet. lf you
have any questions or need any additional information related to this request, I can be reached at 415-
250-5515 or kbusch @srsnc.com.
Sincerely,
Ken Busch
Senior Vice President
Attachments: Exhibit showing location of project in the Grand Avenue Core zone
459
Exhibít to December 3, 20L5letter
Potíon of Project
in Downtown
Core
I
it
þ
ryr€{.
¡
I
I
I
Iî
460
ATTACHMENT 6
PROPOSED COMMUNITY BENEFITS MEMORANDUM
461
sARESlnncrs
December 3,2OL5
Revised t2/9/ts
Revised 2/t/16
Mr. Tony Rossi
Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94083
RE: Vacant Ford Property Application Proposed Community Benefits
Dear Mr. Rossi:
Sares Regis Group requests an increase in density to 116 DUA for the Vacant Ford Property; 309, 315,
40L-42L Airport Boulevard, 405 Cypress Avenue, and 216 Miller Avenue per the Planning Application we
submitted on October 20,2015.
Pursuant to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Section 20.280.005(i) Additional Development
Standards), we propose the following public benefits:
a. The development will pay area standard wages which will provide new construction
employment for construction workers. This is a significant cost additional cost to the
project.
b. Payment ol 52,720,000 of Park Fees. Although there is no Park Fee ordinance for
apartment communities we will pay the City 51-0,000 per unit for Parks.
c. Up to 5500,000 contribution to the City for plaza/pedestrian connection improvements.
d. Streetscape improvements on the east side of Cypress in front of the Property and along
Miller between Airport and Cypress and along Lux in front of the property. This includes
enhanced paving, furniture, street trees, lighting, bulb outs at the Miller/Cypress cross
walks and bicycle improvements as shown on the landscape plan. Pedestrian Scale
lighting along Airport in addition to the City required street lights to improve the
pedestrian experience. Undergrounding PGE/ATT/Comcast lines on the east side of
Cypress adjacent to the community, Miller between Cypress and Airport Boulevard.
Estimated cost S1,278,000.
e. lnstallation of utilities to be dedicated to the City for a water line and storm drain on
Miller between Cypress and Airport as shown on the utility plans. Estimated cost
S3oo,ooo.
f. LEED rated community !O/o more energy efficient than CA 2013 Title 24 requirements.
Estimated cost 5500,000.g. Public Art up to a maximum budget of 525,000 at the Miller/Cypress corner.
Sares Regis Group of Northern California, LLC
90 1 Mariners Islancl Boulcva¡¿, 7'r' p166¡, San Mateo, California 94404
T: 650-37 8-2800 F: 650-570-2233 of building excellence
462
h. Mitigate environmental condition of the property to provide for residential
development (i.e. remove underground storage tanks and address concerns regarding
existing lead in soil). Estimated cost 5340,000
i. Provide upgraded construction fencing during construction. (Estimated cost S50,000)j. The project is aligned with, and will implement the Downtown Specific Plan. The
community will implement the concept of a higher density community in proximity to
transit.
k. To the extent the City can promote the development of new housing near its
commercial job centers, it will allow greater use of alternative transportation modes
(walking, biking, transit) that will reduce auto trips and greenhouse gas reduction in
conformance with the goals of the City's Climate Action Plan.
Total Estimated Cost of Community Benefits S5,713,000
The value of the density bonus is approximately 525,000 for each additional unit with the total value of
the density bonus being approximately S1,L25,000 for the additional 45 additional units. The estimated
cost of the Community Benefits described above are significantly more than the benefit obtained from
the additional 45 units.
lf you have any questions or need any additionalinformation related to this request, lcan be reached at
4L5-250-5515 or kbusch @srsnc.com.
Sincerely,4?-'
Busch
Senior Vice President
463
ATTACHMENT 7
PUBLIC COMMENTS
464
EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY SUPPORT LETTERS AND
SIGNATURES SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPER
465
sARESlnncrs
January 15,20L6
Mr. Tony Rozzi
Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco - Economic and Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080
RE: Vacant Ford Property: Additional lnformation to Respond to Public Comments
Dear Tony:
We completed significant community outreach including a formal neighborhood meeting, meeting with
individual residents, design review meeting, bicycle pedestrian advisory committee, and joint housing
subcommittee meeting. lnput by City residents has been overwhelmingly positive. During the
discussions and by one comment letter submitted to the City, residents and neighbors expressed a few
comments, which we asked our technical team to review and assist us with responses. Below is a brief
summary of those comments, responses, and references to the following attached additional technical
analyses.
Attachment A. Troffic on Tomorack Lone generoted by Parcel C - Miller Avenue Residentiol,
South San Froncisco - lmpact on Tomorock Lane ; December 28, 2075; Hexogon Tronsportqt¡on
Consultants, lnc.
Attachment B. Wind /ssues - Parcels A, C ond D in South Son Francisco, CA - Wind lssues
Associoted with Project; Jonuary 72, 2076; prepared by lllingworth and Rodkin, lnc.
Attachment C. Sun ond Shade lmpacts - Solar Access Report sheets G-5.0, G-5.7, G5.2; Jonuory
4, 2076; prepared by TCA Architects
Attachment D. Bertolucci's Building - An Updoted Historic Evaluotion oÍ the Bertolucci's
Building in South San Froncisco ; Januory 75, 2076; prepared by Archoeologicol Resource
Monagement ond Department of Porks and Recreation Primory Record (24 pages); Jonuory 72,
2076; prepored by Archaeologicol Resource Manogement
Comment t: Potentiol for Traffic lmpqcts on Tamorack Lane
Response to Comment 1:
Sares Regis Group of Northern California, LLC
901 Mariners Island Boulevard, 7'r' Floor, San Mateo, California 94404
T : 650-378-2800 F: 650-570-2233
a
a
a
of building excellence
466
As described in more detail in Attachment A, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, lnc.
reviewed a concern raised about the potential for traffic impacts on Tamarack Lane from the
development of Parcel C, and concluded that:
Tomqrack Lane is o one-woy street in the westbound direction. All troffic from
the proposed project on Parcel C would enter qnd exit vio Tamorack Lane. During
the AM peak hour the project would odd a maximum of I vehicles on Tomarock
Lone (opproximotely 2 vehicles eost of the project driveway and I vehicles west
of the project drivewoy). During the PM peok hour, the project would odd a
moximum of 7 vehicles on Tamorock Lane (7 vehicles east of the project
driveway ond 4 vehicles west of the project driveway). Because of the one
directional traffic flow on Tomarock Lane, vehicles would not have to woit for
any gops in order to turn into the project drivewoy ond would cause minimol
deloy to the through traffic on Tamarack Lane. Also, vehicles exiting the project
driveway would not have difficulty turning onto Tomorack Lone as they would
have to find gaps in only one direction. Given the low traffic volumes ond one-
directional troffic flow on Tomarock Lone, the project would not create any
significont impacts on Tomorack Lone, the anticipated increosed troffic will be I
trips west of the driveway in the AM peok hour ond 4 trips west of the drivewoy
in the pm peok hour and would not be significont.
Comment 2: Potentiolfor Parking lmpacts on Neighborhood
Response to Comment 2:
As described in our application materials on file with the City, the project provides a total of 342
off-street parking spaces and does not propose to remove any existing publicly accessible
parking stalls, nor count any existing on-street parking to meet those requirements. The project
does request, as allowed under the City's regulations, a 25o/o reduction in the overall number of
parking spaces, but this reduction is not to the total number of actual physical number of spaces
provided but only to account for73 compact or tandem spaces that do not technically meet the
configuration requirements but we know will function very well for our residents. The location
of this project adjacent to the Caltrain Station also means that many of our residents will be
walking, biking or using public transit to commute to work and to other destinations. And, the
City is imposing a condition of approval to ensure parking signage and appropriate parking
assignment management. Based on our extensive experience with similar projects in the Bay
Area and the particular transit-oriented location of this project site, we are confident that the
project will provide sufficient parking and not cause a parking impact to the neighborhood.
Comment 3: Potentiqlfor Wind Tunnel Effect
467
Response to Comment 3
As described in more detail in Attachment B, the wind analysis prepared by lllingworth and
Rodkin, lnc., concludes that given the nature of the wind (speed and prevailing direction) in the
area, as well as the building's size and design, the project would not result in a wind tunnel
effect on the neighboring properties.
Comment 4: Potential for Shoding on Neighboring Properties
Response to Comment 4:
As described in more detail on Attachment C, the solar/shade analysis prepared by TCA
Architects concludes that the project will not result in any significant shading on the neighboring
properties.
Comment 5: Potentiol for lncreosed Security Concerns in Neighborhood
Response to Comment 5:
ln our experience, adding additional residents on existing vacant properties do not result in
additional security concerns for existing neighborhoods. To the contrary, vacant properties tend
to be a security concern, while adding residents who are equally concerned about their own
security and can provide "24f7 eyes on the street" tends to reduce acts of crime and vandalism.
Our project will be high quality, and we are very confident that our proposed project will
enhance the aesthetics and security of the neighborhood.
Comment 6: Potential to Block Visibility of the Bertolucci's Sign
Response to Comment 6:
As described in more detail in Attachment D, a historic evaluation of the Bertolucci's building by
Archaeological Resource Management (ARM) concludes that while the project will block the
view of the sign on top of Bertoluccu's from Highway 101, the project will not result in a
significant impact to the Bertolucci's under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ARM's evaluation concludes that Bertolucci's building is a historic resource eligible for listing on
both the City of South San Francisco Historic Resources lnventory and California Reg¡ster of
Historic Resources, but concludes, based on a careful evaluation of the history of the building,
the sign and the area, that:
As per CEQA Guidelines, in order for an impact to be considered significant, the
impact must pose o "substontiolly odverse" chonge to thot resource. A
"substontially adverse" impact in the context of historic resources is one which
468
offects the resource "such thot the significonce of an historicol resource would
be impaired" (PRC Section 5020.1(q)). The Bertolucci's sign is one several
elements of the Bertolucci's building which contribute to the historic choracter of
the property, however, the current view of the sign from Highwoy 707 is not an
essentiol foctor in maintoining the significance of the structure or what mokes
the sign a contributing element to the building given the relatively recent (1994)
creotion of extent of the current view ond the modificotions to the sign itself.
The contributing aspects of the sign to the building are bosed on the oge and the
design of the sign itself and its relotionship to the historical use of the building.
Bqsed on our review of the characteristics of building and sign, it appears the
Bertolucci's building would retoin eligibility for both the CRHR and the locol
historic register regardless of whether the sign remains visible from Highwoy 707
or not, due to its architecture and historic associotions.
It should also be noted that in Chapter 4.3 (page 4.3-t2l of the City's Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Report (ElR), the EIR clearly identified that the
implementation of the DSASP had the potential to cause significant, unavoidable impacts to
both listed and other resources that were potentially eligible but not yet listed within the plan
area, and adopted both mitigation measure MM 4.3-1 and adopted a statement of overriding
considerations (SOC) related to the potential effects on historic resources within the plan area.
Therefore, even if blocking visibility to the sign were to be considered a significant impact under
CEQA (which ARM does not conclude to be the case), the EIR and SOC have adequately
disclosed, mitigated and made findings under CEQA for projects, like this one, that are
consistent with and implement that DSASP.
Please review and include this information in the Planning Commission package for the January 2L,20L6
meeting. lf there are any questions please contact me at kbusch@srgnc.com or 650-377-5805.
Sincerely,
Ken Busch
Senior Vice President
Enclosures
469
YES! We Support Downtown Renovation
We support d more vibrant downtown through creation of new homes on the vacant Ford
dealership properties in the Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue area. The South San Francisco
Downtown Core Specific Plan is the result of years of solid planning and input from more than a
dozen neighborhood meetings, This proposal for attractive new residences benefits downtown
merchants, creates needed housing and open space, and improves our neighborhood. Within
bicycling/walking distance of the relocated Caltrain station, this is the right place and right time
for quality new homes in accordance with our Downtown Plan.
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed.
ßrosPrinted
Name:S T t v È 6 1 O a G f 6 I a o L
Address:z {ì L 14 A D E A V L.
tr (A Á/L ro 7rÞ c rQ >8 UCity5cçL/V-r È V V aÞ a-.:r o R (à .T R R(-))r C.qEmailq
Phone:A \/-)s ì5 u 6 7,I
Printed
Name:
Address
City ZIP:
Email
Phone
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed.
Printed
Name:
Address:
City ZIP:
Email
Phone
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed.
470
YES! We Support Downtown Renovation
We support ø more vibrant downtown through creation of new homes on the vacant Ford
dealership properties in the Airport Boulevard/MillerAvenue area. The South San Francisco
Downtown Core Specific Plan is the result of years of solid planning and input from more than a
dozen neighborhood meetings. This proposal for attractive new residences benefits downtown
merchants, creates needed housing and open space, and improves our neighborhood. Within
bicycling/walkingdistance of the relocated Caltrain stat¡on, this isthe right place and righttime
for quality new homes in accordance with our Downtown plan.
hl
q
L
(
ft
A
A
f a€
3 '\I
I am interested in attend¡ng a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal Please keep me informecJ.
Printed
Name:f o N
T I
E
ÈAddress:
City s o s
t_
t{
H
Þ
F
t
È
Email J h c ç I (e
Phone a 6'
I
i
r
t .l
c
U
h
ë
o L o
Ir
o
ZIP:
r3q
/
Printed
Name:T C)c lq o
\
am interested in attending a meeting or sending an email/letter to city Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed.
c-L C
Address
V
IL LJ
1-
5 ô
€R
V
ZIP
Email o A
Phone 6 6
\¡c
Printed
Name:
Address
City ZIP:
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an ernail/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed.
Email
Phone
471
YES! We Support Downtown Renovation
We support o more vibront downtown through creation of new homes on the vacant Ford
dealership properties in the Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue area. The South San Francisco
Downtown Core Specific Plan is the result of years of solid planning and input from more than a
dozen neighborhood meetings. This proposal for attractive new residences benefits downtown
merchants, creates needed housing and open space, and improves our neighborhood. Within
bicycling/walking distance of the relocated Caltrain station, this is the right place and right time
for quality new homes in accordance with our Downtown plan.
I am interested in attend ing a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. please keep me informed.
Printed
Name:5 )2 T d a\Q-t
Address:a 1 a)a J ID e J \A \)<
City S S r ZtP:IVr >5 \)
Email ì ()e I ¿\t Q,Lt C"('{t*-l'Éa'f ÚJ ,-f
Phone (ê f-o -\o -)I L f q
X
Printed
Name:
Address:
City ZIP:
Email
Phone:
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. please keep me informed.
Printed
Name:
Address:
City ztP
Email
Phone:
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. please keep me informed.
472
YES! We Support Downtown Renovation
We support a more vibrant downtown through creation of new homes on the vacant Ford
dealership properties in the Airport BoulevardlMiller Avenue area. The South San Francisco
Downtown Core Specific Plan is the result o{ years of solid planning and input from more than a
dozen neighborhood meetings. This proposal for attractive new residences benefits downtown
merchants, creates needed housing and open space, and improves our neighborhood. Within
bicycling/walking distance of the relocated Caltrain station, this is the right place and right time
for quality new homes in accordance with our Downtown Plan'
I am interested in attending a meeting or sen ding an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed
Printed
Name:
^l I o þ<f t
^/
f=5
Address:"4 I 2 a tl "t n x/Ê
City 4 /A tl t 72 n_t)a?/7t?,L 1)Ø'7>
Email
Phsne:L s {2 a z -7
Printed
Name:-D ö lJ €D (A)/+Ø 0 t
Address:3 (-3 f:-e ft tJ f)h V
City J O ç *l''-r (¿r+F.*7tP q Y C)I Ò
Email b L a ,..J S 'r €I
^J
L (à t o L
Phone:Ò 5 o ç ø n 2 sç o z
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an emai l/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed
Printed
Name:L .2(-¿'o Z 4 v q Ì 7 a
Address g I L lt-t 1_b Ò lr v I L
City éô 5 o,VI ,(F,2v c í5 ¿-)zlP q u Õ v 'ð
Email
a,L
Phone:b 5¿+Z /,{ç f /
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an ema il/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed
473
474
475
YES! We Support Downtown Renovation
We support s more vibrant downtown through cre¡¡tion of new homes on the vacant Ford
dealership properties in the Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue area. The South San Francisco
Downtown Core Specific Plan is the result of years of solid planning and input from more than a
dozen neighborhood meetings. This proposalfor attractive new residences benefits downtown
merchants, creates needed housing and open space, and improves our neighborhood. Within
bicycling/walking distance of the relocated Caltrain station, this is the right place and right time
for quality new homes in accordance with our Downtown Plan.
Printed
Name:
lam nterested in attending a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
supp ort this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed
åm interested in attending a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed
t
C
(
f(¿
5'I (
^
(Q r À a û ,h q h
,Address:
City q IJ ðv r)
Email (_h 4 p /^q 4 J {)
^
ztP
P T A a+û lrvl
Phone:t r v *7 f\L (,ó e ('
Printed
Name:M {H tt n L L 4 T II{'l /V L U
Address a(I A ñ I q 1 t-l A v -f/-
City ('A ÀJ T p /,4 Al ¡_I I L¿(t zl?
t'.lu ?tj (ô Y &h lr {'7 .,n r']Lt-tEmail
Phone ,/r't-A
L
*l)P I*'7
\
Printed
Name:I q,n (:n
Address 7 K L (-tf e €
City a F zt?:q 4t )#t)
Email a -!A t^n
f)
r n .\.t^t"r F'
Phone:i 7 a¿-li )t
V
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an emaifletter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed.
476
YES! We Support Downtown Renovation
We support o more víbront downtown through creation of new homes on the vacant Ford
dealership properties in the Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue area. The South San Francisco
Downtown Core Specific Plan is the result of years of solid planning and input from more than a
dozen neighborhood meetings. This proposal for attractive new residences benefits downtown
merchants, creates needed housing and open space, and improves our neighborhood. Within
bicycling/walking distance of the relocated Caltrain station, this is the right place and right time
for quality new homes in accordance with our Downtown Plan.
X I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an ema illletter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed
Printed
Name:P /À ü L (0 ß fn O s A
Address L o p /5 I C,I
City s ()s A ñ F R A ,\)a /ZtP:7 I ô ,f n
Email p F'o K m 0 S A @
^
ô L I C,()n
Phone 6 S-0 rr v ?6 7 /
Printed
Name:
Address
City ZtP:
Email
Phone:
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed.
Printed
Name:
Address:
City ZIP:
Email
Phone:
I am interested in attending a meeting or sending an email/letter to City Hall
to support this renovation proposal. Please keep me informed.
477
478
479
480
481
482
EXHIBIT B
COMMUNITY LETTERS IN OPPOSITION
483
From:John Martoni
To:WEB-ECD; All Council; Matsumoto, Karyl; Gupta, Pradeep; Normandy, Liza; Garbarino, Rich; Addiego, Mark;
Greenwood, Alex; Wong, Alan; Khalfin, Alexander; Faria, Norm; Lujan, Daina; Martin, Carlos; Nagales, Mark;
Ruiz, Aristides; Gross, Billy; Friedman, Adena; Rozzi, Tony
Subject:Ford/Sares Regis Development
Date:Saturday, October 31, 2015 11:20:12 AM
Dear South City Leaders:
I appreciate your leadership and enjoy living in Downtown South City because it is diverse/eclectic,
quaint, has good services, and is stable. I think that civic leaders have been vital to creating such a nice
environment. Thank you!
However, it is no longer affordable. I am being priced out and just read about Sares Regis developing the
Ford Site. Please excuse me while I rant:
All this time I thought that the “housing crisis” was about locals being able to afford to stay in the area.
Thanks to the City of South San Francisco, I now know that the true housing crisis is that there is not
enough upscale housing for wealthy techies from out of town.
It’s great that South San Francisco is tackling the problem by having Sares Regis Group develop luxury
apartments at the Ford site. They are experts at building expensive (overpriced) housing for the rich.
600-square-foot one bedroom apartments in their existing projects on the Peninsula range from about
$3,400-$4,800 per month. The median income in South San Francisco is about $74,000/year (net of
about $4100 per month). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that these apartments are not being built
for South San Franciscans.
Sares Regis has a national empire of extremely overpriced rentals with floorplans that are similar to
hotel suites. Rental rates are set with software and often come to strange amounts such as
$3769/month. They have EXTREMELY high turnover of tenants because when the leases expire they
raise rents dramatically. Eventually people are either priced out or wise up that they are being
significantly overcharged for what they are getting.
You would be hard-pressed to find people of color, families, senior citizens or low-income residents in
their complexes. You will not find many locals either. They can't afford it. Sares Regis target
demographic is young, single people new to the area/without much experience renting an apt.
Like used car salesmen, they have a variety of gimmicks to attract their inexperienced/financially
unsophisticated victims-- including extremely low security deposits and highly discounted rent for the first
month. The ridiculously low move-in costs often attract those in precarious financial situations who often
cannot afford the astronomical rent that will come after the first month. That is OK with Sares Regis
because a large portion of Sares Regis's income comes from debt collection on those who move out
before their leases expire. They are a major player in the predatory debt collection industry that sets up
low income people in unsustainable financial arrangements, and then sells their debt to debt collectors
who follow/threatens/sue them.
BEWARE! They are not local, do not care about the local communities they invade, and are not helping
with the housing crisis. Since they control thousands and thousands of units—- they are, in fact, in
control of the housing market.
484
Look no further than South City Station for proof that overpriced, over-sized corporate developments are
based on greed. Although it seems counter-intuitive, they actually RAISE housing prices because they
control the vast majority of available units without any competition (except for a few other mega
developers engaging in the same predatory practices).
You can easily verify everything I have said by simply checking out the apartment listings on Craigslist
and comparing the rents in small-scale, individually-owned complexes downtown with those being
charged at South City Station's corporate-owned mega complex (you can check out SSF Station rents on
their website).
Another interesting pattern to note, is that there are hardly any rental openings in the old downtown
because residents are scared to risk giving up a dignified, affordable rental unit that is locally-owned
(with a humane landlord that is a person) because they know that they won't be able to find another one.
In contrast, you will notice tons of openings all of the time in South City Station because it has extremely
high turnover (it was not designed for long-term residency).
Are there any renters on city boards, commissions, elected bodies? I think it would be a good idea to
have input from local renters when you review these projects. Please don't hesitate to call me if you need
somebody!
As a teacher, I am extremely frustrated because I am being priced out of South City and there is nowhere
left in the Bay Area to find affordable housing. South City WAS one of the few affordable pockets in the
Bay Area. Although lots of new units have been approved, they are all being developed by corporations
with track records of greedy opportunism. NONE of them will be remotely affordable for those of us with
middle-class incomes who don't qualify for subsidies/assistance. Consequently, I am currently in the
process of updating my resume because it looks extremely likely that I am going to have to move
to another region of California next school year.
FINALLY.... I AM NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT! In fact, I think South City is extremely underdeveloped,
with many empty lots, parking lots, etc.
PLEASE INVESTIGATE MIDDLE HOUSING CONCEPT BY DAN PAROLEK IN BERKELEY AS A
POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO HOUSING CRISIS. It is based on traditional development patterns/scale of
historic downtown core. Increases number of landlords/property owners (instead of consolidating
massive lots to hand over to corporate developers, it is based on maintaining the existing fine-grain
pattern and having human landlords!), The more landlords, the more competition. This is what will lower
rents.
http://opticosdesign.com/category/missing-middle
Sincerely,
John Martoni
jmart33@hotmail.com
South San Francisco
485
48
6
487
488
489
AN OPEN LETTER
TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
AT THEIR JANUARY 21, 2016 MEETING
To: Chairman Wong, Vice-Chair Kalfin, Mr. Faria, Ms. Lujan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Nagales, and Mr. Ruiz.
Thank you for reading my words; particular thanks to Mr. Faria for inviting me to be part of the process.
My topic is the proposal for the "Ford Properties Residential Development" by Miller Cypress SSF, LLC
which is on tonight's agenda to be considered for approval.
I am excited! Development on the former Ford sales site is getting underway after being stalled for
years by - among other things - legislated change. The years the site lay vacant may have contributed
to an increase of nearby criminal activity, and certainly created a poor welcome for the people in the
thousands of automobiles entering SSF from the 101 freeway every day. I am equally thrilled by the
implicit promise that the city will finally undertake long-promised work on the Cal-Train station (instead
of using that site as a general materials dump and parking lot). I am NOT excited, however by many
elements of tonight's proposal; and ask you to think carefully about some of those elements.
I do not denigrate Sares Regis - though I feel they're more solicitous of their investors than of their
tenants, and favor tenants over neighbors. They appear to have acted with the market in a generally
compliant manner. I would not exchange my present home for one of the crowded, ill-lit, and
high-priced units they offer at The Plaza in Foster City, or 888 North San Mateo - but I am not the target
for those "multifamily" apartments.
None of the proposed apartments will be affordable housing. Construction on Parcel D replaces the
20+ SRO rooms of Christy's Inn at 309 Airport Blvd. That building has been closed since a fire on
9/9/2015. Rents on studio units in the proposal are expected to be 3-4 times what rents were in
Christy's. We can assume new tenants will be very different in character than current residents of the
surrounding neighborhood.
I briefly complain that providing only 330 parking spaces for the 500-600 residents of the 264
apartments (mostly car-owning adults), far from the city's major groceries, drugstores, and many other
important retail/service locations is a disaster.
I have three material issues with the proposal:
1. an increased city services cost will be placed on existing residents;
2. the effects of the construction process is entirely overlooked.
3. traffic along heavily-used Airport Boulevard and Miller will substantially increase;
[1] History says adding 500+ new residents to any neighborhood generates friction,
particularly when the characters of the old and new residents differ widely. When the extant
neighborhood is a high-crime area, tensions will be greater. And, if there is an on-going 'flash point'
(such as on-street parking), there will be constant calls for extra community services (police, fire, EMT,
490
cleaning, &c.). If the $6 million Sares Regis offers as a "community benefit' could be invested at 5%,
the income would only provide 2 full-time positions to service 24/7 problems. It can't be invested.
The per-capita cost of city services will likely rise, and be a burden on current residents.
[2] I work in San Francisco, seeing disruption caused by construction city-wide since 2000.
Streets get blocked to vehicles and pedestrians, street parking is curtailed, noise increases to unbearable
levels, unanticipated construction accidents temporarily shut off water and electricity, dirt and dust
increase incidence of respiratory distress (and housekeeping). The Ford project is outsized for SSF.
All the above outcomes can be expected during the year-plus required to build these towers, yet the
proposal offers no means of mitigation. Effects will be felt by (and may become an economic burden
on) residents, nearby merchants, and motorists.
[3] The rendering below, from the Report to the Commission, shows the intersection of
Miller and Airport, facing west. It was slightly 'stretched' on its horizontal axis in the report (makes
the buildings appear shorter) but I have re-scaled it to be more correct. I place next to it a
photograph of the same intersection (taken January 20, 2015 at 09:30); I tried to get a low-traffic
interval so detail can be seen.
You'll note the eight-plus traffic controls visible in the photo were eliminated in the rendering. An
east-facing photograph of the same intersection (below) shows the most important reason for the
controls:
In the rear of the photo you see the termination of the Grand Avenue exit from US 101. Thousands of
vehicles emerge from this exit every day, many headed to business facilities on East Grand Avenue.
The Hexagon study (commissioned by Sares Regis and incorporated in the report) concludes that traffic
conditions at several intersections will become unacceptable after the Ford development is occupied.
Mitigations were recommended without identifying what they should be, how much they would cost,
and who will pay for them. Again, these are likely to become a burden on current residents.
491
Therefore, I ask the Commission to defer making a recommendation to the City Council until the staff
can explore the three areas I have just identified. In particular, I hope they work to make specific the
nature and cost of mitigations for these problems, and get a proposed construction schedule including
traffic and service disruptions. I suggest the Commission to consider increasing the amount of the
community benefit payment required, and agree to a specific schedule for funds to be made available.
Thank you for allowing me to address the Commission and to ask my questions today.
Mark A. Johnson
585 Rocca Avenue
492
Housing Leadership Council
of San Mateo County
139 Mitchell Avenue, Suite 108
South San Francisco, CA 94080
T: (650) 872-4444 / F: (650) 872-4411
www.hlcsmc.org
January 21, 2016
Alan Wong, Chair and Commissioner
South San Francisco Planning Commission
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco
Dear Alan Wong,
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County works with communities and their leaders to
produce and preserve quality affordable homes. Housing Leadership Council’s membership
organizations include nonprofits, business groups, real estate firms, labor unions, educators,
environmentalists, and other concerned community members.
We are writing out of concern about the proposed Development Agreement with Miller Cypress
SSF, LLC for the development of four downtown area sites, the Environmental Consistency
Analysis, and entitlements of UP15-0027, DR15-0032, WM15-0001, PE15-0004, & DA15-0003.
Our concern stems from the fact that San Mateo County is in a housing crisis. Families in South
San Francisco are facing dramatic rent increases, and a shortage of rental options. Because of
this crisis, we are dismayed that the project is not consistent with the affordable housing
requirements in state law that was passed to guide former redevelopment sites and other publicly
owned sites.
AB 2135 was approved by Governor Brown on September 27, 2014 and filed with Secretary of
State on September 27, 2014. Following are two sections relevant to your decision:
54220.
(a) The Legislature reaffirms its declaration that housing is of vital statewide importance to the
health, safety, and welfare of the residents of this state and that provision of a decent home and a
suitable living environment for every Californian is a priority of the highest order. The
Legislature further declares that there is a shortage of sites available for housing for persons and
families of low and moderate income and that surplus government land, prior to disposition,
should be made available for that purpose.
54233.
If the local agency … disposes of the surplus land to an entity that uses the property for the
development of 10 or more residential units, the entity or a successor-in-interest shall provide
not less than 15 percent of the total number of units developed on the parcels at affordable
493
housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or affordable rent, as
defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, to lower income households, as defined
in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Rental units shall remain affordable to, and
occupied by, lower income households for a period of at least 55 years. The initial occupants of
all ownership units shall be lower income households, and the units shall be subject to an equity
sharing agreement consistent with the provisions of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section
65915. These requirements shall be contained in a covenant or restriction recorded against the
surplus land prior to land use entitlement of the project, and the covenant or restriction shall run
with the land and shall be enforceable, against any owner who violates a covenant or restriction
and each successor in interest who continues the violation, by any of the entities described in
subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, of Section 54222.5.
This is requirement is not ambiguous. The Planning Commission should not certify the EIR until
the project is consistent with all State and Federal Laws, including AB 2135, the Surplus Land
Act.
In case there is any confusion, requiring affordable housing as part of the lease or sale of land
would not conflict with the Palmer decision which is clearly a restriction to land use decisions,
not to sales or lease agreements. According Goldfarb and Lipman, a well-respected law firm that
represents cities and counties throughout California “Costa-Hawkins (the Palmer decision) does
not apply where the owner has agreed to provide affordable rents by contract in exchange for a
financial contribution or one of the many incentives contained in state density bonus law.” I have
included an explanation by Goldfarb and Lipman on the Palmer decision.
I urge the planning commission to include an affordable housing requirement, consistent with
AB 2135, in the contract for sale of the publicly owned sites. Please contact me if you have any
further questions or concerns.
Sincerely yours,
Evelyn Stivers
Executive Director
494
Law Alert is published by Goldfarb & Lipman LLP as a timely reporting service to alert clients and others of recent changes in case
law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described,
and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of
the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.
LAW ALERT
REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABLE RENTALS FOUND TO
VIOLATE STATE RENT CONTROL LAWS
JULY 31, 2009
In Palmer/Sixth Street Properties LP v. City of
Los Angeles, decided on July 22, 2009, the
California Court of Appeal for the Second
District held that a condition of approval
requiring 60 affordable units in a 350-unit
rental project violated the Costa-Hawkins Act,
which allows landlords to establish the initial
rental rate for a new unit. The Court also
invalidated the City’s in lieu fee for the
affordable rental units. The Court’s expansive
holding calls into question affordable housing
and inclusionary requirements for new rental
units.
The case resulted from the Central City West
Specific Plan adopted in 1991 by the City of
Los Angeles. The City found that the supply of
affordable housing in the area had been reduced
by one-third. Consequently, developers were
required to either reserve 15% of new units for
low-income households, or replace any low-
income units that had been demolished. As
part of his 350-unit development, Palmer was
required to replace 60 low-income units that
had been demolished on the site in 1990. He
was also given the option of paying an in-lieu
fee of approximately $96,200 per low-income
unit.
The Court concluded that the affordable
housing condition violated the Costa-Hawkins
Act, which was adopted by the Legislature in
August 1995. Costa-Hawkins allows landlords
to set the initial rent for a new unit and
whenever a unit is vacant (so-called “vacancy
decontrol”). At the time Costa-Hawkins was
adopted, its proponents stated that it would
affect rent control programs in only five cities
in California, although many more cities had
adopted inclusionary ordinances. Nonetheless,
the Court held that the statute was “clear and
unambiguous” and allowed the landlord to set
the initial rental rate. Since the City’s
affordable housing condition limited the rents
that Palmer could charge, it violated the clear
mandate of State law.
The Court also found that, because the
objective of the in lieu fee was to impose
affordable housing requirements and the
amount was based solely on the number of
affordable units, it was “inextricably
intertwined” with the impermissible affordable
housing requirement and so was also contrary
to Costa-Hawkins.
Palmer applies only to affordable housing
requirements for new rental units and not to
requirements for ownership units. In addition,
Costa-Hawkins does not apply where the owner
has agreed to provide affordable rents by
contract in exchange for a financial
contribution or one of the many incentives
contained in state density bonus law (including
regulatory and density incentives). However,
communities with inclusionary ordinances
should carefully review their provisions
regarding affordable rental units to ensure that
they do not conflict with Costa Hawkins.
For further information, please contact
Barbara Kautz, Polly Marshall, or any other
Goldfarb & Lipman attorney at 510-836-6336.
495
EXHIBIT C
STAFF RESPONSE
496
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 29, 2016
TO: Chair, Vice Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Tony Rozzi, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Response to Emailed Correspondence from Mark A. Johnson regarding the
Proposed Ford Properties Development
A resident sent correspondence to the Planning Commission identifying three concerns, listed
below.
1. An increased City services cost will be placed on existing residents
2. The effects of the construction process is entirely overlooked
3. Traffic along heavily –used Airport Boulevard and Miller will substantially increase
Staff has prepared some guidance regarding these stated issues:
1. The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR analyzed the impact of new
development on city services. The proposed project was examined in light of the
Program EIR and determined that there will not be significant impacts to City services:
The City has implemented a Public Safety Impact Fee (2012) for all new development.
This fee is intended to fund improvements in infrastructure or public services necessitated
by new development. All development pursuant to the DSASP would be required to pay
this fee. However, construction of new fire facilities is not expected as a result of this
project as the DSASP program EIR has evaluated that current provision is adequate.
Compliance with Municipal Code requirements and payment of Public Safety Impact
Fees will ensure that this project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and
no further action is required.
The Public Safety Impact Fee will be a cost borne by the developer and any expanded
service should be covered by this fee. Payment of this fee is included as a draft condition
of approval for the project.
2. Construction related impacts are possible for this project. The Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan Program EIR identifies comprehensive mitigation measures for managing
short-term air quality and noise impacts related to construction equipment and activity.
These mitigations will be applied to the project. Additionally, local and state regulations
will be applied to manage noise, dust, and storm water protection.
497
The Planning Division leads an internal “Downtown Management and Construction
Coordination” Team that will address on-street parking impacts, contractor parking and
equipment staging, traffic control and public safety. This team includes members of the
Fire Department, Police Department, Building and Planning Divisions, and Public Works
Department. Although all City regulations will continue to be enforced within the
Downtown area and around construction projects, this Team will facilitate project
specific mitigations to reduce disruption to residents and commercial businesses.
Opposing this project based on temporary construction related impacts is short-sighted
and inconsistent with the vision of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, as well as
the adopted Climate Action Plan and General Plan’s Housing Element. These state
approved documents recognize the need to focus dense housing closest to major
commuter transit options.
3. The applicant has prepared a traffic analysis by Hexagon Consultants, included in the
Planning Commission Staff Report as Attachment 1.A.iii. The consultant concluded,
contrary to Mr. Johnson’s assertion, that there will be no significant impacts to any of the
study intersections analyzed as part of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program
EIR:
“All study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during
the AM and PM peak hours under background conditions and would continue to operate
at acceptable conditions with the proposed project except for the intersection of Baden
Avenue and Linden Avenue. The intersection of Baden Avenue and Linden Avenue would
operate at unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under background conditions
and would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F with the proposed project. Based
upon the impact criteria, the proposed project would add less than 2% of the background
traffic volumes and therefore would not create a significant impact at this intersection.
The proposed project would increase the average delay at this intersection by only 0.2
seconds during the PM peak hour period under background plus project conditions.”
The traffic analysis was also peer-reviewed by the Engineering Division and approved.
Additionally, the applicant expressed a general concern related to parking. The applicant
is required to provide a minimum of 337 spaces. The applicant has proposed 342 total
parking spaces, however, a portion of these spaces (21%) would be compact spaces. In
order to allow the substandard parking spaces, the applicant has requested a Parking
Reduction to reduce the overall parking demand by 25%, which accounts for these spaces
(approximately 21% as proposed). Unique to this request, the number of available
parking spaces on-site will be 342 spaces but the smaller compact and tandem spaces
cannot be counted towards their overall total.
The site is within ¼ mile of the Caltrain commuter station and this station is expected to
provide transit opportunities and reduce daily vehicle use. On-street parking is governed
by time limits and very little spillover parking is anticipated as part of this development.
498
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 29, 2016
TO: Chair, Vice Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Tony Rozzi, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Response to Emailed Correspondence from Housing Leadership Council
The Housing Leadership Council has provided a letter requesting that the Planning Commission
not approve the proposed Ford Redevelopment project unless the project conforms to Assembly
Bill AB 2135, the Surplus Land Act.
This letter incorrectly states the Surplus Land Act requirements, Costa-Hawkins, and those laws
applicability to this project. Specifically, The Surplus Land Act ("SLA") does not apply to the
Successor Agency, which is the agency disposing of property here.
The SLA is contained in Sections 54220-54233 of the Government Code (Article 8). In the
SLA, a "local agency" is defined as, "every city, whether organized under general law or by
charter, county, city and county, and district, including school districts of any kind or class,
empowered to acquire and hold real property.” You will notice that a Successor Agency is not
included in the definition of a "local agency" under the SLA, and therefore, is not subject to the
requirements of the SLA. That fact is also repeated in the adopted Long Range Property
Management Plan on page 88 under the section "Designation of Land, which characterizes
Successor Agency property as not ”surplus property.”
499
ATTACHMENT 8
SUCCESSOR AGENCY PURCHASE AND SALE
AGREEMENT RESOLUTION
500
1
RESOLUTION NO. ____
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
STATE OF CALIFRNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
WITH MILLER CYPRESS SSF, LLC FOR 315 AIRPORT BLVD., 401-421
AIRPORT BLVD., 405 CYPRESS AVE., AND 216 MILLER AVE.
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South
San Francisco (“Successor Agency”) is the owner of certain real property located in the City of South
San Francisco (“City”), California, known as County Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-317-110 (“401
Airport Boulevard”), 012-317-100 (“411 Airport Boulevard”), 012-317-090 (“421 Airport Boulevard”),
012-314-100 (“405 Cypress Avenue”), 012-314-220 (“216 Miller Avenue”), 012-318-080 (“315 Airport
Boulevard”) and collectively referred to as the “Agency Property”; and,
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2011 the legislature of the State of California (the “State”) adopted
Assembly Billy x1 26 (“AB 26”), which amended provisions of the Redevelopment Law; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 26 and the California Supreme Court decision in California
Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana Matosantos, et al., which upheld AB 26 (together with AB
1484, the “Dissolution Law”), the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
was dissolved on February 1, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the Agency Property was transferred to the
Successor Agency; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the Successor Agency prepared a Long Range
Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”), which has been approved by the Oversight Board for the
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (“Oversight
Board”) and the California Department of Finance (“DOF”); and,
WHEREAS, the approved LRPMP includes the Agency Propert y and highlights the potential
development of the sites as residential, mixed use and/or transit-oriented projects consistent with
Downtown Station Area Plan adopted by the City; and,
WHEREAS, in August, 2014, the Successor Agency and Miller Cypress SSF, LLC
(“Developer”) entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) that established a
mutual understanding among the City, the Successor Agency, and the Developer regarding the potential
development of the Agency Properties; and,
WHEREAS, the ENRA was approved by the Oversight Board in August, 2014 and the DOF on
December 5, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed construction of a high-density residential development,
consisting of 260 residential apartments in Phase 1, 12 for-sale residential townhomes in Phase 2, and
501
2
342 total vehicle parking spaces (“Project”), which is consistent with both the LRPMP and the ENRA;
and,
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency is interested in selling the Agency Property to Developer, as
contemplated in the LRPMP and ENRA, contingent upon approval of a Development Agreement by the
City, Developer securing all funding for the Project, and obtaining all applicable land use entitlements
from the City necessary to construct the Project on the Agency Property; and,
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency and the Developer now all wish to enter into a Purchase and
Sale Agreement (“PSA”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, approval of the Developer’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report
(“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse number 2013102001) in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines,
which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan; and,
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (“SOC”) in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which carefully considered
each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant
environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project’s economic, legal, social, technological and
other benefits; and,
WHEREAS, CEQA allows for limited environmental review of subsequent projects under a
program EIR when an agency finds that a project would not create any new environmental effects
beyond those previously analyzed under a program EIR and would not require any new mitigation
measures (CEQA Guidelines § 15168 (c)(2)); and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project and the
City by Resolution No.______ and the Successor Agency by Resolution No. __________concluded that
the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR certified by City Council nor would any new mitigation
measures be required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of the Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco does hereby take the following actions:
(1) Finds and determines that the recitals are true and correct;
(2) Approves the PSA in substantially the same form attached hereto as Exhibit A and
recommends that the Oversight Board approve the PSA;
502
3
(3) Subject to the approval by the Oversight Board of the PSA, as it pertains to the
disposition of the Agency Property, authorizes the Executive Director to enter into and execute the PSA
on behalf of the Successor Agency, in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A; to
make any revisions, amendments, or modifications, subject to review and approval of Successor Agency
Counsel, deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution and which do not materially alter or
increase the Successor Agency’s obligations thereunder.
* * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
Successor Agency of the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency at a special meeting held
on the 10th day of February, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Clerk
503
4
EXHIBIT A
Purchase and Sale Agreement
2599220.1
504
02/02/16 - 1 -
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS (“this Agreement”) is made and entered into as of ________ 2016 (the “Date
of Agreement”), by and between the South San Francisco Successor Agency, a public agency
(“Seller” or “Agency”) and Miller Cypress SSF, LLC, (“Buyer”), which is the date this
Agreement was approved by the South San Francisco Oversight Board ("Oversight Board").
Seller and Buyer are each individually referred to herein as a “Party” and, collectively, as the
“Parties.”
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, Seller is the owner of certain real property located in the City
of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, California, known as County Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 012-317-110 (401 Airport Boulevard)(“Parcel A.1”), 012-317-100 (411 Airport
Boulevard) (“Parcel A.2”), 012-317-090 (421 Airport Boulevard) (“Parcel A.3”), 012-318-030
(315 Airport Boulevard) (“Parcel D”), 012-314-100 (405 Cypress Avenue) “(Parcel B”), and
012-314-220 (216 Miller Avenue parking lot) (“Parcel C”), each as more particularly described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Parcel A.1, Parcel A.2
and Parcel A.3 are collectively, “Parcel A.” Parcel A, Parcel B, Parcel C, and Parcel D are
collectively the “Property.” The Buyer has also entered a separate and private purchase and sale
agreement to acquire a property located at 309 Airport Boulevard from an unrelated third party
adjacent to Parcel D (“Parcel D Prime”).
B. WHEREAS, on June 29, 2011 the legislature of the State of California
(the “State”) adopted Assembly Bill x1 26 (“AB 26”), which amended provisions of the
Redevelopment Law, which together with the California Supreme Court decision in California
Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana Matosantos, et al., which upheld AB 26 (together with
AB 1484, the “Dissolution Law”), the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency was
dissolved on February 1, 2012.
C. WHEREAS, in August, 2014, the Agency and Buyer entered into an
Exclusive Negotiation Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) that established a mutual understanding
among the City, Agency, and the Buyer regarding the potential development of the Property.
D. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the Agency prepared a
Long Range Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”), which the Oversight Board to the Former
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (“Oversight Board”) approved on November 19,
201_, and the Department of Finance (“DOF”) approved on October 1, 2015.
E. WHEREAS, the LRPMP includes development plans for the Property,
which are consistent with this Agreement.
505
02/02/16 - 2 -
F. WHEREAS, consistent with the approved LRPMP, and subject to the
terms of this Agreement, Seller is interested in selling the Property to Buyer contingent upon
Buyer paying the Purchase Price required in Section 2.2 and obtaining land use entitlements
from the City of South San Francisco (“City”), and if such entitlements are granted, and
requiring the Buyer to construct (a) 260 multi-family residential rental units on Parcel A, Parcel
D and Parcel D Prime, (b) 12 townhomes on Parcel C (or as Project may be revised for Parcel C
as provided in this Agreement), and (c) 25 guest parking spaces on Parcel B (“Project”).
G. WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015, the City Council (i) certified an
Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse number 2013102001) in accordance
with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,
§§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental
impacts of the development of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (the “DSASP”), and
(ii) approved the DSASP which includes the Property and Parcel D Prime.
H. WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015, the City Council also adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”) in accordance with the provisions of CEQA
and CEQA Guidelines, which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact
identified in the EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light
of the DSASP’s economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits and City Council found
the Project consistent with the DSASP.
I. WHEREAS, on February 10, 2016 by Resolution Nos. ______ and
________ , and the City Council (i) adopted an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the
Project prepared by the City and certified that the Project would not result in any new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects
beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP EIR certified by City Council, or require any
new mitigation measures (“Environmental Consistency Analysis”), (2) approved the following
entitlements for the Project Conditional Use Permit (“UP”) 15-0027, Design Review (“DR”) 15-
0032, Waiver and Modification (“WM”) 15-0001, and Parking Exemption (“PE”) 15-0004, and
(ii) introduced Ordinance No. _________ approving a Development Agreement (“DA”) 15-0003
(collectively, the “Project Approvals”). On February 24, 2016, by City Council adopted
Ordinance No. ______ approving the DA. .
J. WHEREAS, in compliance with Section 6.10 of the DA between the City and
Buyer, the Buyer has agreed to pay prevailing wages pursuant to Labor Code Section 1720 et
seq. for the Project. In addition, Buyer has stated in public its intent to use union labor for the
construction of the Project.
K. WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34181(a)(1), the Seller
on February 10, 2016 and the Oversight Board on February 16, 2016 held duly noticed public
meetings to consider the sale of the Property to the Buyer pursuant to this Agreement.
506
02/02/16 - 3 -
L. WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. ____ dated February 10, 2016, the Seller
found that the sale of the Property is consistent with the disposition provisions of the LRPMP
and recommended that the Oversight Board approve this Agreement.
M. WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. ____dated ____________, 2016, the
Oversight Board found that (i) the sale of the Property is consistent with the disposition
provisions of the LRPMP and (ii) pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34179(h)(1)(D), as
a transfer of governmental property pursuant to the approved LRPMP, the Oversight Board is not
required to submit approval of this Agreement to DOF for approval and approved this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements contained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as
follows:
1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND EXHIBITS. The Recitals set
forth above and the Exhibits attached to this Agreement are each incorporated into the body of
this Agreement as if set forth in full.
2. PURCHASE AND SALE.
2.1 Agreement to Buy and Sell. Subject to the terms and conditions
set forth herein, Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer, and Buyer hereby agrees to acquire
the Property from Seller.
2.2 Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property to be paid by
Buyer to Seller (the “Purchase Price”) is Four Million and 00/100 Dollars ($4,000,000.00). The
Purchase Price shall be paid in cash at the Closing.
2.3 Supplemental Purchase Price for Parcel C. If the Buyer constructs
Parcel C (whether as (i) a 12 unit town home development consistent with the Project Approvals
(“12 Unit Project’) or (ii) as part of a revised development under the potential Land Assembly
Option defined in Section 5.6), the additional land value payable to the Seller for Parcel C will
be determined either by (X) a residual land value appraisal for Parcel C or, at Seller’s discretion,
(Y) on a comparison sales based appraisal both of which will be prepared by a certified appraiser
mutually selected by the Seller and Buyer within sixty (60) days of the date Buyer provides
written notice of either its intent to pursue the Revised Parcel C Entitlements its intent to
abandon the Revised Parcel C Entitlements and proceed with construction of the 12 Unit Project
(“Supplemental Purchase Price”). In the event that the parties do not agree on an appraiser, the
Seller shall identify three certified appraisers with experience appraising properties in San Mateo
County and each Party shall strike one appraiser and the remaining appraiser shall be retained to
conduct the appraisal. The costs of the appraisal shall be shared equally between the Seller and
Buyer. Buyer shall pay Seller the Supplemental Purchase Price prior to the earlier of ninety (90)
days after completion of the appraisal or issuance of the first building permit by the City for
507
02/02/16 - 4 -
Parcel C. This provision shall not apply if Buyer re-conveys Parcel C to Seller pursuant to
Section 5.6(e)(v).
3. ESCROW.
3.1 Escrow Account. Seller has opened an interest-bearing escrow
account (the “Escrow”) maintained by First American Title Insurance Company at the address
noted in Section 13.8 (the “Escrow Holder”), with interest accruing to the benefit of Buyer.
Escrow Holder shall perform all escrow and title services in connection with this Agreement.
3.2 Opening of Escrow. Within ten (10) business days after the
Effective Date, the Parties will deposit into Escrow the fully executed Agreement, or executed
counterparts thereto. The date such fully executed Agreement is received by Escrow Holder will
be deemed the “Opening of Escrow.”
3.3 Buyer’s Deposit. Upon the Opening of Escrow, the Buyer shall
deposit two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) in Escrow (“Buyer’s Initial Deposit”). The
Buyer’s Initial Deposit shall be non-refundable. Unless Buyer has delivered written notice to
Seller terminating this Agreement in accordance with Section 3.4 below, then upon expiration of
Buyer’s Due Diligence Contingency Period, as set forth in Section 5.2 below, Buyer shall
deposit an additional two hundred thousand dollars in Escrow (“Buyer’s Second Deposit”). In
the event of a failure to Close based on any of the following Buyer’s Conditions to Closing, the
Buyer shall be entitled to a refund of the Buyer’s Second Deposit: 5.2(b), 5.2(c), 5.2(e), 5.2(l),
and 5.2(m).
3.4 Satisfaction of Due Diligence Contingency. Buyer shall have the
right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement if Buyer disapproves of its inspection of
and due diligence pertaining to the Property as set forth in Section 5.2 (a) prior to the expiration
of the Due Diligence Period (also as defined in Section 5.2(a) below). Buyer hereby agrees to
provide written notice to Seller prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period if Buyer
disapproves any due diligence items and identify with reasonable specificity such disapproval.
Upon provision of such notice to Seller, this Agreement shall terminate, and, except as provided
in Section 5.2(a), all amounts deposited by Buyer into escrow (except the expended ENRA
Deposit, the Buyer’s Initial Deposit and the ENRA Extension Deposit as provided in Section 3.5
below), together with interest thereon, if any, will be returned to Buyer, and neither Party shall
have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement except those which expressly survive
the termination hereof. If Buyer fails to notify Seller in writing of the disapproval of any due
diligence items, it will be conclusively presumed that Buyer has approved all such items, matters
or documents and this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
3.5 Application of Prior ENRA Deposit. Pursuant to Section 5 of the
ENRA, Buyer has already submitted directly to Seller a deposit in the amount of Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000) to cover the actual costs that the Seller has incurred and will incur in
furtherance of this Agreement (“ENRA Deposit”), and an additional Twenty Five Thousand
($25,000) Dollars related to the ENRA extension (“ENRA Extension Deposit”). Seller has
508
02/02/16 - 5 -
deposited the ENRA Deposit and the ENRA Extension Deposit in an interest bearing account
and any interest, when received by Seller, will become part of the ENRA Deposit. On or before
expiration of this Agreement, the Seller may, draw on the ENRA Deposit to reimburse the
Seller’s cost for third-party assistance and staff time in the negotiations for and preparation of
this Agreement. Upon Closing, the Seller will apply any unused portion of the ENRA Deposit to
the Purchase Price. In the event that Buyer terminates this Agreement in accordance with
Section 3.4 above, Buyer shall only be entitled to the unused portion of the ENRA Deposit and
the Seller shall be entitled to the ENRA Extension Deposit.
3.6 Environmental Remediation Regulatory Approval Successor
Agency Assistance. At Closing, the Buyer agrees to take title of the Property in AS IS WHERE
IS condition with no environmental remediation work required by or indemnities from the Seller
or the City of South San Francisco. Seller, at Buyer’s expense, agrees to cooperate with Buyer to
obtain regulatory approval of the necessary environmental work for the Property (including but
not limited to the California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act) to be suitable for unrestricted
residential use consistent with the uses proposed in the Project Approvals prior to and as a Buyer
condition to Closing. Buyer will then manage and complete the remediation work necessary to
make the Property suitable for unrestricted residential use consistent with the uses proposed in
the Project Approvals after Closing. After Closing, Seller shall have no further obligations with
respect to Environmental and/or Natural Hazards remediation costs (except in the event Parcel C
is re-conveyed to the Seller pursuant to the applicable provisions of Section 5.6.
4. PROPERTY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
4.1 Condition of Title/Preliminary Title Report. Buyer hereby
approves the following exceptions which shall be referred to herein as the “Pre-Approved
Exceptions”: (a) the lien of any non-delinquent property taxes and assessments (which, if any
exist, shall be prorated by the Title Company at Closing); (b) the Memorandum of Agreement,
(c) the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in the Grant Deed, (d) standard printed
exceptions in the Preliminary Report; and (e) the exceptions shown on Exhibit C attached hereto.
Within five (5) business days of Opening of Escrow, Escrow Holder will deliver an updated
Preliminary Title Report for the Property (the “Preliminary Report”) to Buyer. Buyer will have
ten (10) business days from receipt to review the Preliminary Report and deliver to Seller a
written notice indicating any disapproved exceptions (“Dis-Approved Exceptions”). The Pre-
Approved Exceptions and any other exceptions otherwise accepted by Buyer as provided herein
are hereinafter referred to as the “Condition of Title.” Subject to the Seller’s covenant in
Section 6.1(b) to neither cause nor voluntarily permit, any new lien, encumbrance or any other
matter that changes the condition of title to the Property, if any exceptions other than the Pre-
Approved Exceptions are reported by the Title Company, then any such new exception shall be
Disapproved Exceptions unless the new exceptions (i) arise from the acts or omissions of Buyer,
or (ii) are consented to or waived in writing by Buyer in its sole discretion. The Seller agrees
that the “Required Dis-Approved Exceptions” set forth on Exhibit C are critical to the Project
and agrees that if such Required Dis-Approved Exceptions are not removed by date that the
Seller’s Conditions to Closing and Buyer’s Conditions to Closing are otherwise satisfied (or
509
02/02/16 - 6 -
waived by Buyer), then the Buyer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this
Agreement and the Buyer shall right to full refund of the Buyer’s Second Deposit.
4.2 Environmental and Natural Hazards Disclosure. California Health
& Safety Code section 25359.7 requires owners of non-residential real property who know, or
have reasonable cause to believe, that any release of hazardous substances are located on or
beneath the real property to provide written notice of same to the buyer of real property. Other
applicable laws require Seller to provide certain disclosures regarding natural hazards affecting
the Property. Seller warrants that as of the Date of Agreement, it has provided to Buyer all
reports of potential hazardous substances located on or beneath the Property that Seller
possesses. Seller further agrees to make all necessary disclosures required by law.
5. CLOSING, PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE AND POST CLOSING
OBLIGATIONS OF BUYER.
5.1 Closing. The closing (the “Closing” or “Close of Escrow”) will
occur for the Property including Parcels A, B, C and D no later than the date set forth in Section
5.6(b), unless such date for Closing is extended by Force Majeure Delay or as provided on in
Sections 5.6.1, 5.6.2 or 5.6.3 herein (“Closing Date”). In addition to the extensions of the
Closing Date in Section 5.6.1, 5.6.2 and 5.6.3, the Closing Date shall be extended where a
Party’s Conditions to Closing under Section 5.2 (Buyer) and 5.3 (Seller) have not been satisfied
as a result of a Force Majeure Event.
5.2 Buyer’s Conditions to Closing. Buyer's obligation to purchase the
Property is subject to the satisfaction of each and all of the following conditions precedent
(“Buyer Conditions Precedent”) or Buyer's written waiver thereof (each in Buyer’s sole
discretion) on or before the Closing Date:
(a) Due Diligence. Buyer has approved the condition of the Property
in Buyer’s sole and absolute discretion. Consistent with Section 3.6 above Buyer acknowledges
the existence of Underground Storage Tanks on Parcels A and D and lead on Parcels B and C, as
evidenced in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Airport Boulevard Properties, South
San Francisco, California dated January 2016 prepared by WEST Environmental Services and
Technology (“Environmental Report”) prepared for Buyer and Buyer agrees that the existence
of such conditions as described in the Environmental Report shall not be the sole grounds upon
which Buyer denies approval of the condition of the Property under Section 3.4 above. Buyer
will have forty-five (45) calendar days from Opening of Escrow (the “Due Diligence Period”) to
complete physical inspections of the Property and due diligence related to the purchase of the
Property. Seller shall provide to Buyer copies of all reasonably available and known documents
relating to the ownership and operation of the Property, including but not limited to plans,
permits and reports (environmental, structural, mechanical, engineering and land surveys) that
Seller has in its possession not later than two (2) business days following the execution and
delivery of this Agreement. All physical access to the Property must be coordinated with
Seller’s representative and subject to Section 13.16.
510
02/02/16 - 7 -
(b) No Default by Seller or City. Seller is not in default and has
performed all obligations to be performed by Seller pursuant to this Agreement, and the City is
not in default under the Development Agreement.
(c) Representations and Warranties. Seller's representations and
warranties herein are true and correct in all material respects as of the Closing Date.
(d) Title Policy. The Title Company shall, upon payment of Title
Company’s regularly scheduled premium, be irrevocably committed to issue an ALTA Extended
Title Policy to Buyer upon recordation of the Grant Deed and effective as of the Closing Date,
insuring title to Buyer in the full amount of the Purchase Price and subject only to the Pre-
Approved Exceptions or the Condition of Title.
(e) Absence of Proceedings. There shall be an absence of any
condemnation, environmental or other pending governmental or any type of administrative or
legal proceedings with respect to the Property or this Agreement which would materially and
adversely affect Buyer’s intended uses of the Property or the value of the Property.
(f) No Material Adverse Change. There shall not have occurred
between the Date of Agreement and the Closing a material adverse change to the physical
condition of the Property.
(g) Financing Commitments. Buyer shall have financing
commitments that are not materially different than Buyer’s financing term sheet as of the Date of
this Agreement that is sufficient for the acquisition of the Property and construction of 260
residential rental units on Parcels A, Parcel D and Parcel D Prime for the Project and Buyer’s
construction loan, if any, shall have closed or shall be ready to close concurrently with the
Closing.
(h) Project Approvals. The Project Approvals shall be final and non-
appealable, and if any appeals, legal challenges, requests for rehearing, or referenda have been
filed or instituted, such appeals, legal challenges, requests for rehearing, or referenda shall have
been fully and finally resolved in a manner acceptable to Buyer in its sole and absolute discretion
and such that no further appeals, legal challenges, requests for rehearing, or referenda are
possible.
(i) Permits. Subject to payment of the applicable fees, the City shall
be ready and willing to issue the ministerial demolition, grading, foundation permit and building
permit(s) necessary for the Buyer to meet its obligations in Section 5.6(b)(1) and Section
5.6(c)(i) and (c)(ii).
(j) No Leases or Parties in Possession. Seller shall have demonstrated
the ability to deliver fee title to the Property to Buyer free and clear of any tenants, lessees,
licensees or any third party occupants or parties in possession.
511
02/02/16 - 8 -
(k) Remediation Plan Approval. Buyer shall, in the Buyer’s
reasonable business judgment, have obtained regulatory approval of the necessary environmental
work for the Property (including but not limited to the California Land Reuse and Revitalization
Act) to be suitable for unrestricted residential use consistent with the uses proposed in the Project
Approvals and that such regulatory approval would not cause or result in a material adverse
delay in the time to commence or construct the Project, a substantial increase (defined as an
increase of $100,000) in the costs assumptions for the Project in the pro forma previously
provided by Buyer related to environmental conditions as of the Date of Agreement, or a
material adverse impact to the Project or the use of the Project.
(l) Compliance with Dissolution Law. Seller shall have complied
with all requirements and obtained any and all approvals required under the Dissolution Law
with respect to Closing.
(m) Execution and Delivery of Documents by Seller. Seller shall have
executed and acknowledged the Grant Deed and Memorandum of Agreement, and Seller shall
have executed (and, where appropriate, acknowledged) and delivered into escrow all other
documents that Seller is required to deliver into escrow pursuant to Section 5.5(a).
5.3 Seller’s Conditions to Closing. Seller's obligation to sell the
Property is subject to the satisfaction of each and all of the following conditions precedent
(“Seller Conditions Precedent”) or Seller's written waiver thereof (each in Seller’s sole
discretion) on or before the Closing Date:
(a) No Default by Buyer or City. Seller is not in default and has
performed all obligations to be performed by Seller pursuant to this Agreement, and neither the
Buyer or City is in default under the Development Agreement.
(b) Development Agreement. The City Council approves a
Development Agreement with the Buyer in a form substantially similar to the Development
Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit D, and such Development Agreement is executed and will
be recorded concurrently with the Close of Escrow as provided in Section 5.5.
(c) Representations and Warranties. Buyer's representations and
warranties set forth herein are true and correct in all material respects as of the Closing Date.
(d) Buyer’s Financing Commitments. Buyer has provided Seller
written confirmation, acceptable to Seller, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld,
that Buyer has obtained financing commitments for the acquisition and construction financing
for the acquisition of the Property and the construction of 260 residential rental units on Parcel
A, Parcel D and Parcel D Prime.
(e) Permits. The Buyer shall have submitted applications to the City
pursuant to Section 5.6(a), and subject to payment of the applicable fees, the City shall be ready
512
02/02/16 - 9 -
and willing to issue the ministerial demolition, grading and foundation permit(s) necessary for
the Buyer to Commence of Construction as defined in Section 5.6(c)(i) and (ii).
(f) Compliance with Dissolution Law. Seller shall have complied
with all requirements and obtained any and all approvals required under the Dissolution Law
with respect to Closing.
(g) Execution and Delivery of Documents by Buyer. Buyer shall
have executed and acknowledged the Grant Deed and Memorandum of Agreement, and Buyer
shall have executed (and, where appropriate, acknowledged) and delivered into escrow all other
documents that Buyer is required to deliver into escrow pursuant to Section 5.5(b).
(h) Delivery of Funds. Buyer shall have delivered through escrow the
Purchase Price and such other funds, including escrow costs, recording fees and other closing
costs as are necessary to comply with Buyer’s obligations under this Agreement.
5.4 Conveyance of Title. Seller will deliver marketable fee simple title
to Buyer at the Closing, subject only to the Condition of Title pursuant to Section 4.1. The
Property will be conveyed by Seller to Buyer in an “as is” condition, with no warranty, express
or implied, by Seller as to the physical condition including, but not limited to, the soil, its
geology, or the presence of known or unknown faults or Hazardous Materials or hazardous waste
(as defined by Section 12); provided, however, that the foregoing shall not relieve Seller from
disclosure of any such conditions of which Seller has actual knowledge or its obligation to
cooperate with Buyer pursuant to Section 2.6.
5.5 Closing.
5.5.1 Delivery of Documents and Closing Funds. At or prior to Closing,
Seller and Buyer shall each deposit such other instruments as are reasonably required by the Title
Company or otherwise required to close the escrow and consummate the conveyance of the
Property in accordance with the terms hereof, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Deliveries by Seller. At or before Closing, Seller shall deposit the
following into escrow:
A. one (1) original executed and acknowledged Grant Deed
substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B (“Grant Deed”);
B. one (1) original executed and acknowledged Memorandum
of Agreement, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D (“Memorandum of
Agreement”);
C. one (1) duly executed non-foreign certification for the
Property in accordance with the requirements of Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended; and
D. one (1) duly executed California Form 593-W Certificate
for the Property or comparable non-foreign person affidavit to satisfy the requirements of
California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 18805(b) and 26131.
513
02/02/16 - 10 -
(b) Deliveries by Buyer. At or prior to Closing, Buyer shall deposit the
following into escrow:
A. immediately available funds in the amount, which together
with the Buyer’s Deposit plus interest thereon, if any, is equal to an amount necessary to
consummate the Closing, including the Purchase Price, escrow and Title Policy costs set forth in
Section 5.5.5;
B. one (1) original executed and acknowledged Grant Deed;
C. one (1) original executed and acknowledged Memorandum
of Agreement; and
D. one (1) original executed Preliminary Change of
Ownership Report for the Property.
E. one (1) fully executed Development Agreement in a form
substantially similar to the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit D.
5.5.2 Escrow Instructions. This Agreement constitutes the joint escrow
instructions of Seller and Buyer with respect to the conveyance of the Property to Buyer, and the
Escrow Agent to whom these instructions are delivered is hereby empowered to act under this
Agreement. The parties shall use reasonable good faith efforts to close the escrow for the
conveyance of the Property in the shortest possible time. Insurance policies for fire or casualty
are not to be transferred, and each Party will cancel its own policies, if any, as of the Closing.
All funds received in the escrow shall be deposited in interest-bearing accounts for the benefit of
the depositing Party in any state or national bank doing business in the State of California. All
disbursements shall be made by check or wire transfer from such accounts. If, in the opinion of
either Party, it is necessary or convenient in order to accomplish the Closing, such Party may
provide supplemental escrow instructions; provided that if there is any inconsistency between
this Agreement and the supplemental escrow instructions, then the provisions of this Agreement
shall control. The Closing shall take place as set forth in Section 5.5.4 below. Escrow Agent is
instructed to release Seller’s and Buyer’s escrow closing statements to the respective parties.
5.5.3 Authority of Escrow Agent. Escrow Agent is authorized to, and
shall:
(a) Pay and charge Buyer for the premium of the Title Policy,
including any endorsements requested by Buyer.
(b) Pay and charge Buyer for escrow fees, charges, and costs as
provided in Section 5.5.5.
(c) Disburse to Seller the Purchase Price, less Seller’s share of any
escrow fees, costs and expenses, and record the Grant Deed when both the Buyer Conditions
Precedent and Seller Conditions Precedent have been fulfilled or waived in writing by Buyer and
Seller, as applicable. Immediately following recordation of the Grant Deed, Escrow Agent shall
record the Memorandum of Agreement, Development Agreement and all other recordable
documents delivered into escrow for the Closing.
(d) Do such other actions as necessary, including obtaining and
issuing the Title Policy, to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement.
514
02/02/16 - 11 -
(e) Direct Seller and Buyer to execute and deliver any instrument,
affidavit, and statement, and to perform any act, reasonably necessary to comply with the
provisions of FIRPTA, if applicable, and any similar state act and regulations promulgated
thereunder.
(f) Prepare and file with all appropriate governmental or taxing
authorities uniform settlement statements, closing statements, tax withholding forms including
IRS 1099-S forms, and be responsible for withholding taxes, if any such forms are provided for
or required by law.
5.5.4 Closing. The escrow for conveyance of the Property shall close
(“Close of Escrow”) within thirty (30) days after the satisfaction, or waiver by the appropriate
Party, of all of the Buyer Conditions Precedent and all of the Seller Conditions Precedent. For
purposes of this Agreement, the “Closing” shall mean the time and day the Grant Deed is
recorded with the San Mateo County recorder.
5.5.5 Closing Costs. Buyer will pay all escrow fees (including the costs of
preparing documents and instruments), and recording fees. Buyer will also pay title insurance,
title report costs and all transfer taxes. Seller will pay all governmental conveyance fees, where
applicable.
5.5.6 Pro-Rations. At the Close of Escrow, the Escrow Agent shall make
the following prorations: (i) property taxes and assessments will be prorated as of the close of
escrow based upon the most recent tax bill available, including any property taxes which may be
assessed after the close of escrow but which pertain to the period prior to the transfer of title to
the Property to Buyer, regardless of when or to whom notice thereof is delivered; and (ii) any
bond or assessment (other than assessments allocable to the period of time prior to Close of
Escrow) that constitutes a lien on the Property at the close of escrow will be assumed by Buyer.
Seller does not pay ad valorem taxes.
5.6 Buyer’s Post Closing Obligations, Subject to Force Majeure Delay
as set forth in Section 7.4 and the extensions provided in Sections 5.6.1, 5.6.2, and 5.6.3, as
applicable, Buyer shall complete the following in the time set forth below.
Deadline Buyer Post-Closing Obligation
Prior to June 30,
2016
5.6 (a) Buyer shall prepare and submit complete construction documents
including building permit submittal documents which satisfy all
submission requirements for 260 multi-family residential rental units
approved as in the Project Approvals. Seller’s exclusive remedies for a
Buyer Default for this Section 5.6(a) are (1) termination of the
Agreement under Section 7.3 and (2) liquidated damages under Section
7.2.2.
Prior to December
31, 2016
5.6 (b) Buyer shall:
(i) Obtain demolition and foundation permits for Parcels A, B and D
515
02/02/16 - 12 -
Deadline Buyer Post-Closing Obligation
and D Prime, as applicable consistent with the Project Approvals.
(ii) Close escrow on Parcels A, B, C and D pursuant to Section 5.1.
(iii) Buyer to either (A) prepare and submit to the City Manager
Buyer’s land assembly and proposed development options for
Buyer’s potential acquisition of some or all properties on the north
side of Miller Avenue between Parcels B and C (“Land Assembly
Option”), or (B) submit written notice of intent not to proceed with
the Land Assembly Option.
Seller’s exclusive remedies for a Buyer Default for Section 5.6(b)(i)
and (ii) are (1) termination of the Agreement under Section 7.3 and
(2) liquidated damages under Section 7.2.2. Buyer shall not be in
Default under Section 5.6(b)(iii), but Seller shall withhold
conveyance of Parcel C from Closing if Buyer either does not submit
a timely written notice to proceed with the Land Assembly Option or
if Buyer submits a notice of intent not to proceed with the Land
Assembly Option. If Parcel C is not conveyed to Seller, Buyer shall
also assign all of its rights in the land use entitlements, the
development, engineering, construction and building plans (“Parcel
C Plans”) to the Seller, or Seller’s designee, and shall deliver a
complete set of the Parcel C Plans to the Seller, or designated
recipient within South San Francisco.
Prior to March 31,
2017
5.6(c) The Buyer shall:
(i) Commence and complete demolition of existing structures on the
Parcel A, Parcel D and Parcel D Prime. The existing parking lot on
Parcel B is intended to be used for construction staging so will not be
subject to demolition and commencement of construction of the
replacement parking lot until near completion of construction on
Parcel A, Parcel D and Parcel D Prime.
(ii) Commence Construction of 260 multi-family residential rental
units approved as part of City issued permits consistent with the
Project Approvals on Parcels A, B and D and Parcel D Prime.
“Commence Construction” shall be deemed to have occurred when
Buyer has obtained grading and foundation permits and has
commenced work on the grading and foundations for Parcels A and
D.
(iii) If Buyer has submitted a notice to proceed with the Land
516
02/02/16 - 13 -
Deadline Buyer Post-Closing Obligation
Assembly Option then either (i) file complete application, pursuant to
City of South San Francisco land use application requirements, for
revised land use entitlements for Parcel C including adjacent land
provided that Buyer has acquired or has an enforceable option to
acquire all properties adjacent to the north side of Miller Avenue that
are located between Parcels B and C (“Revised Parcel C
Entitlements Application”), or (ii) submit written notice of intent not
to proceed with the Revised Parcel C Entitlements Application. The
Revised Parcel C Entitlements Application shall be subject to any
applicable CEQA requirements and all applicable City land use
entitlement processes.
Seller’s exclusive remedies for a Buyer Default for Section 5.6(c)(i)
and (ii) is specific performance under this Agreement.
Buyer shall not be in Default under Section 5.6(c)(iii), but Seller has
the right to cause the Buyer to re-convey of Parcel C if Buyer either
does not submit a timely written notice to proceed with the Revised
Parcel C Entitlements Application or if Buyer submits a notice of
intent not to proceed with the Revised Parcel C Entitlements
Application. If Parcel C is re-conveyed to Seller, Buyer shall also
assign all of its rights in the Parcel C Plans to the Seller, or Seller’s
designee, and shall deliver a complete set of the Parcel C Plans to the
Seller, or designated recipient within South San Francisco. In the
event Buyer submits a notice of intent not to proceed, Seller and Buyer
agree to take all actions necessary to re-convey Parcel C to the Seller
and Seller shall accept re-conveyance of Parcel C and the Parcel C
Plans.
Prior to March 31,
2018
5.6 (d)
(i) If Buyer has submitted a notice to proceed with the Land Assembly
Option and a notice to proceed with the Revised Parcel C Entitlements
Application, then the Buyer shall either (A) provide written
confirmation to the Seller that Buyer has acquired or has an
enforceable option to acquire, on terms that are acceptable to Buyer in
in sole discretion the property subject to the Land Assembly Option
(the written confirmation shall include either a copy of the purchase or
option agreement or written confirmation from the sellers of the
properties that Buyer has an enforceable option to acquire the
properties), or (B) provide written notice of intent to abandon its Land
Assembly Option.
(ii) If the Buyer has not delivered a notice of intent to abandon its
517
02/02/16 - 14 -
Deadline Buyer Post-Closing Obligation
Land Assembly Option, then Buyer shall diligently pursue and take all
actions necessary for the City to conduct all required public hearings
and consider the Revised Parcel C Entitlements.
Buyer shall not be in Default under Section 5.6(d)(i) and (i), but Seller
has the right to cause the Buyer to re-convey of Parcel C if Buyer
either does proceed as provided under Section 5.6(d)(i) or (ii). If
Parcel C is re-conveyed to Seller, Buyer shall also assign all of its
rights in the Parcel C Plans to the Seller, or Seller’s designee, and shall
deliver a complete set of the Parcel C Plans to the Seller, or designated
recipient within South San Francisco. In the event Buyer submits a
notice of intent not to proceed, Seller and Buyer agree to take all
actions necessary to re-convey Parcel C to the Seller and Seller shall
accept re-conveyance of Parcel C and the Parcel C Plans.
Prior to March 31,
2019
5.6 (e) The Buyer shall:
(i) Substantially Complete development of the 260 multi-family
residential rental properties on Parcel A, Parcel D and Parcel D Prime.
As used herein “Substantially Complete” or “Substantial
Completion” shall be deemed to have occurred when (i) Buyer has
provided written evidence to the City Manager that eighty five (85)
percent of the contract price for the construction of the 260 multi-
family residential rental units (including all change orders and all
amounts due and payable to the contractor under the construction
contract for work performed but being held as retention by Buyer
under the terms of the construction contract) has been expended, (ii)
all exterior building improvements and all interior building
improvements are complete with the exception of finish work defined
as flooring, counters, countertops, appliances, finish mechanical,
electrical, plumbing, and carpentry, paint, landscaping, and interior of
elevators, and (iii) the City Manager determines, in his or her
reasonable discretion that the life safety systems, including but not
limited to all required sprinkler systems, within the applicable portion
have been installed and are fully functional.
(ii) open a leasing center for the 260 multi-family residential rental
units on the Property or within the Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan Area.
(iii) Complete construction and obtain a certificate of occupancy for
the parking lot improvements required for Parcel B, provided that if
Buyer has obtained Revised Parcel C Entitlements and those land use
entitlements modify development on Parcel B, then Buyer shall
518
02/02/16 - 15 -
Deadline Buyer Post-Closing Obligation
develop Parcel B pursuant to the Revised Parcel C Entitlements.
(iv) Commence construction of development of twelve townhomes
approved consistent with the Project Approvals, or if Revised Parcel C
Entitlements have been approved by the City then Commence
Construction of the project approved as part of the Revised Parcel C
Entitlements. “Commence Construction” shall be deemed to have
occurred when Buyer has obtained grading and foundation permits and
has commenced work on the grading and foundations.
(v) If Buyer has not commenced construction as required in
subsection (iv) above, and if Buyer has obtained Revised Parcel C
Entitlements and has provided written confirmation that Buyer has
acquired or has an enforceable option to acquire the property as set
forth in Section 5.6(d)(i) above, Buyer upon payment of $100,000 to
the Seller prior to the Commence Construction deadline may extend
the deadline to Commence Construction on Parcel C for one year.
Seller’s exclusive remedies for a Buyer Default for Section 5.6(e)(i),
(ii) and (iii) is specific performance under this Agreement. Buyer shall
not be in Default under Section 5.6(e)(v), but Seller has the right to
cause the Buyer to re-convey Parcel C if Buyer either does not submit
a timely written notice to proceed with the Revised Parcel C
Entitlements Application or if Buyer submits a notice of intent not to
proceed with the Revised Parcel C Entitlements Application. If Parcel
C is re-conveyed to Seller, Buyer shall also assign all of its rights in
the Parcel C Plans to the Seller, or Seller’s designee, and shall deliver
a complete set of the Parcel C Plans to the Seller, or designated
recipient within South San Francisco. In the event Buyer submits a
notice of intent not to proceed, Seller and Buyer agree to take all
actions necessary to re-convey Parcel C to the Seller and Seller shall
accept re-conveyance of Parcel C and the Parcel C Plans.
5.6.1 Seller’s Extension: The deadlines set forth in Section 5.6, subsections (a) through
(e) shall each be subject to a ninety (90) day extension, provided (1) that the Buyer submits a
written request for an extension prior to the deadline which shall include the rationale for the
request and summary of the actions Buyer has taken to satisfy the obligation prior to the deadline
and (2) the extension request is approved by the Executive Director or South San Francisco City
Manager, which such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
5.6.2 Buyer’s Extension. The deadlines set forth in Section 5.6 (a) be subject to a
maximum of two extensions of 30 days (no more than 60 days for 5.6(a)) and a maximum of
519
02/02/16 - 16 -
four extensions of 30 days (no more than 120 days for 5.6(b) upon written notice to Seller and
Buyer’s payment to Seller of $25,000 for each such 30-day extension.
5.6.3 City Review: This deadlines set forth in Section 5.6, subsections (b), (c) and (e)(iv)
are each contingent upon the City reviewing and providing comments or approving the grading
and building plans submitted by Buyer within twenty one (21) days of submission of complete
grading or building plans. This 21 day period shall commence anew each time that Buyer
submits revised plans in response to City comments on the prior version of the grading or
building plans. Buyer shall be solely responsible for submitting complete grading or building
plans that satisfy all code and City requirements. Buyer shall be responsible for payment of all
required City building permit fees including costs for City to retain contract plan check services.
In the event that City review exceeds 21 days, the deadline set forth herein shall be extended one
day for each day the City review exceeds 21 days.
5.6.4 Community Enhancements Payments. In the event that Buyer fails to pay the City
when due any portion of the Community Enhancements Payment as set forth in Section 2.4 of
Exhibit E to the DA between Buyer and City, Buyer shall, upon written notice from Seller and
upon completion of a thirty (30) day cure period, pay Seller the amount payable under Section
2.4 of the DA not previously paid by the Buyer.
6. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS.
6.1 Seller’s Representations, Warranties and Covenants. In addition to
the representations, warranties and covenants of Seller contained in other sections of this
Agreement, Seller hereby represents, warrants and covenants to Buyer that the statements below
in this Section 6.1 are each true and correct as of the Closing Date provided however, if to
Seller’s actual knowledge any such statement becomes untrue prior to Closing, Seller will notify
Buyer in writing and Buyer will have three (3) business days thereafter to determine if Buyer
wishes to proceed with Closing. If Buyer determines it does not wish to proceed, then the terms
of Section 7.2 will apply.
(a) Authority. Seller is a public agency, lawfully formed, in
existence and in good standing under the laws of the State of California. Seller has the full right,
capacity, power and authority to enter into and carry out the terms of this Agreement. This
Agreement has been duly executed by Seller, and upon delivery to and execution by Buyer is a
valid and binding agreement of Seller.
(b) Encumbrances. Other than the Mural License Agreement
related to the mural “Transporting Oneself” located at 415 Airport Boulevard and the exceptions
set forth in the Preliminary Title Report, Seller has not alienated, encumbered, transferred,
mortgaged, assigned, pledged, or otherwise conveyed its interest in the Property or any portion
thereof, nor entered into any agreement to do so, and there are no liens, encumbrances,
mortgages, covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, easements or other matters affecting
the Property, except as disclosed in the Preliminary Report. Seller shall not, directly or
indirectly, alienate, encumber, transfer, mortgage, assign, pledge, or otherwise convey its interest
520
02/02/16 - 17 -
prior to the Close of Escrow, as long as this Agreement is in force. Seller shall cooperate with
Buyer, at no out of pocket cost to the Seller, to comply with the requirements of the Project
Approvals Planning Condition of Approval No. 9 that the Parties acknowledge is required to be
satisfied prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit for the Project.
(c) No Right of Possession. Other than the Mural License
Agreement related to the mural “Transporting Oneself” located at 415 Airport Boulevard, there
are no agreements, including any leases, licenses and occupancy agreements, affecting the
Property. There are no agreements which will be binding on the Buyer or the Property after the
Close of Escrow. Other than the utility easements set forth on the Preliminary Title Report, no
person or entity other than Seller has the right to use, occupy, or possess the Property or any
portion thereof. Seller will not enter into any lease or other agreement affecting the Property or
any portion thereof without the written consent of Buyer.
(d) No Conflict. Seller’s execution, delivery and performance
of its obligations under this Agreement will not constitute a default or a breach under any
contract, agreement or order to which Seller is a party or by which Seller is bound.
(e) No Litigation or Other Proceeding. To Seller’s current
actual knowledge, no litigation or other proceeding (whether administrative or otherwise) is
outstanding or has been threatened which would prevent, hinder or delay the ability of Seller to
perform its obligations under this Agreement, or that would adversely affect the Property.
(f) No Seller Bankruptcy. Seller is not the subject of any
bankruptcy proceeding, and no general assignment or general arrangement for the benefit of
creditors or the appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of all or substantially all
of Seller’s assets has been made.
(g) Condition of Property. Seller has no notice of any pending
or threatened action or proceeding arising out of the condition of the Property or any alleged
violation of any Environmental Laws. Except as otherwise disclosed by City and provided in
Section 3.6, to Seller’s actual current knowledge, the Property is in compliance with all
Environmental Laws. The Seller will not make or allow any material adverse change to the
condition of the Property.
The truth and accuracy of each of the representations and warranties, and the
performance of all covenants of Seller contained in this Agreement are conditions precedent to
Buyer’s obligation to proceed with the Closing hereunder. The foregoing representations and
warranties shall not be deemed merged into the deed upon closing and shall survive the Close of
Escrow until the satisfaction of the Buyer’s Post-Closing Obligations under Section 5.6 and shall
survive any earlier expiration or termination of this Agreement for a period of twelve (12)
months.
6.2 Buyer’s Representations and Warranties. In addition to the
representations, warranties and covenants of Buyer contained in other sections of this
Agreement, Buyer hereby represents, warrants and covenants to Seller that the statements below
521
02/02/16 - 18 -
in this Section 6.2 are each true as of the Date of Agreement, and, if to Buyer’s actual knowledge
any such statement becomes untrue prior to Closing, Buyer shall so notify Seller in writing and
Seller shall have at least three (3) business days thereafter to determine if Seller wishes to
proceed with Closing. If Seller determines it does not wish to proceed, then the terms of Section
7.2 will apply.
(a) Authority. Buyer is a limited liability company. Buyer has the
full right, capacity, power and authority to enter into and carry out the terms of this Agreement.
This Agreement has been duly executed by Buyer, and upon delivery to and execution by Seller
shall be a valid and binding agreement of Buyer.
(b) No Bankruptcy. Buyer is not bankrupt or insolvent under any
applicable federal or state standard, has not filed for protection or relief under any applicable
bankruptcy or creditor protection statute, and has not been threatened by creditors with an
involuntary application of any applicable bankruptcy or creditor protection statute.
The truth and accuracy of each of the representations and warranties, and the
performance of all covenants of Buyer contained in this Agreement are conditions precedent to
Seller’s obligation to proceed with the Closing hereunder. The foregoing representations and
warranties shall survive the Closing and continue until issuance of a satisfaction of the Buyer’s
Post-Closing Obligations under Section 5.6.
7. DEFAULT, REMEDIES, TERMINATION.
7.1 Default Remedies - General. Failure by either Party to perform any action
or covenant required by this Agreement within sixty (60) days following receipt of written
Notice from the other Party specifying the failure shall constitute a “Default” under this
Agreement; provided, however, that if the failure to perform cannot be reasonably cured within
such sixty (60) day period, a Party shall be allowed additional time as is reasonably necessary to
cure the failure so long as such Party commences to cure the failure within the sixty (6 0) day
period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the cure to completion. Subject to the limitations of
Section 7.2 below, any default by the Buyer under the Development Agreement which is not
cured following notice and expiration of any applicable cure periods thereunder shall also
constitute a Default under this Agreement, and upon occurrence of such Default and without any
right to further notice or additional cure period, the Seller shall have all remedies available to it
under this Agreement, including the right to terminate this Agreement as set forth in Section 7.3
below.
7.2 Legal Actions.
7.2.1 Institution of Legal Actions and Remedies. Upon the occurrence
of a Default under this Agreement, the non-defaulting Party shall have the right to institute any
action at law or in equity to cure, correct, prevent or remedy such Default, subject to the express
limitations on remedies provided in this Section 7.2.1. Neither Party shall have the right to
recover any punitive, consequential, or special damages. Such legal actions must be instituted in
522
02/02/16 - 19 -
the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, State of California, or in the Federal District
Court for the Northern District of the State of California.
7.2.1.1 Default by Buyer; Seller’s Remedies. The Seller’s
remedies shall be expressly limited as follows:
a. Pre-Closing. Upon the occurrence of a Default by Buyer that
occurs before Closing under Section 5.2, Section 5.5, Section 5.6(a), 5.6 (b)(1) and (b)(ii), and
Section 6.2, the Seller’s remedies shall be limited to (i) liquidated damages pursuant to Section
7.2.2 and (ii) termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 7.3.
b. Post-Closing. Upon the occurrence of a Default by Buyer that
occurs after Closing under Section 5.6 (b), 5.6(c), 5.6(d) and 5.6(e), the Seller’s remedies shall
be limited to the remedies expressly provided with respect to each obligation set forth in Sections
under each of Section 5.6 (b), 5.6(c), 5.6(d) and 5.6(e), as applicable.
7.2.1.2 Default by Seller; Buyer’s Remedies. Upon the
occurrence of a Default by Seller under this Agreement, Buyer’s remedies shall be limited to
obtaining specific performance or injunctive relief, or terminating this Agreement.
7.2.2 Liquidated Damages. SUBJECT TO NOTICE AND EXPIRATION
OF APPLICABLE CURE PERIODS AND ANY PERMITTED EXTENSIONS OF TIME AS
PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT, IF IN THE EVENT OF A BUYER DEFAULT AS SET
FORTH IN 7.2.1.1, THE SELLER WILL SUFFER DAMAGES AND THAT IT IS
IMPRACTICABLE AND INFEASIBLE TO FIX THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF SUCH
DAMAGES. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON
THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, IN THE EVENT OF A CLOSING DEFAULT, BUYER,
WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FOLLOWING SELLER’S WRITTEN DEMAND THEREFOR,
SHALL TURN OVER ALL REPORTS AND PLANS IN THE BUYER’S ACTUAL OR
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION THAT HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY AND FOR BUYER
RELATED TO THE PROJECT AND THE PROPERTY (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
BUYER’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION,
AND ANY INFORMATION SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE) (THE “MATERIALS.”)
THE BUYER’S INITIAL DEPOSIT, AND WHERE APPLICABLE UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT, BUYER’S SECOND DEPOSIT, AND MATERIALS SHALL SERVE AS
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO THE SELLER FOR A DEFAULT SPECIFIED IN SECTION
7.2.1.1(a). THE VALUE OF THE BUYER’S INITIAL DEPOSIT, AND WHERE
APPLICABLE BUYER’S SECOND DEPOSIT, AND MATERIALS CONSTITUTES A
REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE DAMAGES THAT THE SELLER WOULD INCUR IN
THE EVENT OF A CLOSING DEFAULT. RETENTION OF THE BUYER’S INITIAL
DEPOSIT, AND WHERE APPLICABLE BUYER’S SECOND DEPOSIT, AND MATERIALS
SHALL BE THE SELLER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AGAINST BUYER IN THE
EVENT OF A DEFAULT A DEFAULT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 7.2.1.1(a), AND THE
SELLER WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO SEEK OTHER RIGHTS OR REMEDIES
AGAINST BUYER, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
523
02/02/16 - 20 -
THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVIDED FOR HEREIN IS NOT INTENDED AS A
FORFEITURE OR PENALTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIONS 3275 OR 3369 OF
THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, BUT IS INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES TO THE SELLER PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 1671, 1676 AND 1677 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE. SELLER WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL CODE SECTION 3389. BY PLACING ITS INITIALS BELOW, BUYER AND
SELLER SPECIFICALLY CONFIRMS THE ACCURACY OF THE STATEMENTS MADE
ABOVE, THE REASONABLENESS OF THE AMOUNT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
AGREED UPON, AND THE FACT THAT EACH PARTY WAS REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL WHO EXPLAINED, AT THE TIME THIS AGREEMENT WAS MADE, THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION.
INITIALS: _________ ______________
SELLER BUYER
7.2.3 Acceptance of Service of Process. In the event that any legal action
is commenced by Buyer against Seller, service of process on Seller shall be made by personal
service upon the Executive Director at the address provided in Section 13.8 or in such other
manner as may be provided by law. In the event that any legal action is commenced by Seller
against Buyer, service of process on Buyer shall be made by personal service upon W-K
Ventures, Inc., a California corporation, Buyer’s registered agent for service of process in
California, at 901 Mariner’s Island Boulevard, 7th Floor, San Mateo, CA 94404 or in such other
manner as may be provided by law.
7.3 Termination. In addition to termination upon satisfaction of all material
terms of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated by the Party for whom a condition is
intended to benefit: (i) if there is an uncured Default, after Notice from the Party not in default
and expiration of all cure periods, (ii) if there is a failure of an express Buyer Condition
Precedent or Seller Condition Precedent (which is not waived by the Party whom the condition
benefits) by timely Notice from the Party whom the condition benefits, (iii) a representation or
warranty of a Party becomes untrue prior to Closing under Section 6.1 or 6.2 (which is not
waived by the Party whom the condition benefits), (iv) upon mutual written consent of the
Parties, each in its sole discretion. Upon termination, the Parties will also cooperate to record a
notice of termination.
7.4 Force Majeure Delay. All obligations in this Agreement shall not be
deemed to be in default, all performance and other dates specified in those sections shall be
extended, where delays are due to: war; insurrection; strikes and labor disputes; lockouts; riots;
floods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy; epidemics;
quarantine restrictions; freight embargoes; litigation and arbitration, including court delays; legal
challenges to this Agreement, legal challenges to the Project Approvals, or legal challenges to
any other approval required from any public agency other than the City for the Project, or any
initiatives or referenda regarding the same; environmental conditions, pre-existing or discovered,
delaying the construction or development of the Property or any portion thereof; unusually
severe weather but only to the extent that such weather or its effects (including, without
524
02/02/16 - 21 -
limitation, dry out time) result in delays that cumulatively exceed thirty (30) days for every
winter season occurring after commencement of construction of the Project; acts or omissions of
the other Party; or acts or failures to act of any public or governmental agency or entity (except
that acts or failures to act of Seller shall not excuse performance by Seller); moratorium; any
delay caused by compliance with the requirements of Project Approval Planning Condition of
Approval 9 or the termination of the Mural License Agreement related to the mural
“Transporting Oneself” located at 415 Airport Boulevard, so long as the Buyer is acting
diligently and in good faith; or a Severe Economic Recession (each a “Force Majeure Delay”).
An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall
commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if Notice by the Party
claiming such extension is sent to the other Party within sixty (60) days of the commencement of
the cause. If Notice is sent after such sixty (60) day period, then the extension shall commence
to run no sooner than sixty (60) days prior to the giving of such Notice. Buyer’s inability or
failure to obtain financing or otherwise timely satisfy shall not be deemed to be a cause outside
the reasonable control of the Buyer and shall not be the basis for an excused delay unless such
inability, failure or delay is a direct result of a Severe Economic Recession. “Severe Economic
Recession” means a decline in the monetary value of all finished goods and services produced in
the United States, as measured by initial quarterly estimates of US Gross Domestic Project
(“GDP”) published by the US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (and not
BEA’s subsequent monthly revisions), lasting more than four (4) consecutive calendar quarters.
Any quarter of flat or positive GDP growth shall end the period of such Severe Economic
Recession.
8. BROKERS. Seller represents that no real estate broker has been retained
by Seller in the sale of the Property or the negotiation of this Agreement. With the exception of
a broker agreement with Roger Stuhlmuller, Buyer represents that no real estate broker has been
retained by Buyer in the procurement of the Property or negotiation of this Agreement. Buyer
shall be solely responsible for payment of any broker fee to Roger Stuhlmuller. Buyer and Seller
shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other Party from any and all claims, actions and
liability for any breach of the preceding sentence, and any commission, finder’s fee, or similar
charges arising out the other Party’s conduct.
9. ASSIGNMENT. Prior to satisfactory completion of the Buyer’s Post
Closing Obligations under Section 5.6, neither Seller nor Buyer may assign its rights or delegate
its duties under this Agreement, except for Buyer Permitted Transfers as defined below, without
(i) the express written consent of the other Party, which consent may be will not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed and (ii) an concurrent assignment of the Development Agreement in
accordance with Section 8.1 of the Development Agreement. If Buyer proposes an assignment,
Buyer will seek Seller's prior written consent to any transfer, which consent will not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed. Seller may refuse to give consent only if, in light of the
proposed transferee's reputation and financial resources, such transferee would not, in Seller's
reasonable opinion, be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by such
transferee. Such determination will be made by the Executive Director of the Agency and will
be appealable by Buyer to the Board of the Successor Agency. Notwithstanding any other
525
02/02/16 - 22 -
provision of this Agreement to the contrary, each of following transfers are permitted and shall
not require Seller consent under this Section 9 (each a “Buyer Permitted Transfer”):
(a) Any transfer for financing purposes to secure the funds necessary for
construction and/or permanent financing of the Project;
(b) An assignment of this Agreement to an Affiliate of Buyer;
(c) The sale of one or more of the completed residential units to an occupant
thereof;
(d) Transfers of common area to a homeowners or property owners
association; or
(e) Dedications and grants of easements and rights of way required in
accordance with the Project Approvals.
For the purposes of this Section 9, “Affiliate of Buyer” means an entity or person that is directly
or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with Buyer. For the purposes
of this definition, “control” means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or
cause the direction of the management and policies of an entity or a person, whether through the
ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise, and the terms “controlling” and
“controlled” have the meanings correlative to the foregoing. No permitted assignment of any of
the rights or obligations under this Agreement shall result in a novation or in any other way
release the assignor from its obligations under this Agreement unless a release is provided in the
form of assignment and assumption agreement approved by the reviewing Party.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNITY. Effective upon Close of Escrow,
and subject to Section 3.6, to the fullest extent allowed by law, Buyer agrees to unconditionally
and fully indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel satisfactory to Buyer in Buyer’s sole
discretion), and hold Seller and the City, and their respective elected and appointed officers,
officials, employees, and agents, (“Seller Indemnified Parties”) harmless from and against any
and all claims (including without limitation third party claims for personal injury, real or
personal property damage, or damages to natural resources), actions, administrative proceedings
(including without limitation both formal and informal proceedings), judgments, damages,
punitive damages, penalties, fines, costs (including without limitation any and all costs relating
to investigation, assessment, analysis or clean-up of the Property), liabilities (including without
limitation sums paid in settlements of claims), interest, or losses, including reasonable attorneys’
and paralegals’ fees and expenses (including without limitation any such fees and expenses
incurred in enforcing this Agreement or collecting any sums due hereunder), together with all
other costs and expenses of any kind or nature (collectively, the “Claims”) that arise directly or
indirectly from or in connection with the presence, suspected presence, release, or suspected
release, of any Hazardous Materials in, on or under the Property or to the extent emanating from
the Property, in or into the air, soil, soil gas, groundwater, or surface water at, on, about, around,
above, under or within the Property, or any portion thereof that are existing as of the Close of
Escrow or are caused to exist during the period of ownership of the Property by Buyer, except
526
02/02/16 - 23 -
those Costs that arise solely as a result of actions by Seller, the City (including their consultants
and contractors) or Seller Indemnified Parties. Upon receipt of any Claim, the Seller
Indemnified Parties shall promptly notify and tender such Claim to the Buyer. Any failure to
timely tender such Claim to Buyer to allow Buyer to defend such Claim shall be deemed a
waiver of such Seller Indemnified Party’s rights under this Section 10. Buyer shall resolve such
Claim in its sole and absolute discretion so long as the Seller Indemnified Party is not subject to
any costs or liability. The indemnification provided pursuant to this Section shall specifically
apply to and include claims or actions brought by or on behalf of employees of Buyer or any of
its predecessors in interest and Buyer hereby expressly waives any immunity to which Buyer
may otherwise be entitled under any industrial or worker’s compensation laws. The
indemnification provided pursuant to this Section shall include, without limitation, all loss or
damage sustained by the Seller due to any Hazardous Materials: (a) that are present or suspected
by a governmental agency having jurisdiction to be present in the Property or in the air, soil, soil
gas, groundwater, or surface water at, on, about, above, under, or within the Property (or any
portion thereof) or to have emanated from the Property, or (b) to the extent emanating from the
Property that migrate, flow, percolate, diffuse, or in any way move onto, into, or under the air,
soil, soil gas, groundwater, or surface water at, on, about, around, above, under, or within the
Property (or any portion thereof) after the date of this Agreement as a result of Seller’s activities
on the Property prior to Close of Escrow. The obligations of this Section 10 shall not apply to
Parcel C if Parcel C is re-conveyed to the City pursuant to Section 5.6(c), except to the extent
that Hazardous Materials have been placed on Parcel C by Buyer or its agents, contractors or
consultants. The provisions of this Section 10 shall survive the termination of this Agreement
and the Close of Escrow. If Buyer purchases an environmental pollution legal liability policy for
the Property, the policy shall include the City and Agency as additional insureds.
11. RELEASE BY BUYER. Effective upon the Close of Escrow, Buyer
waives, releases, remises, acquits and forever discharges Seller and the City, and its officers,
directors, board members, managers, employees and agents, and any other person acting on
behalf of Seller from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages,
costs, expenses and compensation whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or
unforeseen, which Buyer now has or which may arise in the future on account of or in any way
arising from or in connection with the physical condition of the Property or any law or regulation
applicable thereto including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any federal, state or
local law, ordinance or regulation pertaining to Hazardous Materials. This Section 11 shall not
apply to the City for any portion of the Property that is, after Closing, dedicated for public use
(e.g. public sidewalks) and is under the direct management and maintenance of the City. This
Section 11 shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the Close of Escrow.
BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT BUYER IS FAMILIAR WIT H SECTION 1542 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH
THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN
HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE
527
02/02/16 - 24 -
RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE
MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE
DEBTOR.
BY INITIALING BELOW, BUYER EXPRESSLY WAIVES THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 1542
OF THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE FOREGOING RELEASE:
Buyer’s initials: _____________
12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; DEFINITIONS.
12.1 Hazardous Materials. As used in this Agreement, “Hazardous
Materials” means any chemical, compound, material, mixture, or substance that is now or may
in the future be defined or listed in, or otherwise classified pursuant to any Environmental Laws
(defined below) as a “hazardous substance”, “hazardous material”, “hazardous waste”,
“extremely hazardous waste”, infectious waste”, toxic substance”, toxic pollutant”, or any other
formulation intended to define, list or classify substances by reason of deleterious properties such
as ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, carcinogenicity, or toxicity. The term “Hazardous
Materials” shall also include asbestos or asbestos-containing materials, radon, chrome and/or
chromium, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum, petroleum products or by-products, petroleum
components, oil, mineral spirits, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, and
synthetic gas usable as fuel, perchlorate, and methyl tert butyl ether, whether or not defined as a
hazardous waste or hazardous substance in the Environmental Laws.
12.2 Environmental Laws. As used in this Agreement, “Environmental
Laws” means any and all federal, state and local statutes, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations,
guidance documents, judgments, governmental authorizations or directives, or any other
requirements of governmental authorities, as may presently exist, or as may be amended or
supplemented, or hereafter enacted, relating to the presence, release, generation, use, handling,
treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of Hazardous Materials, or the protection of the
environment or human, plant or animal health, including, without limitation, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. § 9601), the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.), the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
§ 1251 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.), the Toxic Substances Control Act
(15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.), the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S.C. § 11001 et seq.), the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code § 13000 et seq.), the Toxic Mold Protection Act
(Cal. Health & Safety Code § 26100, et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement
Act of 1986 (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq.), the Hazardous Waste Control Act
(Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25100 et seq.), the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans &
Inventory Act (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25500 et seq.), and the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner
Hazardous Substances Account Act (Cal. Health and Safety Code, Section 25300 et seq.).
528
02/02/16 - 25 -
13. MISCELLANEOUS.
13.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If any Party employs counsel to enforce or
interpret this Agreement, including the commencement of any legal proceeding whatsoever
(including insolvency, bankruptcy, arbitration, mediation, declaratory relief or other litigation),
the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs
(including the service of process, filing fees, court and court reporter costs, investigative fees,
expert witness fees, and the costs of any bonds, whether taxable or not) and shall include the
right to recover such fees and costs incurred in any appeal or efforts to collect or otherwise
enforce any judgment in its favor in addition to any other remedy it may obtain or be awarded.
Any judgment or final order issued in any legal proceeding shall include reimbursement for all
such attorneys’ fees and costs. In any legal proceeding, the “prevailing party” shall mean the
Party determined by the court to most nearly prevail and not necessarily the Party in whose favor
a judgment is rendered.
13.2 Interpretation. This Agreement has been negotiated at arm’s
length and each party has been represented by independent legal counsel in this transaction and
this Agreement has been reviewed and revised by counsel to each of the Parties. Accordingly,
each Party hereby waives any benefit under any rule of law (including Section 1654 of the
California Civil Code) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in
this Agreement against the drafting Party.
13.3 Survival. All indemnities, covenants, representations and
warranties contained in Section 6.1, Section 6.2, Section 10, and Section 11 of this Agreement
shall survive Close of Escrow as expressly provided in each such section.
13.4 Successors. Except as provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
this Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their successors
and assigns.
13.5 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and
interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
13.6 Integrated Agreement; Modifications. This Agreement contains all
the agreements of the Parties concerning the subject hereof any cannot be amended or modified
except by a written instrument executed and delivered by the parties. There are no
representations, agreements, arrangements or understandings, either oral or written, between or
among the parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not fully
expressed herein. In addition there are no representations, agreements, arrangements or
understandings, either oral or written, between or among the Parties upon which any Party is
relying upon in entering this Agreement that are not fully expressed herein.
13.7 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is
determined to be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid in whole or in part for any reason, such illegal,
unenforceable, or invalid provisions or part thereof shall be stricken from this Agreement, any
529
02/02/16 - 26 -
such provision shall not be affected by the legality, enforceability, or validity of the remainder of
this Agreement. If any provision or part thereof of this Agreement is stricken in accordance with
the provisions of this Section, then the stricken provision shall be replaced, to the extent possible,
with a legal, enforceable and valid provision this is in keeping with the intent of the Parties as
expressed herein.
13.8 Notices. Any delivery of this Agreement, notice, modification of
this Agreement, collateral or additional agreement, demand, disclosure, request, consent,
approval, waiver, declaration or other communication that either Party desires or is required to
give to the other Party or any other person shall be in writing. Any such communication may be
served personally, or by nationally recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., Federal Express)
which provides a receipt of delivery, or sent by prepaid, first class mail, return receipt requested
to the Party’s address as set forth below:
To Buyer: Sares-Regis Group of Northern California
901 Mariner's Island Boulevard, 7th Floor
San Mateo, CA 94404
Attention: Ken Busch and Mark Kroll
Telephone: (650) 377-5805
Email: kbusch@srgnc.com
with a copy to: Holland & Knight LLP
50 California Street, Suite 2500
San Francisco, CA 94109
Attn: Tamsen Plume
Telephone: (415) 743-6900
Fax: (415) 743-6910
Email: tamsen.plume@hklaw.com
To Seller: South San Francisco Successor Agency
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Executive Director
Tel (650) 877-8501
Fax (650) 829-6609
Email: Mike.Futrell@ssf.net
with a copy to: Meyers Nave
575 Market Street, Suite 2080
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attn: Jason Rosenberg
Tel (415) 421-3711
Fax (415) 421-3767
530
02/02/16 - 27 -
If to Escrow Holder: First American Title Insurance Company
1737 North First St., Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95112
Attn: Carol Herrera
Tel: Tel: (408) 451-7829
Fax: (408) 451-7836
Email: CMHerrera@firstam.com
Any such communication shall be deemed effective upon personal delivery or on
the date of first refusal to accept delivery as reflected on the receipt of delivery or return receipt,
as applicable. Any Party may change its address by notice to the other Party. Each Party shall
make an ordinary, good faith effort to ensure that it will accept or receive notices that are given
in accordance with this section and that any person to be given notice actually receives such
notice.
13.9 Time. Time is of the essence to the performance of each and every
obligation under this Agreement.
13.10 Days of Week. If any date for exercise of any right, giving of any
notice, or performance of any provision of this Agreement falls on a Saturday, Sunday or
holiday, the time for performance will be extended to 5:00 p.m. on the next business day.
13.11 Reasonable Consent and Approval. Except as otherwise provided
in this Agreement, whenever a Party is required or permitted to give its consent or approval
under this Agreement, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
If a Party is required or permitted to give its consent or approval in its sole and absolute
discretion or if such consent or approval may be unreasonably withheld, such consent or
approval may be unreasonably withheld but shall not be unreasonably delayed.
13.12 Cooperation and Further Assurances. Each Party agrees to
cooperate with the other in this transaction and, in that regard, shall at their own cost and
expense execute and deliver such further documents and instruments and shall take such other
actions as may be reasonably required or appropriate to carry out the intent and purposes of this
Agreement.
13.13 Waivers. Any waiver by any Party shall be in writing and shall not
be construed as a continuing waiver. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure to take
action on account of any default by any Party. Consent by any Party to any act or omission by
another Party shall not be construed to be consent to any other subsequent act or omission or to
waive the requirement for consent to be obtained in any future or other instance.
13.14 Signatures/Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two
or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument. Any one of such completely executed counterparts shall
be sufficient proof of this Agreement.
531
02/02/16 - 28 -
13.15 Date and Delivery of Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Agreement, the parties intend that this Agreement shall be deemed
effective, and delivered for all purposes under this Agreement, and for the calculation of any
statutory time periods based on the date an agreement between parties is effective, executed, or
delivered, as of the Effective Date.
13.16 Representation on Authority of Parties. Each person signing this
Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal capacity to
execute and deliver this Agreement. Each Party represents and warrants to the other that the
execution and delivery of the Agreement and the performance of such Party’s obligations
hereunder have been duly authorized and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement
binding on such Party and enforceable in accordance with its terms.
13.16 Access to Property. Prior to the Closing, Seller shall cooperate to
enable representatives of Buyer to obtain the right of access to all portions of the Property for the
purposes of implementing this Agreement. Buyer agrees to provide written Notice to Seller at
least twenty four (24) hours prior to undertaking any studies or work upon the Property. Buyer
shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold Seller and Seller Parties harmless from any Claims
arising out of the acts, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct of Buyer or its employees,
agents, contractors, subcontractors or representatives (each a “Buyer Party” and, collectively,
the “Buyer Parties”) in connection with such studies and investigations, except for Claims
arising from or related to any pre-existing condition on or of the Property or Claims to the extent
caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of Seller or its employees, agents,
contractors or representatives. In addition, in the event Buyer or any Buyer Party causes any
damage to any portion of the Property, Buyer shall promptly restore the Property as nearly as
possible to the physical condition existing immediately prior to Buyer’s entry onto the Property.
13.17 Memorandum of Agreement. A Memorandum of Agreement in
substantially the form of Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference shall
be executed and recorded against the Property immediately following recordation of the Grant
Deed.
13.18 Relationship Between Seller and Buyer. It is hereby
acknowledged that the relationship between Seller and Buyer is not that of a partnership or joint
venture and that Seller and Buyer shall not be deemed or construed for any purpose to be the
agent of the other. Accordingly, except as expressly provided herein or in the exhibits hereto,
Seller shall have no rights, powers, duties or obligations with respect to the development,
operation, maintenance or management of the Project.
13.19 Seller Approvals and Actions. Whenever a reference is made
herein to an action or approval to be undertaken by Seller, the Executive Officer of the Agency
or his or her designee is authorized to act on behalf of Seller.
13.20 Estoppel Certificates. A Party may, at any time during the term of
this Agreement, and from time to time, deliver written notice to another Party requesting such
532
02/02/16 - 29 -
Party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Agreement is in
full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been
amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if amended; identifying the amendments, (iii)
the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement,
or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults, and (iv) any other
information reasonably requested. The requesting Party shall be responsible for all reasonable
costs incurred by the Party from which such certification is requested and shall reimburse such
costs within thirty (30) days of receiving the certifying Party’s request for reimbursement. The
Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate or give a written,
detailed response explaining why it will not do so within twenty (20) days following the receipt
thereof. The failure of either Party to provide the requested certificate within such twenty (20)
day period shall constitute a confirmation that this Agreement is in full force and effect and no
modification or default exists. Seller acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied
upon by transferees and Mortgagees.
13.21 Mortgagee Protection. After Close of Escrow, no violation or
breach of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, provisions or limitations contained in this
Agreement shall defeat or render invalid or in any way impair the lien or charge of any
mortgage, deed of trust or other financing or security instrument; provided, however, that any
successor of Buyer to the Property shall be bound by such remaining covenants, conditions,
restrictions, limitations and provisions, of this Agreement whether such successor's title was
acquired by foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise.
13.22 Effective Date. This Agreement shall be deemed effective upon
the last to occur of all of the following: (i) this Agreement is signed by the Parties, and (ii) the
Project Approvals shall have been approved by the City and shall be effective, (iii) the applicable
statute of limitations period under CEQA for all of the Project Approvals shall have concluded
with no challenge having been filed or, if any legal challenges is filed or instituted, legal
challenge shall have been fully and finally resolved in a manner acceptable to the Parties, each in
its reasonable discretion, and such that no further legal challenge under CEQA is possible.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES
533
02/02/16 - 30 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
SELLER:
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SUCCESSOR AGENCY
By: _______________________________
Mike Futrell
Executive Director
ATTEST:
By: _______________________________
Agency Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
Jason Rosenberg
Agency Counsel
534
02/02/16 - 31 -
BUYER:
MILLER CYPRESS SSF, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
By: SRGNC Miller Cypress SSF, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
By: SRGNC MF, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
By: _______________________________
Name: Mark R. Kroll
Title: President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
Tamsen Plume, Holland & Knight
Counsel for Buyer
535
02/02/16 - 32 -
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Legal Description
Exhibit B Form of Grant Deed
Exhibit C Pre-Approved Exceptions
Exhibit D Form of Development Agreement
Exhibit E Form of Memorandum of Agreement
536
02/02/16 - 33 -
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
537
02/02/16 - 34 -
Exhibit B
FORM OF GRANT DEED
Recording Requested by
and when Recorded, return to:
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE §§6103, 27383
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE)
GRANT DEED
For valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, South San
Francisco Successor Agency, a public agency, (the “Grantor”) hereby grants to Miller Cypress
SSF, LLC, (the “Grantee”) all that real property located in the City of South San Francisco,
County of San Mateo, State of California at __________________, designated as San Mateo
County Assessor’s Parcel Nos._________ and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated in this grant deed (“Grant Deed”) by this reference.
1. Development Agreement. The Property is conveyed subject to the LRPMP and
that certain Development Agreement dated as of ________________, entered into by and
between Grantee and the City of South San Francisco, a public body, corporate and politic,
acting to carry out the LRPMP (the “Development Agreement”).
2. Use Restrictions. The Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, for itself and its
successors and assigns, that the Property shall be used and developed solely for purposes
consistent with the requirements of the City of South San Francisco General Plan, as it presently
exists or may be amended.
3. Nondiscrimination. Grantee shall not restrict the rental, sale, lease, sublease,
transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Property, or any portion thereof, on the basis
of race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, ancestry, or
national origin of any person. Grantee covenants for itself and all persons claiming under or
through it, and this Grant Deed is made and accepted upon and subject to the condition that there
shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of
any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955 of the Government Code, as those
bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision (m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision
(p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the Government Code, in the sale, lease, sublease,
transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Property or part thereof, nor shall Grantee or
any person claiming under or through Grantee establish or permit any such practice or practices
538
02/02/16 - 35 -
of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or
occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sub lessees or vendees in, of, or for the Property or
part thereof.
All deeds, leases or contracts made or entered into by Grantee, its successors or
assigns, as to any portion of the Property or the Improvements shall contain the following
language:
(a) In Deeds, the following language shall appear:
“(1) Grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons
claiming under or through it, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of a
person or of a group of persons on account of any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section
12955 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1,
subdivision (m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of
the Government Code, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment
of the property herein conveyed nor shall the grantee or any person claiming under or through
the grantee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation
with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees,
subtenants, sub lessees or vendees in the property herein conveyed. The foregoing covenant
shall run with the land.
“(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), with respect to familial status, paragraph (1) shall
not be construed to apply to housing for older persons, as defined in Section 12955.9 of the
Government Code. With respect to familial status, nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to
affect Sections 51.2, 51.3, 51.4, 51.10, 51.11 and 799.5 of the Civil Code, relating to housing for
senior citizens. Subdivision (d) of Section 51 and Section 1360 of the Civil Code and
subdivisions (n), (o), and (p) of Section 12955 of the Government Code shall apply to paragraph
(1).”
(b) In Leases, the following language shall appear:
“(1) The lessee herein covenants by and for the lessee and lessee’s heirs, personal
representatives and assigns, and all persons claiming under the lessee or through the lessee, that
this lease is made subject to the condition that there shall be no discrimination against or
segregation of any person or of a group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex,
sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or disability in the leasing, subleasing,
transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property herein leased nor shall the
lessee or any person claiming under or through the lessee establish or permit any such practice or
practices of discrimination of segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use
or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sub lessees, subtenants, or vendees in the property herein
leased.
“(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), with respect to familial status, paragraph (1) shall
not be construed to apply to housing for older persons, as defined in Section 12955.9 of the
Government Code. With respect to familial status, nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to
539
02/02/16 - 36 -
affect Sections 51.2, 51.3, 51.4, 51.10, 51.11 and 799.5 of the Civil Code, relating to housing for
senior citizens. Subdivision (d) of Section 51 and Section 1360 of the Civil Code and
subdivisions (n), (o), and (p) of Section 12955 of the Government Code shall apply to paragraph
(1).”
(c) In Contracts, the following language shall appear:
“There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of
persons on account of any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955 of the
Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision (m) and
paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the Government Code,
in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property nor
shall the transferee or any person claiming under or through the transferee establish or permit
any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to selection,
location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessee, subtenants, sub lessees or vendees of the
land.”
4. Term of Restrictions. The covenants contained in Section 1 and Section 2
regarding use of the Property shall remain in effect until the date which is the expiration date of
the Development Agreement. The covenants against discrimination contained in Sections 3
shall remain in effect in perpetuity.
5. Mortgagee Protection. No violation or breach of the covenants, conditions,
restrictions, provisions or limitations contained in this Grant Deed shall defeat or render invalid
or in any way impair the lien or charge of any mortgage, deed of trust or other financing or
security instrument permitted by the Development Agreement; provided, however, that any
successor of Grantee to the Property shall be bound by such remaining covenants, conditions,
restrictions, limitations and provisions, whether such successor's title was acquired by
foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise.
6. Binding On Successors. The covenants contained in Sections 2 and 3 of this Grant
Deed, without regard to technical or legal classification or designation specified in this Grant
Deed or otherwise, shall to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity, be binding upon
Grantee and any successor in interest to the Property or any part thereof, for the benefit of
Grantor, and its successors and assigns, for such period of time of applicable ownership, and
such covenants shall run in favor of and be enforceable by the Grantor and its successors and
assigns for the entire period during which such covenants shall be in force and effect, without
regard to whether the Grantor is or remains an owner of any land or interest therein to which
such covenants relate. In the event of any breach of any of such covenants, the Grantor and its
successors and assigns shall have the right to exercise all rights and remedies available under law
or in equity to enforce the curing of such breach.
7. Enforcement. The Grantor shall have the right to institute such actions or
proceedings as it may deem desirable to enforce the provisions set forth herein. Any delay by
the Grantor in instituting or prosecuting any such actions or proceedings or otherwise asserting
its rights hereunder shall not operate as a waiver of or limitation on such rights, nor operate to
540
02/02/16 - 37 -
deprive Grantor of such rights, nor shall any waiver made by the Grantor with respect to any
specific default by the Grantee, its successors and assigns, be considered or treated as a waiver of
Grantor’s rights with respect to any other default by the Grantee, its successors and assigns, or
with respect to the particular default except to the extent specifically waived.
8. Amendment. Only the Grantor, its successors and assigns, and the Grantee and
the successors and assigns of the Grantee in and to all or any part of the fee title to the Property
shall have the right to consent and agree to changes or to eliminate in whole or in part any of the
covenants contained in this Grant Deed. For purposes of this Section, successors and assigns of
the Grantee shall be defined to include only those parties who hold all or any part of the Property
in fee title, and not to include a tenant, lessee, easement holder, licensee, mortgagee, trustee,
beneficiary under deed of trust, or any other person or entity having an interest less than a fee in
the Property and Improvements.
9. Conflict. In the event there is a conflict between the provisions of this Grant
Deed and the Agreement, it is the intent of the parties that the Agreement shall control.
10. Counterparts. This Grant Deed may be executed in counterparts, each of which
shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES.
541
02/02/16 - 38 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Grant Deed as of
________________, 2016.
GRANTOR
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SUCCESSOR AGENCY
By: _______________________________
Mike Futrell
Executive Director
ATTEST:
By: _______________________________
Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
Jason Rosenberg
Agency Counsel
GRANTEE: FORM – DO NOT SIGN
MILLER CYPRESS SSF, LLC
By: _______________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
Tamsen Plume, Holland & Knight, Counsel for Buyer
542
02/02/16 - 39 -
SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
543
02/02/16 - 40 -
EXHIBIT A to Grant Deed
(Attach legal description)
544
02/02/16 - 41 -
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
) ss.
County of San Mateo )
On_____________________, 20____ before me, _____________________, a Notary Public, in
and for said State and County, personally appeared _______________________, who proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
545
02/02/16 - 42 -
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
) ss.
County of San Mateo )
On_____________________, 20____ before me, _____________________, a Notary Public, in
and for said State and County, personally appeared _______________________, who proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
546
02/02/16 - 43 -
Exhibit C
PRE-APPROVED EXCEPTIONS
First American Title Company Preliminary Title Report dated May 19, 2015 Order
Number NCS-677875-SC
Exceptions Nos: 1, 2, 3, 26, 31 and 32
Mural License Agreement referenced in Section 6.1
REQUIRED DIS-APPROVED EXCEPTIONS
First American Title Company Preliminary Title Report dated May 19, 2015 Order
Number NCS-677875-SC:
Exceptions Nos: 4 through 15, 17 through 25, and 27 through 30.
547
02/02/16 - 44 -
Exhibit D
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
548
02/02/16 - 45 -
EXHIBIT E
FORM OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
2599486.1
549
ATTACHMENT 9
CITY COUNCIL STAFF PRESENTATION
550
2/3/2016
1
City Council
February 10, 2016
1
CEQA Consistency (City/SA)
Development Agreement (City)
Project Entitlements (City)
Purchase and Sale Agreement (SA)
2
551
2/3/2016
2
3
260 residential rental units / 342 parking spaces
12 for-sale Townhomes on Miller Avenue
2.34 Acres and four distinct project areas
552
2/3/2016
3
6
553
2/3/2016
4
7
Purchase Price -$4M
$2.7M Park in Lieu Payment
$500K Community Benefit Payment
$25K Public Art Payment
At least 2 affordable units in Phase II
Default Provisions
8
554
2/3/2016
5
Q4 -2016: Obtain building permit
Q1 -2017: Start construction
Q1 -2019: Complete construction
9
Reviewed on January 21, 2016
Unanimous support for project with
discussion of Bertolucci’ssign and
affordable housing
Recommended approval of DA and
Entitlements Request by vote of 6-0
10
555
2/3/2016
6
Implement DSASP
272 housing units close to transit
$140 million construction investment
Area Standard Wages
$234,000/year property taxes
11
Community Benefits ($5.7M estimate)
High quality design & architecture
Catalyst for additional housing
Activates vacant, blighted
gateway
12
556
2/3/2016
7
13
$2,720,000 for park/recreation
$500,000 in streetscape improvements
$25,000 Public Art
Utility undergrounding
LEED rating for new development
Environmental contamination cleanup
City Council and Successor Agency:
Approve the Environmental Analysis
City Council:
Approve the Entitlements Request
Approve the DA
Successor Agency:
Approve PSA
557
Staff Report
DATE: February 10, 2016
TO: Ma yor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE SECTION REVISING
THE EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PERTAINING TO LEGAL CONFORMING
USES RECOGNIZED BY RESOLUTION 84-97 AND TO MAKE CHANGES
TO THE PLANNING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT TO ENSURE POLICY
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THE DOWNTOWN
STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (DSASP) AND THE TRANSIT OFFICE /
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (TO/RD) CORE ZONING DISTRICT
Location: Citywide
Case Nos.: P11-0097: GPA16-0001
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council follow the Planning Commission’s
recommendation and:
1.Adopt a resolution making findings and adopt General Plan Amendment 16-0001.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Overview
The purpose of this proposed General Plan Amendment is to ensure internal policy consistency
between the General Plan, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), and the
implementing zoning for the DSASP. Following is an overview of the relevant policies currently
in place. The proposed General Plan Amendment would only be applicable to the areas within
the DSASP that are also subject to the provisions of Resolution 84-97, which consists of a
portion of the Transit Office / Research and Development (TO/RD) Core Zoning District, located
east of 101.
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) was adopted in February, 2015. The
DSASP sets a comprehensive vision for the Downtown as a vibrant and pedestrian-friendly
environment, focused on improved connections and linkages to the Caltrain station and
throughout the plan area. The Transit Office / R&D Core (TO/RD) Zoning District of the
DSASP, located east of 101, is envisioned as a high-intensity urban employment district,
characterized by a walkable street pattern. This area will be well connected to the Downtown
with the extension of the Caltrain station and the construction of the pedestrian / bicycle
underpass.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 84-97 CLEAN-UP
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 2 of 10
Table 20.280.003 of the Zoning Code outlines the land use designations for the Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan Districts. Uses permitted in the TO/RD district include a range of
commercial uses, offices, and employment uses including clean technologies, handicraft/custom
manufacturing, and R&D uses. Warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and
customs brokering uses are not permitted uses within this district. Residential uses are not
currently permitted in this area, but the City is considering the feasibility of residential uses in
areas east of 101 that are most accessible to transit and the downtown core.
Figure 1 below illustrates the location of the TO/RD Zoning District, in relation to the DSASP
area.
Figure 1: TO/RD Zoning District
While the DSASP sets out a clear vision for the future development of the TO/RD district, there
is a long history of policy direction for this area that conflicts with the intent of the DSASP
(described in the sections below).
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 84-97 CLEAN-UP
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 3 of 10
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted in 1994 as part of the City’s General Plan. At that time,
the area that is now within the TO/RD Zoning District was designated as a mix of “Gateway
Specific Plan Area”, “Planned Industrial”, and “Planned Commercial” land use categories. A
wide range of commercial, industrial, and employment land uses were consistent with these
categories.
In particular, Policy LU-5a of the East of 101 Area Plan states that “uses allowed in the ‘Planned
Industrial’ category shall typically include non-nuisance light manufacturing, incubator-research
facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, printing, offices, administrative activities,
research and development facilities, “big-box” retail and warehouse sales, freight forwarding,
warehousing, distributing centers and facilities, customs brokerages, service businesses that
serve the uses described above, marinas, and shoreline-oriented recreation.” The East of 101 Area
Plan provided the City with the direction to encourage the growth and expansion of
research and development (R&D) uses.
Resolution 84-97
In 1997, City Council adopted Resolution 84-97. This resolution amended the East of 101 Area
Plan Policy 5A which had removed freight forwarding as a use consistent with the “Planned
Industrial” land use designation, as the City envisioned the growth of biotech and R&D uses in
the East of 101 area. Resolution 84-97 is attached to this staff report for reference. Resolution
84-97 states that freight forwarding activities can have traffic, parking, and aesthetic conflicts
with other uses in the Planned Industrial land use category, and these conflicts threaten the City’s
ability to attract corporate headquarters, research and development facilities and office uses.
In order to protect the existing uses in the area, provide flexibility in the case that the R&D
sector did not continue to expand, and ensure that they did not become non-conforming uses due
to the removal of freight forwarding as a permitted use, Resolution 84-97 included a provision to
allow property which was used in whole or in part for freight forwarding, customs brokering,
wholesale, warehousing or distribution as of July 10, 1997 to continue as legal, conforming uses.
Resolution 84-97 also included a provision stating that wholesale, warehouse and distribution
uses could be converted to freight forwarding and customs brokering uses with a Conditional
Use Permit until July 10, 2000 and be considered legal, conforming uses. Except as provided by
Resolution 84-97, new development or redevelopment proposed for or undertaken in the Planned
Industrial land use category shall not include warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight
forwarding, and customs brokering uses. Figure 2 on the following page shows the East of 101
Area Plan land use map; the Planned Industrial land use category is shown in tan.
While the Zoning Code does not permit warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding,
and customs brokering uses in the TO/RD district, if these uses were established as a legal use
prior to July 10, 1997 or granted a Conditional Use Permit prior to July 10, 2000, and
continuously operated as a legal use, they are considered to be legal, conforming uses per the
terms of Resolution 84-97. This means that, if a legally established warehouse, distribution,
wholesaling, freight forwarding and/or customs brokering use wishes to expand or change to
another one of those use types, it would be permitted to do so, as a legal conforming use.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 84-97 CLEAN-UP
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 4 of 10
However, this is not consistent with the policy direction of the DSASP, nor is it consistent with
the existing zoning for the TO/RD district.
Figure 2: East of 101 Land Use Map
Planned Industrial (PI)
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 84-97 CLEAN-UP
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 5 of 10
1999 General Plan Update
When the General Plan was updated in 1999, the plan incorporated the “Business Commercial”
and “Business and Technology Park” land use designations, which took the place of the
“Planned Industrial” land use designation. The provisions of Resolution 84-97, originally
applicable to the “Planned Industrial” land use designation east of 101, applied to portions of
these new land use designations in areas east of 101 which had previously been designated
“Planned Industrial.”
The 1999 General Plan Update did not explicitly clarify how Resolution 84-97 applied to the
newly incorporated land use designations in the General Plan; therefore, the 1999 General Plan
language was ambiguous.
Policy 3.5-I-11 of the General Plan states:
“Do not permit any new warehousing and distribution north of East Grand Avenue, or in
areas designated Business Commercial.”
The discussion of this policy in the General Plan is as follows:
“while warehousing and freight forwarding are important components of the local and
regional economy, they tend to have high service costs and low revenue and employment
generation. The location of freight forwarding has been an issue in South San Francisco
throughout the 1990s. Inclusion of freight forwarding in the East of 101 Area Plan
Planned Industrial (PI) land use classification was debated extensively during preparation
of the East of 101 Area Plan, and freight forwarding was ultimately included as a
permitted use. Recently the City has experienced a surge in applications for new freight
forwarding uses, with a 55 percent increase in freight forwarding firms in the East of 101
area between 1993 and 1997. About half of the freight forwarding operations are in the PI
area north of East Grand Avenue, limiting the availability of this land for expansion of
the R&D and office uses for which the district was created, and potentially making the
area less attractive to such firms. After proposing amendments to the East of 101 Area
Plan that would limit expansions on such operations, the City reached a compromise with
freight forwarding operators whereby warehousing uses may not expand or convert to a
freight forwarding use after 2000. This policy would make this interim understanding a
permanent one.”
While this policy clearly states that warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and
customs brokering uses are not permitted north of East Grand Avenue (primarily the Business
and Technology Park designation) and in areas designated Business Commercial, it does not
specifically remove the provisions of Resolution 84-97 from these areas.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 84-97 CLEAN-UP
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 6 of 10
PROPOSED REVISIONS
Staff is recommending the following General Plan Amendment to further ensure consistency
between the General Plan, the DSASP, and the adopted zoning to implement the DSASP.
1) Amend the East of 101 Area Plan, creating a new resolution that updates the provisions of
Resolution 84-97. The proposed updated resolution would contain revisions applicable to the
parcels within the DSASP area. These revisions would state that that the provisions of
Resolution 84-97, which maintain legally established freight forwarding, customs brokering,
wholesale, warehousing or distribution as of July 10, 1997, or with a conditional use permit
as of July 10, 2000 may continue as legal, conforming uses, no longer apply to those parcels
within the DSASP, except for those parcels that are the subject of an executed Memorandum
of Understanding with the City of South San Francisco at the time the resolution is adopted.
The proposed amended language follows (proposed new text in double-underline):
The Planned Industrial land use category in the East of 101 Area Plan includes a portion of
the City which was historically developed and used for warehousing and distribution. In
particular, the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Business Park is considered one of the most
successful such developments in the Bay Area. These historic uses will continue to be an
important segment of the business community in the City. At the same time, the City has
identified the need to plan for and accommodate the growth and expansion of other
industrial, office and research and development uses. The area of the City designated in
Planned Industrial land use category has the greatest potential to accommodate that future
growth and expansion.
In order to accommodate the future growth and expansion of industrial parks, light
manufacturing, office, and research and development uses, while at the same time preserving
the opportunities for existing warehouse and freight forwarding businesses to continue, new
development or redevelopment in the Planned Industrial land use category will be limited to
industrial parks, light manufacturing, office uses, retail, hotels, research and development.
Warehouse and distribution uses that are ancillary to or a part of a manufacturing business in
the City or that include retail sales of their primary products from the wholesale and
distribution facility as a part of their operations are also permitted for new development or
redevelopment in the Planned Industrial land use category.
All property, which is used, in whole or in part, for freight forwarding, customs brokering,
wholesale, warehousing or distribution as of July 10, 1997, may continue to be used for the
use in effect as of July 10, 1997 as legal, conforming uses, except for those parcels located in
the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area as described in more detail below. Any legal,
conforming use may be improved, expanded, modified or reconstructed in accordance with
the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
In order to permit existing businesses time to plan for future expansion and change,
wholesale, warehouse and distribution uses may also be converted to freight forwarding and
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 84-97 CLEAN-UP
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 7 of 10
customs brokering uses with granting of a conditional use permit until July 10, 2000. After
that date, freight forwarding and customs brokering uses may continue as legal, conforming
uses and they may convert to any other legal, conforming use, including wholesale,
warehouse and distribution, permitted in the Planned Industrial category, except for those
parcels located in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area as described in more detail
below. Except as provided above, new development or redevelopment proposed for or
undertaken in the Planned Industrial land use category after July 10, 1997, shall not include
warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding and customs brokering uses.
The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”) was adopted in 2015, providing a
vision for the future growth and development for downtown, including the eastern
neighborhood, which is located east of 101. The DSASP envisions downtown as a vibrant
and pedestrian friendly-environment, maximizing transit-oriented development opportunities
in the vicinity of the Caltrain station. The DSASP also focuses on connections and linkages
to Caltrain, downtown, and the employment areas east of 101.
In order to realize the vision of the DSASP, the provisions of the East of 101 Area Plan
permitting freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehouse or distribution uses
as established by Resolution 84-97 are no longer applicable to parcels located within the
DSASP area. With the adoption of Resolution ____-2016, legally established and continually
operating freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehouse or distribution uses
as of July 10, 1997, or granted a conditional use permit as of July 10, 2000, will become
legal, non-conforming uses, subject to the requirements of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code regarding non-conforming uses, structures, and lots. However, if prior to the
adoption of Resolution ____-2016, an entity operating within the DSASP area has executed a
valid Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the City of South San Francisco
acknowledging certain properties’ uses as a legal conforming use for the term of the MOU,
then those uses contemplated in the MOU may continue as a legal conforming use subject to
the terms of the MOU.
2) Add an implementing policy to the Downtown section of the Planning Sub-Areas Element
(Chapter 3) of the General Plan, indicating that the provisions of Resolution 84-97 that
permit freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehouse, or distribution uses
as legal conforming uses will no longer apply to parcels within the DSASP area. Staff
proposes adding the following implementing policy as Policy 3.1-I-12 to the Downtown
Section of the Sub-Areas Element, and deleting existing Policy 3.1-I-12 which is no longer
applicable given dissolution of redevelopment in California:
3.1-1-12: Explore the feasibility of expanding the Downtown Central Redevelopment District
boundaries to encompass sites designated Downtown Commercial and Downtown High and
Medium Density Residential.
This will require extension of the current redevelopment boundaries west to Orange Avenue,
and expansion along the Linden Avenue corridor.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 84-97 CLEAN-UP
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 8 of 10
3.1-I-12: In order to realize the vision of the Downtown as a walkable, vibrant environment,
the provisions of the East of 101 Area Plan contained in Resolution 84-97 that permit freight
forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehouse, or distribution uses as legal
conforming uses shall no longer apply to the parcels within the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan area as set forth in Resolution ____-2016 adopted on (insert date).
This policy will help to ensure that the future land use pattern in the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan area supports high-density and intensity pedestrian-oriented uses closest to the
Caltrain commuter station.
This proposed policy will help to implement the vision and intent of the DSASP, which focuses
on creating a high-density, vibrant environment in the Downtown, centered on the Caltrain
station.
3) Add clarifying language to Implementing Policy 3.5-I-11 of the East of 101 section of the
Planning Sub-Areas Element (Chapter 3) of the General Plan, indicating that the
provisions of Resolution 84-97 that permit freight forwarding, customs brokering,
wholesale, warehouse, or distribution uses as legal, conforming uses shall no longer apply
to parcels within the DSASP area:
3.5-I-11: Do not permit any new warehousing and distribution north of East Grand Avenue
or in areas designated Business Commercial.
While warehousing and freight forwarding are important components of the local and
regional economy, they tend to have high service costs and low revenue and employment
generation. The location of freight forwarding has been an issue in South San Francisco
throughout the 1990s. Inclusion of freight forwarding in the East of 101 Area Plan Planned
Industrial (PI) land use classification was debated extensively during preparation of the East
of 101 Area Plan, and freight forwarding was ultimately included as a permitted use.
Recently the City has experienced a surge in applications for new freight forwarding uses,
with a 55 percent increase in freight forwarding firms in the East of 101 area between 1993
and 1997. About half of the freight forwarding operations are located in the PI area north of
East Grand Avenue, limiting the availability of this land for expansion of the R&D and office
uses for which the district was created, and potentially making the area less attractive to such
firms. After proposing an amendment to the East of 101 Area Plan that would limit
expansion of such operations, the City reached a compromise with freight forwarding
operators whereby warehousing uses may not expand or convert to a freight forwarding use
after 2000. This policy would make this interim understanding a permanent one.
The adoption of Resolution ____-2016 clarifies the intent of this policy, by stating that the
provisions of Resolution 84-97 that permit freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale,
warehouse or distribution uses as legal conforming uses are no longer applicable to the
parcels within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
These changes should have been adopted during the DSASP process to achieve internal policy
consistency with the City’s General Plan, the DSASP, and the underlying zoning for the TO/RD
district. If this General Plan amendment is adopted, legally established warehouse, distribution,
wholesaling, freight forwarding and/or customs brokering uses in the TO/RD district would
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 84-97 CLEAN-UP
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 9 of 10
become legal nonconforming uses, and would be subject to the requirements of Zoning Code
chapter 20.320, Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots. This amendment will provide the
City with internal policy consistency and the power needed to limit the long-term operation of
such warehousing and distribution uses within the envisioned high-density office zoning of the
DSASP’s TO/RD district.
The proposed General Plan Amendment before the Planning Commission would further ensure
consistency between the General Plan, the DSASP, and adopted zoning to implement the
DSASP.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed General Plan Amendment at their public
hearing on January 21, 2016. There were no public comments on the proposed General Plan
Amendment at the hearing. The Planning Commission received one letter from Prologis, stating
qualified support for the proposed amendment (Attachment 4). This letter also suggested edits to
the proposed General Plan policies, specifically including language regarding properties that are
subject to a valid MOU with the City.
The Planning Commission discussed the General Plan Amendment as proposed by staff, and
recommended approval by the City Council, in the interest of achieving internal policy
consistency. The adopting resolution is Attachment 2 to this report.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed amendments to the General Plan are intended to ensure consistency between the
intent of the General Plan, the DSASP, and the DSASP zoning, and help to clarify the intent of
existing General Plan policies. Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment would ensure
consistency between the General Plan, the vision and intent of the DSASP, and the DSASP
zoning.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The revisions and corrections set forth in this General Plan Amendment, as they relate to
Resolution 84-97, the Downtown Sub-Area, and the East of 101 Sub-Area are minor in nature,
the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed
and analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared and circulated for the DSASP
adoption, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the
project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
Accordingly, no further CEQA review is required to approve the amendments.
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION
Exhibit A: Proposed Resolution: East of 101 Area Plan
Exhibit B: Proposed Planning Sub-Areas Element Update
1
RESOLUTION NO._________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE LAND USE SECTION REVISING
THE EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PERTAINING TO LEGAL CONFORMING USES
RECOGNIZED BY RESOLUTION 84-97 AND THE PLANNING SUB-AREAS
ELEMENT TO ENSURE POLICY CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THE
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (DSASP) AND THE TRANSIT
OFFICE / RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORE (TO/RD) ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, in 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 84-97 approving General Plan
Amendment GP-97-030 (“GP-97-030”), amending the East of 101 Area Plan to delete “freight
forwarding” as a use consistent with the “Planned Industrial” land use designation, and
WHEREAS, GP-97-030 included a provision to allow property which was used in whole
or in part for freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehousing or distribution uses
as of July 10, 1997 to continue as legal, conforming uses; and
WHEREAS, GP-97-030 included a provision to allow wholesale, warehouse, and
distribution uses to be converted to freight forwarding and customs brokering uses with a
Conditional Use Permit until July 10, 2000; and
WHEREAS, except as provided by GP-97-030, new development in the “Planned
Industrial” land use category shall not include warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight
forwarding, and customs brokering uses; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan was updated in 1999, and the “Planned Industrial”
land use designation transitioned to “Business Commercial,” and the 1999 General Plan includes
Policy 3.5-I-11 which prohibits new warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding and
customs brokering uses in the Business Commercial land use designation; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (DSASP) in February 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”) guides future
development in the portions of the City that lie within a one-half mile radius of the Caltrain
station and provides the blueprint for future change and improvements in the Downtown and
adjoining areas; and
WHEREAS, the DSASP focuses on improving connections and linkages to the Caltrain
station, downtown, and employment uses east of 101; and
2
WHEREAS, the Transit Office/R&D Core Zoning Sub-district of the DSASP is
envisioned as a high-intensity urban employment district, characterized by a walkable street
pattern; and
WHEREAS, warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs
brokering uses are not permitted in the Transit Office/R&D Core Zoning Sub-district of the
DSASP; and
WHEREAS, warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs
brokering uses generate high levels of truck traffic and are not pedestrian-oriented, and thus, not
consistent with the long-term vision of the DSASP; and
WHEREAS, staff has prepared amendments to the City’s General Plan by amending the
East of 101 Area Plan and the Planning Sub-Areas Element to be consistent with and implement
the policies of the DSASP and underlying zoning; and,
WHEREAS, the DSASP was adopted after preparation, circulation, consideration, and
adoption of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), which
analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the DSASP; and,
WHEREAS, the revisions and corrections set forth in this General Plan Amendment, as
they relate to the East of 101 Area Plan, and the Planning Sub-Areas are minor in nature, the
adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed
in the Environmental Impact Report prepared and circulated for the DSASP adoption, nor do the
refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in
circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and,
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
proposed General Plan Amendment, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the
City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2016, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed
General Plan Amendment, take public testimony, and adopt this resolution approving the
General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
3
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the
South San Francisco Municipal Code; the General Plan Amendment; and all reports, minutes,
and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 21,
2016 meeting; and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City
Council’s duly noticed February 10, 2016 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning
of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
I. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the proposed Amendment to the
portion of the East of 101 Area Plan contained in Resolution 84-97 (Exhibit A), and the
proposed Amendment to the General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element (Exhibit B) are
made part of this Resolution;
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are
located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
II. General Plan Amendments Findings
1. As described in Exhibits A and B, adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment
will include an amendment to the portion of the East of 101 Area Plan contained in
Resolution 84-97 and the Planning Sub-Areas Element of the South San Francisco
General Plan. The amendments would include changes to achieve internal consistency
with the vision and policy direction in the General Plan, Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments are intended as minor alterations to the
General Plan related to implementation of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and
2. The City Council has received and considered the Planning Commission’s
recommendation in support of the General Plan Amendments and consistent with State
law, the South San Francisco General Plan, and the South San Francisco Municipal Code,
the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendments are otherwise
consistent and compatible with the South San Francisco General Plan, are compatible
with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, do not obstruct or impede achievement of
any General Plan policies, are necessary to comply with other adopted plans, and further
4
a number of important Guiding and Implementing Policies set forth in the Land Use,
Planning Sub-Areas, and Transportation Elements, including without limitation:
Guiding Policy 2-G-2: “Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities
for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San
Francisco’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access.”
Guiding Policy 2-G-5: “Maintain Downtown as the City’s physical and symbolic center,
and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities.”
Guiding Policy 3.1-G-1: “Promote Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being, and its
presence as the city’s center.”
Guiding Policy 3.1-G-2: “Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly
mixed-use activity center with retail and visitor-orientated uses, business and personal
services, government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential
types and densities.”
Guiding Policy 3.1-G-3: “Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of
currently underutilized sites.”
Guiding Policy 3.1-G-4: “Enhance linkages between Downtown and transit centers,
and increased street connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods.”
SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and approves
and adopts the General Plan Amendment to the portion of the East of 101 Area Plan contained in
Resolution 84-97attached as Exhibit A, and the amendments to the Planning Sub-Areas Element
attached as Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
** ** ** *
5
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of February, 2016 by the
following vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
6
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED REVISED RESOLUTION: EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN
GPA16-0001
7
Additional Language to be added to the East of 101 Area Plan, preceding the first
paragraph under “2. Planned Industrial” at page 57. (Proposed new text in double-
underline.)
The Planned Industrial land use category in the East of 101 Area Plan includes a portion of
the City which was historically developed and used for warehousing and distribution. In
particular, the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Business Park is considered one of the most
successful such developments in the Bay Area. These historic uses will continue to be an
important segment of the business community in the City. At the same time, the City has
identified the need to plan for and accommodate the growth and expansion of other
industrial, office and research and development uses. The area of the City designated in
Planned Industrial land use category has the greatest potential to accommodate that future
growth and expansion.
In order to accommodate the future growth and expansion of industrial parks, light
manufacturing, office, and research and development uses, while at the same time preserving
the opportunities for existing warehouse and freight forwarding businesses to continue, new
development or redevelopment in the Planned Industrial land use category will be limited to
industrial parks, light manufacturing, office uses, retail, hotels, research and development.
Warehouse and distribution uses that are ancillary to or a part of a manufacturing business in
the City or that include retail sales of their primary products from the wholesale and
distribution facility as a part of their operations are also permitted for new development or
redevelopment in the Planned Industrial land use category.
All property, which is used, in whole or in part, for freight forwarding, customs brokering,
wholesale, warehousing or distribution as of July 10, 1997, may continue to be used for the
use in effect as of July 10, 1997 as legal, conforming uses, except for those parcels located in
the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area as described in more detail below. Any legal,
conforming use may be improved expanded, modified or reconstructed in accordance with
the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
In order to permit existing businesses time to plan for future expansion and change,
wholesale, warehouse and distribution uses may also be converted to freight forwarding and
customs brokering uses with granting of a conditional use permit until July 10, 2000. After
that date, freight forwarding and customs brokering uses may continue as legal, conforming
uses and they may convert to any other legal, conforming use, including wholesale,
warehouse and distribution, permitted in the Planned Industrial category, except for those
parcels located in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area as described in more detail
below. Except as provided above, new development or redevelopment proposed for or
undertaken in the Planned Industrial land use category after July 10, 1997, shall not include
warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding and customs brokering uses.
The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”) was adopted in 2015, providing a
vision for the future growth and development for downtown, including the eastern
neighborhood, which is located east of 101. The DSASP envisions downtown as a vibrant
and pedestrian friendly-environment, maximizing transit-oriented development opportunities
8
in the vicinity of the Caltrain station. The DSASP also focuses on connections and linkages
to Caltrain, downtown, and the employment areas east of 101.
In order to realize the vision of the DSASP, the provisions of the East of 101 Area Plan
permitting freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehouse or distribution uses
as established by Resolution 84-97 are no longer applicable to parcels located within the
DSASP area. With the adoption of Resolution ____-2016, legally established and continually
operating freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehouse or distribution uses
as of July 10, 1997, or granted a conditional use permit as of July 10, 2000, will become
legal, non-conforming uses, subject to the requirements of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code regarding non-conforming uses, structures, and lots. However, if prior to the
adoption of Resolution ____-2016, an entity operating within the DSASP area has executed a
valid Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the City of South San Francisco
acknowledging certain properties’ uses as a legal conforming use for the term of the MOU,
then those uses contemplated in the MOU may continue as a legal conforming use subject to
the terms of the MOU.
9
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED PLANNING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT AMENDMENT
GPA16-0001
10
3-10
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
If development does not meet the established off-street
parking requirements, proponents would be required to
contribute an appropriate share to the Downtown Parking
District to mitigate impacts associated with the develop-
ment.
3.1-I-9 Establish design and signage standards for development along Grand
and Linden avenues.
3.1-I-10 Require all development in Downtown to either meet the established
off-street parking requirements, or contribute an appropriate share to
the Downtown Parking District to mitigate impacts associated with the
development.
Many recent developments in Downtown have neither provided off-street
parking, nor contributed any monies to the Downtown Parking District,
because findings that result in exemptions allowed in the City’s Zoning
Ordinance have been easy to make. Section 20.74.080 the City’s Zoning
Ordinance will need to be amended to conform to this policy.
3.1-I-11 Explore the feasibility of establishing Miller and Baden avenues
as one-way couplets, for the extent between Airport Boulevard and
Spruce Avenue.
This effort should be coordinated with SamTrans, as both Miller and
Baden avenues are bus routes.
3.1-I-12 Explore the feasibility of expanding the Downtown Central
Redevelopment District boundaries to encompass sites designated
Downtown Commercial, and Downtown High and Medium Density
Residential.
This will require extension of the current redevelopment boundar-
ies west to Orange Avenue, and expansion along the Linden Avenue
corridor.
In order to realize the vision of the Downtown as a walkable, vibrant envi-
ronment, the provisions of the East of 101 Area Plan contained in Resolution
84-97 that permit freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, ware-
house, or distribution uses as legal conforming uses shall no longer apply
to the parcels within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area
per Resolution ____-2016, adopted on (insert date).
This policy will help to ensure that the future land use pattern in the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area supports high-density and inten-
sity pedestrian-oriented uses closest to the Caltrain commuter station.
11
3-46
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
3.5-I-11 Do not permit any new warehousing and distribution north of East
Grand Avenue or in areas designated Business Commercial.
While warehousing and freight forwarding are important components of
the local and regional economy, they tend to have high service costs and
low revenue and employment generation. The location of freight for-
warding has been an issue in South San Francisco throughout the 1990s.
Inclusion of freight forwarding in the East of 101 Area Plan Planned
Industrial (PI) land use classification was debated extensively during
preparation of the East of 101 Area Plan, and freight forwarding was ulti-
mately included as a permitted use. Recently the City has experienced an
surge in applications for new freight forwarding uses, with a 55 percent
increase in freight forwarding firms in the East of 101 area between 1993
and 1997. About half of the freight forwarding operations are located in
the PI area north of East Grand Avenue, limiting the availability of this
land for expansion of the R&D and office uses for which the district was
created, and potentially making the area less attractive to such firms.
After proposing an amendment to the East of 101 Area Plan that would
limit expansion of such operations, the City reached a compromise with
freight forwarding operators whereby warehousing uses may not expand
or convert to a freight forwarding use after 2000. This policy would make
this interim understanding a permanent one. The adoption of
Resolution ___-2016 clarifies the intent of this policy, by stating that the
provisions of Resolution 84-97 that permit freight forwarding, customs
brokering, wholesale, warehouse or distribution uses as legal
conforming uses are no longer applicable to the parcels within the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
3.5-I-12 Explore mechanisms to help warehousing and distribution establish-
ments, located in Business Commercial or Business and Technology
Park districts, that are unable to convert to conforming uses due to
parking requirements, to attain conformity.
Many warehousing buildings in these districts are fairly new, and many
would convert to conforming uses if parking standards were not an
impediment. Options to facilitate this that should be explored as part of
the implementation process include reduced parking standards for such
uses, or in lieu fee contributions to a City-established parking program to
provide off-site parking at select locations.
3.5-I-13 Facilitate waterfront enhancement and accessibility by:
12
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2783-2016
13
RESOLUTION NO._2783-2016__
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO MAKE CHANGES TO
THE LAND USE SECTION REVISING THE EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PERTAINING
TO LAND USES CONTEMPLATED UNDER RESOLUTION 84-97 AND THE
PLANNING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT TO ENSURE POLICY CONSISTENCY WITH
THE GENERAL PLAN, THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
(DSASP) AND THE TRANSIT OFFICE / RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORE
(TO/RD) ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, in 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 84-97 approving General Plan
Amendment GP-97-030 (“GP-97-030”), amending the East of 101 Area Plan to delete “freight
forwarding” as a use consistent with the “Planned Industrial” land use designation, and
WHEREAS, GP-97-030 included a provision to allow property which was used in whole
or in part for freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehousing or distribution uses
as of July 10, 1997 to continue as legal, conforming uses; and
WHEREAS, GP-97-030 included a provision to allow wholesale, warehouse, and
distribution uses to be converted to freight forwarding and customs brokering uses with a
Conditional Use Permit until July 10, 2000; and
WHEREAS, except as provided by GP-97-030, new development in the “Planned
Industrial” land use category shall not include warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight
forwarding, and customs brokering uses; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan was updated in 1999, and the “Planned Industrial”
land use designation transitioned to “Business Commercial,” and the 1999 General Plan includes
Policy 3.5-I-11 which prohibits new warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding and
customs brokering uses in the Business Commercial land use designation; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (DSASP) in February 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”) guides future
development in the portions of the City that lie within a one-half mile radius of the Caltrain
station and provides the blueprint for future change and improvements in the Downtown and
adjoining areas; and
WHEREAS, the DSASP focuses on improving connections and linkages to the Caltrain
station, downtown, and employment uses east of 101; and
14
WHEREAS, the Transit Office/R&D Core Zoning Sub-district of the DSASP is
envisioned as a high-intensity urban employment district, characterized by a walkable street
pattern; and
WHEREAS, warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs
brokering uses are not permitted in the Transit Office/R&D Core Zoning Sub-district of the
DSASP; and
WHEREAS, warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs
brokering uses generate high levels of truck traffic and are not pedestrian-oriented, and thus, not
consistent with the long-term vision of the DSASP; and
WHEREAS, staff has prepared amendments to the City’s General Plan by amending the
East of 101 Area Plan and the Planning Sub-Areas Element to be consistent with and implement
the policies of the DSASP and underlying zoning; and,
WHEREAS, the DSASP was adopted after preparation, circulation, consideration, and
adoption of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), which
analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the DSASP; and,
WHEREAS, the revisions and corrections set forth in this General Plan Amendment, as
they relate to the East of 101 Area Plan, and the Planning Sub-Areas are minor in nature, the
adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed
in the Environmental Impact Report prepared and circulated for the DSASP adoption, nor do the
refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in
circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
WHEREAS, on January 21,2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
proposed General Plan Amendment, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the
City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the
South San Francisco Municipal Code; the General Plan Amendment; and all reports, minutes,
and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 21,
2016 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)
and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as
follows:
15
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
I.General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the proposed Amendment to the
portion of the East of 101 Area Plan contained in Resolution 84-97 (Exhibit A), and the
proposed Amendment to the General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element (Exhibit B);
3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are
located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
II.General Plan Amendments Findings
1.As described in Exhibits A and B, adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment
will include an amendment to the portion of the East of 101 Area Plan contained in
Resolution 84-97 and the Planning Sub-Areas Element of the South San Francisco
General Plan. The amendments would include changes to achieve internal consistency
with the vision and policy direction in the General Plan, Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments are intended as minor alterations to the
General Plan related to implementation of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and
2.As required under State law, the South San Francisco General Plan, and the South San
Francisco Municipal Code, in support of the General Plan Amendments, the Planning
Commission finds that the proposed General Plan Amendments are otherwise consistent
and compatible with the South San Francisco General Plan, are compatible with the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, do not obstruct or impede achievement of any
General Plan policies, are necessary to comply with other adopted plans, and further a
number of important Guiding and Implementing Policies set forth in the Land Use,
Planning Sub-Areas, and Transportation Elements, including without limitation:
Guiding Policy 2-G-2: “Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities
for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San
Francisco’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access.”
Guiding Policy 2-G-5: “Maintain Downtown as the City’s physical and symbolic center,
and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities.”
Guiding Policy 3.1-G-1: “Promote Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being, and its
presence as the city’s center.”
16
Guiding Policy 3.1-G-2: “Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly
mixed-use activity center with retail and visitor-orientated uses, business and personal
services, government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential
types and densities.”
Guiding Policy 3.1-G-3: “Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of
currently underutilized sites.”
Guiding Policy 3.1-G-4: “Enhance linkages between Downtown and transit centers,
and increased street connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods.”
SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and
recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve and adopt the General Plan
Amendment to the portion of the East of 101 Area Plan contained in Resolution 84-97attached as
Exhibit A, and the amendments to the Planning Sub-Areas Element attached as Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of January, 2016 by the
following vote:
AYES:__Chairperson Wong, Vice Chairperson Khalfin, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner
Lujan, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Nagales_____
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:___Commissioner Ruiz______________________________
Attest:_____/s/Sailesh Mehra___________
Sailesh Mehra, Secretary to the Planning Commission
17
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 84-97
18
19
20
21
ATTACHMENT 4
PROLOGIS LETTER
22
January 21, 2016
Via Email
Chair Alan N. Wong and Planning Commissioners
South San Francisco Planning Commission
400 Grand Ave.
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Re: Proposed Amendments to Resolution No. 84-97 and General Plan
(Case Nos. P11-0097: GPA 16-0001)
Dear Chair Wong and Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of Prologis, to state our qualified support for the City’s proposal to amend
City Resolution No. 84-97 and the General Plan to make changes to certain land use designations
under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP). Specifically, we support the City’s
efforts to ensure that certain long-standing uses within the DSASP area are able to maintain their
“legal conforming” status while we plan for eventual redevelopment in this area. We also
propose some clarifications to the amendment language put forward by staff.
Background
As you may know, Prologis owns a total of 13 properties in the City, covering over 65 acres.
Three of our properties, which house warehouse/storage/distribution facilities, are located within
the area targeted by the proposed amendments: 100 East Grand Ave., 105 Associated Rd., and
175 Sylvester Rd. Prologis (and AMB Property, prior to the merger of these companies) has a
history of successfully working with City staff on land use issues, including a negotiated
agreement regarding interim uses at 245 South Spruce, and the sale of the Oyster Point Business
Park property to a prominent joint venture.
As described in your Staff Report, City Resolution 84-97 provided that all properties within the
Planned Industrial land use category of the East of 101 Area Plan that were used, in whole or in
part, for freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehousing or distribution as of July
10, 1997, and that have continuously operated as legal uses, may continue to be used for such use
as legal, conforming uses. Additionally, under this resolution legal, conforming uses may be
improved, expanded, modified or reconstructed in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code.
The resolution was reflected in the City’s General Plan, adopted in 1999. However, under the
DSASP, the City designated the area containing our three properties as Transit Office/R&D
Core, which does not identify warehousing or similar uses as permitted uses.
23
When the City adopted the DSASP in February 2015, it did not overturn Resolution 84-97 or
adopt amendments to the General Plan removing reference to this resolution. Now, staff is
proposing that the City adopt an amendment to the General Plan, effectively overturning
Resolution 84-97 within the DSASP and removing legal conforming status from any parcels with
otherwise conforming warehouse, distribution, customs brokering, or freight forwarding uses.
At the same time, the amendment would create an exception for any “entity operating within the
DSASP area [that] has executed a valid Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) with the City
of South San Francisco acknowledging certain properties’ uses as a legal conforming use for the
term of the MOU”.
Each of the buildings at 100 East Grand, 105 Associated, and 175 Sylvester have been occupied
with warehousing, distribution, and/or related uses since July 10, 1997, and therefore have legal
conforming status under Resolution 84-97. Currently, we are working with Community
Development Director Alex Greenwood to finalize an MOU with respect to the continued use of
the three warehouse facilities listed above, and anticipate that this MOU will be executed prior to
City Council adoption of the proposed resolution.
Proposed Language
Prologis would prefer that the City leave Resolution 84-97 intact, in recognition of the fact that
the East of 101 area has long been an industrial area. We—and many other landowners—have
made substantial investments in these industrial properties on the basis of their legal conforming
status, and despite the City’s aspirations, the area is not immediately suitable for redevelopment
into commercial/R&D, let alone residential, uses. At the same time, we recognize that the City
has rezoned this area, and is considering further planning changes that could allow residential
uses in the future. Prologis is committed to both improving its properties in the short-term and
planning for redevelopment once the market forces are aligned. We are poised to make these
commitments official in the MOU we have put together with the City, but in exchange need
assurance from the City that our immediate ability to lease and use our properties is not affected.
In recognition of these commitments and investments, if the City adopts the proposed
amendments, it is critical that the language authorizing properties to maintain their legal
conforming status with an MOU is included.
Additionally, this language currently appears only in the proposed amendments to the East of
101 Area Plan and not in the amendments to the General Plan. To avoid any future doubt about
how these planning documents fit together, we request that the City revise the proposed
amendment language as follows. (Staff’s proposed amendments to the General Plan are shown
in underline, and Prologis’ additional language is shown in bold underline).
24
•Policy 3.1-I-12 to the Downtown Section of the Sub-Areas Element:
3.1-I-12: In order to realize the vision of the Downtown as a walkable, vibrant
environment, the provisions of the East of 101 Area Plan contained in Resolution 84-97
that permit freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehouse, or distribution
uses as legal conforming uses shall no longer apply to the parcels within the Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan area, except as set forth in a valid Memorandum of
Understanding (“MOU”) with the City of South San Francisco acknowledging certain
properties’ uses as a legal conforming use for the term of the MOU, as set forth in
Resolution ____-2016 adopted on (insert date).
This policy will help to ensure that the future land use pattern in the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan area supports high-density and intensity pedestrian-oriented uses
closest to the Caltrain commuter station.
•Implementing Policy 3.5-I-11 of the East of 101 section of the Planning Sub-Areas
Element (Chapter 3) of the General Plan:
While warehousing and freight forwarding are important components of the local and
regional economy, they tend to have high service costs and low revenue and employment
generation. The location of freight forwarding has been an issue in South San Francisco
throughout the 1990s. Inclusion of freight forwarding in the East of 101 Area Plan
Planned Industrial (PI) land use classification was debated extensively during preparation
of the East of 101 Area Plan, and freight forwarding was ultimately included as a
permitted use. Recently the City has experienced a surge in applications for new freight
forwarding uses, with a 55 percent increase in freight forwarding firms in the East of 101
area between 1993 and 1997. About half of the freight forwarding operations are located
in the PI area north of East Grand Avenue, limiting the availability of this land for
expansion of the R&D and office uses for which the district was created, and potentially
making the area less attractive to such firms. After proposing an amendment to the East
of 101 Area Plan that would limit expansion of such operations, the City reached a
compromise with freight forwarding operators whereby warehousing uses may not
expand or convert to a freight forwarding use after 2000. This policy would make this
interim understanding a permanent one.
The adoption of Resolution ____-2016 clarifies the intent of this policy, by stating that
the provisions of Resolution 84-97 that permit freight forwarding, customs brokering,
wholesale, warehouse or distribution uses as legal conforming uses are no longer
applicable to the parcels within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, except as set
forth in a valid Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the City of South
San Francisco acknowledging certain properties’ uses as a legal conforming use for
the term of the MOU.
25
Thank you for your consideration, and we hope you will include these revisions in your
recommendation to the City Council. We look forward to finalizing and executing our MOU
with the City, and working toward a longer-term vision for our East of 101 properties.
Sincerely,
Alex Banchero
cc: Mike Futrell, City Manager
Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney
Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager
26
ATTACHMENT 5
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
27
City Council Meeting
February 10, 2016
1
28
DSASP clean-up item
Ensure policy consistency:
◦General Plan
◦DSASP
◦Zoning to implement the DSASP
29
DSASP + subject
to provisions of
84-97
30
31
Applied to “Planned
Industrial”
32
Business and
Technology
Park
Business
Commercial
33
Amend the East of 101 Area Plan, creating anew resolution that updates the provisions ofResolution 84-97 in relation to the DSASP
Add an implementing policy to the DowntownSection of the Planning Sub-Areas element,referencing the new resolution in relation tothe DSASP
Add clarifying language to the East of 101Section of the Sub-Areas element
34
Reviewed on January 21
Recommended approval of General Plan
Amendment
35
Adopt a resolution with findings to approve
the proposed General Plan Amendment.
36
Staff Report
DATE: February 10, 2016
TO: Ma yor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO
AMEND THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER
20.270 (“EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN
DISTRICT”) TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE LAND USE REGULATIONS
AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; CHAPTER 20.280 (“DOWNTOWN
STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT”) TO MAKE CHANGES TO
THE LAND USE REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS;
CHAPTER 20.490 (“USE PERMITS”) TO CLARIFY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REVIEW AUTHORITY, AND CHAPTER 20.570 (“APPEALS AND
CALLS FOR REVIEW”) TO REVISE CALL FOR REVIEW AUTHORITY,
AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN
ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED EIR
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1.Introduce an Ordinance (ZA15-0009) amending the Municipal Code to amend
Chapter 20.270 to make changes to the land use regulations and development
regulations of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District; Chapter
20.280 to make changes to the land use regulations and development standards of
the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District; Chapter 20.490 to clarify Use
Permit authority; and Chapter 20.570 to revise call for review authority for the City
Council for Planning Commission reviewed projects and waive further reading.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Overview
The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) was adopted in February of 2015 as a
guiding vision document for new downtown commercial and residential development. The
DSASP’s primary goal is to focus new density close to the SSF Caltrain Station, and offer
transportation alternatives to prospective residents or workers. Accordingly, the adopted zoning
in Chapter 20.280 provides the specific regulations implementing the DSASP objectives. Staff
has reviewed the current and potential projects within the DSASP area and identified some minor
inconsistencies that should be addressed, including portions of the zoning standards for the
Linden Commercial Corridor and Linden Neighborhood Commercial zoning sub-districts that
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: DSASP and ECR/C ZONING AMENDMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 2 of 7
were incomplete at time of DSASP adoption. Minor clarifications consistent with the DSASP
vision have been made for consideration. Additionally, staff suggests a revision to the private
storage space requirement to provide design flexibility within the DSASP area.
A study session in October of 2015 with the City Council provided guidance for the proposed
zoning text amendment; large projects with potential community impacts should be subject to
City Council review to ensure consistency with City goals and priorities. Additionally, projects
within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District (ECR/C) should be subject to
similar review since the ECR/C specific plan allows similar buildout to the DSASP area. The
revised zoning text amendment (Ordinance Amendments) reflects this discussion and proposes:
1. Clean up revisions to Chapter 20.280 to reflect new development standards that were
omitted in the DSASP adoption process or require clarification (previously discussed
with the Planning Commission in September, 2015);
2. New Conditional Use Permit requirement for Multiple-Unit Residential classifications
within the DSASP and ECR/C zoning sub-districts to ensure discretionary authority for
the Planning Commission and/or City Council;
3. Revisions to Chapters 20.270 and 20.280 to require City Council review of a DSASP or
ECR/C projects requesting an incentive program for additional density, Floor Area
Ratio, and/or height;
4. Revisions to 20.490 to clarify Conditional Use Permit review authority to remain
consistent with the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance; and
5. Revisions to Chapter 20.570 to amend the Calls for Review process to create flexibility
for the City Council to call up projects for discretionary review.
These changes will have the effect of requiring a Conditional Use Permit for all multiple-unit
residential projects within the DSASP or ECR/C; requiring City Council final approval for all
multiple-unit residential projects requesting the incentive programs as described in Chapters
20.270 and 20.280; and providing additional flexibility for the City Council to call other projects
for review at their discretion.
Proposed Revisions
The proposed revisions are summarized below. The specific zoning text changes are included as
a draft Ordinance Amendment as Attachment 1.
1. Revise Table 20.280.003 Land Use Regulations to allow Clean Technologies,
Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing, and Research and Development use classifications
in additional zoning sub-districts of the DSASP.
Currently, these uses are permitted within the Eastern Neighborhood zoning sub-district, and
allowed with a Minor Use Permit in the Downtown Transit Core. These uses represent a
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: DSASP and ECR/C ZONING AMENDMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 3 of 7
hybrid of office and research/manufacturing uses that could take advantage of the City’s
excellent Research & Development employer base, and position the City for potential future
economic development opportunities. Research and Development uses generally function
like office space with some testing or analytical laboratory space. Clean Technologies or
Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing can be slightly more intense, but must follow the
performance definitions created in SSFMC 20.620.005 as part of the DSASP adoption this
year.
Clean Technology. A facility for technical research and the design, development, and
testing of technology that uses less material and/or energy, generates less waste, and
causes less environmental damage than the alternatives.
Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing. Manufacture of a wide range of products to serve
niche or specialty markets. Includes the manufacture of crafts, art, sculpture, stained
glass, jewelry, apparel, electronic components, medical instrumentation or devices,
nanotechnology components and similar at a smaller scale than industry sub-
classifications. Custom manufacturing facilities may use innovative technology such as
advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, 3-D printing, automation, and sustainable and
green processes and typically require only a small amount of raw materials, area and
power. These facilities do not generate excessive noise, particulate matter, vibration,
smoke, dust, gas fumes, odors, vehicle traffic or other nuisances.
Staff recommends that these types of uses (Research and Development, Clean Technology,
Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing) be permitted in Grand Avenue Core zoning district
(“GAC”) on the second floor only, similar to office use regulations. In order to not preclude
future office development in the Downtown area, staff is also recommending that these uses
be allowed in all DSASP zoning sub-districts, except for the Downtown Residential Core
(“DRC”), with approval of a Minor Use Permit.
2. Revise Table 20.280.004-2 Building Form and Location Standards to clarify regulations
for the Linden Commercial Corridor (LCC) and Linden Neighborhood Commercial
(LNC) zoning sub-districts.
Portions of the zoning standards for the Linden Commercial Corridor and Linden
Neighborhood Commercial zoning sub-districts were incomplete at time of DSASP adoption.
Minor clarifications consistent with the DSASP vision have been made for consideration,
including minimum ground floor height for commercial uses and rear setbacks.
3. Revise Table 20.280.004-3 Open Space and Landscaping Standards to clarify
regulations for the Linden Commercial Corridor (LCC) zoning sub-district.
The open space standards were not included in the adopted zoning for the Linden
Commercial Corridor zoning sub-district and have been clarified to be consistent with the
City’s requirement for 100 SF of open space per residential unit.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: DSASP and ECR/C ZONING AMENDMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 4 of 7
4. Revise Section 20.280.005 Additional Development Standards to modify the Private
Storage Space requirements to provide design flexibility for residential development
projects.
Recent development projects (proposed and approved) have indicated that both the overall
requirement and dimensional requirements for private storage have been difficult to meet
while simultaneously providing required parking. Staff has reviewed other San Mateo
County jurisdiction requirements and found that for cities with a private storage requirement,
South San Francisco’s requirement is consistent. To provide some flexibility, however, staff
suggests removing the dimensional requirement and allowing an overall reduction of up to
25% or up to 50% if the storage is located proximate to the residential units rather than
within the garage. Both reductions would require approval by the Chief Planner. Allowing
the Chief Planner to permit such a reduction provides design direction during the early stages
of project development.
5. Revise Table 20.280.003 Land Use Regulations for Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan Sub-Districts to require a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple-Unit Residential
classifications.
Staff suggests requiring a Conditional Use Permit for the Multiple-Unit Residential use
classification. This will be consistent with the City Council’s request to have “discretionary”
review of any multiple-unit residential project that is called for review. With this change,
there will be no “by-right” residential developments allowed within the DSASP zoning sub-
district. Projects will require Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit,
and subject to the proposed revisions to Section 20.570.006, if at least two members of the
City Council request to call up the project for review, the City Council will have approval
authority over the Conditional Use Permit.
6. Revise Section 20.280.005 Additional Development Standards for the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan District to require Conditional Use Permit approval by the City
Council for projects requesting the Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program.
This revision would provide the City Council with Conditional Use Permit discretionary
review for any project seeking the maximum density or FAR incentives within the DSASP
area. This revision will allow the City Council to evaluate developers’ proposed public
benefits and density/FAR to determine consistency with City priorities and will allow the
City Council to balance the political and social impacts of the largest new developments
within the Downtown area.
7. Revise Table 20.270.003 Land Use Regulations for El Camino Real/Chestnut Sub-
Districts to require a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple-Unit Residential
classifications.
Staff suggests requiring a Conditional Use Permit for the Multiple-Unit Residential use
classification. This will be consistent with the City Council’s request to have “discretionary”
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: DSASP and ECR/C ZONING AMENDMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 5 of 7
review of any multiple-unit residential project that is called for review. With this change,
there will be no “by-right” residential developments allowed within the ECR/C district.
Projects will require Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and subject
to the proposed revisions to Section 20.570.006, if at least two members of the City Council
request to call up the project for review, the City Council will have approval authority over
the Conditional Use Permit.
8. Revise Section 20.270.004 Development Standards for the El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Plan District to require Conditional Use Permit approval by the City Council
for projects requesting the Increased Density, FAR, and/or Height Incentive Program.
Consistent with the reasoning behind the revisions to the DSASP District, this revision would
give Conditional Use Permit authority to the City Council for ECR/C projects requesting an
increase in density, FAR, and/or height instead of the Planning Commission.
9. Revise Section 20.490.003 Procedures to modify the Conditional Use Permit authority
language to allow for City Council review of projects requesting an Incentive Program
density, FAR, and/or height increase.
This modification is proposed to keep the Procedures section of the Zoning Ordinance
consistent with the above changes related to City Council review authority for Conditional
Use Permits for projects requesting an Incentive Program density, FAR, and/or height
increases.
10. Revise Section 20.570.006 Calls for Review to create flexibility for the City Council to
call up specific projects for discretionary review.
As requested by the City Council at their October 28, 2015 study session, staff is
recommending that the following language be added to clarify the City Council’s Call for
Review process. Under the proposed revision, all Planning Commission discretionary action
will be summarized and forwarded to the City Council. If at least two members of the City
Council would like the entire City Council to review a certain project, then that project can
be called for review if at least two (2) Councilmembers submit a request in writing to the
City Clerk or at least two (2) Councilmembers note their requests on the record at a City
Council hearing within the fifteen (15) day appeal period.
This change will provide the City Council with added flexibility to call projects for review.
The proposed process is designed to alleviate some logistical burdens inherent in the current
process, which requires a majority of Councilmembers to make a request within the 15-day
appeal period. In order to call a project up for review under the current process, the City
Council must hold a properly noticed public meeting within the 15-day appeal period to
avoid conflict with the Brown Act, which requires a public meeting for any majority action.
Since the City Council does not always meet within 15 days of a Planning Commission
hearing, the current process makes calls for review logistically challenging. With the
proposed revision, calls for review may be achieved by submitting requests in writing and by
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: DSASP and ECR/C ZONING AMENDMENT
DATE: February 10, 2016
Page 6 of 7
only two Councilmembers as opposed to a majority, and this alleviates the logistical burden
and furthers the City Council’s expressed interest in having discretionary review over certain
projects.
Additionally, these changes would provide minor revisions to the Planning Commission call
for review process. All Zoning Administrator hearing determinations by the Chief Planner
would be transmitted to the Planning Commission during the 15-day appeal period and could
be called for review in a similar manner as the City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed Zoning Amendment at their public hearing on
December 17, 2015. There were two public comments by development representatives,
recommending the added flexibility for the personal storage requirements.
The Planning Commission discussed the Zoning Amendment and recommended approval by the
City Council with the additional recommendation to consider flexibility with the storage
requirement. The Planning Commission agreed with comments from the public that allowing a
reduced amount of storage could be appropriate and this suggestion has since been incorporated
into the draft Ordinance.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed Ordinance Amendments are consistent with General Plan policies, specifically
those policies related to community development, economic vitality, and redevelopment in the
downtown. The proposed Ordinance Amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest,
convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City. In contrast, the Ordinance
Amendments will bolster the public interest by ensuring orderly and suitable infill development
and public review, as recommended in the General Plan’s land use element and Downtown
planning sub-area.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in the Ordinance Amendments, as
they relate to development regulations within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area, El
Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan District, Use Permit review authority and Appeals and Calls for
Review authority, are minor in nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously
identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the EIR adopted for either Specific
Plan or the IS/ND prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, nor do the refinements,
clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances
that would require additional environmental review.
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE
1
ORDINANCE NO. ________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.270 (“EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN
DISTRICT”) TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE LAND USE REGULATIONS AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CHAPTER 20.280 (“DOWNTOWN STATION AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT”) TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE LAND USE
REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CHAPTER 20.490 (“USE
PERMITS”) TO CLARIFY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW AUTHORITY;
AND CHAPTER 20.570 (“APPEALS AND CALLS FOR REVIEW”) TO MODIFY CALL
FOR REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PLANNING
COMMISSION REVIEWED PROJECTS.
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
considered and adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”) and associated
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports; and
WHEREAS, since the time of adoption, minor revisions to the adopted zoning to
implement the DSASP have been identified to clarify development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also expressed a desire to have discretionary review
authority for new downtown development projects; and
WHEREAS, consistent with this new authority in the DSASP area, staff has
recommended that similar review authority also be provided for the El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan District (“ECR/CH Plan”); and
WHEREAS, providing the City Council with final review authority will assure that new
developments are consistent with the DSASP and ECR/CH Plan, community priorities, and City
Council preferences to ensure civic-wide benefits for existing and future residents; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment (“Amendment”) to the City’s
Zoning Ordinance, including refinements to Chapter 20.270 for the El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan District, 20.280 for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District,
clarifications to Chapter 20.490 for Use Permit authority, and modifications to Chapter 20.570 to
provide the City Council with revised appeal authority for Planning Commission reviewed
projects; and
WHEREAS, these Amendments are consistent with the previous preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of the ECR/CH Plan EIR and DSASP EIR in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
(“CEQA”), in which both EIR s analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Plans and
associated Zoning Ordinance amendments and concluded that adoption of the Plans could have
2
significant effects on the environment because some of the impacts required to be analyzed under
CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the ECR/CH Plan EIR and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations that evaluated the benefits of the ECR/CH Plan against its
unavoidable impacts on May 25, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the DSASP EIR and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations that evaluated the benefits of the DSASP against its unavoidable impacts on
January 28, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
(“CEQA”), in which the IS/ND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning
Ordinance and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant
effect on the environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA
would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this
Amendment, as they relate to development regulations within the DSASP area and review
authority for the City Council in the ECR/CH and DSASP Plan, and broader City Council call
for review authority over Planning Commission reviewed projects are minor in nature, the
adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed
in the EIRs adopted for both the ECR/CH and DSASP Plan or the IS/ND prepared for the Zoning
Ordinance Update, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change
in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
3
I. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based, includes without
limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”)) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code
of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan
EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal
Code; the adopted South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by
BMS Design Group; the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR,
including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; the adopted El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia; the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices
thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission’s duly noticed September 17, 2015 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed December 17, 2015
meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s
duly noticed October 28, 2015 study session meeting; and all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed February 10, 2016 meeting;
and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2)
3. The refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Amendment, as they relate
to development regulations within the DSASP area and ECR/CH Plan areas, and the
revisions to the Use Permit review authority and the Appeals and Calls for Review chapter,
are minor in nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified
effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the EIRs adopted for both the DSASP and
ECR/CH Plan on January 28, 2015, and May 25, 2011, respectively or the IS/ND prepared
for the Zoning Ordinance Update, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections
constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional
environmental review.
4. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at
the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
II. Zoning Text Amendment Findings
1. As described in Section II, adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments will
include revisions to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to reflect minor
changes to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District (SSFMC 20.280), modify the
land use regulations and development standards for new development projects within the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District and El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area
4
Plan District (SSFMC 20.270), clarify Use Permit authority (SSFMC 20.490), and modify
the appeals and call up process for development projects (SSFMC 20.570).
2. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the General Plan because
the Ordinance Amendments will continue to reinforce many of the General Plan policies
related to land use, specifically pedestrian-friendly mixed-use, infill development, and
improved linkages to a transit center as defined in the General Plan. Further, the Zoning
Ordinance Amendments do not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent
with the City’s overall vision for community development, economic vitality, and
redevelopment in the downtown and along the El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue
corridors. None of the new or revised definitions, tables, figures and land uses will conflict
with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established
in the General Plan.
3. The areas of the City impacted by the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are suitable
for the proposed uses. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments will allow for clarification of
development regulations throughout the DSASP area and ECR/CH Plan areas to provide
consistency with the DSASP and ECR/CH Plan, community priorities, and City Council
preferences to ensure civic-wide benefits for existing and future residents, and a more robust
array of development and land uses in the downtown and along the El Camino Real and
Chestnut Avenue corridors. Although specific parcels would be affected as part of the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, the impact would be beneficial since property owners
would have a wider set of standards to improve or develop upon their property and new
zoning regulations would guide the development and performance of properties within the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent
with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to community development,
economic vitality, vibrant walkability, and redevelopment in the downtown and along the El
Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue corridors. Modifications to the Use Permits and Appeals
and Calls for Review chapters would not affect or change land use citywide and no land use
impact is expected.
4. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are not detrimental to the use of land in any
adjacent zone because the Ordinance Amendments would provide for sufficient
development, land use, and performance standards related to new development or alteration.
More specifically, the Zoning Ordinance Amendments include regulations to allow a wider
array of commercial and employment uses within the DSASP area, new development
standards for the Linden Community Commercial (LCC) and Linden Neighborhood
Commercial (LNC) zoning districts, modifications to storage requirements for new
residential development projects, clarifications to Use Permit authority, and provision of a
modified call for review authority for the City Council. The proposed Ordinance
Amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the
City or land within the City; instead, the Ordinance amendments will bolster the public
interest by ensuring orderly and suitable infill development and design review, as
recommended in the General Plan’s land use element and Downtown and El Camino Real
planning sub-areas.
5
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating
addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included
below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
A. Revise Chapter 20.280 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District to read as
follows:
1. Revise Table 20.280.003 Land Use Regulations to allow Clean Technologies,
Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing, and Research and Development use classifications
in the following zoning sub-districts:
Uses Permitted DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional
Regulations
Employment Use Classifications
Clean Technologies MUP P (3) - P MUP MUP
Handicraft/Custom
Manufacturing MUP P (3) - P MUP MUP
Research and Development MUP P (3) - P MUP MUP
Limitations:
1. Permitted if existing. New units not allowed.
2. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 victims and may not be located within 300
feet of any other domestic violence shelter.
3. Prohibited on the ground floor except residential uses located south of Baden Avenue,
banks and walk-in offices which are subject to approval of a Use Permit.
4. Subject to licensing requirements.
5. Limited to upper stories unless at least 50 percent of the ground floor street frontage is
occupied by food service uses.
6. Must be located at least 1,000 feet from any other social service facility.
Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor along Grand Avenue, except on properties located
west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
2. Revise Table 20.280.004-2 Building Form and Location Standards to clarify
regulations for the Linden Commercial Corridor (LCC) and Linden Neighborhood
Commercial (LNC) zoning sub-districts:
Standard DTC GAC DRC TORD LCC LNC
Additional
Standards
Height (ft)
6
Maximum
Building
Height
85 45-65
(1)(2) 65 FAA
allowed 50 50
See Section
20.300
Height and
Height
Exceptions
Minimum
Ground Floor
Height for
non-
residential
uses
15; 12 min
clearance
15; 12
min
clearance
15; 12 min
clearance
15;12
min
clearance
15; 12 min
clearance
15; 12 min
clearance
See above and
Section
20.280.005(B)(1)
Maximum
Finished
Floor Height
(residential)
5 n/a 5 n/a 5 5 See above
Yards (ft) Grand
Avenue (east
and west)
Frontage
n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a
Pedestrian
Priority Zone
Street
Frontage
At
property
line or 10
feet from
curb
(whichever
is greater)
n/a
At
property
line or 10
feet from
curb
(whichever
is greater)
n/a
At
property
line or 9
feet from
curb
(whichever
is greater)
n/a
At
property
line or 9
feet from
curb
(whichever
is greater)
Eastern
Neighborhood
Streets except
Grand
Avenue
Frontage
n/a n/a n/a 20 n/a n/a
Interior Side
0; 10 when
abutting
residential
district
0
0; 10 when
abutting
residential
district
n/a 0 n/a
0
Rear
0, 10 when
abutting an
R district
(F) (E)
0 20 (F) (E)
10 for
the first
two
stories,
15
thereafter
(C)
0, 10 when
abutting an
R district
(E)
0, 10 when
abutting an
R district
(E)
Maximum
Lot Coverage
(% of lot)
100 100 90 85 75 90
See Chap.
20.040 Rules of
Measurement
Limitations:
1. Height break would occur a minimum of 30 feet from the front of the building
2. Corner properties may be exempt from this requirement, subject to evaluation by the decision-making
authority in the review process and consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan design
guidelines
7
3. Revise Table 20.280.004-3 Open Space and Landscaping Standards to clarify
regulations for the Linden Commercial Corridor (LCC) zoning sub-district:
Standard DTC GAC DRC TORD LCC LNC Additional
Standards
Minimum Usable Open
Space (sq ft per res. unit) 100 100 100
Refer to
Section
20.280.0
07(K)
100 150
See Supplemental
Regulations
20.100.004(D)(10)
Minimum Amount of
Landscaping (% of site) n/a n/a n/a 15 n/a 10
See Section
20.300.007
Landscaping
4. Revise Section 20.280.005 Additional Development Standards to modify the Private
Storage Space requirements to provide design flexibility for residential development
projects:
F. Private Storage Space. Each residential unit shall have at least 200 cubic feet of enclosed,
weather-proofed, and lockable private storage space with a minimum horizontal dimension of
four feet. The total number of private storage spaces may be reduced up to 25% by the Chief
Planner to address operational characteristics that are incompatible with the storage requirement;
the total number of private storage spaces may be reduced up to 50% by the Chief Planner if the
storage is located proximate to the residential unit.
5. Revise Table 20.280.003 Land Use Regulations for Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan Sub-Districts to require a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple-Unit Residential
classifications:
Uses Permitted DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Regulations
Residential Use Classifications
Single-Unit Dwelling See sub-classifications below
Single Unit Detached (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1)
Second Unit (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1) See Section 20.350.035
Second Dwelling Units
Single Unit Semi-Attached (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1)
Single-Unit Attached (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1)
Multiple-Unit Residential See sub-classifications below
Duplex (1) - (1) - (1) (1)
Multi-Unit PC PC(3) PC(3) - PC(3) PC(3)
Senior Citizen Residential PC - PC - PC(3) PC(3)
8
Limitations:
1. Permitted if existing. New units not allowed.
2. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 victims and may not be located within 300 feet of any other
domestic violence shelter.
3. Prohibited on the ground floor except residential uses located south of Baden Avenue, banks and walk-in
offices which are subject to approval of a Use Permit.
6. Revise Section 20.280.005 Additional Development Standards for the Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan District to require Conditional Use Permit approval by the City
Council for projects requesting the Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program:
A. Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program. An increase to the maximum FAR or
maximum density as referenced in Table 20.280.004-1 may be permitted for buildings with the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City Council through the satisfaction of a
combination of the following public benefits:
B. Revise Chapter 20.270 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District to read
as follows:
1. Revise Table 20.270.003 Land Use Regulations for El Camino Real/Chestnut Sub-
Districts to require a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple-Unit Residential classifications:
Uses Permitted ECR/C-
MXH
ECR/C-
MXM
ECR/C-
RH Additional Regulations
Residential Use Classifications
Single-Unit Dwelling See sub-classifications below
Single-Unit Attached P(1) P P
Multiple-Unit Residential See sub-classifications below
Multi-Unit PC(1) PC PC
Senior Citizen Residential PC(1) PC PC
Limitations:
1. Not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, Oak Avenue, or BART right-
of-way south of Oak Avenue.
2. Revise Section 20.270.004 Development Standards for the El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Plan District to require Conditional Use Permit approval by the City Council for
projects requesting the Increased Density, FAR, and/or Height Incentive Program:
A. Increased Density, FAR and/or Height. An increase in FAR, density, and height may be
achieved for buildings through a combination of the following, subject to Conditional Use Permit
approval by the City Council:
9
C. Revise Chapter 20.490 Use Permits to read as follows:
1. Revise Section 20.490.003 Procedures to modify the Conditional Use Permit
authority language to allow for City Council review of projects requesting an Incentive
Program density, FAR, and/or height increase:
A. Review Authority.
1. Conditional Use Permits. Unless otherwise specified in the Municipal Code, the The
Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for Conditional
Use Permits based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter.
D. Revise Chapter 20.570 Appeals and Calls for Review to read as follows:
1. Revise Section 20.570.006 Calls for Review to create flexibility for the City Council
to call up specific projects for discretionary review:
20.570.006 Calls for Review
A majority Two or more members of the Planning Commission may call for review of a decision
of the Chief Planner and a majority two or more members of the City Council may call for
review of a decision of the Chief Planner or Planning Commission within the 15-day appeal
period. The call for review shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal by any other
person. Such action by the Commission or Council shall stay all proceedings in the same manner
as the filing of an appeal. Such action shall not require any statement of reasons and shall not
represent opposition to or support of an application or appeal.
Within two (2) business days of a Zoning Administrator hearing, the Planning Commission Clerk
shall submit a notice of all Zoning Administrator discretionary action to the Planning
Commission, following which any member of the Planning Commission may request a call for
review of a decision by submitting a notice in writing to the Planning Commission Clerk or
noting so on the record at a Planning Commission hearing within the 15-day appeal period. If
two (2) or more Planning Commissioners submit a notice in writing to the Planning Commission
Clerk requesting a call for review of a decision or two (2) or more Planning Commissioners
request a call for review of a decision by noting so on the record at a Planning Commission
hearing, the call for review shall become effective and the Chief Planner shall set a public
hearing in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.450. The Planning Commission Clerk’s
notice of Zoning Administrator discretionary approvals submitted to the Planning Commission
shall include the date by which a call for review by a Planning Commissioner must be received
by the Planning Commission Clerk or noted on the record at a Planning Commission hearing.
Any other decision of the Chief Planner that the Planning Commission wishes to call for review
may be called for review by at least two (2) Planning Commissions through the process outlined
above.
Within two (2) business days of the completion of a Planning Commission hearing, the Secretary
to the Planning Commission shall submit a notice of all Planning Commission discretionary
action to the City Clerk for distribution to the City Council, following which any member of the
10
City Council may request a call for review of a decision by submitting a notice in writing to the
City Clerk or noting so on the record at a City Council hearing within the 15-day appeal period.
If two (2) or more Councilmembers submit a notice in writing to the City Clerk requesting a call
for review of a decision or two (2) or more Councilmembers request a call for review of a
decision by noting so on the record at a City Council hearing, the call for review shall become
effective and the City Clerk shall set a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 20.450. The City Clerk’s notice of discretionary approvals submitted to the City
Council shall include the date by which a call for review by a Councilmember must be received
by the City Clerk or noted on the record at a City Council hearing.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk ’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the 10th day of February, 2016.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the _____ day of _____________, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:_______________________________________________________________________
NOES:_______________________________________________________________________
11
ABSTENTIONS:_______________________________________________________________
ABSENT:_____________________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this _____ day of _____________, 2016.
Mayor
2597527.1
12
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2781-2015
13
RESOLUTION NO._2781-2015_
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.270 (“EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AVENUE
AREA PLAN DISTRICT”) TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE LAND USE
REGULATIONS; CHAPTER 20.280 (“DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN DISTRICT”) TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE LAND USE REGULATIONS AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CHAPTER 20.490 (“USE PERMITS”) TO CLARIFY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW AUTHORITY; AND CHAPTER 20.570
(“APPEALS AND CALLS FOR REVIEW”) TO MODIFY CALL FOR REVIEW
AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
REVIEWED PROJECTS.
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
considered and adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”) and associated
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports; and
WHEREAS, since the time of adoption, minor revisions to the adopted zoning to
implement the DSASP have been identified to clarify development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also expressed a desire to have discretionary review
authority for new downtown development projects; and
WHEREAS, consistent with this new authority in the DSASP area, staff has
recommended that similar review authority also be provided for the El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan District (“ECR/CH Plan”); and
WHEREAS, providing the City Council with final review authority will assure that new
developments are consistent with the DSASP and ECR/CH Plan, community priorities, and City
Council preferences to ensure civic-wide benefits for existing and future residents; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment (“Amendment”) to the City’s
Zoning Ordinance, including refinements to Chapter 20.270 for the El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan District, 20.280 for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District,
clarifications to Chapter 20.490 for Use Permit authority, and modifications to Chapter 20.570 to
provide the City Council with revised call for review authority for Planning Commission
reviewed projects; and
WHEREAS, these Amendments are consistent with the previous preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of the ECR/CH Plan EIR and DSASP EIR in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
14
(“CEQA”), in which both EIRs analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Plans and
associated Zoning Ordinance amendments and concluded that adoption of the Plans could have
significant effects on the environment because some of the impacts required to be analyzed under
CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the ECR/CH Plan EIR and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations that evaluated the benefits of the ECR/CH Plan against its
unavoidable impacts on May 25, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the DSASP EIR and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations that evaluated the benefits of the DSASP against its unavoidable impacts on
January 28, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
(“CEQA”), in which the IS/ND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning
Ordinance and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant
effect on the environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA
would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this
Amendment, as they relate to development regulations within the DSASP area and review
authority for the City Council in the ECR/CH and DSASP Plan, , and broader City Council call
for review authority over Planning Commission reviewed projects are minor in nature, the
adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed
in the EIRs adopted for both the ECR/CH and DSASP Plan or the IS/ND prepared for the Zoning
Ordinance Update, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change
in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review;
and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2015 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
proposed Amendment, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council
on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,
including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
adopted South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by BMS Design
15
Group; the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, including the Draft
and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; the adopted El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area
Plan, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia; the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan EIR,
including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed September 17, 2015
meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly
noticed October 28, 2015 study session meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony
submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed December 17, 2015 meeting; and
any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the
Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
I. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the proposed Zoning Text Amendments
(Exhibit A) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set
forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at
the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
II. Zoning Text Amendment Findings
1. As described in Section II and attached as Exhibit A, adoption of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendments will include revisions to Title 20 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code, to reflect minor changes to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
District (SSFMC 20.280), modify the land use regulations for new development projects
within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District and El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan District (SSFMC 20.270), clarify Use Permit authority (SSFMC 20.490),
and modify the appeals and call up process for development projects (SSFMC 20.570).
2. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the General Plan because
the Ordinance Amendments will continue to reinforce many of the General Plan policies
related to land use, specifically pedestrian-friendly mixed-use, infill development, and
improved linkages to a transit center as defined in the General Plan. Further, the Zoning
Ordinance Amendments do not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent
with the City’s overall vision for community development, economic vitality, and
redevelopment in the downtown and along the El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue
corridors. None of the new or revised definitions, tables, figures and land uses will conflict
with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established
in the General Plan.
16
3. The areas of the City impacted by the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are suitable
for the proposed uses. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments will allow for clarification of
development regulations throughout the DSASP area and ECR/CH Plan areas to provide
consistency with the DSASP and ECR/CH Plan, community priorities, and City Council
preferences to ensure civic-wide benefits for existing and future residents, a more robust
array of development and land uses in the downtown and along the El Camino Real and
Chestnut Avenue corridors. Although specific parcels would be affected as part of the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, the impact would be beneficial since property owners
would have a wider set of standards to improve or develop upon their property and new
zoning regulations would guide the development and performance of properties within the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent
with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to community development,
economic vitality, vibrant walkability, and redevelopment in the downtown and along the El
Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue corridors. Modifications to the Use Permits and Appeals
and Calls for Review chapters would not affect or change land use citywide and no land use
impact is expected.
4. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are not detrimental to the use of land in any
adjacent zone because the Ordinance Amendments would provide for sufficient
development, land use, and performance standards related to new development or alteration.
More specifically, the Zoning Ordinance Amendments include regulations to allow a wider
array of commercial and employment uses within the DSASP area, new development
standards for the Linden Community Commercial (LCC) and Linden Neighborhood
Commercial (LNC) zoning districts, modifications to storage requirements for new
residential development projects, clarify Use Permit authority, and provide modified appeal
authority for the City Council. The proposed Ordinance Amendments will not be detrimental
to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City; instead, the
Ordinance amendments will bolster the public interest by ensuring orderly and suitable infill
development and design review, as recommended in the General Plan’s land use element and
Downtown and El Camino Real planning sub-areas.
SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and
recommends that the South San Francisco City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapters
20.270, 20.280, 20.490 and 20.570, attached as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
17
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at a special meeting held on the 17th day of December, 2015 by the
following vote:
AYES:___Chairperson Wong , Vice-Chairperson Khalfin, Commission Faria, Commissioner
Lujan, Commissioner Nagales, Commissioner Ruiz ______________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:___/s/Sailesh Mehra_____________
Sailesh Mehra
Secretary to the Planning Commission
18
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 17, 2015
19
December 17, 2015 Minutes Page 1 of 3
The video recording of this Regular Planning Commission meeting can be found at http://www.ssf.net/1996/Planning-Commission
MINUTES
December 17, 2015
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Commissioners Faria, Lujan, Martin,
Nagales, and Ruiz, Vice Chairperson Khalfin, and
Chairperson Wong
ABSENT: None
Chairperson Wong called a moment of silence for the passing of former Planning Commission member, Rick
Ochsenhirt. Commissioner Nagales asked that the meeting adjourn in his honor.
AGENDA REVIEW
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Multi-Family Residential - Sares Regis
The City of SSF/Owner
Miller Cypress SSF, LLC/Applicant
Miller Avenue & Airport Blvd
P15-0036: UP15-0027, DR15-0032, WM15-0001, DA15-15-0003 & PE15-0004
Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review to construct two new seven-story residential
buildings with a total of 260 units at both corners of Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue (309, 315, 401-421
Airport Boulevard), a private residential parking lot at 405 Cypress Avenue, and twelve (12) townhome units at
216 Miller Avenue; request for Modification to private storage and building height zoning standards; request for
a Parking Exemption to reduce provided parking by 25% to accommodate a portion of compact parking
spaces designed for the project; and consideration of a Development Agreement. Parcels are located in the
Downtown Transit Core (DTC) or Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zoning Districts and the Conditional Use Permit,
Design Review, Waiver and Modification, Parking Exemption requests and Development Agreement are in
accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.280, 20.330, 20.480, 20.490, 20.510 & 19.60.
Public Hearing Opened: 7:04 P.M.
Planning Manager Sailesh Mehra notified the Commission that the applicant would like to request a
continuance to the January 21, 2016 meeting. The applicant, Ken Busch was introduced and requested a
continuance of this item.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
20
December 17, 2015 Minutes Page 2 of 3
Public Hearing Closed: 7:06 P.M.
Motion – Commission Faria/Second – Commissioner Lujan to approve continuance of this item to the
January 21, 2016 meeting. Approved by roll call vote (7-0-0).
2. Changes to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
Land Use Regulations; and Modification to the City Council Appeal Authority
City of South San Francisco/Owner/Applicant
Citywide
P11-0097: ZA15-0009
Zoning Text Amendments to amend the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.270 (“El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District”) to make changes to the land use regulations; Chapter 20.280
(“Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District”) to make changes to the land use regulations and
development standards; Chapter 20.490 (“Use Permits”) to clarify Conditional Use Permit review authority, and
Chapter 20.570 (“Appeals and Calls for Review”) to revise call for review authority, and determination that the
project will not result in any new significant environmental impacts and is consistent with the certified EIR.
Public Hearing Opened: 7:08 P.M.
Speakers: Ken Busch, Edwin Law
Public Hearing Closed: 7:18 P.M.
Commission Discussion begins 00:22:33 in video recording.
• The Commission concurred that they will defer to staff in regards to the reduction in the storage
requirement. Commissioner Lujan expressed that though there is no preference in the amount of
reduction, she echoed the Commission that providing storage is necessary for residents.
• In regards to the portion of the amendments that discusses adding another step to the approval
process for certain projects, Staff clarified that only a few projects will ever undergo this additional
review process with the Council. Commissioner Martin emphasized that he does not want to make it
more difficult for businesses wanting to invest in the City by creating a longer process that may create
uncertainty. Vice Chairperson Khalfin added that this process doesn’t have to be uncertain and could
be formalized when it is heard to Council to aid in various decisions such as specific Community
Benefits.
Motion – Commissioner Lujan/Second – Commissioner Nagales to adopt Resolution that the City Council
adopt an ordinance amending proposed changes to SSFMC Chapter 20.270, 20.280 and 20.570. Approved by
roll call vote (7-0-0).
Motion – Commission Lujan/Second – Vice Chairperson Khalfin to amend previous motion to include a
tiered storage element to the Resolution with a 25% and 50% reduction in required storage in relation to units.
Approved by roll call vote (7-0-0).
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
3. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Requirements and Update – Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
4. Vision Zero and the Vision Zero Toolkit Presentation - Emma Shales of the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
ITEMS FROM STAFF
5. Discussion on Commissioner Emails – Lindsay D’Andrea, City Attorney
ITEMS FROM COMMISSION
None.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
21
December 17, 2015 Minutes Page 3 of 3
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Wong adjourned the meeting at 9:51 P.M.
Sailesh Mehra Alan Wong, Chairperson
Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
SM/jmb
22
ATTACHMENT 4
STAFF PRESENTATION
23
2/1/2016
1
City Council Hearing
February 10, 2016
1
October, 2015 Study Session -City Council
(CC) expressed desire to have additional
review authority for new development
projects
Staff has revised the Zoning Amendment
Some minor inconsistencies in DSASP are
also fixed
24
2/1/2016
2
Requires Use Permit for multi-family
residential projects in DSASP and ECR/C
zoning districts
Requires CC approval for projects proposing
community benefits
Amends Call for Review Process –CC member
can submit request in writing for special review
during 15 day appeal period
3
Ex: A proposed 10 unit rental project in DSASP:
Requires a Use Permit approval by Planning
Commission; City Council can call for review
Ex: A proposed 100 unit rental project
requesting density incentive in DSASP or ECR/C:
Requires a Use Permit approval by City Council
4
25
2/1/2016
3
The Planning Commission considered
the changes at the December 17, 2015
hearing and recommended approval by
a vote of 7-0.
5
It is recommended that the City Council take
the following actions:
Introduce Ordinance ZA15-009 and waive
reading
Review and provide further direction
regarding proposed minor changes to
regulations in the DSASP and ECR/Chestnut
Plan areas.
26