Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-25 e-packet@7:00 City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco,CA I r Regular Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 25, 2016 7:00 PM Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA City Council City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 25,2016 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. City of South San Francisco Page 2 Printed on 9/21/2016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 25,2016 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW PRESENTATIONS 1. Certificate of Rec 2gmfion for Kelli Jo Cullman, Laura Armaning, and Cristina Simmons of the Parks and Recreation Department's Childcare Program for immediate,professional, and compassionate actions above the call of duty in response to an incident at Orange Memorial Park on April 25, 2016....(Vice..Manor Qu a 2t_� 2. Certificate-of.Remmition to Citizen Elaine Garbalino for..her.time,.generosity and dedication to the Police Department and Police Association. For her tireless effort in helping the Police Department members and citizens of South San Francisco thr9ligh programs such as Every 15 Minutes, Patrick's Day Widows & Orphans Fundraiser,PAL Boosters and the Holiday Toy and Food Drive. Jeff Azzopardi, Police Chief 3. Remmition of Kristen Gibson and Brandon Tam as the 2016 Jack Drano Cultural Arts Commission Youth Art Scholarship..Award..Recipients...(Vice Mayor GLIpta) PUBLIC COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS PUBLIC HEARING 4. Report on 475 Eccles Ave Office/R&D Project - Use..Permit,..Alternative Landscape .Plan Design Review Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM Plan, Development Agreement and Environmental Impact Report to allow the construction of two four-story office/R&D buildimzs totafimz 262,287 square feet, a five-level parking structure and other on- and off-site improvements on a 6.1 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 19, and Chapters..20.040,..20.110 20.300�20.3 10 20.330, 20.400.,.20.450,..20.460, 20.480.,..and--20.490. (Billy Gross,Senior Plannerl 4a. Resolution making findings and certifying an Environmental Impact Report including, a Statement of Overridimz Considerations and Mitigation Monitolimz and ReDorfimz Program for the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/Research and Development Campus City of South San Francisco Page 3 Printed on 9/21/2016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 25,2016 4b. Motion to waive reading and adopt an Ordinance adoDtina a Development Agreement for the development of a 6.1 acre Site for the 475 Eccles Avenue project in the Business and Technolmv Park Zoning District. 4c. Resolution makimz findimzs amend a Use Permit Alternative Landscape Plan, Design.Review,..and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the development of a 6.1 acre site for the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/Research and Development Campus project. LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 5. Report mzardiroz amendment to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 19.32 ("Minor Subdivision Procedure") and 19.36 ("Condominiums and Compgnity Housing Projects") to allow the creation of Condominium and Community Housing Projec s with two or more units. Case Nos.: P16-0024 Address/APN: Citywide 5a. Ordinance amendiruz the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 19.36 ("Condominiums and Community Housing Projects") to allow the creation of Condominium and Community Housimz Proiects with two or more units. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 6. Report regarding a resolution authorizing a change in scope and construction continaencv budget in an amount not to exceed $94,853 for the Four Park's Playground Renovation Project. Eric Evans, Associate Civil Engineer) 6a. Resolution authorizimz a chamze in scope and construction contim4encv budget in an amount not to exceed..$94,853 for the Four Parks Playground Renovation Project. 7. Report mzardiroz a resolution awardimz a construction contract to Northwest Demolition, Inc., of San F_rqnciscoCalifornia for the Francisco Terrace Park Retaining Wall Project (Project No. pk1204) in an amount not to exceed.$79,825.and authorizing a construction contingency budget in an amount not to exceed 516,000. LEric.Evans,..Associate Civil En meer) 7a. Resolution awarding a construction contract to Northwest Demolition, Inc....of.San Francisco, California, for the Francisco Terrace Park Retainimz Wall Proiect (Proiect No. pkl204j.in.qn.amount not to exceed $79,825 and authorizing a construction c�tin ency budget in an amount not to exceed $16.000 City of South San Francisco Page 4 Printed on 9/21/2016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 25,2016 8. Report reaardina a resolution of the Citv Council of South San Francisco authorizing an qpplication for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities..kAHSQ.. Program in the amount of 58,885,024 to support pedestrian and bicycle linkages from downtown to the relocated Caltrain station and to support construction of the Mixed-Use Senior Affordable Housing Project at 310314 Miller Avenue and an adjacent parking lot.tAPN..012-3.1.1-060A...(Alex Greenwood..Economic and Community Development Director) 8a. Resolution of the City Council of South San Francisco authorizimz an application for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSQ Program in the amount of$8,885,024 to sqpport pedestrian and bicycle linkages from downtown to the relocated Caltrain station and to support construction of the Mixed-Use Senior Affordable Housing Project at 310314 Miller Avenue and an adjacent parking lot (APN 012-311-060). 9. ReDort on Centennial Village Development- Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the.Develgpment Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and El Camino and Spruce. LLC_LjjLst amendment" for the previously entitled Centennial Village project to allow a five-month extension to the timeframe to commence construction of the Droiect at 180 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 19.60 & 20.090. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner 9a. Resolution approving a Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement for the development of a 14.5 acre site for the Centennial Village at 180 El Camino Real Project in the El Camino Real Mixed Use..ffiCRMXj. Zoning District 10. Report regarding a resolution authorizing a cooperative purchasing agreement with Ross McDonald, Inc. for the purchase of furniture and shelving for Grand Avenue Library in-the amount of 5159,084.71 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director 10a. Resolution amovimz a cooperative Durchasimz agreement with Ross McDonald Inc. for the purchase of furniture and shelving for Grand Avenue Library in the amount of �$159 084.71 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement 11. Report approving resolution authorizing the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and RecoveLy (CalRecycle) funds allocated through the State, of California to suDDort Beverage Container Recvdimz Programs in City Park's and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the 20162017 Revenue Budget upon receipt of funds. (Sharon Ranals.Director of Parks and R City of South San Francisco Page 5 Printed on 9/21/2016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 25,2016 11a. Resolution authorizing the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and RecoveLy (CalRecycle) funds allocated through the State of California to sumort Beverage Container Recycling Programs in City Parks and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the 20162017 Revenue Budget Upon receipt of funds. CONSENT CALENDAR 12. Motion approving the Minutes of meetings of June..24.,.2015, July 22,.20.15.,..March 30,2016, April 27, 2016, May 10, 2016, May 11 201.6 and May 17, 2016. 13. Motion confirming payment registers..for.May 25, 2016. (Richard Lee, Finance 14. Cancellation of the Regular City..Council..Meeting of June..8_201.6...(Mire Futrell, City Mang gLerj). 15. Report awrovimz Resolution rescindimz Resolution No. 122-86 and mpoinlLn& directors to ABAG PLAN Corporation on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. (Richard Lee, Finance Director) 15a. Resolution rescindimz Resolution No. 122-86 and awointimz directors to ABAG, PLAN Corporation on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL—COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT City of South San Francisco Page 6 Printed on 9/21/2016 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16-408, Version: 1 Certificate of Recognition for Kelli Jo Cullinan, Laura Armanino, and Cristina Simmons of the Parks and Recreation Department's Childcare Program for immediate,professional, and compassionate actions above the call of duty in response to an incident at Orange Memorial Park on April 25, 2016. (Vice Mayor Gupta) City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/19/2016 pow[lod by I ogiFfl ar nvl Mry rill 0 � . c m a,' < r (D o rD F . 0 cu 0 Cu c a LA 3 0 C. 3 0 CL M � un -( cr fD M r) �,„� - CJ (D n rD � - n 0 fl� CL cu z CL C) c M r) �c 3 •Cu 0 d °R � ,yl° 0 C�7 CD 0 Ln -0 " :3 m -1 N 0 b cr m yr t TT- rW all -• � I � I. � u _155 ^r ..,...: � m r � �//��/ rl �^ -0 o c 0 3 CD roD V) 0 m cu C f'1 CL =- 0 � M r rD cu 3 < (D -s ®. nw 3 3 © m -h CL � c A � rD a �<• r- r) b n CU P cr L2. r= < M Cr CL -�, C A CL cu to c. (l) a w w CL 0) C 4 3 (D tr ro cr° i .,,,, r� fl rD cu 0 rD 0 rD rD M rD rD cu Ln 0 ru m 0 cUS as (p 3 0 Ln cu 0 Ln c°n � � ° ,y —. `+ Ln LA m r"' L M 0 0 €L 0 r- ;� OEM 0) �, cu VI ®. a Ln cr cu r) CU a) 0 0 vt Q C' L d 0 ° o rD Cr rte fiEa fD cr CO Gn P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-415, Version: 1 Certificate of Recognition to Citizen Elaine Garbarino for her time, generosity and dedication to the Police Department and Police Association. For her tireless effort in helping the Police Department members and citizens of South San Francisco through programs such as Every 15 Minutes, St. Patrick's Day Widows & Orphans Fundraiser, PAL Boosters and the Holiday Toy and Food Drive. (IeffAzzopardi, Police Chiefi City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-386, Version: 1 Recognition of Kristen Gibson and Brandon Tam as the 2016 Jack Drago Cultural Arts Commission Youth Art Scholarship Award Recipients. (Vice Mayor Gupta) City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-212, Version: 1 Report on 475 Eccles Ave Office/R&D Project - Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, Design Review, Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, Development Agreement and Environmental Impact Report to allow the construction of two four-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 square feet, a five-level parking structure and other on- and off-site improvements on a 6.1 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 19, and Chapters 20.040, 20.110, 20.300, 20.310, 20.330, 20.400, 20.450, 20.460, 20.480, and 20.490. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and certifying Environmental Impact Report EIR12-0001, including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; 2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving Planning Project P11-0101, including Use Permit UP11-0011, Design Review DR11-0039, Transportation Demand Management Plan TDM11-0001, and Alternative Landscape Plan, based on the attached Draft Findings and subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval; and 3. Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving Development Agreement DA13-0001. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION May 25th Staff Report and Discussion The May 25, 2016 City Council Staff Report (without attachments) is attached for background on the project. Council was supportive of the overall project but requested that the applicant provide a more detailed discussion of the project design and sustainable features, and requested input from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The Council continued the public hearing to an unscheduled date. Project Design The proposed 475 Eccles Ave Office/Research and Development Project (Project) includes the construction of two four-story office/research and development (R&D) buildings totaling 262,287 square feet, a five-level parking structure and associated surface parking, as well as open space improvements. The project would be developed in up to two phases. The R&D buildings and parking structure would be situated near the perimeter of the site, framing a plaza and open space in the center of the site. The office/R&D buildings would be four stories with a penthouse above, with a maximum height of 90 feet. The parking structure would also be four stories, with a height of approximately 60 feet. All three buildings would be consistent in character, with simple geometry, maintaining a unified campus character. The building envelopes of both the office/R&D buildings and the parking garage would incorporate a mixture City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 6 Printed on 7/21/2016 p owisied by Le�,pi File #: 16-212, Version: 1 of materials including glass curtain walls, pre-cast/GFRC, and metal composite panels to have a unified appearance. Each of the buildings includes pedestrian level articulation to be sensitive to the pedestrian scale. Building rooflines would have enclosures to screen all mechanical systems. The project drawings can be viewed as Exhibit B to the Draft Entitlements Resolution. The applicant and the project team will provide a more detailed presentation, including larger graphics and material boards, during the City Council public hearing. Sustainability Measures The 475 Eccles development will include a variety of sustainable features. For the building design and construction, the following measures are proposed to be included: • LEED Silver target • Compliance with Climate Action Plan • Low-emitting materials • Daylighting and Views for 90 percent of spaces • Recycled content materials • Low-VOC finishes • Roof surfaces will be high-Solar Reflection Index/cool roof membranes • High efficiency indoor plumbing fixtures • Commissioning of Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing energy systems • Greenscreens included in the design for the parking garage • Target of greater than 75 percent construction waste management diversion • Target of greater than 20 percent recycled building materials • Target of greater than 10 percent regional content in building materials • Target of greater than 50 percent Forest Stewardship Council certified wood content in new wood building materials The open space and landscape areas have also been designed with sustainability as a priority. The following landscape-related measures are proposed to be included: • 20 percent of the total site area will be vegetated open space • Water efficient landscaping, reduce by 50 percent • Bio-filtration elements throughout the site • Native, drought-tolerant plant materials • Low-flow drip-type irrigation system Preliminary TDM Plan In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance regulations, the applicant has prepared a preliminary TDM Plan designed to achieve a minimum 35 percent alternative mode use, consistent with the City's requirements; a copy of the preliminary plan is attached and referenced in the draft Conditions of Approval and the draft Development Agreement. The TDM plan is required to incorporate 14 mandatory measures that have a demonstrable effect on reducing the number of trips generated to achieve the minimum alternative mode use. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 6 Printed on 7/21/2016 p owisied by Le�,pi File #: 16-212, Version: 1 These measures include participation in a shuttle program, carpool and vanpool ride matching and preferential parking, guaranteed ride home program, secure bicycle parking, shower and locker facilities, an on-site designated employee contact, promotional programs, participation in the Commute.Org programs that connect employees to BART, Caltrain and ferry services, and well-lit direct paths of travel to transit. In addition to the required TDM measures, the TDM plan includes the incorporation of a minimum of two of the additional measures, with the ability to incorporate all of the additional measures in the future if necessary to comply with the minimum alternative mode use. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) reviewed the Project as part of a larger presentation at their July 6, 2016 meeting. City staff provided information to the BPAC regarding three new development projects that include the implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs within the East of 101: 1. 475 Eccles 2. Costco Business Center at 900 Dubuque 3. Amazon/On-Trak at 250 Utah The BPAC did not have any specific comments on the 475 Eccles project, but will incorporate all of these projects into future discussions regarding revisions and reprioritization of projects identified within the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The Project site is designated Business and Technology Park within the General Plan and is also part of the East of 101 Planning Sub-Area. The site is also located within the Business and Technology Park Zoning District, which provides zoning for a mix of corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and other offices in a campus-like environment. The project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan by creating a campus-style development of research and development uses. As discussed in the March 3, 2016 staff report to the Planning Commission, the project would require the following exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance: • Use Permit to allow a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 rather than 0.5. The Zoning Ordinance allows the increased FAR subject to the incorporation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and sustainability measures, which both have been incorporated into the project. • Use Permit to allow a parking rate of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet rather than 2.86 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows such a reduction so long as the amount of parking generated is supported by the TDM Plan for the project. Similar reductions have been approved in the City. Staff supports the reduced parking rate for this project because it will support the overall efforts of the TDM plan as well as the City's General Plan Policies which promote parking reductions for projects implementing trip reduction programs. • Alternative Landscape Plan so as not to be required to provide rooftop planting on the parking garage. City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 6 Printed on 7/21/2016 p owisied by Le�,pi File #: 16-212, Version: 1 Staff is supportive of the proposed Alternative Landscape Plan, as the project complies with all landscape requirements other than the parking garage rooftop planting. The removal of the rooftop planting will not impact the appearance of the parking garage, as the structure is designed to be in keeping architecturally with the Office/R&D buildings and is of a higher architectural standard than a typical parking structure. The Planning Commission conditionally approved the Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, Preliminary TDM and Design Review, subject to the City Council's review and approval of the project, the Development Agreement(discussed below) and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant and the City have negotiated a Development Agreement to clarify and obligate Project features and mitigation measures, including transportation impact fees, public improvements in the East of 101 area, provisions for child care impact fees,park in-lieu fees, and TDM reporting and monitoring requirements. Development Agreement items include: • Development Agreement Term of 12 years. • Payment of applicable fees, including East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution Fee, East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee, Sewer Capacity Fee, General Plan Maintenance Fee, Child Care Impact Fee and Public Safety Impact Fee, including annual escalators. • Payment of a Park-in-Lieu Fee and a Transit Station Enhancement Fee • Phasing of the project. • Compliance with specific provisions of the Climate Action Plan. • Transportation Demand Management Plan requirements. The proposed Development Agreement is attached to the related Development Agreement Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project was prepared by Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting on behalf of the City. The DEIR was circulated on October 31, 2012 for a 45-day review period. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 6, 2012 to receive comments from the public (and Commission) on the DEIR - the December 6, 2012 Staff Report and meeting Minutes are attached(Attachment 2). The DEIR identifies eight significant impacts that would be reduced to less than significant impacts through various mitigation measures, which are thoroughly discussed in the document. In addition, five significant and unavoidable impacts are identified in the document related to transportation. A total of two comment letters were received from the public and commenting agencies: Liberty Gold City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 6 Printed on 7/21/2016 p owisied by Le�,pi File #: 16-212, Version: 1 (property owner at 500 Eccles, letter dated November 14, 2012); and the California Department of Transportation (dated December 14, 2012). None of the comment letters raised significant environmental issues. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)/Response to Comments is attached to the CEQA Resolution and was circulated for commenting agency review on February 19, 2016. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and 21081, respectively. The MMRP is organized to correspond to environmental issues and significant impacts discussed in the DEIR and will be used by the City to track or identify: the mitigation measures, timing for implementation, responsible party, the action, and ongoing monitoring responsibility. The complete MMRP is attached to the CEQA Resolution. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included with the required CEQA Findings and attached to the CEQA Resolution. In summary, the Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the City Council for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the 475 Eccles EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2012082101) and the project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable transportation impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is being supported because the Project will provide economic and other benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project related to traffic. Balancing impacts include the generation of a new source of significant tax revenue and the employment of an additional 900 employees; conversion of an existing vacant site to a research and development campus; promotion of alternative transportation modes with the adoption of a TDM plan; and the potentially feasible alternatives would not result in the avoidance of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts. CONCLUSION The proposed 475 Eccles Office/Research and Development Project transforms a vacant site to a high quality Office/R&D campus in keeping with the vision of the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. Therefore, based on the information included in the public record, staff recommends that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and make the required findings and adopt the attached resolution to certify the Environmental Impact Report and make the required findings and adopt the attached resolution to approve the project entitlements for the 475 Eccles Office/R&D Project. Additionally, staff recommends that the City Council follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and waive reading and introduce an Ordinance to approve the proposed Development Agreement. Attachments: 1. City Council Staff Report - May 25, 2016 2. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes - March 3, 2016 3. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes - CEQA Public Comment- December 6, 2012 City of South San Francisco Page 5 of 6 Printed on 7/21/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-212, Version: 1 4. Planning Commission Resolution 2785-2016 - CEQA 5. Planning Commission Resolution 2786-2016 - Entitlements 6. Power Point Presentation Related Files: 1. Draft CEQA Resolution Exhibit A: Final EIR Exhibit B: CEQA Findings, including Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Draft Entitlements Resolution Exhibit A: General Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Project Plans Exhibit C: Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan 3. Draft Development Agreement Ordinance Exhibit A: Development Agreement City of South San Francisco Page 6 of 6 Printed on 7/21/2016 p owisied by Le�,pi P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-212, Version: 1 Report on 475 Eccles Ave Office/R&D Project - Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, Design Review, Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, Development Agreement and Environmental Impact Report to allow the construction of two four-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 square feet, a five-level parking structure and other on- and off-site improvements on a 6.1 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 19, and Chapters 20.040, 20.110, 20.300, 20.310, 20.330, 20.400, 20.450, 20.460, 20.480, and 20.490. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and certifying Environmental Impact Report EIR12-0001, including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; 2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving Planning Project P11-0101, including Use Permit UP11-0011, Design Review DR11-0039, Transportation Demand Management Plan TDM11-0001, and Alternative Landscape Plan, based on the attached Draft Findings and subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval; and 3. Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving Development Agreement DA13-0001. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The 475 Eccles Avenue Office/R&D Project (Project) was first reviewed by the Planning Commission during a public hearing to receive comments from the public and the Commission on the Draft Environmental Impact Report in December 2012. Subsequent to that hearing, the application was put on hold by the applicant. The Planning Commission reviewed the Project entitlements and EIR for recommendation on March 3, 2016. The proposed Project entitlements are the same as those reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2012. A complete discussion of the proposed Project is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff reports dated March 23, 2016 and December 6, 2012. Site History The site is a 6.1 acre parcel that was previously developed with an approximately 152,000 square foot concrete tilt-up office/warehouse building, which was demolished in December 2013. The site was occupied by professional, scientific and technical service uses prior to its vacancy. 475 Eccles Project Overview The proposed 475 Eccles Ave Office/Research and Development Project (Project) includes the construction of two four-story office/research and development (R&D) buildings totaling 262,287 square feet, as well as a five- level parking structure and associated surface parking, as well as open space improvements. The Project would be developed in up to two phases. The R&D buildings and parking structure would be situated near the City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 5 Printed on 7/7/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-212, Version: 1 perimeter of the site, framing a plaza and open space in the center of the site. The R&D buildings would be four stories with a penthouse above, with a maximum height of 90 feet. The parking structure would be five stories, with a height of approximately 60 feet. All three buildings would be consistent in character, with simple geometry, maintaining a unified campus character. The building envelopes of both the office/R&D buildings and the parking garage would incorporate a mixture of materials including glass curtain walls, pre-cast/GFRC, and metal composite panels to have a unified appearance. Each of the buildings includes pedestrian level articulation to be sensitive to the pedestrian scale. Building rooflines would have enclosures to screen all mechanical systems. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The Project site is designated Business and Technology Park within the General Plan and is also part of the East of 101 Planning Sub-Area. The site is also located within the Business and Technology Park Zoning District, which provides zoning for a mix of corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and other offices in a campus-like environment. The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan by creating a campus-style development of research and development uses. As discussed in the March 3, 2016 staff report to the Planning Commission, the Project would require the following exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance: • Use Permit to allow a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 rather than 0.5. The Zoning Ordinance allows the increased FAR subject to the incorporation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan and sustainability measures, which both have been incorporated into the Project. • Use Permit to allow a parking rate of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet rather than 2.86 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows such a reduction so long as the amount of parking generated is supported by the TDM Plan for the Project. Similar reductions have been approved in the City. Staff supports the reduced parking rate for this Project because it will support the overall efforts of the TDM Plan as well as the City's General Plan Policies, which promote parking reductions for Projects implementing trip reduction programs. • Alternative Landscape Plan so as not to be required to provide rooftop planting on the parking garage. Staff is supportive of the proposed Alternative Landscape Plan, as the Project complies with all landscape requirements other than the parking garage rooftop planting. The removal of the rooftop planting will not impact the appearance of the parking garage, as the structure is designed to be in keeping architecturally with the Office/R&D buildings and is of a higher architectural standard than a typical parking structure. The Planning Commission conditionally approved the Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, Preliminary TDM and Design Review; subject to City Council review and approval of the Project and the Development Agreement, which is discussed below, and certification of the EIR. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 5 Printed on 7/7/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-212, Version: 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant and the City have negotiated a Development Agreement to clarify and obligate Project features and mitigation measures, including transportation impact fees, public improvements in the East of 101 area, provisions for child care impact fees,park in-lieu fees, and TDM reporting and monitoring requirements. Development Agreement items include: • Development Agreement Term of 12 years. • Payment of applicable fees, including East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution Fee, East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee, Sewer Capacity Fee, General Plan Maintenance Fee, Child Care Impact Fee and Public Safety Impact Fee, including annual escalators. • Payment of a Park-in-Lieu Fee and a Transit Station Enhancement Fee • Phasing of the Project. • Compliance with specific provisions of the Climate Action Plan. • Transportation Demand Management Plan requirements. The proposed Development Agreement is attached to the related Development Agreement Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the Project was prepared by Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting on behalf of the City. The DEIR was circulated on October 31, 2012 for a 45-day review period. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 6, 2012 to receive comments from the public (and Commission) on the DEIR - the December 6, 2012 Staff Report and meeting Minutes are attached(Attachment 2). The DEIR identifies eight significant impacts that would be reduced to less than significant impacts through various mitigation measures, which are thoroughly discussed in the document. In addition, five significant and unavoidable impacts are identified in the document related to transportation. A total of two comment letters were received from the public and commenting agencies: Liberty Gold (property owner at 500 Eccles, letter dated November 14, 2012); and the California Department of Transportation (dated December 14, 2012). None of the comment letters raised significant environmental issues. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)/Response to Comments is attached to the CEQA Resolution and was circulated for commenting agency review on February 19, 2016. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 and 21081, respectively. The MMRP is organized to correspond to environmental issues and significant impacts discussed in the DEIR and will be used City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 5 Printed on 7/7/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-212, Version: 1 by the City to track or identify: the mitigation measures, timing for implementation, responsible party, the action, and ongoing monitoring responsibility. The complete MMRP is attached to the CEQA Resolution. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included with the required CEQA Findings and attached to the CEQA Resolution. In summary, the Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the City Council for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the 475 Eccles EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2012082101) and the Project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted, which balances the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable transportation impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is being supported because the Project will provide economic, social, technological, and other benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project related to traffic. Balancing impacts include the generation of a new source of significant tax revenue and the employment of an additional 900 employees; conversion of an existing vacant site to a research and development campus; promotion of alternative transportation modes with the adoption of a TDM plan; and the potentially feasible alternatives would not result in the avoidance of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS At the Planning Commission meeting of March 3, 2016 public hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposed Project. No members of the public spoke on the Project. The Commission had questions related to traffic and neighboring uses. The Planning Commission by a vote of 6-0 conditionally approved the entitlements subject to City Council review and approval of the Project, the Development Agreement and certification of the EIR. The March 3, 2016 and December 6, 2012 staff reports and minutes are attached(Attachments 1 and 2). CONCLUSION The proposed 475 Eccles Office/Research and Development Project transforms a vacant site to a high quality Office/R&D campus in keeping with the vision of the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. Therefore, based on the information included in the public record, staff recommends that the City Council make the required findings and adopt the attached resolutions to certify the Environmental Impact Report and approve the Project entitlements for the 475 Eccles Office/R&D Project. Additionally, staff recommends that the City Council waive reading and introduce an Ordinance to approve the proposed Development Agreement. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes - March 3, 2016 2. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes - CEQA Public Comment- December 6, 2012 3. Planning Commission Resolution 2785-2016 - CEQA 4. Planning Commission Resolution 2786-2016 - Entitlements 5. 475 Eccles Power Point Presentation City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 5 Printed on 7/7/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-212, Version: 1 Related Files: 1. Draft CEQA Resolution Exhibit A: Final EIR Exhibit B: CEQA Findings, including Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Draft Entitlements Resolution Exhibit A: General Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Project Plans Exhibit C: Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan 3. Draft Development Agreement Ordinance Exhibit A: Development Agreement City of South San Francisco Page 5 of 5 Printed on 7/7/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 s Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: March 3, 2016 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 475 Eccles Ave Office/R&D Project - Use Permit, Design Review, Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, Development Agreement and Environmental Impact Report to allow the construction of two four-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 square feet, a five-level parking structure and other on- and off- site improvements on a 6.1 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 19, and Chapters 20.040, 20.110, 20.300, 20.310, 20.330, 20.400, 20.450, 20.460, 20.480, and 20.490. Owner/Applicant: BioMed Realty Address: 475 Eccles Avenue (APN 015-050-580) Case Nos.: P11-0101: UPI 1-0011, DR11-0039, TDM11-0001, DA13- 0001 & EM12-0001 RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report EM12-0001, including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and 2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and conditionally approving Planning Project P11-0101, including UP11-0011, DR11-0039, TDM11-0001, and recommending that the City Council approve Development Agreement DA13-0001 based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The 475 Eccles Avenue Office/R&D Project (Project) was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission when a public hearing was held to receive comments from the public and the Commission on the Draft Environmental Impact Report in December 2012. Subsequent to that hearing, the application was put on hold by the applicant. The proposed Project entitlements are the same as those reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2012. Site History The site is a 6.1 acre parcel that was previously developed with an approximately 152,000 square foot concrete tilt-up office/warehouse building, which was demolished in December 2013. The site was occupied by professional, scientific and technical service uses prior to its vacancy. 475 Eccles Project Overview The proposed 475 Eccles Ave Office/Research and Development Project (Project) includes the construction of two four-story office/research and development (R&D) buildings totaling 262,287 square Staff Report Subj ect: 475 Eccles Office/R&D Project Date: March 3, 2016 Page 2 of 7 feet, as well as a five-level parking structure and associated surface parking, as well as open space improvements. The project would be developed in up to two phases. The R&D buildings and parking structure would be situated near the perimeter of the site, framing a plaza and open space in the center of the site (see Figure 1). The R&D buildings would be four stories with a penthouse above, with a maximum height of 90 feet. The parking structure would also be four stories, with a height of approximately 60 feet. All three buildings would be consistent in character, with simple geometry, maintaining a unified campus character. The building envelopes of both the office/R&D buildings and the parking garage would incorporate a mixture of materials including glass curtain walls, pre-cast/GFRC, and metal composite panels to have a unified appearance. Each of the buildings includes pedestrian level articulation to be sensitive to the pedestrian scale. Building rooflines would have enclosures to screen all mechanical systems. 7� ., P wwrw u o w:✓i9 ,r' my�' ,✓u 1 t W n u FIGURE 1: 475 Eccles Project Rendering Landscape Standards The project is designed to provide open space that connects the Eccles Ave. corridor with the interior of the site, allowing for building and project site connectivity as well as outdoor amenities, gathering spaces and passive use areas. Section 20.110.003 requires a minimum of 15 percent of the total site be landscaped. The total landscaped area of the site is 62,523sf, which is approximately 24 percent of the total project site. The project would provide an enhanced frontage along Eccles Avenue, including new sidewalks and street trees. Additional landscape standards are contained in Section 20.300.007 "Landscaping", which is applicable to all new construction, and in Section 20.330.010.J. "Parking Area Design and Development Standards, Staff Report Subj ect: 475 Eccles Office/R&D Project Date: March 3, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Landscaping", which is applicable to landscaping of parking areas only. Together, the two sections include regulations that stipulate the location of landscape areas, minimum planter dimensions, the total number of trees required, and so on. Section 20.300.007.D.2 "Alternative Landscape Plan" allows for an applicant to demonstrate that the intent of the landscape requirements under Section 20.300.007 are being met through an Alternative Landscape Plan. The applicant is requesting an Alternative Landscape Plan with the following modifications to the standard requirements: • Parking Garage Rooftop Planting. Uncovered parking on the top level of a parking structure shall have rooftop planters with a minimum dimension of 24 inches around the entire perimeter of the top floor. The applicant is requesting a modification to the requirement to provide rooftop planters on the parking garage rooftop. The parking garage facades have been designed to match the buildings' architectural facades and therefore reflect the appearance of the campus buildings, including the architectural parapet. In addition, as an alternative to rooftop planters, greenscreen panels will be added to lower-level portions of the garage facade to give more screening on the building. Under Section 20.300.007.D.2, the applicant must demonstrate that the Alternative Landscape Plan reflects the six evaluation criteria below. The applicants' analysis of these evaluation criteria is included as Attachment 5. 1. Innovative use of plant materials and design techniques in response to unique characteristics of the site or the proposed use. 2. Preservation or incorporation of existing native vegetation. 3. Incorporation of naturalistic design principles, such as variations in topography, meandering or curvilinear plantings, and grouping of dominant plant materials (trees, large shrubs) in a manner consistent with existing native vegetation. 4. Integration of landscaping and pedestrian facilities in a manner that improves access or incorporates pedestrian-friendly design, this may include reduced ground-level planting along the front setback if canopy shade trees along sidewalks are provided. 5. Use of additional shade trees to create a greater canopy effect. 6. A greater degree of compatibility with surrounding uses than a standard landscape plan would offer. Staff is supportive of the proposed Alternative Landscape Plan, as the project complies with all landscape requirements other than the parking garage rooftop planting. The removal of the rooftop planting will not impact the appearance of the parking garage, as the structure is designed to be in keeping architecturally with the Office/R&D buildings and is of a higher architectural standard than a typical parking structure. Therefore, staff believes that the Alternative Landscape Plan meets the intent of the landscape standards and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Alternative Landscape Plan. Parking The Project proposes 655 parking spaces (a ratio of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space) initially. Of these 655 spaces, 551 spaces would be in the parking structure and 104 would be provided in Staff Report Subj ect: 475 Eccles Office/R&D Project Date: March 3, 2016 Page 4 of 7 surface parking lots. Up to 53 additional on grade landscaped parking spaces may be added at a later date, based upon City review and approval, which would result in up to 708 spaces for a parking ratio of 2.7 per 1,000 square feet. In order to construct the additional 53 parking spaces, the owner would be required to demonstrate that the requirements of the Transportation Demand Management(TDM)Program were being met and that there was an unmet parking need. Section 20.330.004 requires one parking space per 350 square feet, which results in a ratio of 2.86 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space. To allow the proposed reduced parking standard of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the Planning Commission has the ability to approve a Use Permit so long as the amount of parking generated is supported by the TDM Plan for the project(TDM discussed below). Similar reductions have been approved in the City. Staff supports the reduced parking rate for this project because it will support the overall efforts of the TDM plan as well as the City's General Plan Policies which promote parking reductions for projects implementing trip reduction programs. Preliminary TDMPlan In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance regulations, the applicant has prepared a preliminary TDM Plan designed to achieve a minimum 35 percent alternative mode use, consistent with the City's requirements; a copy of the preliminary plan is attached and referenced in the draft Conditions of Approval and the draft Development Agreement. The TDM plan is required to incorporate 14 mandatory measures that have demonstrable effect of reducing the number of trips generated to achieve the minimum alternative mode use. These measures include participation in a shuttle program, carpool and vanpool ride matching and preferential parking, guaranteed ride home program, secure bicycle parking, shower and locker facilities, an on-site designated employee contact, promotional programs, participation in the Congestion Relief Alliance programs that connect the employees to BART, Caltrain and ferry services, and well lit direct paths of travel to transit. In addition to the required TDM measures, the TDM plan includes the incorporation of a minimum of two of the additional measures, with the ability to incorporate all of the additional measures in the future if necessary to comply with the minimum alternative mode use. Sustainability The 475 Eccles development will include a variety of sustainable features. For the building design and construction, the following measures are proposed to be included: • Low-emitting materials • Daylighting and Views for 90 percent of spaces • Recycled content materials • Low-VOC finishes • Cool roofs • Water use reduction fixtures • Compliance with Climate Action Plan The open space and landscape areas have also been designed with sustainability as a priority. The following landscape-related measures are proposed to be included: • Water efficient landscaping, reduce by 50 percent • Bio-filtration elements throughout the site • Native, drought-tolerant plant materials Staff Report Subj ect: 475 Eccles Office/R&D Project Date: March 3, 2016 Page 5 of 7 • Low-flow drip-type irrigation system Increased FAR The Project proposes a total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 on the project site. Section 20.110.003 allows a maximum FAR of 1.0 in the Business and Technology Park (BTP) for projects that implement a TDM Program and include high quality, innovative design, subject to approval of a use permit. Staff is supportive of the increased FAR based on the incorporation of the TDM Program and sustainability measures as discussed above. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board (DRB) originally reviewed the Project at their January 17, 2012 meeting. The DRB had comments regarding the building architecture, site landscaping and general site layout. The applicant revised the project plans based on these comments, and project was reviewed by the DRB a second time at their June 19, 2012 meeting. The DRB recommended approval of the project, subject to several minor landscape modifications. The applicant has modified the drawing set in response to the comments made by the DRB. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has adequately addressed all of the comments. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The Project site is designated Business and Technology Park within the General Plan and is also part of the East of 101 Planning Sub-Area. The site is also located within the Business and Technology Park Zoning District, which provides zoning for a mix of corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and other offices in a campus-like environment. The project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan by creating a campus-style development of research and development uses. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant and the City have negotiated a Development Agreement (DA)to clarify and obligate Project features and mitigation measures, including transportation impact fees, public improvements in the East of 101 area, provisions for child care impact fees, park in-lieu fees, and TDM reporting and monitoring requirements. Development Agreement items include: • Development Agreement Term of 12 years. • Payment of applicable fees, including East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution Fee, East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee, Sewer Capacity Fee, General Plan Maintenance Fee, Child Care Impact Fee and Public Safety Impact Fee, including annual escalators. • Payment of a Park-in-Lieu Fee and a Transit Station Enhancement Fee • Phasing of the project. • Compliance with specific provisions of the Climate Action Plan. • Transportation Demand Management Plan requirements. Staff Report Subj ect: 475 Eccles Office/R&D Project Date: March 3, 2016 Page 6 of 7 The proposed Development Agreement is attached as Exhibit J to the Entitlements Resolution. Note that following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, the DA will be considered by the City Council for approval through adoption of an Ordinance. All Planning Commission approvals contemplated by this planning application would be conditioned upon the approval and execution of the DA. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEM) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project was prepared by Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting on behalf of the City. The DEIR was circulated on October 31, 2012 for a 45-day review period. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 6, 2012 to receive comments from the public (and Commission) on the DEIR — the December 6, 2012 Staff Report and meeting Minutes are attached (Attachment 2). The DEIR identifies eight significant impacts that would be reduced to less than significant impacts through various mitigation measures, which are thoroughly discussed in the document. In addition, five significant and unavoidable impacts are identified in the document related to noise and transportation. A total of two comment letters were received from the public and commenting agencies: Liberty Gold (property owner at 500 Eccles, letter dated November 14, 2012); and the California Department of Transportation (dated December 14, 2012). None of the comment letters raised significant environmental issues. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)/Response to Comments is attached to the CEQA Resolution and was circulated for commenting agency review on February 19, 2016. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 and 21081, respectively. The MMRP is organized to correspond to environmental issues and significant impacts discussed in the DEIR and will be used by the City to track or identify: the mitigation measures, timing for implementation, responsible party, the action, and ongoing monitoring responsibility. The complete MMRP is attached to the CEQA Resolution. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included with the required CEQA Findings and attached to the CEQA Resolution. In summary, the Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the City Council for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the 475 Eccles EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2012082101) and the project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable noise and transportation impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is being supported because the Project will provide economic, social, technological, and other benefits that balance the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project related to traffic. Balancing impacts include the generation of a new source of significant tax revenue and the employment of an additional 900 employees; conversion of an existing vacant site to a research and development campus; promotion of alternative transportation modes with the adoption of a TDM plan; and the potentially feasible alternatives would not result in the avoidance of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Staff Report Subj ect: 475 Eccles Office/R&D Project Date: March 3, 2016 Page 7 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS At the December 6, 2012 public hearing, the Planning Commission also presented general comments in regards to the overall project. The primary comments were related to project traffic, based on the comment letters from the adjacent property owner and Caltrans. The December 6, 2012 staff report and minutes are attached (Attachment 2). CONCLUSION The proposed 475 Eccles Office/Research and Development Project transforms a vacant site to a high quality Office/R&D campus in keeping with the vision of the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions: 1. Recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, 2. Conditionally Approve the Use Permit, Design Review, and Preliminary TDM Plan, and recommend that the City Council approve the Development Agreement based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft conditions of approval. Billy ross, Senior Planner Sadesh Mehra, Chief Planner Attachments: 1. Draft CEQA Resolution P. 1 Exhibit A: Final EIR p. 5 Exhibit B: CEQA Findings, including Statement of Overriding Considerations p. 123 Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program p. 137 2. Draft Entitlements Resolution p. 143 Exhibit A: General Conditions of Approval p. 150 Exhibit B: Project Plans p. 165 Exhibit C: Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan p. 206 Exhibit D: Development Agreement p. 241 3. Planning Commission Documents Staff Report— CEQA Public Comment—December 6, 2012 p. 270 Minutes—December 6, 2012 p. 273 4. Design Review Board Minutes—January 17 and June 19, 2012 p. 276 5. Alternative Landscape Plan Review of Criteria p. 281 2607665.1 The video recording of this Regular Planning Commission meeting can be found at,Lttp.-Ilwww.ssf.net/I996/P/anning-Commission MINUTES ' March 3, 2016 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO .� n REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL/CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Commissioners Martin, Nagales, Ruiz and Wong, Vice Chairperson Faria, and Chairperson Khalfin ABSENT: None AGENDA REVIEW None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the regular meeting minutes February 18, 2016. Commission Discussion begins 00:04:53 in video recording. Motion —Commissioner Nagales/Second—Vice Chairperson Faria to approve the regular meeting minutes of February 18, 2016. Approved by roll call vote (5-0-1). PUBLIC HEARING 2. BioMed Realty-R&D Campus BMR 475 ECCLES AVENUE LLC/Owner/Applicant 475 ECCLES AVE P11-0101: UP11-0011, DR11-0039, TDM11-0001, DA13-0001 & EIR12-0001 Use Permit, Design Review, Preliminary TDM Plan, Development Agreement and Environmental Impact Report to construct two four-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 sf, and a five-level parking structure on a 6.1 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP)Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.040, 20.110, 20.300, 20.310, 20.330, 20.400, 20.450, 20.460, 20.480, and 20.490. Public Hearing Opened: 7:03 P.M. Public Hearing Closed: 7:29 P.M. Commission Discussion begins 00:33:11 in video recording. • Commissioner Nagales raised concern over increase in traffic in the region with this project and questioned staff if are able to reduce the traffic impact. Senior Planner Gross noted that a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan was implemented to assist and relieve traffic impact in the East of 101 area and explained that mitigation measures were identified that also took into account new development. Gross also highlighted that each project in the region has also implemented their own TDM plans. Commissioner Martin asked what metric were being used to calculate traffic impacts. Senior Planner Gross stated that the traffic model was created in 2009 and March 3,2016 Minutes Page 1 of 2 based on expected projects impacts at that time. The traffic model will be undergoing updates to capture current trends and therefore help to identify mitigation measures. • Commissioner Wong asked staff to clarify if concerns from initial EIR were met specifically in regards to the safety of the neighboring businesses and Genentech childcare center. Gross confirmed that the applicable items were addressed and satisfactory for staff. Environmental Consultant, Allison Knapp also confirmed that no impacts were triggered. • The Commission expressed overall support of the project. Motion —Commissioner Nagales/Second—Commissioner Ruiz to adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report EIR EIR12-0001 including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Approved by roll call vote (6-0-0). Motion —Commissioner Nagales/Second—Vice Chairperson Faria to adopt a Resolution conditionally approving UP11-0011, DR11-0039, TDM11-0001, alternative landscape plan for the construction of an R&D Campus for Project P11-0101 and recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Development Agreement DA13-0001 based on the draft findings and subject to the draft conditions of approval including additional conditions about maintaining landscaping in the right of way. Approved by roll call vote (6- 0-0). ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 3. Planning Commission Presentation and Training • Presentation will be postponed to a later date and potentially to include the new Commissioner. ITEMS FROM STAFF Planning Manager Mehra let the Commission know that there may potentially be a Special Planning Commission meeting called on March 24. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Nagales attended the ribbon cutting for South City Pawn Shop and stated the business is doing well in their new space. Commissioner Nagales also asked staff to notify the Commission of the ribbon cutting ceremony for the updates in the Westborough Hills shopping center. Commissioner Nagales shared with the Commission that the City's TOT taxes are doing well as stated in the Daily Journal. Commissioner Wong appreciated that the previous minutes for Item 2 were included with the Staff Report. Chairperson Khalfin confirmed with the Commission to continue with the procedure of asking questions during the public hearing and discussion after public hearing closure. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Khalfin adjourned the meeting at 8:08 P.M. Sailesh Mehra Alexander Khalfin, Chairperson Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco March 3,2016 Minutes Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission ZIa Sta[LReport DATE: December 6, 2012 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 475 Eccles Ave Office/R&D Project — Study Session and Public Comments on the Draft EIR related to a request for a Use Permit, Design Review, Preliminary TDM plan and Development Agreement to construct two 4-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 sf, and a 5-level parking structure on a 6.1 acre site in the Business Technology Park(BTP) Zone District. Address: 475 Eccles Avenue (APN 015-050-580) Owner/Applicant: BioMed Realty Case Nos.: P11-0101: UPI 1-0011, DR11-0039, TDM11-0001, & EIR 12-0001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a Study Session on the proposed project, review and take public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and provide any additional comments to staff. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish existing improvements and construct a new research and development campus, with two 4-story office/research and development buildings totaling 262,287 square feet, a five-level parking structure and surface parking areas on a developed site at 475 Eccles Ave. The proposed parking garage would accommodate 551 parking spaces and an additional 104 surface parking spaces would initially be provided. Design Review Board The project was initially reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) at their January 17, 2012 meeting. The DRB had comments regarding the building architecture, site landscaping and general site layout. The applicant revised the project plans based on these comments, and project was reviewed by the DRB a second time at their June 19, 2012 meeting. The DRB recommended approval of the project, subject to several minor landscape modifications. Environmental Impact Report A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project was prepared by the firm of Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting. The DEIR was initially Staff Report Study Session—475 Eccles Ave December 6, 2012 Page 2 circulated on October 31, 2012 for a 45 day review period. This public hearing is intended to allow the public and the Commission an opportunity to present oral comments on the draft report. Written comments will be accepted until December 14, 2012. Significant Impacts The DEIR identifies eight significant impacts that would be reduced to less than significant impacts through various mitigation measures, which are thoroughly discussed in the document: 1. Existing AM Peak Hour volumes would increase by 1.9% on U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Ave/Executive Drive. 2. AM Year 2015 vehicle queuing would increase by 1.7% at Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. 3. AM Year 2015 traffic volumes would increase by 2.3% at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Blvd/Gateway Blvd. 4. AM Year 2035 traffic volumes would increase by 2.1% at the Oyster Point Blvd/Eccles Ave intersection. 5. AM Year 2035 traffic volumes would increase by 1.5% at the Oyster Point Blvd/Gateway Blvd/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Blvd approach, resulting in increased peak hour vehicle queuing. 6. AM Year 2035 traffic volumes would increase by 1.4% at the Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp intersection in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Blvd approach, resulting in increased peak hour vehicle queuing. 7. Sight line issues are present for two of the three driveways providing access from Eccles Ave. 8. Right-of-way conflicts could result at the first internal intersection at the southern driveway. In addition, five significant and unavoidable impacts are identified in the report. 1. AM Year 2015 traffic volumes would increase by 2.3% at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Blvd/Gateway Blvd intersection. 2. AM Year 2035 traffic volumes would increase by 1.4% at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Blvd/Gateway Blvd intersection. 3. AM Year 2035 traffic volumes would increase by 1.3% at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Ave/Executive Drive intersection. 4. AM Year 2035 traffic volumes would increase by 1.4% at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (flyover) diverge Oyster Point/Gateway Boulevard intersection. 5. PM Year 2035 traffic volumes would increase by 1.1% at the U.S. 101 Northbound one-lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave intersection. These impacts related to traffic back-ups on the freeway and vehicle queues at intersections would remain significant and unavoidable due to the infeasibility of mitigation measures. As a result, this project cannot ultimately be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable transportation impacts. The next step in the environmental review process will be for staff and the environmental consultant to Staff Report Study Session—475 Eccles Ave December 6, 2012 Page 3 prepare responses to all comments received during the review process. The response to comments will be included in the Final EIR, which is anticipated to be presented to the Commission together with the full project entitlements in early 2013. CONCLUSION: Staff requests that the Planning Commission take public comments on the DEIR and offer any other comments regarding the proposed 475 Eccles Ave Office/Research and Development project. Billy Gross, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Design Review Board Minutes —January 17, 2012 and June 19, 2012 2. Draft EIR dated October 26, 2012—available for review at htlp://weblink.ss£net/Browse.ast�x 3. Project Plans, dated May 24, 2012 MINUTES December 6, 2012 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL/CHAIR COMMENTS Chairperson Zemke, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Gupta, Commissioner Martin, and PRESENT: Commissioner Prouty. ABSENT: Commissioner Giusti, and Commissioner Sim. Chief Planner Kalkin, Assistant City Attorney Rosenberg, Associate Planner Gross, Administrative STAFF Assistant Cabano, Senior Civil Engineer Bautista, Fire Marshal Da Silva, Sergeant Campbell, and PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Van Duyn. AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2012. Motion--Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt/Second--Commissioner Gupta to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 2. BioMed Realty- R&D Campus BMR 475 ECCLES AVENUE LLC/Owner/Applicant 475 ECCLES AVE P11-0101: UP11-0011, DR11-0039, TDM11-0001 & EIR12-0001 Public Comments on the Draft EIR and Study Session related to a request for a Use Permit, Design Review, and Preliminary TDM plan to construct two 4-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 sf, and a 5-level parking structure on a 6.1 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP)Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.110, 20.300, 20.330, 20.400, 20.480 &20.490. Chairperson Zemke opened the public and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Gross presented the staff report and introduced Allison Knapp from Knapp Wollam Consulting (the City's environmental consultant). Ms. Knapp gave a presentation on the EIR. Commission comments/questions: • Commission asked the applicant team to address the issue of traffic. Associate Planner Gross stated that a Transportation Demand Management Plan with a 35% percent alternative mode shift will be required for this project. It has been submitted and will come forward as part of the entitlement process. Mark Crane of Crane Transportation Group (part of the environmental consultant team), gave a brief presentation. He explained the traffic modeling for any development in the East of 101 is looked at in the context of the year 2015 and year 2035 traffic conditions. The year 2015 condition assumption is that this project, along with the other developments in the East of 101 area, will have very complete TDM programs in process such that peak hour December 6,2012 Minutes Page 1 of 4 traffic by year 2015 would be reduced 20% and by year 2035 would be reduced 25%. These assumptions were challenged by CalTrans in a letter to the City. Crane Transportation investigated the reality of these reduction assumptions compared to what is happening today with businesses in the East of 101 Area. It was found that current conditions show businesses in the East of 101 area generating traffic at significantly lower levels than the assumptions being used for future conditions. • Commission inquired whether there were other options/solutions. Mr. Crane stated that the traffic model assumes that all feasible mitigation measures are in place. • Commission questioned why all businesses in that area were not implementing TDM programs. Associate Planner Gross stated that businesses are not required to officially report back on approved TDM programs until they have been in operation for at least one year; businesses are in different stages of program implementation. • Commission asked when TDM program implementation status is determined. Associate Planner Gross stated that all projects have a requirement to complete an annual TDM Report Survey. Developments asking for a floor area ratio bonus are additionally required to complete triennial TDM reports in which applicants are required to hire a consultant to do physical counts. Chief Planner Kalkin added that those projects with triennial survey requirements also have potential financial penalties for non-compliance. • Commission asked the traffic consultant about a complaint letter regarding proposed traffic levels on Eccles Avenue. Mr. Crane explained that the traffic modeling assumed full development by 2035 in all of East of 101 area, and that the increased traffic levels on Eccles Ave would not result in substandard levels of service on that roadway. • Commission asked the developer whether the development would be easily accessible for bus and shuttle services. Andrew Richards, representing BioMed Realty, stated there is enough space for buses to maneuver and that BioMed Realty embraces the TDM requirements. He noted they are hands-on operators of their properties and very involved in working with tenants to make sure they are compliant with all the regulations as well as with LEED certification. • Commission asked how many tenants were proposed to occupy the campus. Mr. Richards stated that ideally 1 or 2 tenants would occupy the site and that TDM requirements are discussed during lease negotiations. All TDM requirements become an exhibit in the final lease. • Commission complimented the applicant on incorporating the recommendations of the Design Review Board in order to utilize the plaza. • Commission asked staff about the objective of the study session. Chief Planner Kalkin replied that the study session allows the Commission and public to hear an overview of the project in order to have a more comprehensive discussion of the environmental document. • Commission asked for a projected groundbreaking date. Mr. Richards stated that construction could begin as soon as a tenant is identified. Demolition of the existing building will occur early next year, which will help facilitate securing a tenant. The applicant will be asking for a Development Agreement as part of the entitlements. • Commission questioned whether the wind factor was taken into consideration. Mr. Richards stated that a wind consultant was involved to help with the design. Associate Planner Gross stated that the Design Review Board response letter included the recommendations of the wind consultant. 3. Anaerobic Digestion Facility BLUE LINE TRANSFER, INC/Owner/Applicant 500 E JAMIE CT P12-0022: UPM12-0002, DR12-0009 & ND12-0001 Use Permit Modification, Design Review and Mitigated Negative Declaration to install an Anaerobic Digestion Facility at Blue line Transfer at 500 East Jamie Court in the Mixed Industrial (MI)Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.110, 20.300, 20.330, 20.460, 20.480 &20.490. Chairperson Zemke opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Associate Planner Gross presented the staff report. The applicant/project manager for Blue Line Transfer, Evan Edgar, of Edgar and Associates, gave a presentation giving more details of the specifics of the project of processing food waste and green waste to create biogas. He explained that this facility implements the Climate Action Plan and is a model program. He introduced Doug Button, with Blue Line Transfer, and Paul Miller, with ESA(the City's environmental consultant). December 6,2012 Minutes Page 2 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2785-2016 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 475 ECCLES AVENUE OFFICE/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS PROJECT. WHEREAS, BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company ("Applicant") owns property consisting of approximately six and one-tenth (6.1) acres located at 475 Eccles Avenue of the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, ("Project Site"); and, WHEREAS, Applicant desires to develop the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/Research and Development Campus Project("Project")with an office/research and development(R&D) campus and recreational open space uses; and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of Use Permit, Design Review, a Preliminary Transportation Demand Management("TDM")Plan, and a Development Agreement which would authorize the construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0 with up to a total of 262,287 square feet, subject to the terms of the Project entitlements including the proposed Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ["CEQA"])the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR")was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation on August 28, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft EIR, which was circulated for 45-day public/agency review period from October 23, 2012 through December 7, 2012; and WHEREAS, Notices of the Availability of the Draft EIR were published in the South San Francisco Examiner, mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site, noticed to local agencies and cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on December 6, 2012 to take public testimony on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR and prepared a Final EIR for circulation, which consists of the Draft EIR(incorporated by reference), all comments received on the Draft EIR, written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR reviewed and analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project, including environmental impacts in the areas of Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology & Soils; Hazards/Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population & Housing; Public Services; Transportation and Circulation; Utilities/Service Systems; and cumulative impacts of the Project, growth-inducing impacts of the Project, as well as potential Project Alternatives; WHEREAS, where feasible, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to reduce identified impacts to a level of less than significant; and WHEREAS, no feasible mitigation exists for certain significant and unavoidable transportation impacts that would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, 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 General Plan Update and General Plan Update EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the 475 Eccles Avenue Project Plans, as prepared by CAS Architects, Inc., dated September 19, 2014; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by Fehr& Peers, dated January 2016; the 477 Eccles Avenue EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on March 3, 2016; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2) ("Record"), the City of South San Francisco City Council hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Environmental Impact Report including the Draft EIR and Final EIR (attached as Exhibit A), the CEQA Findings including Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached as Exhibit B), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit C), 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. 4. Based on the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the findings regarding the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts, potentially significant impacts, and less than significant impacts; makes the findings regarding the proposed mitigation measures, and the Project alternatives; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, for the reasons, and as further set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council certify EIR12-0001 attached as Exhibit A, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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 3rd day of March, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Chairperson Khalfin, Vice Chairperson Faria, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Nagales, Commissioner Ruiz, and Commissioner Wong_ NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: /s/Sailesh Mehra Secretary to the Planning Commission Exhibit A Environmental Impact Report [Draft Environmental Impact Report Previously Circulated, available online at http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/O/doc/133212/Pa Final Environmental Impact Report Attached] Exhibit B CEQA Findings Including Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program RESOLUTION NO. 2786-2016 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 6.1 ACRE SITE FOR THE 475 ECCLES AVENUE OFFICE/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS PROJECT. WHEREAS, BioMed Realty Trust ("Applicant") owns property consisting of approximately six and one-tenth (6.1) acres located at 475 Eccles Avenue of the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, ("Project Site"); and, WHEREAS, Applicant desires to develop the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/Research and Development Campus Project ("Project") with an office/research and development (R&D) campus and recreational open space uses; and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of Use Permit, Design Review, Alternative Landscape Plan, a Preliminary Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") Plan, and a Development Agreement which would authorize the construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0 with up to a total of 262,287 square feet, subject to the terms of the Project entitlements including the proposed Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant's proposal is considered a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"); and, WHEREAS, on March 3, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the EIR and the proposed entitlements, take public testimony, conditionally approve elements of the Project and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), and by separate resolution, recommends the City Council adopt the EIR, including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, 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. 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 Project applications; the 475 Eccles Avenue Project Plans, as prepared by CAS Architects, Inc., dated September 19, 2014; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by Fehr& Peers, dated January 2016; the 477 Eccles Avenue EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed March 3, 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 Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A), the 475 Eccles Project Plans (attached as Exhibit B), the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (attached as Exhibit C), and the Development Agreement (attached as 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 Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra. 4. By Resolution No. , the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has recommended that the City Council find that an EIR was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which EIR adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts, its growth inducing impacts, and its cumulative impacts, and analyzed alternatives to the Project. For those impacts that could potentially exceed CEQA thresholds of significance, where feasible the City has identified and imposed mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less- than-significant. The Planning Commission has further recommended that the City Council find that the benefits of approving the Project outweigh the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. B. Use Permit 1. The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Project meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the Business and Technology Park Zoning District, with the exception of parking, for which a reduced parking standard of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet is proposed rather than the typical parking standard of 2.86 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and with the exception of floor area ratio, for which a maximum ratio of 1.0 rather than 0.5 is proposed. The exceptions for parking and increased floor area ratio are permissible and warranted by the City's Zoning Ordinance because the Project incorporates a robust Transportation Demand Management Program designed to encourage future employees to rely on alternatives forms of transportation and incorporates high quality, innovative design and product type, and maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use as well as expanded sustainability measures beyond what is required under Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code. 2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. The 1999 General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to encourage the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 Area, allow for employee-serving services, and requires the preparation of a Traffic Demand Management plan to reduce congestion impacts. Consistent with these policies, the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/R&D Project provides for the construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0. The Project includes employee-serving amenities in accordance with a preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan and meets specific design standards established for the East of 101 Area. Further, approval of the Project, including the proposed Development Agreement, will not impede achievement of, and is consistent with, applicable General Plan policies. 3. The proposed 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 existing uses in the vicinity of the site, including the office/R&D uses. The project proposes Office/R&D uses on a site located in the City's East of 101 area, which is intended for this type of use. The East of 101 Area Plan and General Plan have analyzed this type of use in the East of 101 area, and concluded that office/R&D uses in the East of 101 area are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is consistent with surrounding office/R&D uses in the vicinity, approval of the Project will not be detrimental to the nearby properties. 4. The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of landscaping and parking requirements, which are permissible and warranted by the Zoning Ordinance. The Alternative Landscape Plan is allowable under the City's Municipal Code Section 20.300.007(D)(2). The exception for the number of parking spaces is allowable under the City's Municipal Code Section 20.330.006(D), and warranted based on the following findings: i. The parking reduction will serve to support and promote the Project's TDM program. ii. The Project provides 87% of the required parking spaces and is required, through the TDM program, to achieve an alternative mode use of 35%. The use will be adequately served by the proposed on-site parking and the site is not anticipated to result in a shortfall of on-site parking or create the need for overflow parking off-site. iii. The proposed parking standard of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet will be adequate for the proposed use because of the offered alternative solutions for providing and managing parking. The Project is required to implement a TDM Program on an on- going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%. The TDM requirements applicable to the Project, the fact that similar reduced standards have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several large developments in the City, including the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, the Gateway Specific Plan District, Britannia East Grand and the Genentech Campus, and the studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) all support a reduced parking standard. iv. The reduced parking rate reinforces the overall efforts of the City's General Plan and the TDM Ordinance, which encourage reduced parking standards as an effective tool in encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. V. The parking demand generated by the Project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental effect on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding areas because the Project provides sufficient on-site parking and is implementing a TDM Program on an on-going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%. vi. The number of parking spaces provided by the reduced standard will serve all existing, proposed and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would the standard number of parking spaces required by Chapter 20.210 and Chapter 20.330. As described above, there is ample evidence to support the proposed parking reduction, and there is added concern that an overabundance of parking could have a deleterious effect on the goals and objectives of the City's TDM efforts since such would serve as a disincentive to use of alternative modes of transportation. 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 office/R&D uses in the East of 101 Area, which is specifically intended for such uses. 6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the office/R&D uses will benefit from being located in the East of 101 Area, and the size and development is appropriate for the location and meets the City's land use and zoning standards. 7. The Project complies with CEQA for the reasons stated in Finding A.4 above. C. 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 quality, energy efficient, contemporary, office/R&D campus which will provide open spaces and a pedestrian- friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated. Subject to approval of the Alternative Landscape Plan, the project meets or exceeds all general development standards and all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed office/R&D buildings are consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Business and Technology Park land use designation by encouraging the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 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 Employment District Standards included in Chapter 20.110. 4. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 ("Design Review Criteria") because the project has been evaluated against, and found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the "Design Review Criteria" section of the Ordinance. D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan 1. The proposed trip reduction measures contained in the TDM (attached hereto as Exhibit F) are feasible and appropriate for the Project, considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project's location, size, and hours of operation. Appropriate and feasible measures have been included in the TDM plan to achieve a projected 35% alternative mode usage, as required. The TDM provides incentives for employees to use modes of transportation other than single-occupancy vehicle trips, such as secure bicycle storage, shower facilities, preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, and an employee TDM contact, among others. The TDM also uses a lower parking ratio to increase ridership on BART, Caltrain and other transit services. Further, pedestrian walkways linking the Project to adjacent shuttle stops will help encourage alternative forms of transportation. 2. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target 35% alternative mode use established for the Project by Chapter 20.400 will be achieved and maintained. Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and triennial reports. E. Development Agreement 1. The Owner and City have negotiated a Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq. The Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, sets for the duration, property, project criteria, and other required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2. Based on the findings in support of the Project, the Planning Commission finds that the Development Agreement, vesting a project for a campus- style development of office and R&D buildings, is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and any applicable zoning regulations. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The General Plan specifically contemplates the proposed type of project and the suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the Project. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice in that the project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the General Plan and the Business and Technology Park Zoning District which have planned for campus-style development of office and R&D buildings at this location. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare because the project will proceed in compliance with all of the policies and programs specified in the General Plan and in compliance with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations of the City of South San Francisco. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and conditionally approves the Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, the Preliminary TDM Plan (attached as Exhibit C), and Design Review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and BioMed Realty Trust(attached as Exhibit D). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approvals stated herein are conditioned upon the City Council's approval of the Development Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and BioMed Realty Trust. 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 3rd day of March, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Chairperson Khalfin, Vice Chairperson Faria, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Nagales, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Wong. NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: /s/Sailesh Mehra Sailesh Mehra Secretary to the Planning Commission Exhibit A Conditions of Approval Exhibit B 457 Eccles Avenue Project Plans Exhibit C Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan Exhibit D Development Agreement 2613329.1 OFFICE / R& D CAMPUS ENTITLEMENTS AND EIR 475 Eccles Blvd . City council July 27, 2016 li r� y� y rent i a okt�rvr wu.a�; / ou i a a r r r Project Location Description l y it ivy , � M i r �iuur4 r � - ruvam�mw�;v i r r G a p � r �7 ;r 2 M r . ry Y w / rd/� a(V✓.mW...aiwwwuu S nn'ry w .��✓„ �iu�f °may l/ � u iii 1 v Perspective Drawings 3 Perspective Drawings " k a %, 14r i 1 v i it U .. r l Aerial Vie w r�rrr Seth o, a j 5i, I Aerial View from Southeast 4 Perspective Drawings View of courtyard between Ji � 1 f ply. Buildings A and �, $llI 1111 �, p f� View of rear of development W View of parking garage 5 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Sustainability Measures LEED Silver target Compliance with Climate Action Plan Daylighting and Views for 90% of spaces IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Other Building and Landscaping Measures hbftftb� 6 Transportation Demand Management as IL u�� N uruti��erru7lro�l �r GnuM?i°" �WM➢,N..aN.—awm miwaWapupaaPNmwrtiunNkx'�vNioYV�nsMO m�r�mi NM1NUI�ID�iutlbuiwm romwiNUml�uNliW mMrauv'u'rtP�ttamNioMtt � `�,�J i Poll, If "ew a��rovno Hl��� * it r✓' W uvoeorom���l�m'�vvy �roJ � PDU!W�N9NANIINOWOW WUN IIWUtl uSmuU WMJU lWtiv ueN�u!N!M955m41roNroplo49VNLmkw'�t *0 m ^u�vntgy,m ,^0aly� '�Pp� Nov Pomr hoffle RBI iivl 1'7y t i Poio Rr nl am a�� t —'o-44w,Ni�wfn m.arm aw urenw� man � � fly Itll Y r^ M) iYiuliu I �rm avwwro wnM w vp'. M�rNb+���bNIl��a'�Wk4�!NAtlN PwAVddMN$Aos RN Ul r ll1 f 4'L.I K�€ r�rl Vl 0W9ur 040 9111 1 111 f LP 1911 V0 R f l �� �.: �, �warerv�av<w�au revers lytl r tiidiirf.,..P,u9tf^,IXG fiFyr{rl 1, Sl 1u",7P>Ix 7 Development Agreement Term of 12 years Park In - Lieu Fee Transit Station Enhancement Fee Other DA Items i Compliance with r Climate Action Plan TDM Plan requirements hftlftb� CEQA Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) impacts Identified l ated to Traffic & Circulation Final EIR / Response to Comments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Statement of Overriding Considerations ,r 9 Recommendation That the City Council follow the Planning Commission' s recommendation and take the following actions : 1 . Adopt a Resolution making findings and certifying EIR 12 -0001 , including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations ; 2 . Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving Planning Project P1 1 -0101 , including UP ] 1 -0011 , DR] 1 -0039, TDM 1 1 -0001 , based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft conditions of approval . 3 . Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving Development Agreement DA13 - i01 . 10 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-213, Version: 1 Resolution making findings and certifying an Environmental Impact Report including a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/Research and Development Campus Project. WHEREAS, BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company ("Applicant") owns property consisting of approximately six and one-tenth (6.1) acres located at 475 Eccles Avenue of the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, ("Project Site"); and, WHEREAS, Applicant desires to develop the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/Research and Development Campus Project("Project")with an office/research and development(R&D) campus and recreational open space uses; and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, Design Review, a Preliminary Transportation Demand Management("TDM")Plan, and a Development Agreement, which would authorize the construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0 with up to a total of 262,287 square feet, subject to the terms of the Project entitlements including the proposed Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ["CEQA"]) the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report("SEIR")was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project; and, WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation on August 28, 2012; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft EIR, which was circulated for 45-day public/agency review period from October 23, 2012 through December 7, 2012; and, WHEREAS, Notices of the Availability of the Draft EIR were published in the South San Francisco Examiner, mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site, noticed to local agencies and cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on December 6, 2012 to take public testimony on the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR and prepared a Final EIR for circulation, which consists of the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference), all comments received City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 3 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-213, Version: 1 on the Draft EIR, written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the Draft EIR reviewed and analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project, including environmental impacts in the areas of Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology & Soils; Hazards/Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population & Housing; Public Services; Transportation and Circulation; Utilities/Service Systems; and cumulative impacts of the Project, growth-inducing impacts of the Project, as well as potential Project Alternatives; and, WHEREAS, where feasible, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to reduce identified impacts to a level of less than significant; and, WHEREAS, no feasible mitigation exists for certain significant and unavoidable transportation impacts that would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level; and, WHEREAS, on March 3, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a duly noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Draft EIR and the proposed entitlements and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and conditionally approved the Project, subject to City Council review and approval; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings on May 25, 2016 and on July 27, 2016 to consider the EIR, the Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, Design Review, Preliminary TDM Plan, and Development Agreement and take public testimony; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the EIR, including all comment letters submitted, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the EIR, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City 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, 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 General Plan Update and General Plan Update EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the 475 Eccles Avenue Project Plans, as prepared by CAS Architects, Inc., dated September 19, 2014; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by Fehr &Peers, dated January 2016; the 475 Eccles Avenue EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on March 3, 2016 and Planning Commission deliberations; all reports, minutes and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearings on May 25, 2016 and July 27, 2016, and City Council deliberations; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2) City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 3 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-213, Version: 1 ("Record"), the City of South San Francisco City Council hereby finds and resolves as follows: 1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Environmental Impact Report, including the Draft EIR and Final EIR (attached as Exhibit A), the CEQA Findings, including Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached as Exhibit B), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit C), 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. 4. Based on the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, the City Council makes the findings regarding the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts,potentially significant impacts, and less than significant impacts; makes the findings regarding the proposed mitigation measures, and the Project alternatives; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, for the reasons set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby certifies EIR12-0001 attached as Exhibit A, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 3 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC'11 1#2012082101 l�llJ' J w �o� � u 5 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083 PREPARED Y: ALLISON A LLA CONSULTING Allison KnappConsulting.com February, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 475 ECCLES FEIR SCH# 2012082101 FEBRUARY, 2016 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1-1 Background 1-1 Summary 1-3 EXHIBIT A-REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL 2-1 STUDY CHANGES Introduction 2-1 Project Location And Site Conditions 2-1 General Plan and Zoning Designations 2-4 Project Objectives 2-5 Project Description 2-6 Environmental Measures Incorporated Into The Project 2-14 Air Quality 2-21 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2-26 Noise 2-28 ATTACHMENTS 3-1 A Liberty Gold Letter—11/14/12 B Caltrans Letter—12/14/12 C Liberty Gold and Caltrans Letters and Response to Comments D November, 2015 Letter from Applicant with ENVIRON Air Quality and Noise Analysis E KB Engineering Peer Review F Basic and Expanded Air Quality Measures G September 2013 Demolition Process Letter H State Clearinghouse Letter of Compliance 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FEBRUARY, 2016 BACKGROUND PROJECT OVERVIEW BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC (BMR), (Applicant) proposes to redevelop approximately 6.1 acres of land in the City of South San Francisco's "East of 101" area into a research and development (R&D) complex. The Project site is located at 475 Eccles Avenue, between Oyster Point and Forbes Boulevards within the Business Technology Park Zone District and the "Business and Technology Park" General Plan Land Use designation which supports R&D projects. CHRONOLOGY 2012-2016 • An initial study was prepared and circulated with a notice to prepare an environmental impact report and submitted to the State Clearinghouse on August 28, 2012 for a 30-day review (State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2012082101). • A Project EIR focusing on traffic and circulation was prepared and circulated for review on October 23, 2012 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). • Two comment letters were received on the document during the public review period, November, and December,2012,responses were drafted and are attached. • In April, 2013 the project applicant became aware of an unknown sensitive receptor within the vicinity of the project area. Subsequently, additional analyses were performed to address the receptor's requests, which support the conclusion of the DEIR that impacts would be less than significant. Supplemental studies regarding air quality, noise, hazard risk assessment and hazardous materials analysis were conducted in September, 2013 and revisions to the initial study were drafted and are attached. • The Applicant requested and was issued a demolition permit and the concrete tilt-up building noted in the 2012 Project Description on the Project site was demolished in December,2013. • November 19, 2015 the Applicant sent a letter to the City identifying minor changes to the Project and requesting to move forward with the environmental and entitlement process. The changes to the Project are: • There is no longer a building on the Project site; • Relocation of a cell tower on the site is no longer proposed; • An alternative landscape plan is requested in lieu of roof top landscaping (South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.07.D2). FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 1 -PAGE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Preparation of Initial Study and Draft Environmental Impact Report An initial study and Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) was prepared for the Project. An initial study is intended to assist in the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant, explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant and identifying the type of EIR to be prepared (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15063 (c) (3)). The initial study was prepared and circulated with a notice that an environmental impact report would be prepared and submitted to the State Clearinghouse on August 28, 2012 for a 30-day review. The initial study identified potential significant and significant unavoidable impacts associated with traffic. The initial study made the findings that all other potential Project impacts were less than significant. The Project was assigned State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2012082101. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15161 a Project EIR focusing on traffic and circulation was prepared and circulated for review. The Draft EIR was prepared on behalf of the City of South San Francisco and circulated for review October 23, 2012 in accordance with CEQA. Two comment letters were received on the document during the public review period. The comment letters, from Liberty Gold and CalTrans, and responses are shown in Attachments A and B. Responses to these two comments are presented in Attachment C. The City and Project applicant became aware of the presence of a Genentech childcare facility in close proximity to the Project site in April, 2013. Genentech operates a day care facility 125 feet northwest of the Project site, which is a sensitive receptor and was not identified in the initial study (IS) and DEIR for the 475 Eccles Project. This is corrected herein and in response to the identification of the facility, a second air quality, health risk assessment and noise analysis was prepared (ENVIRON, August 28, 2013, see Attachment D). The ENVIRON Report was peer reviewed by KB Environmental Sciences and Knapp Consulting (September 10, 2013, see Attachments E and F). Revisions to the Project Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15006 (d and h), the purpose of CEQA is to use the initial study to narrow the focus of an environmental impact report and urge applicants to revise projects to eliminate impacts. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the Applicant has proposed revisions to the Project, as shown in EXHIBIT A- Revised Project Description and Modifications to the Initial Study. The Project proposes additional measures to reduce dust, particulate matter and diesel exposure to the day care center during demolition, grading and construction activities. The measures would reduce noise, air quality and health related impacts to less than significant (see Attachment F). FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 1 -PAGE 2 Summary of Findings-Daycare Center Response to Comment A day care facility is located 125 feet northwest of the Project site on the Genentech Campus at 850 Gateway Boulevard. Therefore there is one sensitive receptor located within a 0.25 mile radius of the Project site. The Project Description was revised by the Applicant to increase measures to reduce demolition and grading impacts to the day care center to less than significant. As noted above, a subsequent air quality, hazard risk assessment and noise assessment was conducted to identify potential impacts to this sensitive receptor. As a result of construction activities (with implementation of the measures the City requires by law and applicable Tier 2 measures proposed by the Project), the maximum cancer risk for a residential- adult receptor would be 0.04 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.44 per million. The maximum cancer risk for a school child (day care) receptor would be 8.2 per million, below the 10 per million threshold, based upon the construction schedule provided by the Applicant which assumes demolition within a year and construction following approximately two years later, 2015-16. The maximum cancer risk from the Project operations for a school child (day care) receptor would be 0.046 per million, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. The Project's chronic hazard index (H) for diesel particulate matter (DPM) would be less than 0.03 for a residential receptor and 0.02 for a school child (day care) receptor. The chronic HI for DPM would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. The Project's acute HI for acrolein would be less than 0.01 at all receptors. The acute HI for acrolein would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. Removal of any toxic or hazardous materials from the Project site is required by law to comply with the local, state and federal laws outlined in the Setting Section. The Applicant acknowledges these requirements and identifies them as part of the Project as described in Chapter 2 Project Description of the initial study and EIR. The procedures and permitting requirements identified as part of the Project are designed to reduce the potential impacts associated with the handling, storage, transport and removal of toxic and hazardous substances. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to exposure from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or day care facilities or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. The Project would expose outdoor day care activities to an approximate worst-case 77 dB. Interior noise levels would attenuate 20 to 25 dB. Noise impacts to sensitive receptors at the day care center would be less than significant. Summary of Global Comments The three modifications to the Project identified in the November, 2015 (see Attachment E) letter from the Applicant have no substantive effect on the environmental evaluation contained in the FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 1 -PAGE 3 initial study and EIR. The changes identify minor changes to the Project and request to move forward with the environmental and entitlement process. The changes to the Project are: 1) There is no longer a building on the Project site (see Attachments D and G). Demolition of the existing concrete tilt up building on the site was conducted under the auspices of a permit issued by the City Building Division. The demolition was supervised by the City and staged with equipment access points off of Eccles Avenue. 2) Relocation of a cell tower on the site is no longer proposed (see Attachment D). The cell tower was removed from the site. Therefore no use permit is required. 3) An alternative landscape plan is requested in lieu of roof top landscaping pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.07.D2 (see Attachment D). The Project proposes 27 percent of the site to be in impervious surfaces, and landscaping that exceeds the 20 percent requirement by City ordinance. Changing the location of landscaping would not pose an environmental effect, provided the traffic mitigation measure to provide adequate sight lines along Eccles Avenue, shown in Traffic Mitigation Measure 15, below is implemented as required by the Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Areas throughout the initial study and EIR where rooftop landscaping is mentioned shall be understood to be referring to an alternative landscape plan. Traffic Mitigation Measure 15: The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining landscaping along the Eccles Avenue Project frontage between the central and south driveways that will allow exiting drivers to be able to maintain the minimum required 250-foot sight lines at the central and south driveways. The landscape plan shall be revised to show staggered tree planting along this frontage to allow sight lines through the trees as they grow and reach maturity; or, the trees and landscaping shall be maintained to provide a view from 2.5 to 6 feet above grade. The landscape plan shall be revised to note either requirement, show the line-of-sight triangles and not the requirement. These notes shall be on the building plans that are a part of the building permit issuance. The note shall be made on the plans in conformance with the lines of sight required as set forth in Traffic Figure 24 of the EIR to insure that the mitigation is permanently maintained. 4) The timing of demolition was conducted to comport with the estimate provided by the Applicant and identified in the initial study and EIR. The dates of construction have shifted a year or two. The dates were identified as being estimates for illustrative purposes and do not impact the analyses. For example, the air quality analysis used the CalEEMod in 2012 as is the standard practice in 2016. The Bay Area Ail-'Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines for preparing air quality, greenhouse gas and hazard risk assessments have not been revised since May, 2012. The October, 2012 initial study and 2013 revision thereto use the latest version of the Guidelines (see p 3- 12 Initial Study Checklist). The dates of construction commencement and completion are not revised throughout the initial study and EIR but are referred to in this response to comments document. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 1 -PAGE 4 EXHIBIT A: Revised Project Description and CEQA Checklist Attachment A: Liberty Gold Letter-11/14/12 Attachment B: CalTrans Letter-12/14/12 Attachment C: Liberty Gold and CalTrans Response to Comments Attachment D: November, 2015 Letter from Applicant with ENVIRON Air Quality and Noise Analysis Attachment E: KB Engineering Peer Review Attachment F: Basic and Expanded Air Quality Measures Attachment G: September,2013 Demolition Process Letter Attachment H: State Clearinghouse Letter of Compliance 2605751.1 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 1 -PAGE 5 11 L:e. ..H.I. .I.T. . REVI EI) OcrOBER, 2013 AGAIN F EBR J Y, 2016 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 3 provides a description of the proposed 475 Eccles Avenue R&D Project and the related actions that comprise the Project analyzed in this EIR. CCR Section 15124 requires that the project description in an EIR contain the following information but should not provide extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact. The Project Description shall contain the/a: 1. Precise location and boundaries of the project on a detailed map and regional map. 2. Statement of the objectives of the project. 3. General description of the characteristics of the project, including the principal engineering proposals and supporting public service facilities. 4. Statement briefly describing the intended use of the EIR to the extent that the information is known by the Lead Agency including a list of agencies expected to use the EIR; permits and other approvals required to implement the project; related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal , state, or local laws, regulations, or policies and to the fullest extent possible the lead Agency should integrate CEQA review with these related review and consultation requirements. 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, south of the City of Brisbane and north of the City of San Bruno. The City of South San Francisco is located on the San Francisco Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal range. The City is located along major transportation routes including U.S. 101,Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and the Union Pacific Railroad (see Figure 3.1 Project Location). The Project site is located within the City of South San Francisco's East of 101 Area. The East of 101 Area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land, and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east and south sides, U.S. 101 and railway lines on the west, and the City of Brisbane on the north. San Francisco International Airport is located approximately 1.75 miles south of the Project site. The Plan Area is mostly developed and has a mix of land uses,including industry,warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. Regionally the Project site is accessible from the northwest via the US 101 Oyster Point Boulevard off- and on-ramps and from the south west by the East Grand Avenue exit off of FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY JANUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 1 Highway 101. Locally, the site is accessible from Forbes Boulevard, via East Grand Avenue to the south and from Oyster Point Boulevard to the north. N f J, 7 61yNy Y I N " 1 m % l Dally City �. coliwl I � Ra Fran�.I T te Pacifica y FIGURE 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 2 LAND USE ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE Surrounding land uses are a mix of light industrial, manufacturing and R&D. Adjacent land uses include open space owned by Southern Pacific Railway that previously contained rail tracks to the north, north-west. Eccles Avenue fronts the site to the east and an adjacent industrial building is located at 472 Eccles Avenue to the south. Liberty Gold is adjacent to the Project site. Avis Rent a Car and Yzsumoto and Company (an art supply distributor) are located at 490 Eccles Avenue, east of the site. Industrial structures occupied by Universal Freight Forward and the Dimero Express (USA) Corporation are located further west of the site. The Gateway Specific Plan Area, located west of the Project site, contains mixed use office and R&D land uses. EAST OF 101 AREA LAND USE HISTORY Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a change in land use over the years. The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way to industrial park and warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings and life science campuses mark the third major wave of land use change in the area. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings, such as the building on the Project site, can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally very large in size and the area has a very stark industrial look. Numerous abandoned railroad spurs are present, again as witnessed adjacent to the Project site. Since the late 1990s, developers have preferred to redevelop the older industrial park blocks and construct new mixed office and R&D developments north of East Grand Avenue. Development has resulted in the clean-up of old industrial sites (Brownfield sites), consistent with environmental practices associated with LEED and the Environmental Protection Agency principles and objectives. In the past half dozen years the East of 101 Area has witnessed expansion of the Genentech R&D facility and master plan from 124 acres to 200 acres of Office/R&D/Manufacturing uses. Hotel, office, mixed-use and R&D have been approved over the past six years throughout the area. Some examples include office and R&D in Oyster Point; and office/ R&D on three sites along East Grand Avenue; and on Forbes Boulevard and Roebling Avenue. R&D is anticipated to reach approximately 7.7 million square feet in the East of 101 Area by 2015 and 8.5 million by 2035. Other land uses in the East of 101 Area include approximately 8 million square feet of manufacturing; 664,000 square feet of commercial/retail; 360,000 square feet of office and 3,385 hotel rooms.2 In summary, the East of 101 Area represents a transition from the historic industrial use of the area as witnessed by the mix of bioscience R&D, industry, warehouse, retail, office, marina, and hotels uses. 'I'liree child care centers are located in the Project area: 599 1 These figures are for R&D Crane Transportation Group, July, 2012 and are identified in the Traffic and Circulation Section and in the initial study contained in the Appendix. 2 East of 101 Traffic Model land use classifications and square footage for 2015. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 3 Gateway Boulevard 0.3 miles southwest; 444 Allerton Avenue 0.4 miles southeast; and 1.2,E feet n.ortlwwest of the Project site on.. the Gateways Bu.:usi:ru.ess lark Campus at 8,50 Gateways Boulevard. ":l bered:ore there is one sensitive receptor located within. a 0.2,E mile radiu.;us of the Project site. SITE CONDITIONS The Project site is a 6.1 acre parcel currently developed with an approximate 152,145 square foot building consisting of an 114,000 square foot building footprint and a mezzanine. Asphalt paved driveways,parking lots and walkway areas surround the site. The frontage of the parcel along Eccles Avenue is sparsely landscaped and the parking areas are minimally landscaped. The single building on the site, fkT a concrete tilt-up office/warehouse structure that was constructed in the 1960's, is loe.f..a o-- `he site was dernol:islwed in :Oecern:berm 201.3 witlw the beru.efit of a dern.ol.:it:ion. permit issu.;ued by the City. The site is relatively level with surface elevations ranging from +68 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the north eastern parking lot area to +63 feet MSL along the abandoned railroad spur area at the rear (north) of the existing building. A fill slope approximately five feet in height separates the parking lot from the former railroad spur area. The Project site has been occupied by professional, scientific and technical services and direct selling establishments since 1970 according to various City directories. Users include William Volker & Company, ATC Partners, Ocular Sciences Incorporated identified as professional, scientific and technical services and Otagiri Mercantile a direct selling establishment. 3.3 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area of the City of South San Francisco's General Plan. The General Plan designates the Project site for "Business and Technology Park" uses, and gives the following summary of the Business and Technology Park designation: This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, which also meet specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 4 ZONING CLASSIFICATION The Project site is zoned "Business and Technology Park" (BTP). The BTP District provides for Research and Development and mirrors the land use designation intent (see above) specifying campus-like development. The City adopted a revised zoning code in 2010 and rezoned specific properties, including the Project site, to bring the General Plan Designations and Zoning Classifications into conformance. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.110 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (www.ssf.net/). 3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Applicant has identified objectives of the Project. Specifically the Applicant states that their objective is to "maximize implementation of General Plan policies and provisions that: ➢ Encourage redevelopment and intensification of development to accommodate land uses such as Research& Development. ➢ Encourage opportunities for the continued evolution of the City's economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology. Promote small business incubation. ➢ Encourage the creation of a campus environment in the East of 101 area that targets and accommodates the biotech/R&D industry. ➢ Promote campus-style biotechnology uses. ➢ Maximize building heights in the East of 101 area. ➢ Encourage the use of Transportation Demand Management measures designed to achieve environmental goals by permitting an increased Floor Area Ratio when such measures are included in a project. ➢ Maximize opportunities for strong and sustainable economic growth that results in high quality jobs,in a manner that respects the environment by redeveloping an infill site that is close to major arterials and existing utilities. ➢ Feasibly support the provision of environmental enhancements that exceed standard building requirements, such as qualifying for LEED certification." FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 5 3.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC (BMR) is the Applicant for the life science campus and owner of the 6.1 acre' Project site. The site is currently developed with an approximately 152,1454 square foot building consisting of an 114,000 square foot footprint with a mezzanine. Asphalt paved driveways, parking lots and walkway areas surround the site consisting of approximately 152,000 square feet' of paved area (see Figure 3.2 Existing Conditions). The concrete tilt-up office/warehouse structure was constructed in the 1960s and was originally designed to house freight forwarding uses. The remainder of the site is primarily surface parking with small sparsely landscaped areas along the Eccles Avenue frontage and edges of the site. Approximately 276 parking spaces are located on the site; the majority being on the east portion of the site. The southeast side of the site has shared easements to allow truck access with an adjacent property. The building was constructed in 1965,renovated in 1995 and has been vacant since 2006 except for the rooftop communication facility, based on review of City building permit records. The site is relatively level with surface elevations ranging from +68 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northwestern parking lot area to +63 feet MSL along the abandoned railroad spur area at the rear (north) of the existing building. A fill slope approximately five feet in height separates the parking lot from the former railroad spur area (Cleary Geotechnical and Cotton Shires Geotechnical consultants). PROPOSED PROJECT The Applicant is requesting various approvals to demolish the existing building and associated parking, and to construct a new life science campus consisting of two buildings that together would comprise 262,287 square feet, a five-level parking structure and limited surface parking (see Figure 3.3 Proposed Conditions). Following is a list of the required approvals. 3 The site net square footage is 265,613 square feet for planning and floor area purposes (which excludes the shared access easement). 4 The site was developed with approximately 152,145 square feet of building area consisting of ground floor and mezzanine areas in 201.2. The building was demolished in Decernl.er, 201.3 wirh City perrnitso The analysis contained in the initial study rounded up to 155,000 square feet for geology,hydrology, air quality and other impact analyses. Approximately 151,613 square feet of site area remains outside the building footprint, rounded to 152,000 square feet. The Civil Engineer indicates that approximately 13 percent of the site (or 35,568 square feet) is landscaped and pervious, leaving approximately 116,432 square feet of paved, impervious surface outside the building footprint. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 6 v r � poi✓ � � �i � u � r i I{I Div �i i lull v'I i 1r FIGURE 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2013 2013 Building Demolished REQUIRED APPROVALS LEAD AGENCY LEGISLATIVE ➢ Development Agreement. BMR seeks a Development Agreement to vest the approvals of the Project for seven years with a five-year extension (i.e., up to 12 years),provided BMR meets certain milestones in developing the Project. ADJUDICATIVE ➢ Conditional Use Permit. The zoning ordinance provides for a base floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5, which can be increased to 1.0 based upon an approved incentive program, which may be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. The Project proposes a 1.0 FAR and therefore requires an Incentive Program to be reviewed through the use permit process. ➢ Transportation Demand Management Program review and approval to achieve a 30 percent mode shift which is part of the incentive program for the 1.0 FAR. fhe-safe. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 7 Consideration of an "Alternative I....and.scape Plan" in. l.i.et.;t of rood' top landscaping pt.;trst.;taru.t to Sotalw Sari.. Il~'raru.cisco Mi.ini.cipal Code Section 20.300.07..D2. ➢ Design Review approval. MINISTERIAL ➢ Grading and Building permits. ➢ Encroachment permits to work in the public right-of-way. OTHER AGENCY REQUIRED PERMITS ➢ Bay Area Air Quality Management District "J Permit" as described in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.2.13 of the initial study (see Appendix A) for removal of asbestos lead based paints. ➢ Local and State approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. ➢ San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (potential) for site remediation (if necessary) PROPOSED CIRCULATION AND ACCESS Direct access and circulation to the Project site would remain largely unchanged. The site has four points of access from Eccles Avenue. Vehicular access to the Project site would be obtained via three existing locations off of Eccles Avenue; one driveway would be replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Access points would be midpoint and at the eastern and western edges of the site (see Figures 3.2 and 3.3). PROPOSED UTILITY CONNECTIONS The Project would connect to the existing utility lines present in the Project area. Utility lines on the Project site would be reconfigured to accommodate the new site plan. A stormwater quality control plan is proposed and is also required by the City Engineering Division and Water Quality Plant. The plan proposes 20 planted water treatment and retention areas. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 8 �fl�t ray l e ( r t �r r 9G �% ado, y � NX10000"',WWI" i FIGURE 3.3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDINGS The Project would construct two buildings to serve the life science industry. Both buildings would be four stories high. The combined gross floor area would be up to 262,287 square feet,resulting in a floor area ratio of approximately 1.0. Service areas would be enclosed at the rear of each building in a metal skinned structure that would rise to encase a mechanical penthouse at the top of each building. The primary block of the buildings would be curtain wall with aluminum sunshades. The buildings would have an aluminum curtain wall system with dual pane solar glazing. Metal spandrel with painted metal finish and insulation are proposed at opaque areas above ceiling line and from floor level to a height of 3'-7" above finished floor on levels above the first floor. Aluminum sunshades integral to the curtain wall system are proposed. The design includes operable window sashes within each structural bay at each floor. Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC6) would be used at balconies and at the entry feature of the buildings. The overall structure behind is a steel frame which the GFRC panels would be attached. Both the fiber 6 GFRC panels are reinforced with glass fiber to create lightweight panels for the cladding of opaque surfaces on buildings. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 9 and concrete will contain recycled materials. The buildings may be connected by an enclosed bridge. Lastly, the two buildings would have one loading zone each. PARKING The Project proposes 655 parking spaces (a ratio of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space) initially. Of these 655 spaces, 551 spaces would be in the parking structure and 104 would be provided in surface parking lots. Up to 53 additional on grade landscaped parking spaces may be added at a later date, based upon City review and approval, which would result in up to 708 spaces for a parking ratio of 2.7 per 1,000 square feet. In order to construct the additional 53 parking spaces, the owner would be required to demonstrate that the requirements of the Transportation Demand Management Program were being met and that there was an unmet parking need. The five-level parking structure would feature colored screens and sculptural stair canopies. A bridge from the parking structure, extending across the central drive, would provide pedestrian access to the central courtyard. Landscaping and screening at the lower level of the parking structure are proposed in addition to the City code required green roof on parking structures (see landscaping discussion below). GRADING,EXCAVATION AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES The Project proposes to balance cut and fill on site,with approximately 2,815 cubic yards of cut followed by 2,720 cubic yards of fill. Maximum depth of cut would be approximately five feet of overall site grading. The maximum depth of cut for deepened footing excavations is approximately 20 feet, although the geotechnical report indicates most footings would be one to five feet in depth (Updated Geotechnical Investigation B port Life Science Campus, 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, Cal forma, Cleary Consultants, December, 2011 and June 18, 2012). The total disturbed area is assumed for CEQA purposes to be the entire site, or 266,000 square feet. See Initial Study, Chapter 3, Section 3.7 Geology and Soils in Appendix A. Currently the site is developed with 87 percent of the area in impervious surface. The Project would reduce impervious surface an additional 14 percent to a total of 73 percent of the site area. Therefore, the Project would result in 27 percent of the site being porous over existing conditions,which is 13 percent. LANDSCAPING CONCEPT AND DESIGN The Project proposes landscaping around the perimeter and interior of the site, including landscaped walkways and parking areas. The Project also proposes . an.. alterriat:i:v e landscape plan.. ptirst.;tarit to Sotalw Saari. Fra icisco M.t.ini.cipal Code Section 20.300.07.D2 iari gi.et.;t of rooftop land scaping. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 10 The two R&D buildings would be separated by a central courtyard featuring a seating area defined by low walls and a water feature using recycled water spilling over quarried stone. Three sections would surround the courtyard, with each containing gardens of a unique character. The exterior area between the buildings would also be designed to support outdoor activity which would extend into the central circular courtyard. Wind resistant and seacoast plantings are proposed to foster the success of the landscape plan. Trees, shrubs, groundcover and grasses (fescue, flax, blue rye) are proposed. The Project proposes to plant 159 24-inch box trees. Zoning Code Section 20.330.010.L.9 requires one 15-gallon tree to be planted for every five parking spaces. The Project would be required to plant 142 trees (assuming 708 parking spaces) and as proposed would exceed the Code requirements by 11 trees, in addition to the increased size of the trees. The trees that are identified on the landscape plan (bay,laurel, oak, juniper and others) would provide a 15 to 30 foot canopy at maturity and a four to six foot canopy at planting. Medium and low water consumptive plantings are proposed, save for one small area of turf. The proposed tree canopy would serve to reduce the heat island effect of paved surfaces. Plantings and building treatments are proposed to reduce wind experienced in outdoor areas (Donald Balland, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, November 7, 2011). Planters, hedges, low walls and porous fencing are proposed to reduce wind exposure and enhance the outdoor experience. DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING The Project may proceed in a single phase or in two phases depending on market demand. The parking structure providing 551 spaces and 55 of the surface parking spaces would be built in the first phase should the Project be constructed in two phases. The remaining 49 surface parking spaces would be built as part of the second phase of construction. Parking areas not developed in Phase 1 would have temporary planting consistent with the overall planting design. Demolition and site preparation are expected to take approximately three months. Construction of the Project, if done in one phase, would take approximately nineteen months, including interior improvements, to complete. A two-phase construction schedule would consist of an initial phase of seventeen months for Building A and the parking garage, and second phase of seventeen months for Building B. These phases may be separated by a few months or several years depending upon market demand. The CEQA analysis (contained in the initial study and represented in Chapter 4, Traffic and Circulation of this EIR) assumes one phase of construction. The assumption represents a reasonable worst case analysis of potential Project impacts with respect to the level of intensity on the site at any given time. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 11 SITE DEMOLITION AND PREPARATION Site demolition and preparation would follow the same process regardless of whether the Project is constructed in one or two phases and would require approximately three months to complete. Site demolition of the bt.:tilding oa:ctirred in. :Decert~ber, 2013. Removal of the remaining building pads and construction of the Project would require the contractor to mobilize the site . by installing a jobsite trailer. would he lee„~„a eii fhe An approved Stormwater Pollution and Protection Plan (SWPPP) would be implemented to provide erosion control measures. A temporary construction site fence wottld be was erected during dernol.i.ti.on. During removal of the remaining building pads and constrticti.on.. of the Project, fhis 6ffie additional site characterization would be conducted to assess the oil staining inside the building. A licensed hazardous materials contractor would be on site to conduct the work. Up to five workers would be on site during this process, which would take approximately a week. Two hydraulic excavators and two skid steer bobcat loaders would she be tatsed dtttring all building demolition processes. Site characterization would be completed during the building pail demolition phase, and if needed a remediation plan developed and approved by the City (as advisory and informational) through the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (see Section 3.6.D, below for additional information). One water truck would be on site at all times to minimize construction dust and reclaimed water would be applied to disturbed areas a minimum of twice daily. Approximately seven workers would be involved with the demolition process. Approximately twenty-five to thirty hauling trucks would enter and exit the site daily to off haul waste debris. This process would take approximately one month. Approximately three weeks would be required to remove the underground utilities such as plumbing, fire line, storm drain and electrical. Excavators, loaders, and a backhoe would be used to conduct this work effort. Underground utilities for the catch basins and storm drains would need to be reworked to conform to civil drawings and grade elevations. Approximately five workers would be on site for this work, which will take approximately one to two weeks. Upon completion of the storm drain and catch basin surveying, staking would begin to set the grade and grade the site in accordance with the civil drawings. Existing soil and baserock would be graded in accordance with the civil drawings. One piece of equipment and one to three workers would be on site during the grading process. Site grading is estimated to take approximately one to two weeks. Temporary above-ground irrigation would be installed by one to three workers for the hydroseeding. Subsequently hydroseeding would occur and require two to three workers and approximately one week to complete. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 12 CONSTRUCTION' The following describes a reasonable schedule for construction in two phases and in one phase. Construction is dependent upon market demand and therefore could be delayed substantially. The demolition schedule would be the same for either construction schedule. ONE PHASE CONSTRUCTION Under the one-phase construction schedule, site characterization requirements would follow the same protocols for the depth and extent of loose fill. Site improvements for suitable, compacted fill would follow recommendations of the structural engineer. Any site remediation would follow the protocol identified in Section 3.6.D below. Similarly, testing and analysis of ground water conditions would determine the proper approach to address any perched and/or static groundwater. Construction of Building A and the parking structure would precede construction of Building B. Construction of Building A is estimated to start in :pate 291.6 Alfty of jttiie, 2013. Building B would be constructed after Building A, with construction starting approximately five weeks later. 41 jti4r, 20137 The completion of the parking structure and exterior shells of Buildings A and B is estimated to occur in early 201.7 Aletteh,i$14. Core and tenant improvements for Buildings A and B are estimated to be complete in :pate 291.7 jt4y, 2014, for an overall construction period of slightly more than one year. Two PHASE CONSTRUCTION If construction proceeds in two phases, Building A on the northeast corner of the Project site and the parking structure would be constructed first, with Building B on the southeast corner of the site to follow in Phase 2. CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1: Following building demolition, potholing would be performed to determine both the depth and extent of fill on the site at various locations. Additional geotechnical site characterization would be performed by potholing with a backhoe at various locations to determine the depth and extents of fill (Cleary Associates, Cotton Shires Associates). The work would be performed over a week's time. Structural fill and compaction work would be done according to recommendations of the structural engineer as reviewed and approved by Cotton Shires Associates. Groundwater conditions would be examined at this time, monitored and dewatering of the site could occur, if required. Substantial completion of the parking structure and exterior shell of Building A would be estimated for December, 201-36 with core and tenant improvements estimated to be completed in early 201=37. CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2: Commencement of construction of Building B is projected to follow the completion of Building A by two months, with an estimated starting date Tr1rT1 24414 early 201.7. Potholing, fill analysis and sampling of groundwater would follow the The estimated start and completion times for construction are illustrative and should be construed as to provide an overall schedule of events. Actual start times would likely vary depending on market conditions. Therefore, it is not certain that construction would commence in a particular month but it is reasonably foreseeable that the length of time to complete the phases of construction would be as shown with minor variations. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 13 same procedures as Phase 1,if relevant. The exterior shell of Building B would be estimated to be completed in Jttffe, Late 20147. Core and tenant improvements would be estimated to be completed in early 20141. 3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT The following measures, or their equivalent, are proposed as part of the Pro)ect, are shown on the architectural drawings (sheet P.A.1.1 a), in application materials and identified in the initial study for the Pro)ect (Appendix). These measures are in addition to the City's standard requirements identified in Chapter 1 of the initial study save for Air Quality items 1-3 and are designed to reduce the environmental affect of the Pro)ect. A. AIR QUALITY AND GREEN HOUSE GAS - EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES 1) BASIC AND l-XPANinl'i) FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES. The construction contractor shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing BAAQMD's basic and exparu.ded fugitive dust control measures. Therefore, the Pro)ect shall include the following requirements in construction contracts: ➢ All exposed surfaces (e.g.,parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ➢ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. ➢ All visible mud or dirt track-out onto ad)acent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. ➢ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. ➢ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ➢ A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. All excavation, grading, and/or dernol.i.ti.on.. activities slwall be su;usperu.ded w were. average wind speeds exceed 20 rr.u:plw. [(.dire less tlwan.. three percent of the yrear.1 All exposed surfaces (dtirial~u.g grading and constrtict:i.on) slwall be watered at a frequency adegtiate to mairu.tain.. rruiru.:i_nuu.;um soil. moisture of 1.2 percent. M.oistu.;ure conteru.t wi:l.l be verified by lab samples or moisture probe at twolocations on.. the Project site. Vegetative grou;ind cover (e.g., fast germinating ru.at:ive grass seed) or other pl.aru.ts that offer dtist rr.u.:i.t:i.gat:i.on measures slwall be pl.aru.ted in. distuirbed areas as soon.. as possible and watered appropriately u.;unti.l vegetation is establ.i.slwed. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 14 Tlle simttltaneotis occtirrence of excavation, grading, and grotind disturbing constrtiction. activities on. the same area at any one time sliall be limited. To the extent feasible, activities sliall be pliased to redtice the amotint of disturbed stirfaces at any one time. All tri.icks and eqttipment, incltiding their tires, sliall be waslied off prior to leaving the site. Sandbags or other erosion. control meastires sliall be installed to prevent silt rtmoff to ptiblic roadways from sites witli a slope greater than.. one (1) percent. 2) BASIC ANi) EXPANinl'i) EXHAUST EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions: ➢ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time for off-road eqttipment to two (2) minutes and for on road eqttipment to five (5) mintites. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ➢ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. All constrtiction. eqttipment, diesel trticks and generators sliall be eqttipped witli Best Available Control 1'eclinology for emission redtictions of N(.fix and PM to the maximi.im extent feasible. To this end, all generators and air compressors tised on. site sliall be electric. All on. road trticks tised onsite sliall be Year Model 2007 or better. Propane or .l...,NG ftieled booms and scissor lifts sliall be 1.1sed. Tier 2 or better for 20 percent of borsepower boors of off-road diesel eqttipment sliall be tised (Ittring constrtiction. and 65 percent of borsepower boors (Ittring dernolition. All contractors sliall, to the maximi.im extent feasible, tine eqttipment that meets the ARB's most recent certification for off road heavy (11.1ty diesel enloines No onsite grinding, crtisbing or sbredding of asplialt or debris sliall occtir onsite. Potential f6ttire meastires that acbieve the same or better performance criteria sliall be stibrnitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any clianges. Applicant sliall provide the City and Genentecli witli a list of and scliedtile for dernolition, grading and constrtiction. eqttipment and activities. A comp sm.iction. superintendent sliall be on. site (Ittring all dernolition, grading and constrtiction. activities to enforce these regi.i.lations. 3) COMPLIANCE WITH BAAQMD REGULATION 11, RULE 2 DURING DEMOLITION. Demolition of existing buildings and structures would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS To PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 15 BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance of asbestos- containing waste material generated or handled during these activities. The rule requires the notification of BAAQMD of any regulated renovation or demolition activity. This notification includes a description of structures and methods utilized to determine whether asbestos-containing materials are potentially present. All asbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition or renovation activity in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. 4) COMPLIANCE WITH BAAQMD REGULATION 8, RULE 3 FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to the use of architectural coatings are regulated by the limits contained in Regulation 8: Organic Compounds, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings (Rule 8-3). Rule 8-3 was recently revised to include more stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised VOC architectural coating limits,which became effective on January 1, 2011, are projected to result in a 32 percent reduction of VOC emissions in the Bay Area associated with architectural coating applications. B.TRANSPORTATION AND GREEN HOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES The applicant proposes a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) (475 Eccles Avenue Transportation Demand Management Program, Fehr& Peers, October, 2011). The TDM Program is aimed at a 30 percent mode shift compared to projects that do not include a TDM, to qualify for a 1.0 FAR. The TDM Program is required by law to be reviewed by the City and modified by the Applicant as required by the City to meet the mode shift requirements. Performance audits are also required. The Applicant proposes the following measures, at a minimum, for the TDM Program: 1. Bicycle Parking (racks for visitors and sheltered bicycle parking for employees). 2. Shower and locker facilities (in lease agreement). 3. Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking. 4. Passenger loading zones for carpool and vanpool drop-off. 5. Pedestrian Connections. 6. TDM coordinator (in lease agreement). 7. Carpool/Vanpool Matching services (TDM coordinator responsibility). 8. Guaranteed ride home (through Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance). 9. Information Board for TDM Program (in lease agreement). 10. Promotional programs including new employee orientation and TDM Programs (TDM coordinator responsibility). 11. Shuttle bus service to Caltrainm BART, SSIF Ferry and downtown Dasher, coordinated with Alliance (TDM coordinator responsibility.) 12. Membership in Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. 1.3. Si.;ubsi(lize(l 'I'ra i..sit".l:`ickets FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 16 1.4. Flexible Work:Il.ou.;urs 15. 0ru.,,,,Site Va ipool Prograru.u. 1.6. Video Conference Center 1.7. Subsidized park: and rile costs at transit stations C. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The LEED design and construction strategies that have been integrated into the planning documents include: 1. The use of a previously developed site without impacts associated with endangered species, flood plain, and adjacency to wetlands or bodies of water. 2. The Project will document and remediate asbestos previous to demolition. 3. A TDM Program that includes the use of public/privates shuttles providing access to major public transportation hubs. In addition to the requirements for bike parking the Project will include shower/changing room amenities for bike users. 4. The Project will provide adequate preferred parking for low-emitting and alternative fuel vehicles. The Project will provide fewer parking spaces than those referenced in local zoning requirements. 5. The Project provides more than 20 percent of the total site area in open space. More than 50 percent of all parking will be under cover to reduce heat island effects for site surfaces. 6. The Project has developed tenant design and construction guidelines including recommendations and requirements for tenant improvements. 7. Indoor plumbing fixtures within the core and shell design and those required by the tenant scope of work will achieve greater than a 30 percent water use reduction. 8. Site landscape and irrigation equipment will provide irrigation efficiencies greater than 50 percent reduction from a standard summer baseline. 9. The Project will provide fundamental and enhanced commissioning (Cx) of MEP energy systems,including a requirement for tenant improvement Enhanced Cx and a 10 month post-occupancy return to verify equipment warranty and operational efficiencies. Current energy model targets anticipate a greater than 15% reduction in energy compared to Title 24 and ASHRAE 90.1. Base building and tenant improvement mechanical and food service equipment will be required to comply with enhanced refrigerant management requirements. The Project will provide adequate areas for the collection and storage of recyclables, and tenants will be required to implement desk-side recycling. 10. The Project has developed a Construction Waste Management plan that targets at least 75% diversion of landfill waste, with a goal of 95% diversion. The Project has integrated requirements into planning specifications and plans to target a greater than 20% recycled and regional content (by cost) in all building materials for the project. The Project will target a greater than 50 percent FSC certified wood content (by cost) in all new wood building materials for the project. 11. The Project will require, and require tenants, all materials installed within the vapor barrier of the Project to comply with LEED/CalGreen VOC & CARB requirements, and specifically contain no-added urea-formaldehyde (NAUF) FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 17 products. The Project will conduct, and require tenants to conduct, and Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for Construction Activities that requires contractors to comply with SMACNA IAQ guidelines for best practices during construction. D. SITE REMEDIATION FOR ASBESTOS, LEAD BASED PAINTS AND RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS The Applicant will, as indicated on the plans and application materials, remove lead based paints and has already removed much of the asbestos containing materials in the building (Certificate of Job Completion, Professional Asbestos and Lead Services, Inc., March-April, 2012, see Appendix A). During Project demolition of the bi..dIding i:.. :Deeernber 201.3, minor amounts of asbestos wottlel be were removed as electrical equipment tswas removed providing access to the location of the material. During the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (URS, July 2012) one potential sump was observed on the Project site during the site reconnaissance. The potential sump is on the warehouse floor, and was obstructed with a metal cover. The cover was coated with significant oil staining. Subsequent to the site reconnaissance, facility personnel attempted to remove the cover and photograph the area below. There was an additional metal cover present below that could not be removed. This metal cover was also stained with oil, and the area below could not be assessed. As noted above, this area would be characterized during demolition activities. The Applicant as shown on the plans will conduct the following remediation which is largely standard procedure. The work would be done during the demolition and site preparation phase of the Project. TABLE 3.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REMEDIATION MEASURES Media Material(s) Approach Vault/pit interior All • Mobilize equipment to remove metal cover concrete Investigation • Inspect interior concrete for the presence of liquid or significant staining and integrity of the concrete. • Collect sample of any liquid material present or concrete chip sample. Soil-Investigation All • If staining/liquid are present and concrete is in poor condition soil sampling should be conducted. • Apply for boring permit from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department(SMCEHD). • Advance one soil boring below the pit using a direct push drill rig to 20 feet below ground surface. • Collect soil samples at 1,5,10 and 20 feet bgs. • Analyze samples for VOCs,total petroleum hydrocarbons,semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) PCBs,and metals. • Report results to the SMCEHD and consult for remediation requirements. • Remediation of contaminated soils can be completed during the demolition stage of the Project. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 18 Media Material(s) Approach Soil Remediation(ex- Fuels • Reuse on Site(if concentration is less than 100 ppm). situ) • Haul and Dispose at appropriate landfill. • Capping and vapor barrier. • Treat on site(see below). Soil Remediation VOCs • Consult the SMCEHD for requirements. (ex-situ) (gasoline • Haul and Dispose. fuels, • Aeration—requires a notification to BAAQMD,daily volumes solvents) are limited. • Vapor Stripping—apply vacuum system to covered piles,notify BAAQMD. • Bioremediation- apply bio-treatment materials,moisture and "work"soil piles. • Thermal Desorption—various vendors provide mobile treatment units. • Capping and vapor barrier. Soil Remediation Inorganics • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. (ex-situ) (metals) • Haul and Dispose. • Chemical Stabilization. • Sorting—reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant particle size. Soil Remediation VOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. (in-situ) • Soil Vapor Extraction—apply vacuum to vapor wells,notify BAAQMD. • In-situ chemical oxidation. • In-Situ Vitrification—use electricity to melt waste and surrounding soils. Soil Remediation SVOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. (in-situ) • Bioremediation—saturate soils with bio-treatment materials. • Chemical Stabilization—saturate soils with chemicals to immobilize contaminants. • In-Situ Vitrification. • Capping. Groundwater- All • If contaminants are detected in the 20 foot below ground Investigation surface soil sample an additional boring should be completed to groundwater. • Analyze sample for contaminants detected in soil. • Report results to the SMCEHD and consult on remedial alternatives. Groundwater VOCs • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. Remediation • Pump and Treat—pump from wells,treat and discharge treated water. • Air Sparging—inject air to volatilize contaminants and create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for natural bioremediation.Generally applied in conjunction with Soil Vapor Extraction to control released volatiles. • Bioremediation—inject bio-treatment materials into affected groundwater. • Chemical Oxidation—inject oxidation chemicals into affected groundwater. Groundwater SVOCs • Consult BAAQMD for requirements. Remediation • Pump and Treat. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 19 Media Material(s) Approach (continued) • Bioremediation. • Chemical Oxidation. Groundwater Inorganics • Consult BAAQMD for requirements. Remediation • Pump and Treat. • Chemical Immobilization—inject chemicals to precipitate or chemicallv fix contaminants to soil particles. The Project submittals note that a Licensed General Contractor with Hazardous Substance Removal Certification from the State of California will inspect and remove the electrical equipment. The qualifications of the contractor will be noted on the plans submitted to the City for issuance of a demolition permit. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 20 MODIFICATIONS TO THE INITIAL STUDY CONTAINED IN APPENDIX A OF THE DEIR. 3.3 AIR QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation III AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteriaa established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net X increase of any criteriaa pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? PAGE 3-19 OF THE INITIAL STUDY THROUGH 3-21 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Significance Criteria: The significance of impact to sensitive receptors is dependent on the chance of contracting cancer from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as DPM or of having adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs. A project is considered to be significant if the incremental cancer risk at a receptor exceeds 10 in a million. "a:"lw.ree child care centers are located in the Project area: 599 Gateway Boulevard 0.3 miles (1,760 feet) southwest; 444 Allerton Avenue 0.4 miles (1,320 feet) southeast; and 8,50 Gateway Boulevard 1.25 feet n.ortliwest of the Project site on the Gateway Btisi:n.ess lark Cam:puus. 'I'lierefore there is one sensitive receptor located witbin.. a 0.25 mile radios of the Project site. Residential land uses are approximately FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 21 2,400 feet (0.45 miles) to the east (west of Route 101). Tleve ff__. _ft_.f.--e °=e_r`ofs For cumulative analysis of cancer risk, BAAQMD recommends that the risks from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative increased risk threshold of 100 in one million. The non-cancer hazard index significance threshold of 1.0 is defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Ail-'Quality Guidelines. For cumulative analysis of non-cancer hazard index, BAAQMD requires that the hazards from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative hazard index threshold of 10. The BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold for PM2.5 to protect public health as emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks. For individual projects, the BAAQMD significant threshold for PM2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3 µg/m3. For cumulative analysis, BAAQMD recommends that the PM2.5 concentrations from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative threshold of an average annual increase of 0.8 µg/m3. CANCER RISK Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chances in one million of contracting cancer,for example, ten cancer cases among one million people exposed. Following Health Risk Assessment (HRA) guidelines established by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and BAAQMD's Health Disk So-eening Analysis Guidelines, incremental cancer risks were calculated by applying toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations in order to determine the inhalation dose (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day [mg/kg-day]). See Appendix A for details concerning the methodology, assumptions, and basis of calculation for the cancer risks. CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS As a result of construction activities (with implementation of the measures the City requires by law and the ":l:'ier 2 measures or their eqt.;tiv alert proposed by the Project), the unmitigated maximum cancer risk for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.04 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.44 per million. The unmitigated maximum cancer risk for a school child (play care) receptor would be 8-83 8.2 per million based upon.. the eonstrt;tet:i.on.. selwedt;tle provided by tlwe . ppq.:icaru.t wbi.elw assurnes derrt.oli.t:i.on.. witbi.n a year and eonstrt.;tet:i.on.. following approximately two years :pater, 2015 tbrot.;tglw 1.6. Thus, the unmitigated cancer risk due to construction activities is below the BAAQMD threshold of10 per million and would be less than significant. OPERATIONAL RELATED IMPACTS The maximum cancer risks from the Project operations for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.41 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.44 per million with FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 22 implementation of the measures the City requires by law. The maximum cancer risk from the Project operations for a school child (days care) receptor would be 0.046 per million. Thus, the health impacts from Project operations would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10per million and less than significant. NON-CANCER HEALTH IMPACTS Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are measured against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure concentration from the Project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that could cause adverse health effects. The RELs are published by OEHHA based on epidemiological research. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient [HQ) of each non-carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce an overall HI for that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. If the overall HI for the highest-impacted organ system is greater than 1.0, then the impact is considered to be significant. The chronic reference exposure level for DPM was established by the California OEHHA as 5 µg/m3. There is no acute REL for DPM. However, diesel exhaust does contain acrolein and other compounds, which do have an acute REL. Based on BAAQMD's DPM speciation data acrolein emissions are approximately 1.3 percent of the total DPM emissions. The acute REL for acrolein was established by the California OEHHA' as 2.5 µg/m3. See Appendix A for details concerning the methodology, assumptions, and basis of calculation for the health index. The Project's chronic HI for DPM would be less than 0.03 for a resideru.t:ial receptor and 0.02 for a sclwoo.j a:bild (days care) receptor. The chronic HI for DPM would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. The Project's acute HI for acrolein would be less than 0.01 at all receptors. The acute HI for acrolein would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. PM2.5 CONCENTRATION Dispersion modeling was also used to estimate exposure of sensitive receptors to Project- related concentrations of PM2.5. Because emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks the BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold to protect public health. The BAAQMD guidance requires inclusion of PM2.5 exhaust emissions only in this analysis (i.e., fugitive dust emissions are addressed under BAAQMD dust control measures and are required by law to be implemented into Project construction, see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2). The f maximum annual PM2.5 concentration as a result of Project construction would be less than 0.01 ag/m3 for a residential s California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010. http://www.oehha.ca.gov//. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 23 receptor and 0.07 pug,/rn' for a school. child (play care) receptor. The annual PM2.5 concentration due to implementation of the Project would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3,cg/m3, and hence is considered less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining cumulative health risk requires the addition of the health risks from permitted sources and major roadways in the vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the source, also considered the zone of influence for a health risk analysis), then adding the health risks of the Project impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded. BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Disk & Ha�ZardAnalysis Tool(dated May, 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources. Five permitted sources are located within 1,000 feet of the Project. BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadways throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (dated May 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the project with annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater. No nearby roadways meet the criteria. Air Quality Table 5 lists the BAAQMD-permitted facility and major roadways within 1,000 feet of the Project. Air Quality Table 5 also shows the cumulative cancer risk, hazard impact, and PM2.5 concentrations (in µg/m3) associated with these facilities (developed by BAAQMD), as well as the Project. The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Secondly, given that the Project would not result in increased health impacts exceeding the Project-level thresholds, the Project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to localized health risk and hazard impacts, resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact. AIR QUALITY TABLE 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IQ� riv, Le NO] 13861 City of SSF Water 955 Gateway Blvd Quality Plant 0.99 <0.01 <0.01 17664 Gallo 440 Forbes Blvd <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 13778 UPS Supply Chain 455 Forbes Blvd Solutions 2.1 <0.01 <0.01 19547 Chamberlin 200 Oyster Point Blvd 8.5 0.003 0.027 Associates 9 BAAQMD County Surface Street Screening Tables,May 2011 and C E H T P Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration, htW://ww�v.ehib.org/traffic tooLisp FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 24 / r 18885 Chamberlin 180 Oyster Point Blvd. 1.7 0.001 0.0053 Associates Permitted Sources Total 13.3 <0.01 0.03 Proposed Project 8-448.2 0.03 40.04 0.07 Grand Total 13-.721.5 0.03 0-.-03 0.1.3 Significance Thresholds 100 10 0.3 Significant Impact? No No No FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 25 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS THE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CHECKLIST ON PAGE 3-45 OF THE INITIAL STUDY IS REVISED AS FOLLOWS: Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS— Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous X X 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 X of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use X 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? 0 For a Project within the vicinity of a private X 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 X with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk X of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? PAGE 3-54 OF THE INITIAL STUDY IS REVISED AS FOLLOWS: c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 26 Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or if it was located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ("Cortese List"). There are no existing or proposed schools ov ' .r effve eettfevs ov f -s within a quarter mile of the Project site. ":l here is one slay care facility approximately 1.25 feet nortlwwest of the Project at 850 Gateway I1ottlevard . The Project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control's Cortese List (California Department of Toxic Substance Control, http://www.dtsc.ca.aov/database/Calcites/Cortese List.cfm and Phase I). .As noted in. the Setting Section fu.;urtlwer assessment wou.;ul.d be eoru.du.;ueted at the site during derra.oq.i.ti.on.. activities to determine the presence and,/or exteru.t of poteru.ti.al eri i.rorimental eontarninati.on.. associated witlw the small area of concrete staining inside the buuu.lding. ':l be investigation. wou.ul.d iru.el.u.;ude removal of the metal cover on.. the vauul.t,/su.:um:p and inspection. of the interior for the presence of oil. or oil. staining. 'I'lwe integrity. of the concrete in. the vau.;ul.t wou.:ul.d also be evalu.;uated along witlw the extent of the staining IE°tirtlwer investigation, in.. the form of subsurface drilling, eou:ul.d. be required to assess if there was a release to the subsurface if there is significant staining beyond that on.. the surface of the concrete vatt.1t and,/or there are any issues witlw the concrete integrity (i.e., if the concrete is damaged and bas allowed the staining to progress beyond surface areas). 'I'lwe work is required by law to comply witlw tlwe l.oeal, state and federal laws ou.;utlined. in the Setting Section. 'I'lwe Applicant acknowledges these requirements and ideru.ti.fies tlwerru. as part of the Project as described in. Ubapter 2 Project :Description. ":l be proeedu.;ures and permitting requirements identified as part of the Project are designed to redu.;uee the poteru.ti.al impacts associated witlw the baru.dling, storage, traru.sport and removal of toxic and bazardou.;us su.;ubstances. The Iroject would have a dg's"? than "gig i amt-1-tripa °t u h rdssdsd°t to ds,<posurrds frrri the ernrssin or hading. of hazard vv materia or uvastes on s h C? or dajI care a -Cities because the 11roject will rri C j with the state r e urn a d ertruttt�ng rd unidrudts and because the I ro ect, e-is not listed on the ' rtds,,?ds. ��'?t. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FINDING ON PAGE 3-55, PARAGRAPH 2 IS REVISED AS FOLLOWS: Finding: ":l here are no existing or proposed selwool.s ov e67 e ftv. eettfevs &v f,ei_fi--s within.. a quarter mile of the Project site. ":l here is one slay care facility approximately 125 feet nortlwwest of the Project at 850 Gateway Bou.;ul.evard. ":l be work is recltdred by .l w to comply witlw the local, state and federal laws ou.;utlined in. the Setting Section. 'I'lwe Applicant acknowledges these requirements and identifies tlwerru. as part of tlwe Project as described in. Clw pter 2 Project Description. ":l be proeedu.;ures and permitting requirements identified as part of the Project are designed to redu.;uee the FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 27 potential impacts associated witli the liandling, storage, trarisport and removal of toxic and liazardotis substarices. The 1roject would have a les", than s-1;gn-Ificant -itripact Tvith respect to e,<posure fro-tri the e-misslon or handling of hazardou,'? Materiak or waste"? on School,,? because the 11roject Tvill co-trip1jI Tvitli the stated procedurn?andpertruttt ng requ-tie-trients and because the 1 rqjectsite not 11',sted on the cortnge.L iii t. 3.12 NOISE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact X1 I. NOISE—Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of X excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use X plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a Project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip,would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? PAGE 3-67 PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE INITIAL STUDY IS REVISED AS FOLLOWS: Residential, schools, child care facilities and convalescent facilities are typically considered noise sensitive land uses. The closest sensitive receptor to the site is a (lay care facility approximately 125 feet nortliwest of the Project at 8,50 Gateway Bottlevard. 'I'liere are two child care centers located more flian. 0.25 miles away; one at 599 Gateway Boulevard 0.3 miles (1,760 feet) from the site and one at 444 Allerton Avenue 0.4 miles (1,320 feet) from the site. Residential land uses are approximately 2,400 feet (0.45 miles) to the east FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 28 (west of Route 101). Bye- IMPACTS a — d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards, Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the South San Francisco General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance. Page 3-68 paragraph 4 is revised as follows: Some grading activities, such as the times a hoe ram is in use, would result in the most intrusive level of sound generated by the Project. The closest land uses to the Project are industrial buildings south and north of the Project. Both of these buildings are 50 feet from the property line of the Project to the face of the buildings.10 Exterior noise levels at these two receptors would be approximately 90 dB for a short period of time (approximately 20 percent) when a hoe ram is used during grading. This activity would be intermittent during the first two months of work on the Project site. Interior sound levels would attenuate approximately 20 dB or to 70 dB, Leq." Exterior sound levels reaching the closest sensitive receptor, the cbi.ld care facility at 850 Gateway Boulevard ett o]4effet o-_,,...,„ 1,320 125 feet aI~u.ortlwwest of the project, would reaclw 77 dB, dtirial~u.g the noisiest plwases of project grading. 'l:'lwerefore, dtirial~u.g outdoor play time, a rion.,,,,n.oise serusit:i:v e activity, exterior sou.;ual~d gevel.s would reaclw 77 dB, at the clay care play area. Sound reacbi.al~u.g the interior of the clay care facility would be expected to atteru.tiate 20 25 dB, witlw Moors aaI~u.d windows closed. "l bi.s atteritiat:i.on.. factor is assu.;urned for the clay care facility as it is newer coal strtict:i.on.. witbotit operable windows; tlwerefore the maximum atteritiat:i.on.. of 25 dB, would be expected to be achieved brial~u.giru.g the interior ambient noise levels to approximately ,52 dB. Cl.assroom environments un.u.ents are typically between. 55,60 dB, (Nat:i.on.al . ssessi.b~u.erits of Noise Control. Officials, Office of the Scientific Assistarit, (:ldl:uce of Noise Abatement and Control, 1979,. revised 1981. 1J.S. Environmental Protection . gericy). 'I'lwerefore, 52 dB, resulting frorr.u. Project co stru.ict:i.o.. would be .lower tlwan.. a typical cl.assroom err i.roal~u.nu.ent, and would be considered acceptable. Addition of paragraph 5 on page 3-63 is as follows: 0 The noise impacts are very conservative in that the analysis is from the Project property line and do not assume additional attenuation as the work moves further into the interior of the site providing additional attenuation. 11 Another industrial building is located 120 feet east and across Eccles Avenue from the site. Interior noise levels would attenuate approximately 32 dB to approximately 60 dB. The analysis focuses on the worst case exposure which is the two closest buildings. FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 29 Sotitli Sari. Fraricisco Mi.inicipal Code Section 8.32.050(d) ideritifies 90 (113, l..,max as the maximi.im sotind level permitted at a property line. Grading operations may exceed this standard by 1. (113 (ENVIRON, 2013). Tbe Cllief 131.1ilding Official may grarit an. exception. to the standard. 'I'lie Project area does afford opporttinity for atteritiation. given. the soft stirfaces to the west and nortliwest of the site and given that the stirrottriding buildings are sparsely placed redticing the poteritial for reflection. and interisification. of sotind levels. 'I'lie 1. (113 poteritial sotind level exceedarice is considered less flian. significarit. Addition and modification of paragraph one on page 3-69 and Finding on page 3-70 is as follows: Construction related interior noise levels would be approximately 10-15 dB less than those experienced during grading. Construction noise levels would also attenuate as the activity moves into the interior of the site, as building shells are erected blocking line of sight, and as quieter activities occur. Demolition and construction related noise impacts would be considered a less than significant because the 1) noise associated with grading operations would not be a continuous noise source during an eight hour day and would be expected to be complete within two months; 2) industrial land uses are considered less noise sensitive and are permitted in an environment up to 75 dB which assumes a continuous noise exposure and conditionalljl permitted in an environ-trient up to 85 dB; 3) the land uses in the area are conducted indoors which affords a 20 dB noise reduction in addition to noise attenuation due to distance from the source; -a.-id 4) outdoor land uses such as deliveries, walking to and from a vehicle, loading and unloading operations are infrequent and intermittent which would by nature not expose people to excessive amounts of noise; 5) exterior no-Ise exposure received at the dajI care facility would reach 77 dB during outdoor pl.-IJI orris, a non-noise sensitive land use activiljl. During noise-sensitive activitiel". conducted-inside the bu-ilding, noise levels would be expected to attenuate 20-25 dB (to 52-57 dB) requisite for learning, conversing.; and 6) w 5outh wan Fhancisco 31un-icipal Code w 5ection 8.32.050(d) Identifies 90 dB, L-trum as the maxitnuan sound level pertri-itted.,it.,i property line. grading operations majI exceed this standard by I dB. The Onef Bu-ilding Official may grant an exception to the standard. The Ilroject area does afford opportunity for attenuation given the soft surfaces to tile west and northwest of the site and given that the surrounding bu-ildings are sparseljl placed reducing the potential for reflection and intenstfication of sound levels. The I dB potential sound level exceed ance-is considered less than st;qm if'camt. 2606336.1 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY,2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 30 Attachment A Liberty Gold Letter— 11/14/12 •iN I � v S 1 llq C '1932 LIBERTY GOLD FRUIT COMPANY,INC. 500 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California 94080 Mailing address:P.O.Box 2187,South San Francisco, California 94083 November 28, 2012 Billy Gross, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, Ca 94080 RE: PROJECT PROPOSED 475 ECCLES AVENUE EIR REPORT Dear Mr. Gross, Liberty Gold Fruit Co. Inc. is located at 500 Eccles Avenue, across from the intended project at 475 Eccles Avenue. Surprisingly we are not mentioned in the NOP which on page 2-3 describes the properties adjacent to the project. The site currently has 276 parking places. But since the building at 475 Eccles has been vacant for a number of years, in effect the site behaves as if it has zero parking places. In addition there are other buildings on the street that are either empty or under-utilitized. Even so, at day's end, there is a significant line of cars on Eccles Avenue waiting to cross onto Oyster Point Blvd. and down onto Highway 101. Eccles Avenue,just 40 feet wide, was designed to service a corridor of buildings which were mainly warehouse or warehouse/office with a relatively low density of employees. We who live on Eccles Avenue (when you spend most of your daylight hours at a workplace, you are a resident) have not been subjected to the traffic load currently legally approved for this short street for some years. Were all of the parking spaces currently in existence on Eccles Avenue utilized, it would be patently evident that the proposal of adding a total of 432 parking spaces would be an unacceptable burden to all of us on Eccles Avenue. Before the planning commission and the city council approve any projects on Eccles Avenue, Telephone: (650)583-4700•Fax: (650)583-4770 •iN I � v S 1 llq C '1932 LIBERTY GOLD FRUIT COMPANY,INC. 500 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California 94080 Mailing address:P.O.Box 2187,South San Francisco, California 94083 Eccles Avenue needs a separate traffic study to consider the traffic flow with all the current parking spaces utilized. In recent years, a number of additional car trips have been added to the Oyster Point Blvd corridor, to the point where this street is already jammed up at times with vehicles. That exists even with Eccles Avenue's diminished present vehicle traffic. If Eccles Avenue was fully utilized the traffic on Oyster Point Blvd would be significantly degraded. Furthermore in studying Oyster Point Blvd, one has to add the effect of filling the empty buildings on the north side of Oyster Point Blvd., and the new building that are to come on the empty land near the Oyster Point Blvd/Highway 101 interchange. Given current conditions, we request that the new project be limited to the same number of spaces now approved for the property— 276 parking spaces. An employee load beyond that number should be accommodated with a parking site having a separate access to highway 101 and shuttle bus service from that site to 475 Eccles Avenue. It's easy to grant new developments and more car traffic when the grantor is not impacted by the decision. Please make your decision as if City Hall was located on either Eccles Avenue or Oyster Point Blvd. That's only fair to those of us here now. Sincerely, V;( Y Thomas Battat President Telephone: (650)583-4700•Fax: (650)583-4770 Attachment B Caltrans Letter— 12/14/12 Sent y: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; Dec-13-12 1 :03PM; Page 1/1 Box 236 OAK- LAND,CA...94623�0660r PHONE : 5• .29&60.5 `.. Fte yrl FAX '(510 2�6-5 59" ve M e ? .. { c(�rt TTY 711 ' '411 SWI 1'-22e7, . 12082-101 -mt.Bi]lyQtog`.. .C.°. .o South I A-11'FIR=is 1. Avenue. .. South.San Francisc6,-CA:94083- mmuk.you or cbittia i ek . ...: ' . ....... .:. .:.. ..... i r .:... .. -:. 61 axe I :.....:.. proi ba-sedon the DtW, irca i IMPaCtL. : Y ' '� °_ C :°° a°° ., _ °atfc; . : . ' air. 1., ., ° : (- (. z . 5 22 ( `14); ...... . : :.•your- i t, . ,... • t ®see i t•. t at, ' s prig pocket oftht the ist ing Plus Prteject -#%ffIc qutue,a°f.374 y •tCtt .1 sue. `"' 'tn� •Since.rely, 1S `• "Br`. '.i gwernnwn C,• State"icl �.e, "G'u7t+ant.Yrirprtrws�'MnMorzrcrassCaltjaniia" Attachment C Liberty Gold and Caltrans Response to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 475 ECCLES AVENUE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) DECEMBER 19, 2012 The 475 Eccles DEIR was circulated for public review (SC#: 2012082101) from October 31, through December 14, 2012. Two comment letters were received on the document and the responses are contained in the following. LIBERTY GOLD NOVEMBER 28, 2012 LETTER Response L It is acknowledged that Liberty Gold is adjacent to the Project site. Thank you for your comment. Response Z. It is acknowledged that there is existing congestion during the peak commute periods along Oyster Point Boulevard and at the Oyster Point Boulevard/US101 interchange. Significant additional developments are proposed by the City in the East of 101 area as well as numerous roadway improvements along Oyster Point Boulevard, including a turn lane for additional capacity at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Boulevard intersection. The 475 Eccles Draft EIR has evaluated traffic conditions for year 2015 and year 2035 horizons, both with and without the 475 Eccles project. This includes full utilization of all businesses along Eccles Avenue. As detailed in the EIR, there are a few locations that are projected to experience unacceptable operation by 2015 (with or without the 475 Eccles pro)ect) and a larger number are projected to experience unacceptable operation by 2035 (again, with or without the 475 Eccles pro)ect). Unacceptable operation is expected at some locations (primarily at the US101 freeway interchanges), even with all planned circulation system improvements that are considered feasible by the City and Caltrans. These locations have been fully disclosed in the EIR in conjunction with statements that no mitigation is considered feasible to provide acceptable commute peak hour operation. Decision makers will take this comment and the traffic conditions and projections into consideration when evaluating the Project. CALTRANS DECEMBER 14, 2012 LETTER Response 1-Trip Generation. The trip generation rates used to determine 475 Eccles trip generation were developed using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) fitted curve rates from Trzp Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. The fitted curve rates were not applied assuming the 475 Eccles project was an isolated development. Rather,it was considered part of a more than 7+ million square foot R&D development in the area to the East of the 101 freeway in South San Francisco. The use of a further 20 percent reduction in peak hour trip rates for 2015 conditions and a 25 percent reduction for 2035 conditions due to a City- mandated significant Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program were also determined to be appropriate, as the City traffic model calibration process for this area found that resultant existing condition trip rates needed to be well below what would be projected by applying fitted curve equations to total local area development in conjunction Response to Comments 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,CA Page 1 of 2 with additional 20 to 25 percent reductions due to TDM measures. Since the project area is already generating peak hour traffic well below "average" ITE trip rates, future trip rates would only be expected to reduce further as area freeway and surface street congestion increases. Response 2-Existing "With Project" Impacts at Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Intersection. Due to the project's minor AM peak hour impact to the left turn movement on the Airport Boulevard southbound approach to Grand Avenue (2 vehicles added), signal timing adjustments would eliminate any additional queuing while still maintaining an acceptable level of service (LOS D —40.1 seconds control delay). Response 3-Fair Share. The City of South San Francisco will identify the exact Fair Share dollar amount required to be paid during the Building Permit process, when the ultimate ratio of office/R&D square footage will be determined. 2041657.1 Response to Comments 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,CA Page 2 of 2 Attachment D November, 2015 Letter from Applicant with ENVIRON Air Quality and Noise Analysis BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC ................ 1"7 P910 IlfBerrizurdo Ceinceir 9Dirive San: lDiegir l,C,'1a1!forirna 9212 Phone:(858) 465 13840 - Facshnfle:(85EI)485-9843 VIA USLS November 19, 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department PO Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 Attn: Billy Gross Re: 475 Eccles—Current Status Dear Billy: This letter is provided as a current status update regarding 475 Eccles project issues. Cell Tower- We withdraw our application for a use permit to relocate a cell phone tower. The tower has been removed from the site and no longer factors into any development plans. Rooftop Planters.- BMR submitted an application to amend the zoning ordinance requirements related to the rooftop planters, and provided two alternate amendments for the City's consideration. We would like to place that application on hold. In lieu of pursuing a zoning amendment, we will be seeking approval of an Alternative Landscape Plan pursuant to Municipal Code section 20.300.07.D2. Building Demofifion: Pursuant to a demolition permit issued by the City, the building on the site was demolished,leaving only building pads in place. Demolition was completed at the end of 2013. Daycare Issues. After the Draft EIR was published,we were contacted by Genentech regarding its daycare at 850 Gateway Boulevard. BMR retained Environ to evaluate in further detail any effect of risks and hazards posed by the 475 Eccles Avenue Project on the Genentech daycare. Environ identified numerous measures to ensure there would be no excessive health risks, to which we agreed. We involved you in these discussions with Genentech, and you have already seen the infon-nation we developed. Enclosed is a copy of the package we presented to Genentech, containing(a) BioMed Realty cover memo, (b) Site Logistics and Demolition Summary, (c) Proposed Construction, and(d) Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis prepared by Environ. We suggest that the measures Environ recommends be incorporated in the final I . ChmateAcdon Plan Cbmpft e have been reviewing the CAP. Its analysis starts with an inventory of 2005 greenhouse gas emissions as the baseline.' The CAP then projects what emissions would be in 2020, factoring in the effects of emission reduction programs that had been enacted or implemented in California as of the date the analysis was performed, in what it calls the "Adjusted Business As Usual" (ABAU) scenario.2 The CAP sets target of reducing GHG emissions to 15%below the 2005 baseline emissions,by 2020.3 The CAP then calculates how to reduce the ABAU projected emissions down to the target levels. It states a number of measures—many of is are to be imposed upon new development as you noted in October —designed to reduce the ABAU emissions down to the levels necessary to achieve the target. We acknowledge that the project will be subject to a condition of approval requiring compliance with applicable CAP measures. We request that the condifion be worded in such a way that it achieves CAP goals while also recognizing that changes in laws and regulations will result in the project automatically complying with many of the requirements. We make this request to ensure the project gets credit for reducing emissions below the CAP's ABAU projections when of so is required by current laws or regulations. For example, the CAP models ABAU building electricity use based upon the 2008 Tide 24 energy standardS.4 Therefore, when the CAP states options for reducing or offsetting "50% of modeled building electricity needs'," it is speaking of a 50% reducfion below the energy demand that would result from construction under the 2008 Energy Code. As you know, much stricter energy--saving requirements were imposed by adoption of the 2013 Energy Code, and even stricter requirements are anticipated shortly.' Accordingly, 475 Eccles will achieve some of the reductions below the CAP's modeled building electricity needs merely by complying with current laws and regulations. In your October 22, 2014 email, you listed the following measures as being applicable to the project: • Measure 2.1,Action 5 (provide conduit for future electric vehicle charging installations); • Measure 3.4,Action I (encourage hi lbedo surfaces, as identified in voluntary CALGreen standards); CAP,p, 27. "The inventory presents GHGs from community-wide activities in the calendar year 2005." CAP.p 31: "The adjusted business-as-usual(A U)forecast includes a number of reduction programs implemented by the to of California , " I CAP,p,31 "The community reduction target is 15%below baseline(2 5)emissions by 2020," 4 CAP,p,31: "The energy reductions quantified in the[ABAU]forecast are the mandatory improvements over the 2005 Tide 24 code that were established by a 2008 update." CAP,Measure 4 1,Action 2,on page 55 contains the language quoted in the text The 2013 Standards went into effect Jul 1,2014 PE. QIg.Q, d S e e July dlbi, for information about the proposed 2016 standards 2 • Measure 4.1,Action 2 (Alternative Energy Facilities, referencing the 50% reduction or offset in modeled building electricity demand, or CAL Green Tier 2 to exceed mandatory efficiency requirements by 20%or more); • Measure 4.1, Action 3 (install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar); and • Measure 6.1, Action 2 (Water Demand Reduction, and referencing the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance). Of these, only the requirements related to modeled building electricity use, CALGreen Tier 2 requirements and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements seem dependent on the version of regulations that were used in the CAP's ABAU projections. We accordingly suggest the following condition language: Comply with applicable Climate Action Plan requirements (Measure 2.1,Action 5; Measure 3.4,Action 1; Measure 4.1, Action 2; Measure 4.1, Action 3; and Measure 6.1, Action 2), using the modeled building electricity use under the 2008 Energy Code, CAL Green Tier 2 requirements, and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements that were used in the CAP for the Adjusted Business as Usual (ABAU) scenario. Thank you for your attention to these matters Best Regards, Curtis Bain Senior Project Manager Enclosures: BioMed Realty 475 Eccles Demolition and Construction Memo, September 06, 2013 475 Eccles Site Logistics and Demolition Summary, July 29, 2013 475 Eccles Proposed Construction, Attachment 2 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis, Environ, August 28, 2013 cc: Salit Payappilly, BioMed Realty Marie Cooper, Perldns Coie Jose Cotto, CAS Architects 3, BioMe Realty, L.P. 17190 Bernardo Center Drive • San Diego,California 92128 Phone:(858)485-9840 - Facsimile:(858) 485-9843 475 Eccles Demolition and Construction September 6, 2013 BioMed Realty is planning to demolish the building at 475 Eccles and construct a new life science campus consisting of two buildings that together would comprise 262,287 square feet, a f ive-level parking structure and surface parking. This report documents the analysis that indicates there will be no significant increase in health risks to the children at the Genetech Daycare Center located at 850 Gateway Boulevard,and no significant noise impacts. This report also provides general information about the project that parents may find useful. Demolition and Construction Plans Demolition of the 475 Eccles building is projected to occur over a four-week period in the Fall of 2013. We then anticipate a lull at this site of several years,during which time we will be conducting demolition and construction of another project at 800 and 1000 Gateway Boulevard.'. Our estimate for construction at 475 Eccles is that it will start in the Fall of 2016, and continue for approximately two years. The details of the demolition and construction are contained in the attached site logistics plan (Attachment i). Construction vehicles will access the site from Eccles Avenue, and the truck route is along Eccles as well. This arrangement puts the construction traffic on the opposite side of the construction site from the Genentech daycare facility. The new buildings that are proposed are depicted in Attachment 2. Health Risk Assessment BioMed had a Health Risk Assessment performed by ENV IRON,one of the most respect air quality firms in California, The report that resulted from this analysis is attached (Attachment 3). This report confirms that no significant increases in health risks are projected for the Eccles project. The study used conservative assumptions (summarized in items I —7 below) and determined that the measures BioMed is planning to implement will ensure there are no significant health risk impacts. 1. The analysis assumes that children are at the daycare for 12 hours per day for 245 weekdays per year, and therefore assumes,each child is exposed to the full extent of emissions.We understand that many children are present for less time. The demolition and construction work we intend to perform for 800 and 1000 Gateway is addressed in a separate report. Neither the demolition or construction periods of the two projects are expected to overlap, which will help ensure that the da,ycare children do not experience emissions from both projects at once. . The analysis assumes that a child would arrive at the daycare center at the age of h weeks and stay continuously until age b.Two scenarios were analyzed; one captured the longest projected exposure such a child might face (an infant entering daycare at the start of demolition in Fall 2013 staying through age 41/2) , and the second captured the most intense level of projected emissions(an infant entering daycare at the start of construction and staying through the projected 4-month construction period, with all construction emissions concentrated into that period). 3. NVII (.)N assumed all children stayed outside all day. We understand that,though windows and doors are often kept open at the daycare center,the children are in fact inside for several hours during the clay,which would reduce exposure levels.. 4. The analysis employs an air dispersion model recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International Airport, This model is designed;to be health protective, i.e.,it predicts a conservatively high level of concentrations of pollutants at the daycare. 5. The analysis assumes that demolition and construction activities would occupy a full. eight-hour work day, five days a week,without accounting for the short days and holiday breaks that are common in the construction industry. b, ENVIRO N used data from the actual equipment and practices BioMed"s demolition contractor will use for the demolition phase and similar equipment we intend to require our contractors to use for the construction pease,rather than allowing use of more common, but older and more polluting equipment or engines. 7. The analysis is based on data regarding the amount of onsite idling time that is typical for construction vehicles statewide, though we intend to prevent,onsite idling to the maximum extend feasible for all onsite engines for on-road equipment. (As noted below, BioM:ed intends to limit off-road equipment located on site to -minute idling times, and that -minute idling limitation was incorporated into the analysis,) Even with these conservative( .e.,health protective) assumptions, the analysis demonstrates that the Eccles project is not projected to create significant health risk increases.. This is due in large part to the protective measures we intend to employ. These measures are as follows: • Compliance with all of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's recommended construction mitigation measures, which are set forth in Appendix D of ENV1RC3N's report. • Limit all off-road construction equipment to 2 minute idling while onsite. • Electrify all generators and air compressors • Model Year 2007 or better onroad trucks • Propane or LNG-fueled boom and scissor lifts Tier 2 or better for 0% of horsepower-hours of off road diesel equipment during construction; for 65% of horsepower-hours during demolition. 9 During,demolition,no onsite grinding,crushing or shredding of asphalt,concrete or ` debris Should BioMed decide to use different measures in the future,we are proposing to the City that we be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, that the different measures also result in no significant increase in health risks. BioMed will provide to Genentech the equipment list for demolition. BioMed will provide an equipment list for construction when such list is available. Noise ENVIRON also studied the impact of construction noise on the children at the Genentech Daycare Center. The report concludes that construction noise from the demolition and redevelopment Project at 475 Eccles Avenue is expected to comply with the noise limits established by the City of South San Francisco Municipal.Code. BioMed will identify a disturbance coordinator to Genentech before commencing work, K°vin M. Simonsen Vice President, Real.Estate Legal, Attachment 1: Site Logistics Plan Attachment : Diagram of New Buildings Attachment 3: ENVII3ON Report - 3 - 475 Eccles Logistics Plan 7/29/13 475 Eccles Site Logistics & Demolition Summary—7/29/2013 Restrictions: The restrictions identified in the Environ Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis will be adhered to throughout the demolition phase. Schedule: The demolition activities will be completed in approximately 4 weeks Mobilization: The mobilization consists of the delivery of work trucks,demolition equipment and ether small tools required for the demolition of the building, Demolition Equipment includes: 0 PC 360,2012 tier 4 hydraulic excavator PC 450 2011 tier 3 hydraulic excavator 0 PC 600 2006 tier 3 hydraulic excavator 863 Bobcat skid steer tier 2 loader 2,000 gal, water truck 2006 tier 2 Site Logistics and Management: The demolition of the building will begin at approximately 120'from the southeast building corner as depicted in the attached Site Logistics Plan. The demolition of the building structure will generally be performed on the existing concrete floor slab, The east parking lot will be used for incoming and outgoing vehicular traffic. Demolition: The demolition contractor will remove sections of the roof structure first and then will remove sections of the adjacent concrete walls. Once sections of the building have been demolished and are on the concrete floor slab,the components will be sorted. The concrete walls will be broken down as minimally required to remove the reinforcing bars and miscellaneous metals.The sorted materials will be loaded onto hauling trucks. The hauling trucks will drive up on to the concrete floor slab for loading. Watering of the building structure and demolished components will continue throughout the demolition and will adhere to the BAAQMD requirements. �J a r w / � � I CL Ln hD vi u rn / uj Ln t-4 475 Eccles Logistics Plan 7/29/13 475 Eccles Ave-Detailed Site Plan µ� D fitU110N�AC C UR L 51LAR. IM MOL.l°l`lt"bl ST,Al lw u s VIII w t a � ill ! A', 8 i41 � i DEMOLITION ACCESS SITE LOGISTICS � 475 ECCLES "E, 30. SAN FRANCISCO9 CA ffi ATTACHMENT Z 475 ECCLES PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION d � FIGS 3.3 PROPOSED COTSWIT ONS NEW CONSTRu'MON B The Ptofect would oonsunct two b gs to serve the I&s . . Both bi"ap ^ w:dd be fout stoo s hqoi. The combiaed gross fl ocm a worald be op tea 262;287 sgxa ve feet,resalfing in a Boot Am rafio of 9"comimatAy 3. .. LEGAL27422798,1 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and liaise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,California l ,�� ��6,�««<l�l��� ���O�� i%� �� � � IllllllllllllllllJ�ild�l(I I�I��I,fllllll�@ui,VJi�Vi� � ���i ��r Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South Bain Francisco, Cali Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California Conten Page Executive Summary ES-1 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Understanding 1 2 Modeling Methodology 2 2.1 Source Parameters 3 22 Emissions 4 22,1 Construction Equipment Emissions 4 2.2.2 On-Road Equipment Emissions 223 Construction Worker Commuting Vehicles 8 2.3 Receptor Selection 8 2.4 Modeling Adjustment Factors 9 3 Risk Characterization Methods 10 31 Exposure Assessment 10 3.2 Toxicity Assessment 12 3.3 Cancer Risk Adjustment Factors 13 3.4 Risk Characterization 14 3.4.1 Estimation of Cancer Risks 14 3.4.2 Estimation of Chronic Noncancer Hazard Quotients/indices 15 4 Risk Results 16 5 Noise Analysis 17 5.1 Existing Acoustic Environment 18 5.2 Construction Equipment and Noise Levels 18 53 Compliance Assessment 20 5.4 Construction Noise Exemptions 20 5.5 Construction Noise at Child Care Center 20 5.6 Conclusion 21 6 References 22 Contents i ENVIROJN f Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,California List of Tables Table 1: Model Selection and Options Table 2: Source Parameters Table S: Construction Equipment Emissions Calculations Methodology Table 4a: Exposure Parameters—Scenario 1 Table 4b: Exposure Parameters—Scenario Table 5: Carcinogenic Toxicity Values Table 6a: Cancer IRisk.Adjustment Factors—Scenario 1 Table 6b: Cancer(Risk.Adjustment Factors—Scenario 2 Table 7: Noise Level Standards Table 8: Construction Equipment Summary Table Table 6; Construction Noise at dearest Noise'Sensitive Receiver Rust of Figures Figure 1: Modeled Sources Figure 2: Sensitive Receptors Figure : Receptors over 850 Gateway Boulevard List of Appendices Appendix A: Construction Equipment list Appendix 6: Construction,Emissions Data(electronic files) Appendix C: Air Dispersion Modeling Files(electronic fifes) Appendix D-. E'AAQMC Recommended)Mitigation Measures Contents ui ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San'Francisco„California ,Acronyms and Abbreviations pgPm3: microgram per meter cubed ARB: (California)Air Resources Board ASF: Age Sensitivity Factor AT: Averaging Time BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMR: BioMed Realty uC,a: chemical concentration in air for chemical i CaYEPA: California Environmental Protection Agency CaIEEMod': California(Emissions Estimator Model CEQA: Califo nia Environmental Quality Act. CNEL: Community Noise Exposure Level CPF cancer potency factor CRAF: cancer risk adjustment factors days/year: days per year dBA: decibel, A-weighted CBR gaily Breathing Rate CI6'M diesel particulate matter Draft EIIR Draft Environmental Impact Report Eta: Exposure Duratbon EF: Exposure Frequency ET: Exposure Time FHWA: Federal Highway Administration glhp-hr: grain per horsepower-hour g/mile: gram per mile gls: gram per second MRA: Health Risk Assessment (Finn: Intake Factor, Inhalation Ukg-day: liter per kilogram-day lb: pound LCFS: Low Carbon Fuel Standard m: meter Acronyms and Abbreviations iii ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,Cal'ftmia m3/kg-day: meters cubed per kilogr m-day r0u meters cubed per liter mg/pig: milligram per microgram miles/day: miles per day mph: miles per hour OEHHA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment RCNM: Roadway Construction Noise Model SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District SSFMC: City of South Sam F=rancisco Municipal Code tons/day: tons per day TSa: Technical Support Document USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency g/veh-hr: grams per vehicle-hour VI! T: vehicle miles traveled Acronyms and Abbreviations iv ENViRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California Executive Su�mmary ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) prepared a 'Health Risk Assessment(HRA)to evaluate risk and hazard impacts posed by the construction of the 475 Eccles Avenue (Project to sensitive receptors in the area, 'including the daycare child receptors at Genentech's daycare at 55O Gateway Boulevard in South Ban Francisco, California. The objective of this technical report is to determine whether the construction activity will generate significant air quality, health risk, or noise impacts to children attending the daycare. This report demonstrates that certain restrictions BMR is planning to implement will ensure there are no significant increases in health risks as a result of emissions from the Eccles Project, and notes that if BMR substitutes different restrictions in the future, it must demonstrate to the City that impacts iremain less than significant. A likely schedule for the 475 Eccles Project has been established. Buildings are scheduled to be demolished consecutively in the late summer of 2013,with no overlap in subsequent construction periods. E VIRCN also conducted an evaluation of the 800 and 1000 Gateway Boulevard Demolition and Construction Project. This and the 475 Eccles Project are not anticipated to o'vedap during any construction or demolition period.'Accordingly, the analysis was conducted and thresholds were applied to each Project individually, based on its respective schedule, How was the analysis conducted? This HRA is based on methodologies that are consistent with Ray Area Air Quality Management [district(BAAQM ) methods, California Environmental Protection Agency's(CaIEPA)Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(CEHHA) Hot;spot Guidance and United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA) recommendations. Based upon this guidance,we used the latest California.Air Resources Board (ARB)and iUSEPA computer models and OEHIHA risk assessment and toxicity information to conservatively estimate the excess lifetime cancer risks and noncancer hazard indices(His) and PM2.5(particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter)concentrations that imight be caused by the Project, as experienced by the sensitive receptors at Genentech's 850 Gateway Boulevard daycare center, as well as other nearby sensitive receptors. This modeling is state-of-the-art and is a more accurate and realistic approach to assess the Project's impact on the daycare center than real-time measurements could be, since it is not feasible to measure all emissions caused by a project, nor to distinguish which emissions come from any given source among emissions that would be included in measurements taken at the daycare center. Considering the conservative assumptions built into the miodeling and analysis, the impacts predicted are expected to be higher than what is actually experienced at the 'Demolition for both Eccles and GOP,is projected to occur in Q3 of 2013,but the actual days'within that quaver that each building as being dermoaished are not projected to overlap. Executive Summary Es-1 ENVlRo Sensitive receptors Air quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco, California daycare. In fact„ the BAAQMD describes the methods as"conservative, meaning that the real risks from the source may be lower than the calculations, but it is unlikely they will be higher." The results of the HRA were compared with the following May 201 1 BAAQMD significance thresholds,which are meant to be health protective for sensitive receptors such as infants and children:' * An increase in excess lifetime cancer risk level of greater than 10 in one million; * An increase in noncancer(i.e., chronic or acute) hazard indices greater than 'laid or * An increase in the annual average PM .s of greater than 0..3 pg/m In accordance with BAAQMD CEQA guidelines,this H A evaluates the impacts of construction emissions from demolition and reconstruction of the 475 Eccles project on the onsite sensitive receptors (i.e., children attending daycare). This includes all off-road equipment such as excavators, graders, and cranes, as well as on-road trucks, including hauling debris or material to/from the site and water trucks for fugitive dust control. Idling of equipment onsite or queuing to get onsite was also evaluated. Conservative Aspects of the Analysis This analysis is based upon several conservative assumptions. We understand that circumstances that would (produce a lower Revel of impacts are in fact more likely to occur, but used these assumptions to ensure a protective level of analysis. First, we assumed the children are at the daycare for 12 hours per day for 245 days per year,. and therefore assumed each child is exposed to the full extent of emissions. We have been advised that in fact many children are not present the full twelve hours of operation. Second, we incorporated breathing rate and cancer risk adjustment factors ( IAFs), as specified by BAAQMD, based on the longest duration a child could stay at the daycare center. We assumed that a child would arrive at the daycare center at the age of 6 weeks and stay continuously until age 5. We understand that it is more common for children to leave the center after a couple of years.To ensure we captured all aspects of the exposure such a child would experience, we analyzed two scenarios. The first scenario captures the longest projected exposure and the second captures the most intense level of projected emissions. For the first scenario, we assumed a child arrived at the daycare center at age 6 weeks on the first day of demolition and stayed at the daycare center continuously until the projected end of construction, 4,5 years later. The first scenario does not represent a projection of the construction schedule(since BIUI''R is projecting a multi-year break 2 http°//w ww.baagmd.gov/Divisions/ nginserin /Air-Toxics/ requenfly-Asked-Questons,aspx(accessed July 2013) 3A March 2012 Alameda County Superior Court judgment determined that the BAAQMD had railed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the land use development patterns that would result from adoption of the thresholds,and ordered the thresholds set aside.That judgment is currently on appeal„however,the thresholds are tacked by a comprehensive study and analysis as documented in Appendix C to the May 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air quality Guidelines and are used by the City of South San Francisco in evaluating the 475 Eccles Project. Executive Summary ES-2 ENV IRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical,Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California between demolition and construction) but was analyzed to ensure that the longest exposure period was analyzed. For this first scenario, construction emissions are spread out over a 4.5-year period. + For the second scenario we assumed a child arrived at the center in the third quarter of 2016 (the projected start of construction)and was exposed during an approximately 4- month period of construction, which is the projected construction duration. This second scenario represents exposure to construction emissions concentrated within a 24-month period. Third, as a conservative approach, the HRA assumes outdoor exposure throughout the site, with no attenuation for lower pollutant concentrations when children are iinside.As such, the children are assumed to be effectively outside all the time. We understand that, though windows and doors are often kept open, the children are in fact inside for several hours during the day, which would reduce exposure levels.. Fourth, we used the USEPA-recommended air dispersion model (AERMOD,)with meteorological data collected at the San 'Francisco International Airport. Using this model with long term wind data collected at a station close to the Project allows us to predict conservative (i.e., higher than expected) concentrations of pollutants at the daycare as!USEPA has designed the model to be conservative in predicting ambient air concentrations. However, because the impacts of exposure depend upon continuous, along-term exposure„ easing long term wind data erasures that all exposure is accounted for over the entire period of exposure, without artificially decreasing (or increasing) exposure due to wind conditions lasting only a few hours or days. Fifth, we assumed construction operates g hours per dairy, five days per week. We understand that in fact construction may operate fewer hours. Sixth,we input data from the actual equipment and practices BMR's demolition contractor will use for the demolition phase and the equipment BMR's usual contractors have indicated they will use for the redevelopment phase. We understand that 13,MR will require use of this or similar equipment when it solicits proposals for the redevelopment. This ensures that our analysis cannot be undercut by inexpensive contractors who use older, more polluting equipment or engines. In other words, we input default assumptions as modified by the following:. 1. Compliance with all BAAClMD recommended construction mitigation measures, which are set forth in Appendix L 2. Limit all offroad trucks to 2 minutes of idling while onsite . Electrify all generators 4. Model Year 2007 or better onroad trucks 5. flier 2 or better for 65% of horsepower-hours of off road diesel equipment during demolition activities and 0%,of horsepower-hours during construction activities Execunive Summary ES,-3 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quallity and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,south San Francisco,California . During demolition, no onsite grinding, crushing or shredding of asphalt, concrete or debris BMR may propose different means of protecting against health risks, in which case BMR will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the different means also result in no significant impacts. Seventh,for our analysis, we input standard data regarding the time construction vehicles typically idle their engines onsite. However,we understand BMR will be implementing plans to prevent onsite engine idling to the maximum extent feasible. Off-road construction equipment at the Site will be subject to a 2-minute idling limit. Summary of Results With these health-protective measures, this analysis shows no exceedance of health risk thresholds selected by the City of South San Francisco at the 850 Gateway Boulevard Daycare Center, and any other nearby sensitive receptors,for canker risk, PM2.r,,concentration, and chronic Hl. While noise from construction activity is not regulated at off-site receptors such as the Daycare at 850 Gateway Boulevard, a noise assessment shows that noise levels at the Daycare Center due to construction at 475 Eccles Avenue would be below the Noise Level Standards established for the Gateway Specific Plan District. Construction noise from the redevelopment Project at 475 Eccles Avenue is expected to comply with the noise limits established by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. The construction plan represented in this report reflects BMR's current best estimate of anticipated demolition and construction activities. As Project plans for future activities are further delineated, BMR may identify other means by which to meet these standards, in which case BMR would demonstrate that impacts remain less than significant. Executive Summary E -4 ENVlRON sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Mdse Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South Fen Francisco,California 1 Introduction ENVIRON International Corporation (E VIRON) has conducted an analysis of local risk and hazard impacts associated with the proposed development of 457 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, CA ("Project" or"Site"). This analysis shadows the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) performed in the 475 Eccles Avenue Graft Environmental Impact.Report(dEIR) (Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting 2012), but includes additional sensitive receptors. This Sensitive Receptors Air duality Technical Analysis follows the methods described in Appendix A-1 to the DEIR, This analysis aims to be conservative,that is, health protective, so that potential risks are not underestimated, In addition to using the methods of the BEIR,this analysis follows guidance from the Ray Area Air duality Management District(BAAdMD) California Environmental duality Act(dEdA) Guidelines (BAAdMD 2012), the California Air Resources Board(ARB),the fice`of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). 1,1; Project Understanding The Project involves demolition of the existing building and construction of a new structure on an approximately 6.1-acre site in the City of South Ban Francisco, east of US Route 101. The Project sponsor Is BioMed Realty (BNIIR). Demolition of the project is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2013. The start date for construction is not expected to be until the third quarter of 2016. Because of the delay in construction start date, the construction was broken up into phases for the purpose of this health risk.assessment. The construction plan represented in this report reflects BR's current best estimate of anticipated demolition and construction activities. As Project plans for future activities are further delineated, BMR may identify other means by which to meet these standards, in which case BMR would prepare a revised report demonstrating an equivalent level of protections. Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,south Ran Francisco, California 2 MIodMellwlatg Methodology This Sensitive Receptors Air Quality Technical Analysis follows the methods of the Project THEIR. The same air dispersion model,AERMQD, was selected, and other parameters were selected to match the modeling performed for the D,EIR, as shown in Table 1. AERMQT]was run with regulatory default options selected. .. ... ............ ..w_.�_ ...w _ �..m... __._. _... 1 Table 1. Model Selection and Options Parameter Valu Selected Description Air dispersion model AERMOD version 12060 Consistent with(Project DEIR Meteorological data pre- AERMET version 06341 As processed by Allison Knapp processor "Wollam Consulting(2012) Terrain processor I AERMAP version 11103 Consistent with Project DEIR and �a. .. ............... U EPA guidance(2005) Land use type Rural(no urban;area) Consistent with Project DEIR Averaging period Annual Consistent with Project DEIR Receptor height 1.8 meters(m) Consistent with Project DEIR Building downwash hone Only volume sources were modeled,so building downwash was not considered Meteorological data years 2005 through 2009 Consistent with project DEIR. Meteorological surface data San Francisco International Airport Consistent with Project DEIR Meteorological upper air data Oakland,International Airport Consistent with Project DEIR The /Q("chi over Q") method of applying emission rates on the post-processing was used for modeling. This means dispersion modeling was conducted using a unit emissions rate of 1 gram per second(g/s)for each emission source. Annual average air concentrations were estimated using the annual dispersion factors calculated from the model and multiplying them by the respective annual average emissions. The following equation was used to estimate the concentrations: Average Concentration_ (1Q),"".1 Modeling Methodology 2 EN'VIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California where: Q =emission rate of pollutant(g/s) X = modeled concentration of pollutant(pglm') dispersion factor(leg/m3)/(g,ls) i = stack source 2,1 Source Parameters Project activities were divided into construction and on-roa&sources for modeling. Construction sources were modeled as volume sources distributed over the Project Site, with the parameters shown in Table 2.Table 2 also shows the volume source parameters used for on-road activity associated with the Project. Figure 1 shows the sources modeled.As in the DEIR, the construction site is modeled, as well as US Route 101 in the vicinity of the Project. Modeping Methodology 3 E:NVIRQNi Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise'technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,California . .. .... ._,.r __ ........._ _ �_. Tablle : Source Parameters �... ..� . _.. . . , ....... _ . ...... mm....m _.. _ . Parameter Value Selected Description_.. Pluurhe 4'� n, /iii„ ✓/ �i� „,,,,,, �. i ii/ %!/ i Vii/,%i i i/ �% Release height 3.05 m Consistent with Project DEIR Initial lateral dimension 4.65 m Length of a 10-m by 10wm volume source divided by 2.1 5, as per USEPA guidance(USEPA 2004) Initial vertical dimension 4.1 S m Consistent with Project DEIR . Hours of operation S hours daily corresponding to a Based on construction schedule daytime shift provided by'Project sponsor „r ,r r,,,/ ��/,,,, ii / % / i i a of oiiDM r %iiaUi i ucpM I�ruuclk,,Veard�ar �►nCI Ern I ,�GK/ r,;al.,'' :z,,,� ,/,i;,,, // ��///� , Release height a m SCAQMD 2005 Initial lateral dimension 5.58 m Consistent with Project DEIR i modeling files Length of volume source divided by 2.1 ,as per USEPA guidance 1 (USEPA 2004).The length of the volume source is based on the width of the roadway. Initial vertical dimension 1.42m Consistent with Project DEIR modeling files Hours of operation ...,,., ... g hours. ma.... �...w ._ ._..._. _ .... _... ...n daily corresponding to a Based on construction schedule daytime shift provided by Project sponsor 2,2 Emissions As explained in the Hazards Identification section of Appendix A-1 of the DEIR,toxic air contaminant emissions identified for the Project arise from'uOff road equipment and haul trucks during construction activities,”and "Employees and delivery operations along nearby roadways and at the facility' (Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting 2012), Consistent with the DEIR, only emissions of diesel particulate mutter (I PM) are modeled. Emissions were calculated separately for off-road construction equipment and on-road,vehicles as follows. All demolition and construction was presumued,to comply with BAAQMD measures, which are set forth in Appendix D,, 2.2.1 Construction Equipment Emissions Demolition equipment emissions were estimated from a demolition equipment list provided by BMR and emission factors from USEPA Tier Standards for nonroad compression-ignition engines(USEPA 2013) and ARS Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel'Vehicles (ARE 2007), For construction equipment of unknown tier, average emission factors from ARS"s 2011 Off- Road Equipment Model (t FFROAD2011)were used. Instead of diesel generator sets, all electric equipment was assumed to be powered with grid electricity, Load factors for each piece Modeling Methodology 4 ENVIRON sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South Sara Francisco„California of equipment are based on the default load factor in the OFFROAD2011 model for in-use off- road diesel equiipment(ARB 20111 b). At least 20%of total horsepower-hours for non-demolition related construction equipment will meet the Tier 2 standard for its engine sine, as confirmed by BMR.. As a construction contractor has not yet been chosen, as a conservative measure,we assumed all other equipment are represented by default emission factors from OFFR rAD2011. In the demolition fleet, 55% of all equipment horsepower-hours meet at least the Tier 2 engine standards, so this assumption is reasonable for non-demolition construction activity.Additionally, the default OFFROAD2011 emissions factors are representative of the overall offroad equipment fleet in California, not gust the construction fleet. Due to their high usage, most construction equipment is replaced more frequently that non-construction equipment, and therefore is expected to be cleaner than the default, state-wide,fleet. In all phases of construction, oft-road equipment will not idle for longer than 2 minutes, as confirmed by BMR.. Due to the more stringent idling time limitation, a 45% reduction in PM2,r, emissions was taken in to account, based on the CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2012). Qnsite water truck emissions during the demolition phase were estimated assuming a medium- heavy duty!truck(Category T6 in EMFAC2011) operating at an assumed slow speed of 5 miles per hour(mph), and running exhaust emission factors from ARB"s Emission FACtor model (BMFAC2011 [ARB 2011 c]). 2.2.2 On-Road Equipment Emissions The on-road sources modeled are haul and vendor trucks. On-road hauling truck emissions were calculated using the total number of trucks estimated by J.M.o ''Neill Inc., demolition contractors to BMR, emission factors from EMFAC2011, and an assumed 20-mile one-way trip length (based on the South Coast.Air Quality Management District California Emissions Estimator Model [CaIEEModTm] default haul truck trip lengths). The emission factors for running emissions for criteria pollutants were generated with the current. version of the EMFAC2011„ released on September 30, 2011, and updated in January 2013. This version reflects the emissions benefits of ARB"s recent rulemakings including on-road diesel fleet rules,the Pavley Clean Car Standards, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (L.CFS). The model also includes updated information on California's car and truck fleets and travel activity. Vendor truck emissions were estimated based on the CaIEEMod-generated total number of trips, emission factors from EMFAC20111, and an assumed 73-mile one-way trip length (based on the CaIE'EMod default trip length). Mauling and vendor trip idling emission factors for criteria pollutants were-obtained from the EMFAC2011 Idling Emission Dates database (AB 2011 d). Idling emissions were estimated assuming 5 minutes of onsite idling time per round trip. Trucks visiting the Site will be subject to the idling limits in the diesel ATOM (California Code of Regulations Title 13§2455). Diesel-fired on-road equipment will not idle for longer than 5 minutes. The default.CaIEEMod fleet mix was Modeling methodology 5 ENViRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,south San Francisco,California assumed for vendor, and, hauling trucks. In addition, it was assumed all hauling and vendor trucks were dieseli-fueled. Dunning emissions reported by the model in units of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle mile traveled (VMT)were used along with trip length to estimate Project running emissions. Idling emissions reported by the model in units of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle hour were used along with the total idling time across all vehicle trips to estimate Project idling emissions.. The methodology used to calculate emissions is presented in Table 3.. Modeling(Methodology 6 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California .............. ............................ ._­___.­.__...._1........... ------- ............- — Table 3: Construction Equipment Emissions Cal,culations Methodology ..................... Source Typo MeModology and Formula Reference Off-Road Construction Ec= X(EFc*HIP *LF*Hr*C) ARBAJSEPA Engine Equipment Standards(ARB 2013) Where: OFFROAD2011 (ARB Ec: off-road equipment exhaust emissions(lb) 2011b) EFc: emission factor(glhp-hr)from ARB/USEPA Engine standards or OFFROAD2011 emission factors used �HP: equipment horsepower providledl by BMR or CaIEEMod default value LF: equipment load factor from OFFROAD2011 Hr: equipment hours C: unit conversion factor a. ..............................__._.............. ............................... Construction On-Road ER= I(EFR*VMT*C), EMFAC2011 (ARB Mobile Sources where VMT=Trip Length*Trip Number 2011c) Exhaust—Running' Where: ER: running exhaust emissions(lb) EFR': running emission factor(g/mile)from EMFAC2011 VMT: vehicle miles traveled C: unit conversion factor ctor ..... .......--- Construction On-Road El = X(EFI * Idling Time*Trip Number*C) EMFAC2011 (ARB Mobile Sources 2011d) Exhaust—IIdiling 2 Where: El: vehicle idling emissions(lb) EFI: vehicle idling emission factor(g/veh-hr) from EMFAC2011 C unit conversion factor ..................--- ............. Modeling Methodology 7 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Table , Construction Equipment Emissions Calculations Methodology Notes: For hauling diesel trucks: EFR=EFHHDT,where EFHHDT is the emission factor from EMFAC2011 for heavy-heavy duty trucks J7"single construction in EMFAC2011), in g/mile. For vendor diesel trucks: EFR= EFMHDT,where EFMHDT is a calculated average emission factor from EMFAC2011 assuming a medium-heavy duty fleet mix(i.e.assuming 50%'T6 and 50 T7 single construction in EMFAC2011), in g/smile. The calculation involves the following assumptions: a.All material transporting and soil hauling trucks are heavy-heavy duty trucks.All vendor trucks are medium-heavy duty,the default CaIEEMod fleet mix for vendor trips.. b, Trip Length:The one-way trip length is 20 smiles for hauling trips and 7.3 miles for vendor trips„ the default CaIEEMod value. c.Trip Number:J.M.O'Neill Inc., demolition contractor to BMR, provided the number of trips for haul trucks. The number of vendor trips is calculated using CaIEEMod defaults. For hauling diesel trucks:EFl=EFHHDT,where EFHHDT is the emission factor from EMFAC2011 for heavy-heavy duty trucks(T7 single construction in EMFAC2011), in gtveh-hr. For vendor diesel trucks: EFI=EFMHDT,where EFMHDT is a calculated average emission factor"from EMFAC2011 assuming a medium"-heavy duty fleet mix(i.e. assuming 50%TE and 50%T7 single construction in EMFAC2011), in g/veh-hr. The calculation involves the following assumptions: a.All maternal transporting and soil hauling trucks are heavy-heavy duty trucks.All vendor trucks are medium-heavy duty„the default CalEEMod fleet mix for vendor trips. b. idling Time:Assuming 5 minutes of onsite idling time per roundtrip. c.Trip Number:J.M.O'Nrleill Inc., demolition contractor to BMR, provided the number of trips for haul trucks. The number of vendor trips is calculated using CaIEEMod defaults. 2.2.3 Construction Worker Commuting Vehicles The number of trips by workers was estimated based on CalEEf od defaults. Worker trips are assumed to be in gasoline-powered vehicles only. Eased on current Project understanding, if Project-generated worker trips were compared to traffic along surrounding roadways,the corresponding health impacts would be de minimis. Therefore, health risk from worker trips was not evaluated in this analysis. 2,3 Receptor Selection In order to evaluate health impacts to offsite receptors, ENVIRON identified receptors at the locations of surrounding sensitive populations, including any adult daycare centers„ child care centers, infarct centers„ and foster family agencies..A grid of potential receptors at the Genentech Daycare Center, located at 850 Gateway Boulevard„ as well as other sensitive receptors were also modeled within the"zone of influence." Boundary and grid receptors at the Daycare Center were modeled with 5 m spacing. A default breathing height of 1,8 meters was used for ground-floor receptors, consistent with the analysis presented in the DEIR.As discussed previously, average annual dispersion factors were estimated for each receptor locations. Modeled receptors are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The types of receptors in the area are discussed in more detail in Section 3,11, Modeling Methodology 8 ENS VIRON Sensiitve Receptors Air Quality and Noise TechnicaN Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,'South San Francisco,calwtornia The closest sensitive receptor to the Project is the daycare center located at 850 Gateway Boulevard in South San Francisco, California. This is the maximally affected sensitive receptor in this study. father identified sensitive receptors were found to have impacts from the Project that are lower than the impacts at the 850 Gateway Boulevard Daycare Center. 2.4 ililiaudeiing Adjustrunent Factors Cal/EPA (2f 03) recommends applying an adjustment factor to the annual average concentration modeled assuming continuous emissions (i.e., 24 hours per day, 7 days per week),when the actual emissions are less than 24 hours per day and exposures are concurrent with construction activities occurring at the Project. The modeling adjustment factors are discussed below. Residents are assumed to the exposed to construction emissions 24 hours per day, seven days per week. This assumption its consistent with the modeled annual average air concentration (24 hours per day, 7 days per week). Thus, the annual average concentration need not he adjusted. The modeled construction impacts were annualized over 24 hours per day,seven days per week. To account for a daycare center operation schedule of 12 hours per day,five days per week((24 hoursil2 hours]*[7 days/6 days]], an adjustment factor of 2.8 was applied to the annual average modeled concentration used in the evaluation of a daycare child. These concentrations represent the theoretical maximum average concentrations over the operating period to which the offsite daycare children might be exposed. The exposure point concentrations for the daycare child receptors are calculated using,the following equation. C, =f a,annual x MAF Where, C - Exposure point concentration of chemical i (,pglm ) Cj,annual = Annual average concentration,of chemical i (pg/rns) MAF - Modeling adjustment factor(unitless) Modeling Methodology 9 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 3 Risk Characterization Methods The following sections discuss in detail the various components required to conduct the HRA. 3.1 Exposure Assessment Pat n ' ll x o d Populations:This evaluation conservatively considered the following receptor populations: • Off-spite adult resident and child resident • site daycare child Sensitive receptors within the"zone of influence" are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The closest residential receptors (located across 101 from the Project)were evaluated in the Draft EIR. This analysis accordingly focusses on daycare attendees who are closer.The closest sensitive receptor to the Project is the Genentech daycare center located at 850 Gateway Boulevard in South San Francisco" California, This is the maximally affected sensitive receptor in this study. Thus, daycare child,is identified as the potential exposure population at this location. All other nearby sensitive receptors are also daycare centers. Because the Genentech daycare center is the maximally affected sensitive receptor by the Project of all sensitive receptors in this analysis" this analysis concludes that if impacts to the Genentech daycare population are less than significant" impacts wild be less than significant for sensitive daycare receptors further away. Two scenarios were considered for children at the 350 Gateway Boulevard daycare center. I the first scenario, a child's exposure to construction activity at 475 Eccles Avenue began with the demolition of the Site, in 2013. In the second scenario, a child's exposure to construction activity at 475 Eccles Avenue began when Project construction begins, in 2016. The results of these scenarios are discussed separately in Section 4.. Ex osure AssuM dons: The exposure parameters used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risks for all potentially exposed populations for the construction scenario were obtained using risk assessment guidelines from Gal/EPA(2003)and BAAC M D (2010)" unless otherwise noted" and are presented in Table 4a for the first scenario and in Table 4b for the second scenario. Calculation of Intake:The dose estimated for each exposure pathway is a function of the concentration of a chemical and the intake of that chemical.. The intake factor for Inhalation" IFi,h, was calculated as follows: IFinh DB t * ET* EF* ED *QF AT There: IFanaz _ Intake Factor for Inhalation (m3ft-day) DBR - daily Breathing Rate(L/kg-day) ET Exposure Time(hours/24 hours) EF - Exposure Frequency (daystyear) Exposure Assessment 10 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air duality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California ED - Exposure Duration. (years) AT _ Averagling Time(days) CF - Conversion Factor, 0.001 (m3/L) The chemical intake or dose is estimated by multiplying the inhalation intake factor, iF,,t,, by the chemical concentration in air, Q. When coupled with the chemical concentration, this calculation is mathematically equivalent to the dose algorithm given OEHHA Hot Spots guidance (CaVEPA 2003). Table 4a: Exposure Parameters_Scenario 11 Exposure Param r ruts Adult Child Clay Care Resident Resident Child Daily Breathing bate (DBR) (U'kg-day] 302 581 581 Exposure Time(ET) 2 [hours/24 hours] 24 24 12 Exposure Frequency(EF) [days/year] 350 350 245 Exposure Duration (ED)4 [years] 4.5 4.5 4.5 Averaging Time AT [days] 25550 255511 2.5554 Intake Factor, Inhalation (IiFinh) [m ft-dray] 0.019 0,036 01.013 Equation used:. lFinh=DBR*ET* EF* ED*CF t AT CF=0,001 (m3/L) Abbreviations: BAAQMD= Bay Area Air duality Management District kg;kilogram L=Liter m3=cubic meters Notes: 1. Daily breathing ratites reflect default breathing rates from BAAQMD 20110. 2. Exposure times reflect default exposure times for residents from BAAQMD 2010,. Based on information provided by the client,the lours of operation for the daycare center are 6:30 am- 6:30 pm. 3.Exposure frequencies reflect default exposure frequencies for residents from BAAQMD 201 Q. The daycare child receptor is assumed to be at the daycare center while the parents are at work; 245 mays reflects the default exposure frequency for a worker from BAAQMD 2010. 4. Exposure durations reflect the actual schedule of 4.5 years for demolition plus project construction. Source:: Bay Area Air duality Management District(BAAQMD), 2010. BAAQMD Air Toxics INSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis HRSA Guidelines.Janua. Exposure Assessment 11 ENVIRON sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California Table 4b Exposure parameters—Scenario 2 Exposure Parameter Units Adult Child Day Care Resident Resident Child Daily Breathing Rate (©BR) [Ukg-day] 302 681 581 Exposure Time(ET)2 [hours/24 hours] 24 24 12 Exposure Frequency(EF)3 [days/year] 350 350 246 Exposure Duration (ED)4 [years] 1.5 11.5 1.5 Averaging Time aAT [days] 25550 265509 25550 Intake Factor, Inhalation (IF,ilh) [m3ft-day], 01.0062 01012 0.0042 Equation used: Rnh=DBR* ET*EF" ED*QFIAT CF=0.001 (inns/L) Abbreviations: BAAQMD= Bay Area Air Quality Management District kg=kilogram L=Liter m =cubic meters Notes; 1. Daily breathing rates reflect default breathing rates from BAAQMD 2010. 2. Exposure times reflect default exposure times for residents from 8AAQMD 2010. Based on information provided by the client,the hours of operation for the daycare center are 6:30 am- :30 pm.. 3. Exposure frequencies reflect default exposure frequencies for residents from BAAQMD 2010. The daycare child receptor is assumed to be at the daycare center while the parents are at work; 245 days reflects the default exposure frequency for a worker from BAAQMD 2010. 4.. Exposure durations reflect the actual schedule of 1.5 years for project construction. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD). 2010. BAAQMD,Air Toxics NlSR'program Health'Risk Screening Ana sis HRSA Guidelines.Manua . 3.2 Toxicity Assessment The toxicity assessment characterizes the relationship between the magnitude of exposure and the nature and magnitude of adverse health effects that may result from such exposure. For purposes of calculating exposure criteria to be used in risk assessments, adverse health effects are classified into two broad categories--cancer and non-cancer endpoints. Toxicity values used to estimate the likelihood of adverse effects occurring in humans at different exposure levels are identified as part of the toxicity assessment component of a risk assessment. For cancer risk and chronic noncancer calculations, ENV'IRON used the toxicity values for DPM which are summarized in Table 6. Exposure Assessment 12 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,California Table 6: Carcinogenic and Chronic Noncarcinogeinic Toxicity Values Cancer I ��nc Y_ Chronic. Reference Analysis Chemical Fa Exposure Level Cancer Risk and Chronic Hl Diesel PM 1 A (mg/kg-day)"' 5 pg/m3 Abbreviations: (mglkg-day)-1:per milligram per kilogram-day pg/m : micrograms per cubic meter APB:.Air Resources Board Hi: Hazard Index OEHHA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Asse-ssment. PM: Particulate latter Source: California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal/EPA), 2012.OEHHA/ARB Consolidated Table of Approved Disk.Assessment Health Values. May 3. 3.3 Cancer Risk Adjustment Factors The estimated excess lifetime cancer risks were adjusted using the age sensitivity factors (ASFs) recommended in the Cal/EPA OEHHA Technical Support Document(TS D) (Cal/EPA 2009) and the cancer risk adjustment factors (CRAFs) recommended by BAAQMD(2010).. This approach accounts for an "anticipated special sensitivity to carcinogens"of infarcts and children. Cancer risk estimates are weighted by a factor of 10 for exposures that occur from the third trimester of pregnancy to two years of age and by a factor of three for exposures that occur from two years through 15 years of age. No weighting factor(i.e., an ASF of one,which is equivalent to no adjustment) is applied to ages 16 to 70 years. Table 5a shows the CRAFs used for adult and child residents and'daycare children for a construction period lasting approximately 4.6 yearn in the first scenario.Table 6b shows the CRAFs used for adult and child residents and daycare children for a construction period lasting approximately 1.5 years in the second scenario. Table 16a: Cancer Frisk Ad ustimenrt Factors Scenario°I Receptor Cancer Disk Ad ustnnen Factor(C CAF) Mote Resident Adult 1.0 1, 2 Resident+child 5.5 1, IDS c,�re Child 5.9 1, 4 Notes: 1,. Based on BAAQMD 2010. 2.A resident adult is assumed to be 16 years old and above. .A resident child is assumed to be exposed from the third trimester of pregnancy to 4,25 years of age. 4. Based on information provided by the client,the daycare center accepts children from 6 weeks to 6 years old.Therefore, CRAF for a daycare child is conservatively estimated' assuming exposure occurs from age B weeks to 4.6 years old. Exposure Assessment 13 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue.,South San Francisco,California Abbreviations: BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management(District Sources. Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD). 2010.BAAQMD Air Toxics NS Pro ram Health Fisk Screening Analysis(HIRSAJ Guidelines. Janus liable 6b. Cancer Risk Adjustment Factors Scenario 2 Receptor Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor(CRAF) Note Resident Adult 1.0 1, 2 Resident Child 10 1, lea care Child 10 1, 4 Notes.- 1.. Based on BAAQMD 20% 2.A resident adult is assumed to be 16 years old and above. ..A resident child is assumed to be exposed at some point from the third trimester of pregnancy to two years old. 4. Based on information provided by the client,the daycare center accepts children from 6 weeks to 6 years old. Therefore, CRAF for a daycare child is conservatively estimated assuming exposure occurs at some point from ague 6 weeks to two years old. Abbreviations:. BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management District Sources: Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD).2610. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk.Screening Analysis HRSA Guidelines. January. 3.4 Risk Characterization Disks and hazards associated with the Project fail into two categories, cancer risks and noncancer hazards. Each of these is discussed separateliy below. 3.4.1 Estimation of Caner Frisks Excess lifetime cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens. The estimated risk is expressed as a unitless probability. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical-specific cancer potency factor(CPF). The equation used to calculate the potential excess lifetime cancer risk for the inhalation pathway is as follows: Risk„nh =C;x CF x IFInh x CPF x CRAF Where: Exposure Assessment 14 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Raise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California Risk;nh = Cancer Disk; the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of inhalation exposure to a particular potential carcinogen (unitless) C1 - Annual Average Air Concentration for Chemical i (lag/m3) CF - Conversion Factor(mg/pag) lFinh - Intake Factor for Inhalation (m3/kg-day) CPF; - Cancer Potency Factor for Chemical"i (mg chemical/kg body weight-day)-, CI AF - Caner Disk Adjustment Factor(unitless) 3.4,2 Estimation of Chronic Noncalncer Hazard Quotients/indices The potential for exposure to result in adverse chronic noncancer effects is evaluated by comparing the estimated annual average air concentration (which is equivalent to the average daily air concentration)to the noncancer chronic reference exposure level (cREL)for each chemical. When calculated for a single chemical, the comparison yields a ratio termed a hazard quotient(HQ).To evaluate the potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects from simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals,the HQs for all chemicals are summed, yielding a HI. IDPIVI is the only pollutant evaluated for chronic non-cancer hazard in this l•IRA,therefore the HC for DPM is the same as the overall HI. H , = C, f c ,ELI HI = JHQ Where: HQ, _ Chronic hazard quotient for chemical i HI - Hazard index Cd _ Annual average concentration of chemical i (lag/m ) c;RELj Chronic noncancer reference exposure level for chemical i (lag/m3) Exposure Assessment 15 ENVIIRON Sensitive Receptors,Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South on Francisco,Cafifornia 4 Risk Result At the maximally affected sensitive receptor„ the Genentech daycare center Ilocated l at 850 Gateway Boulevard in South San Francisco, California„ the cancer risk from Project sources is higher in the second scenario, in which a six-week-old child's exposure to Project construction begins in 2015, with Project building activities, With the default OFFROAD2011 emission factors, impacts are 10.8 in a million (significant), however in light of relatively clean demolition construction fleet it is reasonable to project that at least 20%of the fleet horsepower-hours will be Tier 2 for building construction, so the results will be below 10 in one million. For a six-week-old child whose exposure to Project demolition begins in 201 (the first scenario), the cancer risk from Project sources is 5,2 in one million. The annual average PM2.6 concentration at this receptor is 0.07 pgdm , and the chronic Hl is 0.015. These results are below the thresholds in the BAAQMD 20111 guidance. Results 16 ENVNRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise"technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South'San Francisco,California 6 Noise Analysis The Project Site is located within the City of South San Francisco, where it its subject to noise rules established by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC). Chapter 8.32 of the SSFMC identifies noise level standards, allowable increases above these standards, and exemptions or restrictions that are specific to certain types of activities or events. The noise level standards are based on Land Use Categories, as defined by the City's zoning code. The Project is in a"Business Technology Park,"'and as such is grouped with Land Use Category C- 1. Table 7 summarizes the Noise Level Standards within the SSFMC: Table 7: Noise(Level Standards Mound Level Limit(decibel,A- Land Use Category Time Sound [dBAJ) R_F„ R-1 and R-2 zones or any single- 10�:00 p.m.-7.00 a,.mr. 50 family or duplex residential in a specific .. ... ......_. .. . plan district 7:00 a.m.--1 0:00 p.m. 60 R-3 and b-C zones or any multiple- 10:00 P.m.—7:00 a.m. 55 family residential or mixed residentiallcommercial in any specific plan district 7:00 a.m.—10,00 p.m, 60 _ _. ... _m .. C-1, P-C, gateway and Oyster Print 10:00 p.m.--7:00 a.m. 60 Marina specific plan districts or any _ -- _....... ............_ . .... __-. commercial use in any specific plan district 7:.00 a.m.-10,.00 wl p.m. 65 M.-1, P-1 Anytime 70 From the South San Francisco Municipal Code,Chapter 8.32,Table 8. .030, as adapted from'The Model Community Noise Control Ordinance", Office of Noise Control, California [department of Health. As stated in SSFMC 8.32.030, the limits found in Table 7 are not to be exceeded according to the following: • Limit(in Table 7)for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour • Limit+ b d1A for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour • Limit+ 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour • Limit+ 15 dSA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour • Limit+ ' g dl3A for no period,of time In addition to the noise level standards identified in Table 7, Chapter 8.32.050, tithed Special Provisions, identifies provisions that relate to noise emitted from events such as performances, Noise Analysis 17 ENVIRON w + � . w w i w w n r w w r r r r r -r r rw r w ■ r w w r - w r r • w r r w r r r r - r w • �r • • • w " r - r- w r r r - r r wr - r r:a w r ,, w ► w �, r r - mr r NA. mm ■ w � w � w r • .1 r:M ", r r w ° w r c W r •' w" -w r r - r w- •w; r r w r r� r• -w r° r• r r . °r w w 11 1 N r `M Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,Califomia Table 8 presents a list of equipment expected during construction at the Project Site and sound levels from each type of equipment at 25 feet. ........................... ..................... Table 8: Construction Equipment Summary Table .......... ....... ............- - FHWA RCN M Sound Level at SSFMC Construction Construction Equipment Construction Noise Limit at 26 feet Equivalent 26 feet(dBA) (dBA) ................"I........ ........... Excavator Excavator 87 Skid Steer Loader Front end Loader 85 ........... ...... ........... Water Truck Dump Truck 82 --................ lBackhoe Backhoe 84 .......... ..... ........................... .......... 8 Street Sweeper Vacuum,Street 8 Sweeper ..............----......... Metal Torches Weider/torch 80 .............................................. .................. ..................................................................--................. Compressors Compressor(air) 84 90 ............... Rubber Tired Dozers, Dozer 88 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Tractor 90 ........... ,—--- I Grader Grader 91 .............. .............. Crane Crane 87 ................................. Forklift Front End Loader 85 ........... .....................--­..............-­­..................................... Pavers Paver 83 ...........——-------- ... ............... �Roliler Rollier --I---'-.... ---........................................................... ...................... Notes: RCNIM does not contain sound levels for all types of construction equipment,and so reasonable/worst-case estimates have been made for equipment specified for the Project where no RCNM values exist Sound levels reported as ILmax at 25 feet from construction equipment,comparable with the SSFMC construction noise equipment limit in SSFMC 8.23.050(d) -1111111.......... ............................ . ....... Noise Analysis 1 9 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,California 5.3 Compliance Assessment Compliance with the SSFIVIC construction noise limits was evaluated for all major equipment expected at the Project Site'. Equipment details were provided by BIVIR and include types, capacities, and expected duration of use. As shown in Table 8, noise from most Project-related construction equipment is expected to comply with SSFIVIC construction noise limits. Noise from the grader is predicted to emit sound levels that exceed the SSFMC limit by I dBA at 25 feet. This relatively small increase above the SSFIVIC limit is considered is well within the expected margin of error associated with most noise-prediction tools, including RCNM (typically +/-2 dBA or more). Therefore, construction equipment for the Project is expected to operate within applicable SSFMC noise limit. 5.4, Construction Noise E"mptions SSFMC Section 8.32.060 allows for exceptions to the sound level limits provided in the Code if it can be demonstrated that meeting the sounds level limits is impractical or unreasonable. Such an exemption may be granted for a period of no longer than 6 months. Therefore, should any construction equipment at the Project Site be found to exceed the limits in SSFIVI 8.32.050(d), and no practical or reasonable means to mitigate is available, the contractor may apply for an exemption to the SSFMC limits. 5.5 Construction Noise at Child Care Center The SSFIVIC does not require that construction activity comply with the Noise Level Standards at off site locations. Regardless, an assessment of construction noise was completed for the Genentech 2nd Generation Child Care Center, located approximately 125 feet to the northwest of the Project Site. The Child Care Center is located within the Gateway Specific Plan District, and is therefore subject to the Noise Level Standards for this Land Use Category (i.e., 65 dBA during daytime hours). Table 9 provides a comparison between the approximate highest levels of construction noise predicted at the Child Care Center(77 dBA due to the grader operating at a distance of 125 feet) and the Noise Level Standards at the Child Care Center, including allowable short-term exceedances. The data in Table 9 suggest the source of the highest levels of construction noise (i.e., a grader) must operate for not more than 5 minutes at maximum capacity, at 125 feet from the Child Care Center in order to stay below levels in the SSFMC for C-1 Land Uses.The SSFIVIC requirements for C-1 Land Uses are not a regulatory standard for Project construction. It is unlikely that construction equipment would operate under this scenario, and as such it is unlikely that the Noise Level Standards at the Child Care Center would be exceeded(i.e,, the grader is likely to operate under varying load levels, and throughout the site). This is consistent with the conclusion of the Draft EIR that"grading operations would not be a continuous noise source Major equipment includes large equipment such as those idenbW in Table 8.The assessment does not Include noise,from minor activities such as hammering,etc.,that would be expected to emit noise at much lower levels. Noise Analysis 20 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California during an eight hour day." In addition, grading operations"would be expected to be complete within a month" (Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting 2012). It is worth re-stating that construction noise is not subject to the Noise Level Standards during the daytime hours outlined in SSFMC 8-32.050(d), The assessment of construction noise received at the Child Care Center has been completed to demonstrate that sound levels from the Project Site are expected to be within the Noise Level Standards applicable to the Land Use Category at the Child Care Center, Table 3: Construction Noise at Nearest Noise Sensitive Deceiver lWoise Level Standard—C.t (dBA) Standard Standard Standard +5 + 10 +15 Standard Maximum Receiver l layime (not to be (not to be (not to be +20 Construction Sound Level exceeded exceeded exceeded (not to be Noise Event' Limits(dBA) for more for more four more exceeded at than 15 than 5 than 1 any time) minutes) minutes) minute) .. .._ _.. .__..�., w. ................. Genentech 2nd Generation 65 70 75 80 85 77 Child Care j Center`... . µ. Notes: ®Maximum construction noise event based on RCNM Lmax calculation of a grader operating at 125 feet .6 Conclusion Construction noise from the demolition and redevelopment Project at 475 Eccles Avenue is expected to comply with the noise limits established by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Noise Analysis 2.1 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California 6 References Allison !Knapp Wollam Consulting. 20112. 475 Eccles Avenue„ South San Francisco, California, Environmental Impact Report, SCH#2012082101. October. Available online at: http://ca- s uthsanfrancisco.civicplus. om/ ocumentCenterIView/4176. BAAQMD. 20110. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening.Analysis(HRSA) Guidelines. January. BAAQMD. 2012, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. Available online at; http:/t wwwwww.baagmd.g,ov/—/medial''File /Planning,*/120 and%2OResearch/CE IA/BAAf D1 /�2 UEQA%20G,uideline -FinaLMauy%20201 .ashx?la=en. California Code of Regulations"Title 13§2485. 2009. Airborne"Toxic Control Measure to limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle lading.. California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal/EPA), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA).. 1998. Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on The Report on Diesel Exhaust, as adopted at the Panel's April 22, 1998, meeting. Available online at:. hftp://www.arb,ca.govttoxicstdieseltacide-ftids.htm.Accessed February 2018. Cal/EPA. 2C 03. The Air"Toxics blot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of(Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.August. Available online at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot—spots/hraguidefinaMl.htmi.Accessed February 2013, Coal/EPA. 2009, 'Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors: Methodologies for Derivation, 0.isting of Available Values, and Adjustment to Allow for Early 0.ife Stage Exposures. May. Available online at: hftp-.//oehha,ca.gov/air/hot—spots/2009/TSDCancerPotency.pdf, Accessed February 2013. Cal/EPA, 2012. OEHHA/ARB Consolidated Table of Approved Risk Assessment Health Values, May 8. Available online at: hftp://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/contabile.pdf.Accessed) February 2018. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Regulation for In-use Off-road Diesel Vehicles. Available online at: hftp://www.arb-ca.gov/regact/2007/ordies107/frooal.pdf ARB. 2011a. In-Use Off-Road (Diesel Vehicle Regulation. December.Available online at: http:// ww,arb.Ica.gov/msprog/ordieseVregianguage,htm and hfp:/Avww.arb.cau,gov iregact/2010/offroa+dlsil01 naloffroadreg.pdf. ARB. 2011 b, Off-Road Diesel Equipment 2011 Inventory Model (OFFR DAD20111).Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/C,ate+gories.htm#offroad—motor vehicles. ARB. 2011 c. Emission FACtors Model, 2011 (EMFAC2011).Available online at: http-//www.arb.ca,gov/msei/modeling.htni#emfac2Ol 1—web—based—data. AR& 2011. d. EMFAC2011 Idling Emission Rates database, Available online at: http-./twww,arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac20l 1—idling_emission—rates.xlsx., References 22 ENiVIR N Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,California South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMQ). 2008, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Available online at:. hfp:flwww.agmd.gov/ce a/hanidbook/ist/Methcd- real,got. Accessed July 2013. United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). 1995. User's wide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISCB) Dispersion Models. Volume ll w Description of Model Algorithms. September. Available at http:// .epa govlscram0011userg/regmodfisc v2.pdf. USEPA. 2002. health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-90/057F. May. USEPA, 2004. Users Guide for the AMSIEPA Regulatory Model-AERMOD. EPA-454/13-03- 001. September.Available online at: hftp://www.epa.gov/scramOOl/7thconf/aermod/aermodugb.pdf. USEPA. 2005. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised). 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, Appendix W, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November. Available online at: hftp://www.epa.giov/ttn/scram/guidance/guidle/a� ppw-05.pdf. USEPA. 2013, Nonroad Compression-lgnition Engines-Exhaust Emission Standards. Available online at. hftp,//www,epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/nonroadci,htm Accessed July 2013,. References 23 ENVI'RON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise"technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California Figures ENi'VIRON Legend Eccles Construction Boundary Haul(Roads r'l1 4 w I U 1,000 2,000 Feet Q 25'0 500 m leters y�, ®®R0— Modeled SourcSources N Figure Y E I - 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco, California .� al Legend / A, y Eccles Construction Y d_ Seni Receptors u � r i / D r r 1%'� 6 %/ NU �I�k r �� !,"°�' a�// r / � f ///�„ / /oi i/gym�✓iii "" M 4 jm %/I%f//// N/r " /'S �Na6 Vac�1iannl t ,�/ /o j/10 ��, �i Genen4ech r ,G /1 erva�e�Inc �r�d G r�er ' "y/ ii kl �i+ �i ✓ /�i I Oe o/ r u'w� �1� G al w C III / Cafe Center "� � pi/, /r P / w D ll VA Ai, mr, gj// /�r' �� Ar ma �/ ?r��l C� n ra4ian @AIIleIori, aK' 'Al( / A fur ,ry r /i mil. / M' , d' i a !; ///' U ! 'di��,� IF, i 7` i 1,000 2,000 ... 0 250 500 r Meters „....��Jf/">i i, p1,,,�1'� i'{��ii �, �,Ti�A,�K✓IIRUda�/1/,..,_.u�,„�:. a �r���/i m�a�� J�,,, 'r-'!. d r�N`„ Vim' r�r ��°3�.�',,, ,. ,,,,,,, V lensi�tive Receptors a i�. 75 Eccles Aveinue,So o, . '%r Legend OM Eccles Construction Boundary '! 0 day Caere Center Receptors 0 50 100 Feet 0 25 50 Meters Receptors over 850 Gateway Boulevard N Figure ENVIRON 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco, California 3 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,California Appendix A Construction Equipment List Appendix A ENVIRON 475 Eccles Avenue Construction Equipment List Phasa ' OFFRSJAD Tf6f bNR 7 lr iA 4fNdar ruClllatCtlPB r Motll� wpniqua 11 1 Oemoikkon PC 360 2012 t1er 4 hydraulic excavator Excavators 257,.,. Soo 300 8.382 1 309.3...... 2013 1 Project ',.. Diesel 4 0 Eccles. .. 1 Il Demoldion _ PC450 2011 tier 3 hydraulic excavator Excavators 345 500 60D 0.382 1 309.3.. 2013 1 Project Diesel 3 0 Eccles 2 1 Demolition PC 600 2006 tier 3 hydraulic excavator Excavators 385 540 600 1 309.3 2013 1 ...Project Diesel 3 0 I Eccles 3 1 Demolition 863 Bobcat skid steer tier 2 Voader Sind Steer Load— 73 120 15 0.369 2 928 2013 1 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 4 1 Demolgion Backhoa .. Tractors/Loaders/Bac1shoes 75 120 100 2 928 2013 1 _..Project Diesel OFFROAD 0 Eccles 5 �. 1 Demolition Street sweeper Sweepers/Scrubbers 88 120 IOU 0.456 1 464 2013 1 Project Diesel OFFROAD 0 Eccles 6 1 Demolition Bobcat. Tractors/Lead!ers/Backhoes 75 120 100 0.369 1 464 2013 1 ..Project Diesel OFFROAD o ECdes 7 '.. 1 Demolition Misc.Equipment jmetal torches) Omer Construction Equipment 46 so SO 0.302 1 464 2013 1 project Diesel OFFR9AD m Eccles 8 4 1 Demolition ... Misc.Equipment{rmetaV cut offs) r Construction�Equlpment 5 527 11 OA15 7 464 ,.. 2013 1 Project iDiesel OFFROAD" �o Eccles 9 1 Demolition ,Compressor's Other Construction 78 12.0 TOG ..I 464 2013 1 ...Project Diesel DFFRpAD 0 Eccles I'D 2 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Dozers _..... 358 500 600 0.395 3 240 2016 4 Project Oiesel, 2 0 Ec.h s ties it 2 Site preparation Tractors oaders/Badrhoes Tractors/Loaders Backhoes 75 120 Soo 01369 4 320 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 12 3 Grading Excavators .... Exoavators .... 157 175 175 0.382 1 160 2016 4 ...Project oiesei 2... 0 Eccles 13 3 Grading Graders ,Graders 162 175 175 OA09 1 160 2016 4 ....Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 14 3 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Tired Dozers 396 Soo 600 1 16D 2016 4 Project Diesel 2..... 0 Eccles 15 3 Gmdilml Tractors/Loaders/Oackhoes 'Rubber Tractors/loaders/8'ackhaes 75 120 100 0.369 3 480 '.. 2016 4 project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 15 4 Building Construction Cranes Cranes 206 250 300 0.288 1 1610''. 2016 4 Project Diesel 2.... 0 Eccles 17 1 4 Building Construction Forklifts Forkl0ls 149 175 17S 0.201 3 5520 2016 4 ,..Project Diesel 2.. 0 Eccles 18 4 Building Construction Generator Sets Olher Construction Equipment 120 100 1 D 2015. 4 Project Electric 2.... 0 Eccles 19 4 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhaes TractorsAoaders/Backhoes 75 120 100 0.369 3 4830 2016 4 Project Otesel 2 0 Eccles 20 4 B'uilding'Comtructuon Welders Other�COnstruction Equipment 46 50 50... ..0302 1 1840 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 21 '. 5 Pavers 69 120 100 0.415 2 320 2017 5 Project Diesel 2 Eccles 22 5 Paving Paving Equipment .. PawingEguipmen4..... 82 120 100 ....0.355 2 320 2017 5 :..Project Diesel 2 Eccles 23 5 ,paving Rogers Rollers 84 120 100 ,0.375 2 320 2017 5 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 24 6 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Other Construction Equipment 78 120 „100 0.322 1 120 2017 5 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 25 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and II Ioise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,California. Appendix B Construction Emissions Data (electronic files) Appendix B l ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air QuaVlty and RNloise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,California Appendix C Air Dispersion Modeling Files (electronic files) Appendix G I ERNVRRO N Sensitive receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,South San Francisco,CalifbMia Appendix D BAAQM D-Recommended Mitigation Measures Appendix a 1 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue,.south San Francisco,California Mitigation,Measures for Fugitive Dula and VOC Control: Consistent with guidance from the BAACMC, the following specifications are required for control of fugitive dust and volatile organic compound(VOC)emissions: 1. All exposed surfaces(e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered . All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour(mph). . All roadways,driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.. wilding pads shall be laid as soon as passible after grading unless seeding or soil hinders are used, 6. 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, 7. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 2.0 mph. 8. Vegetative ground cover(e.g.,fast germinating native grans seed) or other plants that offer dust mitigation measures shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 9.. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. To the extent fusible, activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 10,All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 11, 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. 1 . The project applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of South San Francisco regarding dust complaints.This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The I AAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.. 13. Use low VOC (i.e,, ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Mule :Architectural Coatings), AppendN D 1 ENVIRON Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco„California Mitigation Wasure~s for Diesel Exhaust Control Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD as well as additional commitments from BMr, the following specifications are required for control of diesel exhaust emissions. I. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 2.. Construction equipment idling tunes shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes (sus opposed to the 5 minutes required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of regulations(CCRI). Clear signage shall be providled for construction workers at all access points. .. To the maximum extent feasible, all construction equipment,diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. 41. To the maximum extent feasible, all contractors shall use equipment that meets ArB®s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. Appendix Q 2 ENVI RQN Attachment E KB Engineering Peer Review n� 4 vi w�' <B -* l',nvironl-ental Sciences 475 Eccles Avenue Life Sciences Campus Genentech Daycare Center Sensitive Receptor Health Risk Assessment Peer Review September 10,2013 Background On August 22, 2012 an Initial Study' was submitted for the 475 Eccles Avenue Life Sciences Campus. The Project involves demolition of the existing building and construction of a new structure on an approximately 6.1-acre site in the City of South San Francisco, east of US Route 101. The Project sponsor is BioMed Realty (BMR). Demolition is scheduled to begin in late 2013. The start date for construction is not expected to be until the third quarter of 2016. As part of the Initial Study a health risk assessment (HRA) was conducted to examine the potential air quality impacts due to construction and operation of the Project. The Initial Study found impacts which were less than significant. However, the analysis did not include the Genentech Daycare Center, located at 850 Gateway Boulevard. On August 28, 2013 a HRA was submitted for the Genentech Daycare Center.2 The HRA for the Genentech Daycare Center was conducted by Environ, in a manner similar to the 475 Eccles Avenue Initial Study (i.e., source characteristics, seasonal emissions, meteorological data, terrain data, etc.). In accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management Guidance (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated May 2011) and California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)3 guidelines, the HRA evaluated the impacts of construction emissions from demolition and construction of the Life Sciences Campus on sensitive receptors (i.e., children attending daycare). This included off-road equipment such as excavators, graders, and cranes, as well as on-road trucks, including hauling debris or material to/from the site and water trucks for fugitive dust control. Idling of equipment onsite or queuing to get onsite was also evaluated. A grid of potential receptors (a total of 231 receptors) at the Genentech Daycare Center was modeled. Boundary and grid receptors at the Genentech Daycare Center were modeled with five meter spacing. Results Two scenarios were considered for children at the Genentech Daycare Center. In the first scenario, a child's exposure to construction activity at 475 Eccles Avenue begins with the demolition of the site, in 2013. In the second scenario, a child's exposure to construction activity at 475 Eccles Avenue commences when Project construction begins, in 2016. The results of these scenarios are discussed separately. The following summarizes the Environ results. For scenario 1, the cancer risk from the Project is 5.2 in a million. For scenario 2, potential impacts are 10.8 in a million (greater than the significance threshold of 10). However in light of relatively clean demolition construction fleet it is reasonable to project that at least 20 percent of the fleet horsepower-hours will be Tier 2 ' City of South San Francisco,475 Eccles Avenue Initial Study,August 22,2012. 2 Environ, Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis,475 Eccles Avenue,August 28,2013. s California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Air Toxics Hot Spot Program Risk Assessment Guideline,August 2003 and Toxicity Criteria Database,2010.ham://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/index.html. 1 PO Box 365 Indianola, WA 98342 T 360.265.8111 n� 4 vi w�' <B -* Environi-nental Sciences (federal emission standards) for building construction, so the results will be below 10 in a million. The annual average PM2.5 concentration is 0.073 pg/m3 (less than the significance threshold of 0.3 pg/m3), and the chronic Hazard Index (HI) is 0.015 (less than the significance threshold of 1). The results require a set of mitigation measures as documented further in this document. The results have been peer reviewed and conclusions have been verified. The peer review consisted of verifying the modeling inputs, the emission estimates, the analysis methodology, the resultant modeling concentrations, the location of maximum concentrations, and the resultant health impacts. The peer review assessed the health impacts for the Genentech Daycare Center based on the inclusion of the sensitive receptors into the Initial Study analysis as well as verification of the Environ analysis. There were a number of variations between the HRA for the Initial Study and the Environ analysis (e.g., treating the construction activities as an area versus volume sources, use of CALEEMod versus NONROAD2011/EMFAC2011 for emission estimates, data to determine terrain inputs, etc.). These variations affected the results to various degrees. However, the basic conclusions were consistent (i.e., the need for mitigation measures to reduce health impact to less than significant). The following summarizes the results based on the inclusion of the sensitive receptors into the Initial Study analysis. For scenario 1, the cancer risk from the Project is 6.4 in a million and 4.9 in a million (with tier 2 equipment). For scenario 2, the potential impacts are 10.9 in a million (greater than the significance threshold of 10). Assuming a tier 2 fleet for building construction, results are 8.2 in a million (less than significant). The annual average PM2.5 concentration and the chronic HI are less than significant. Thus, based on the emission reduction measures as part of the Project and additional incorporation of tier 2 construction equipment4, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the Genentech Daycare Center. Of note, the HRA models tend to be conservative, both in terms of the estimated exposure and the toxic effects of the substances to which people are exposed; that is, the models tend to overestimate the adverse health impacts. In fact, the BAAQMD describes the methods as "conservative, meaning that the real risks from a source may be lower than the calculations, but it is unlikely the risks will be higher.,5 Emission Reduction Measures The following measures are to be included as part of the Project. These measures are in addition to the City's standard requirements identified in Initial Study and are designed to reduce the environmental effect of the Project. Mitigation Measures for Fugitive Dust and VOC Control: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following specifications are required for control of fugitive dust and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions: 4 Tier 2 or better for 65 percent of horsepower-hours of off road diesel equipment during demolition activities and 20 percent of horsepower-hours of off road diesel equipment during construction activities. 5 BAAQMD,Frequently Asked Questions-Toxic Air Contaminants, http://www.baa md.gov/Divisions/En ineerin�/Air-Toxies/Frequently-Asked-Qtiesbons.as x 2 PO Box 365 Indianola, WA 98342 T 360.265.8111 w�' n' 4 vi 1 Environi-ental Sciences 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. 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. 7. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. [Occurs less than three percent of the year.] 8. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) or other plants that offer dust mitigation measures shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 9. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. To the extent feasible, activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 10. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 11. 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. 12. The project applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of South San Francisco regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 13. Use low VOC coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). Compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 during Demolition: Demolition of existing buildings and structures would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance of asbestos containing waste material generated or handled during these activities. The rule requires the notification of BAAQMD of any regulated renovation or demolition activity. This notification includes a description of structures and methods utilized to determine whether asbestos-containing materials are potentially present. All asbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition or renovation activity in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. Compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 for Architectural Coatings: Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to the use of architectural coatings are regulated by the 3 PO Box 365 Indianola, WA 98342 T 360.265.8111 n� 4 vi w�' <B -* Environi-ental Sciences limits contained in Regulation 8: Organic Compounds, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings (Rule 8-3). Rule 8-3 was recently revised to include more stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised VOC architectural coating limits, which became effective on January 1, 2011, are projected to result in a 32 percent reduction of VOC emissions in the Bay Area associated with architectural coating applications. Mitigation Measures for Diesel Exhaust Control: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD as well as additional commitments from BMR, the following specifications are required for control of diesel exhaust emissions: 1. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 2. Construction equipment idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes (as opposed to the 5 minutes required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 3. To the maximum extent feasible, all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. 4. To the maximum extent feasible, all contractors shall use equipment that meets ARB's most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. 4 PO Box 365 Indianola, WA 98342 T 360.265.8111 Attachment F Basic and Expanded Air Quality Measures 1) BASIC AM) l°,XPANi nl) FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES. The construction contractor shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing BAAQMD's basic fugitive dust control measures. Therefore, the Pro)ect shall include the following requirements in construction contracts: ➢ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ➢ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. ➢ All visible mud or dirt track-out onto ad)acent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. ➢ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. ➢ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ➢ A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. A:l.l exposed stirfaees slwall be watered at a fregtieru.ey adegtiate to mairu.tain.. ru.u.urui_ru.u.u.:um soil. rrr.a.oisttire of 1.2 percent. M.oisti.:are coru.teru.t can.. be verified by lab samples or rrr.a.oisttire probe. Al]. excavation, grading, and/or dernol.:i.t:i.on.. activities slwall be su;usperided wberi average wind speeds exceed 20 ru.u:plw. ).(.1s:°s:tars less tlwari tluree percent of tlwe year] Vegetative grot;ind cover (e.g., fast germinating ru.at:ive grass seed) or other pl.aru.ts that offer du.;ust mitigation ru.u.easu;ures slwall be pl.aru.ted in. distu.irbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately 13riti.l.vegetation is est bli.slwed. 'I'lwe sinu.u.:ul.taneotis os.°s:tirreru.ce of excavation grading and grotin.d,,,,disttirbi:ru.g coru.stru.;us:°ti.on.. activities on.. the sarrr.a.e area at any one ti_rrr.a.e slwall be limited. ".l:'o the exteru.t feasible, activities slwall be plwased to redu.;uee the arrr.a.ouru.t of distu.irbed su.;urfaees at any one ti_ru.u.e. Al]. trucks and egttipment, i.ru.el.tldiru.g their tires, slwall be waslwed off prior to qe vi:ru.g the site. Sandbags or other erosion.. control ru.u.easu.;ures slwall be installed to preveru.t silt ru.;m.od:f to ptibl.i.e roadways from sites witlw a slope greater tban.. one (1) percent. 2) BASIC AM) °,XPANnDE, D EXHAUST EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction to reduce construction- related exhaust emissions: ➢ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two (2) minutes Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ➢ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Al]. eonstru.;uetion.. egttipmentm diesel truus:°ks and geru.erators slwall be egttipped witlw Best .Available Control 1:'eelwriology for emission redu.;ueti.ons of NOx and PM to the maximi.im exterit feasible. To this end, all generators and air compressors tised on. site shall be electric. All on. road trticks tised onsite shall be Year Model 2007 or better. Propane or .l...,NG ftieled booms and scissorlifts shall be tised. Tier 2 or better for 20 percent of borsepower botirs of off-road diesel eqttipment shall be tised (Ittring constrtiction. and 65 percent of borsepower botirs (Ittring dernolition. All contractors shall, to the maximi.im exterit feasible, tise eqttipment that meets the A.R.B's most recent certification for off road heavy (11.1ty diesel erigiries. No onsite grinding, crtisbing or sbredding of asplialt or debris shall occtir onsite. Potential ftittire meastires that acbieve the same or better performance criteria shall be stibrnitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any clianges. Applicarit shall provide the City and Gerientecli witli alist of and scliedtile for dernolition, grading and constrtiction. eqttipment and activities. A constrtiction. superintendent shall be on. site (Ittring all dernolition, grading and constrtiction. activities to enforce these regi.t.lations. 3) COMPLIANCE WITH BAAQMD REGULATION 11, RULE 2 DURING DEMOLITION. Demolition of existing buildings and structures would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing waste material generated or handled during these activities. The rule requires the notification of BAAQMD of any regulated renovation or demolition activity. This notification includes a description of structures and methods utilized to determine whether asbestos-containing materials are potentially present. All asbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition or renovation activity in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. 4) COMPLIANCE WITH BAAQMD REGULATION 8, RULE 3 FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to the use of architectural coatings are regulated by the limits contained in Regulation 8: Organic Compounds, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings (Rule 8-3). Rule 8-3 was recently revised to include more stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised VOC architectural coating limits, which became effective on January 1, 2011, are projected to result in a 32 percent reduction of VOC emissions in the Bay Area associated with architectural coating applications. B.TRANSPORTATION AND GREEN HOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES The applicant proposes a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) (475 Eccles Avenue Transportation Demand Management Program, Fehr & Peers, October, 2011). The TDM Program is aimed at a 30 percent mode shift compared to projects that do not include a TDM, to qualify for a 1.0 FAR. The TDM Program is required by law to be reviewed by the City and modified by the Applicant as required by the City to meet the mode shift requirements. Performance audits are also required. The Applicant proposes the following measures, at a minimum, for the TDM Program: 1. Bicycle Parking (racks for visitors and sheltered bicycle parking for employees). 2. Shower and locker facilities (in lease agreement). 3. Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking. 4. Passenger loading zones for carpool and vanpool drop-off. 5. Pedestrian Connections. 6. TDM coordinator (in lease agreement). 7. Carpool/Vanpool Matching services (TDM coordinator responsibility). 8. Guaranteed ride home (through Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance). 9. Information Board for TDM Program (in lease agreement). 10. Promotional programs including new employee orientation and TDM Programs (TDM coordinator responsibility). 11. Shuttle bus service to Caltrain and BART and downtown Dasher, coordinated with Alliance (TDM coordinator responsibility.) 12. Membership in Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. C. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The LEED design and construction strategies that have been integrated into the planning documents include: 1. The use of a previously developed site without impacts associated with endangered species, flood plain, and adjacency to wetlands or bodies of water. 2. The Project will document and remediate asbestos previous to demolition. 3. A TDM Program that includes the use of public/privates shuttles providing access to major public transportation hubs. In addition to the requirements for bike parking the Project will include shower/changing room amenities for bike users. 4. The Project will provide adequate preferred parking for low-emitting and alternative fuel vehicles. The Project will provide fewer parking spaces than those referenced in local zoning requirements. 5. The Project provides more than 20 percent of the total site area in open space. More than 50 percent of all parking will be under cover to reduce heat island effects for site surfaces. 6. The Project has developed tenant design and construction guidelines including recommendations and requirements for tenant improvements. 7. Indoor plumbing fixtures within the core and shell design and those required by the tenant scope of work will achieve greater than a 30 percent water use reduction. 8. Site landscape and irrigation equipment will provide irrigation efficiencies greater than 50 percent reduction from a standard summer baseline. 9. The Project will provide fundamental and enhanced commissioning (Cx) of MEP energy systems, including a requirement for tenant improvement Enhanced Cx and a 10 month post-occupancy return to verify equipment warranty and operational efficiencies. Current energy model targets anticipate a greater than 15% reduction in energy compared to Title 24 and ASHRAE 90.1. Base building and tenant improvement mechanical and food service equipment will be required to comply with enhanced refrigerant management requirements. The Project will provide adequate areas for the collection and storage of recyclables, and tenants will be required to implement desk-side recycling. 10. The Project has developed a Construction Waste Management plan that targets at least 75% diversion of landfill waste, with a goal of 95% diversion. The Project has integrated requirements into planning specifications and plans to target a greater than 20%recycled and regional content (by cost) in all building materials for the project. The Project will target a greater than 50 percent FSC certified wood content (by cost) in all new wood building materials for the project. 11. The Project will require, and require tenants, all materials installed within the vapor barrier of the Project to comply with LEED/CalGreen VOC & CARB requirements, and specifically contain no-added urea-formaldehyde (NAUF) products. The Project will conduct, and require tenants to conduct, and Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for Construction Activities that requires contractors to comply with SMACNA IAQ guidelines for best practices during construction. Attachment G September 2013 Demolition Process Letter .m.. . ...__.-............. .,..... BioMed Realty, L.P. 17190 Bernardo Center Drive • San Diego,California 92128 Phone:(858)485-9840 • Facsimile:(858)485-9843 475 Eccles Demolition and Construction September 6, 2013 BioMed Realty is planning to demolish the building at 475 Eccles and construct a new life science campus consisting of two buildings that together would comprise 262,287 square feet, a five-level parking structure and surface parking. This report documents the analysis that indicates there will be no significant increase in health risks to the children at the Genetech Daycare Center located at 850 Gateway Boulevard, and no significant noise impacts. This report also provides general information about the project that parents may find useful. Demolition and Construction Plans Demolition of the 475 Eccles building is projected to occur over a four-week period in the Fall of 2013. We then anticipate a lull at this site of several years, during which time we will be conducting demolition and construction of another project at 800 and 1000 Gateway Boulevard.'. Our estimate for construction at 475 Eccles is that it will start in the Fall of 2016, and continue for approximately two years. The details of the demolition and construction are contained in the attached site logistics plan (Attachment 1). Construction vehicles will access the site from Eccles Avenue, and the truck route is along Eccles as well. This arrangement puts the construction traffic on the opposite side of the construction site from the Genentech daycare facility. The new buildings that are proposed are depicted in Attachment 2. Health Risk Assessment BioMed had a Health Risk Assessment performed by ENVIRON, one of the most respect air quality firms in California. The report that resulted from this analysis is attached (Attachment 3). This report confirms that no significant increases in health risks are projected for the Eccles project. The study used conservative assumptions (summarized in items 1 —7 below) and determined that the measures BioMed is planning to implement will ensure there are no significant health risk impacts. 1. The analysis assumes that children are at the daycare for 12 hours per day for 245 weekdays per year, and therefore assumes each child is exposed to the full extent of emissions. We understand that many children are present for less time. I The demolition and construction work we intend to perform for 800 and 1000 Gateway is addressed in a separate report. Neither the demolition or construction periods of the two projects are expected to overlap, which will help ensure that the daycare children do not experience emissions from both projects at once. 2. The analysis assumes that a child would arrive at the daycare center at the age of 6 weeks and stay continuously until age 6. Two scenarios were analyzed; one captured the longest projected exposure such a child might face (an infant entering daycare at the start of demolition in Fall 2013 staying through age 4V2) , and the second captured the most intense level of projected emissions (an infant entering daycare at the start of construction and staying through the projected 24-month construction period, with all construction emissions concentrated into that period). 3. ENVIRON assumed all children stayed outside all day. We understand that, though windows and doors are often kept open at the daycare center, the children are in fact inside for several hours during the day, which would reduce exposure levels. 4. The analysis employs an air dispersion model recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International Airport. This model is designed to be health protective, i.e., it predicts a conservatively high level of concentrations of pollutants at the daycare. 5. The analysis assumes that demolition and construction activities would occupy a full eight-hour work day, five days a week, without accounting for the short days and holiday breaks that are common in the construction industry. 6. ENVIRON used data from the actual equipment and practices BioMed's demolition contractor will use for the demolition phase and similar equipment we intend to require our contractors to use for the construction phase, rather than allowing use of more common,but older and more polluting equipment or engines. 7. The analysis is based on data regarding the amount of onsite idling time that is typical for construction vehicles statewide, though we intend to prevent onsite idling to the maximum extend feasible for all onsite engines for on-road equipment. (As noted below, BioMed intends to limit off-road equipment located on site to 2-minute idling times, and that 2-minute idling limitation was incorporated into the analysis.) Even with these conservative (i.e., health protective) assumptions, the analysis demonstrates that the Eccles project is not projected to create significant health risk increases. This is due in large part to the protective measures we intend to employ. These measures are as follows: • Compliance with all of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's recommended construction mitigation measures, which are set forth in Appendix D of ENVIRON's report. • Limit all off-road construction equipment to 2 minute idling while onsite. • Electrify all generators and air compressors • Model Year 2007 or better onroad trucks • Propane or LNG-fueled boom and scissor lifts - 2 - • Tier 2 or better for 20% of horsepower-hours of off road diesel equipment during construction; for 65% of horsepower-hours during demolition • During demolition, no onsite grinding, crushing or shredding of asphalt, concrete or debris Should BioMed decide to use different measures in the future, we are proposing to the City that we be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, that the different measures also result in no significant increase in health risks. BioMed will provide to Genentech the equipment list for demolition. BioMed will provide an equipment list for construction when such list is available. Noise ENVIRON also studied the impact of construction noise on the children at the Genentech Daycare Center. The report concludes that construction noise from the demolition and redevelopment Project at 475 Eccles Avenue is expected to comply with the noise limits established by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. BioMed will identify a disturbance coordinator to Genentech before commencing work. K vin M. Simonsen Vice President, Real Estate Legal Attachment 1: Site Logistics Plan Attachment 2: Diagram of New Buildings Attachment 3: ENVIRON Report - 3 - Attachment H State Clearinghouse Letter of Compliance o�P[gry E % dial' a.." �, STATE OF CA1. 8FC3 NIA m Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit r�a Edmund G.Brown Jr. Ken Alex Governor Director December 11,2012 Mr. Billy Gross City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: 475 Eccles Avenue SC #: 2012082101 Dear Mr.Billy Gross: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on December 10, 2012,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied v�ith the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Scok, Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SAMUVIENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov o ff PLN F rv`;Y STATE OF CALIFORNIA °�&A � ® Governor's Office of Planning and Research o State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit TA T F W Ox reUF Edmund G.Brown Jr. Ken AIex Governor Director December 14,2012 In Mr. Billy Gross City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: 475 Eccles Avenue SCH#: 2012082101 Dear Mr.Billy Gross: The enclosed comment(s)on your Draft EIR was (were)received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on December 10,2012. We are forwarding these colnlneirts to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However,we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number(2012082101)when contacting this office. Sincerely, Sc organ Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.Q.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 958123044 TEL(916)40-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov uS l l l uy. UM I IIMT40 P IIP®` -"i.M+.1U v LP9IVIV3.tvu, ✓i V 'L ✓✓a ' ate.... i v .� .� •+✓� evr} �•y•+ . ^ To: STATEGLEARINGHOU At: 919163-293018 :. MV tis .rci�a �1ri nar;AGISk(Y fiTJMil..D.. owN tr.;erovmncr 1•i! . AV-FN .23yy'f1p' ryy /pdd ..(510)21tb-6053 •Fleryu�srpuwrx+• . j1a yens deny! FAX 570) -55.59 TTY 71.1 December,1.4,2012 .. 1 l:1 : .1 1471 1 1-22.7 SC #2 12 1'01° city. Sat~ rartcis c o i r .c.• i1 roes' 'Planwng Division, 315 Maple Avvn4e .. . South San °Y c-s ;.. 41:1'83 Duar'Mr. roes: Eccles. V ''. ...• t•o(„I• •'.'• .: tiotc t s in t you 'L°0. ••.•rx •°t •.` ii:` ;:.,•� ::.. li f... . , Sri n. en 1. vi oi;es . ., . '.e• '` ve pi°oj ct: ht; i�llo�rin 'co .. ' re the Drift' v o tal' • act • . :. .. . • ®. •. . .' .... •r> wp �14�:: :r .. ;zr:1'r�t`,'�;° °;..iii •� '� 7 ..' 1� .�`u�,®� � 't�'a ..;. o� fei the ti$tltt~c f: " tso :' n rs,.; tn' < 'tici ,.th f ' . . T . n e.243 Z - ear• Table 1 ' ` correct s x c s 2 3 ) (214) l '° fo n I• rs ' ,"• : pct 3: .�rl , :.• u .. • la dil es n a 500-foot sou oun left-turn' ass provide eas ,to tx to the. ess' • pocket .th Ai • , v ran • e inters Existing . . i to accts• o to lus b ecr.. traffic queuc of 337• . e-1� i ::.:' .: of - mn t for ' aiir share fee • ' i do . _ .. ry......:::::.:....,... . .. ,. ` ®k'64 .< : e t 11 ` 2 lae 3r. nestio s`. ..din : ..s, Et inc el , FRIK ALM>'A isirict 'r6n6 'C'1i cal DLVeloprndat t ov t z .t 1". e . r: to• l • aft ... . ®''G®[Yf Q;iS!ri[pl Ub'Cd'md,dTttP,d•�C9S��dE1dj0YHI°C'® '. . ' Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations L Introduction The 475 Eccles Avenue R&D Project("Project") consists of the development of an approximately 6.1 acre Office/Research& Development(R&D)business park, located at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. The proposed project consists of the construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0 with up to a total of 262,287 square feet and a four story parking structure. The objectives of the project are as follows: • Encourage redevelopment and intensification of development to accommodate land uses such as Research & Development. • Encourage opportunities for the continued evolution of the City's economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology. • Promote small business incubation. • Encourage the creation of a campus environment in the East of 101 area that targets and accommodates the biotech/R&D industry. • Promote campus-style biotechnology uses. • Maximize building heights in the East of 101 area. • Encourage the use of Transportation Demand Management measures designed to achieve environmental goals by permitting an increased Floor Area Ratio when such measures are included in a project. • Maximize opportunities for strong and sustainable economic growth that results in high quality jobs, in a manner that respects the environment by redeveloping an infill site that is close to major arterials and existing utilities. • Feasibly support the provision of environmental enhancements that exceed standard building requirements, such as qualifying for LEED certification. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), states that if a project would result in significant environmental impacts, it may be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives are proposed which avoid or substantially lessen the impact or if there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which justify approval notwithstanding unmitigated impacts. When an environmental impact report ("EIV) has been completed which identifies one or more potentially significant or significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings for each identified significant impact: I. Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR have been required or incorporated into the project; or 2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or 3. Specific economic, social or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, §21081). A lead agency need not make any findings for impacts that the EIR concludes are less than significant. (See ibid; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland(1993) 23 Ca1.App.4m 704, 716.) As lead agency under California Code of Regulations, title 14, Section 15367, the City of South San Francisco ("City") hereby adopts the following CEQA findings relating to the 475 Eccles Avenue R&D Project environmental review documents, including the 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") certified by the City on , 2016. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR are collectively referred to herein as the "EM'. II. General Findings The EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21178, and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000-15387, to address the environmental impacts associated with the project described above. As required by Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts resulting from approval, construction, and operation of the Project, and identifies feasible means of minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts. The City is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Project and the EIR was prepared under the direction and supervision of the City. Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that"public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA"are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to state that"in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof" The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an Environmental Impact Report is required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that"[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that"[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that"[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).) The concept of"feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Ca1.App.3d 410, 417.) "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid, see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn.v. City of Oakland(1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving...any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, supra, 52 Ca1.3d at p. 576.) These Findings constitute the City Council members' best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the impacts listed below that are identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted through project approval, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the EIR. Even with mitigation, however, the City Council recognized that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. III. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The following significant impacts would not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, even with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. No mitigation is feasible that would mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The City has determined that the impacts identified below are acceptable because of overriding economic, social or other considerations, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations presented below. Impact 9.11: The Project would increase year 2015 AM peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 2.3 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project would increase off-ramp volumes from 1,762 up to 1,803 vehicles with 2015 without Project volumes already exceeding the 1,500 vehicles per hour diverge capacity limit. Finding: No mitigation is available. City Public Works staff has determined that providing the necessary mitigation to provide a second U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline would not be feasible due to the limited distance between the flyover off-ramp diverge and the southbound off-ramp diverge to Airport Boulevard.. Impact 13.A: The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection during the AM Peak Hour. The Project would increase volumes at this off-ramp by 1.4 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would backup to the freeway mainline more frequently. Finding: In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other mitigation measures considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that would reduce 95th percentile off-ramp queuing within available storage beyond those recommended for 2035 unacceptable surface street queuing (Mitigation Measure 12.A). Additional measures would potentially include widening Oyster Point Boulevard an additional two to four lanes between Veterans Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard (through the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) as well as widening the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp by an additional lane on its approach to Oyster Point Boulevard. Widening Oyster Point Boulevard through part of the interchange area would be infeasible due to the limitations imposed by the location of the support columns for the southbound flyover off-ramp. Oyster Point Boulevard and off-ramp widening would also require expansion of bridge structures, which would be prohibitively expensive. Provision of additional lanes would require acquisition of additional righty-of-way along Oyster Point Boulevard. Also, provision of additional eastbound lanes on the Oyster Point and Flyover off-ramp intersection approaches would not be feasible due to the complexity of merging the departure lanes on the eastbound (departure leg) of the intersection.. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 13.11: The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection during the AM Peak Hour. The Project would increase volumes at this off-ramp by 1.3 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would back up to the freeway mainline more frequently. Finding: There are no additional improvements considered financially feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that could be provided at either the off-ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off-ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. Therefore the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 13.C: Implementation of the Project would increase year 2035 AM peak hour without Proj ect traffic volumes by 1.4 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project would increase off- ramp volumes from 2,454 up to 2,488 vehicles with 2035 without Project volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour capacity of the off-ramp. Finding: No improvements are considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff to mitigate the impact. Should it be desired to provide a second off-ramp lane connection from the freeway mainline to the Southbound Off-Ramp (flyover)to Oyster Point Boulevard, it would likely be necessary to move the Southbound Off-Ramp connection to Airport Boulevard further north to provide more separation between the two southbound off-ramps. A second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline would require a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane with only 300 feet of available space. This would be infeasible given the restrictions imposed by the location of the northbound off-ramp overpass connection to Bayshore Boulevard. There is no room for provision of this lane. Therefore the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 13.1): The Project would increase PM peak hour on-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue Intersection. Volumes would be increased by 1.1 percent(from 2,572 up to 2,601 vehicles)with Year 2035 without Project volumes already exceeding the on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour. Finding: Provision of a second on-ramp lane would increase capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour. While this measure would accommodate the 2035 with Project volume of about 2,601 vehicles per hour, it would require the approval of Caltrans, which is not guaranteed. Therefore the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. IV. Less-Than-Significant Impacts With Mitigation The Final EIR determined that the project has potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas discussed below. The Final EIR identified feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce some or all of the environmental impacts in these areas. Based on the information and analyses set forth in the Final EIR, and the entirety of the Record before it, including without limitation the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Conditions of Approval, the City finds that for each of the following project impacts, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. As described in further detail below and in the Final EIR, the following impacts will be less than significant with identified feasible mitigation measures. Impact 4: The Project would increase existing AM Peak Hour volumes on the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive by 1.9 percent, where current volumes already exceed capacity limits. The off-ramp volume of 1,618 vehicles under Existing without Project conditions would be increased to 1,649 vehicles under Existing with Project conditions at a location with an off-ramp diverge capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour. Mitigation Measure 4: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Finding: The City has determined that the improvement in Mitigation Measure 4 is feasible and would restore off-ramp diverge operation to an acceptable level, and therefore the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 8: The Project would increase vehicle queuing at Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp during the AM Peak Hour by 1.7 percent in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue at a location with unacceptable 2015 Without Project 95th percentile queuing. These levels are determined to be unacceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under 2015 with Project conditions. The eastbound through movement queue per lane would increase from 336 up to 341 feet in a location with only 250 feet of storage per lane. Mitigation Measure 8: The applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards adjusting the signal light timing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue intersection as shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Finding: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 8 are feasible and would restore intersection operations to an acceptable level. The City has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City will collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 area to construct these improvements. With the payment of the Project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the Project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 9.A: The Project would increase year 2015 AM peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 2.3 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard Intersection which would increase backups extending to the freeway mainline. There would be more frequency with vehicles backing up to the freeway mainline. Mitigation Measure 9A: The applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to adjust the signal timing and restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection eastbound approach from a left, two through lanes and a combined through/right turn lane to a left, two through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane. The full fair- share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City Finding: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 9A are feasible and would restore intersection operations to an acceptable level. The City has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City will collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 area to construct these improvements. With the payment of the Project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the Project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 11: The Project would increase year 203 5 without Project traffic volumes by 2.1 percent at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection. The increase would occur during the AM Peak Hour and would result in a significant impact at an intersection projected to operate unacceptably at LOS F during year 2035 without Project conditions. Mitigation Measure 11: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to provide an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection. The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Finding: The City has determined that Mitigation Measure 11 is feasible and would reduce the Project's impact to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection to a less than significant level. Impact 12.A: The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.5.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. Project traffic would increase volumes by 1.5 percent, which would already be experiencing unacceptable 2035 without Project 95th percentile queuing. The eastbound queues would increase from 1,163 up to 1,187 feet in a location with only 900 feet of storage in the existing through lanes. The increase is above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco. Mitigation Measure 12.A: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to adjust the signal timing; restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, two exclusive through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane; and restripe the exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound U.S.10 1 flyover off- ramp approach to allow through movements. This will also require provision of a third eastbound departure lane for eastbound through traffic from the off-ramp. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Finding: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 12A are feasible and would restore intersection operations to an acceptable level. The City has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City will collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 area to construct these improvements. With the payment of the Project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the Project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 12.11: The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.5.101 Northbound Off- Ramp intersection in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. Project traffic would increase volumes by 1.4 percent, which would already be experiencing unacceptable 2035 without Project queuing. The eastbound queues would increase from 638 up to 640 feet in a location with only 250 feet of storage. The Project would also unacceptably increase volumes by 1.3 percent during the PM Peak Hour in the right turn lanes on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to the U.S. 101 northbound on-ramp at a location with unacceptable 2015 "without Project" queuing. The westbound right turn queue would increase from 1,148 up to 1,156 feet in a location with only 840 feet of storage. The increase is above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco. Mitigation Measure 12.11: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to restripe the exclusive through lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach adjacent to the dual right turn lanes to also allow right turn movements; and to adjust signal timing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Finding: The City has determined that the improvements described under Mitigation Measure 12.B are feasible. This impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. The improvements are planned for and included in the City's CIP. Impact 15: Project-related traffic would access Eccles Avenue via three driveways where safety impacts would result at the southern and central driveway connections due to sight line issues. Mitigation Measure 15: The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining landscaping along the Eccles Avenue Project frontage between the central and south driveways that will allow exiting drivers to maintain the minimum required 250-foot sight lines at the central and south driveways. The landscape plan shall be revised to show staggered tree planting along this frontage to allow sight lines through the trees as they grow and reach maturity; or, the trees and landscaping shall be maintained to provide a view from 2.5 to 6 feet above grade. The landscape plan shall be revised to note either requirement, show the line-of-sight triangles and not the requirement. These notes shall be on the building plans that are a part of the building permit issuance. The note shall be made on the plans in conformance with the lines of sight required as set forth in Traffic Figure 24 to insure that the mitigation is permanently maintained. Finding: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described above in Mitigation Measure 15are feasible and would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 16: On-site circulation would adequately conform to City guidelines and good traffic engineering practice with the exception of the first internal intersection at the southern driveway which could result in right-of way conflicts. Mitigation Measure 16: The applicant shall provide stop sign control on the southbound parking aisle approach to the south driveway adjacent to the southeast corner of the garage, show the stop sign on the building permit plans and install the sign prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Finding: The City has determined that Mitigation Measures 16 is feasible and would reduce the impact at this location to a less than significant level. V. Findings Regarding Alternatives Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that"public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA"are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EM must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be"infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project(City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Ca1.App.3d 410, 417). "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Ca1.App.4th 704, 715). Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision-makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible. Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR discussed several alternatives to the Project in order to present a reasonable range of options. The alternatives evaluated included: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 Alternative Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative The City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate all feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Project and could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the Project objectives and might be more costly. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the EIR is not unduly limited or narrow. The City Council also finds that all reasonable alternatives were reviewed, analyzed and discussed in the review process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Project. (See Draft EIR, Chapter 5.) A. No Project Alternative As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a"No Project" Alternative (Alternative A). In this case, the No Project Alternative consists of a"No Project/No Build" alternative, which is defined as the circumstances under which the project would not proceed (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)3)(B)). Evaluation of this alternative allows the City to compare the impact of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project and maintenance of the existing environmental setting on the project site. The No Project Alternative would be a feasible alternative, but it would not meet the project objectives of redeveloping the project site to create quality employment opportunities, providing quality R&D facilities for the East ofl01 Area, generating net property taxes and sales taxes, or creating campus-style office and high-quality office and R&D uses. Impacts: Implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid environmental impacts in all categories to less-than-significant levels, as no development would occur under this alternative. However, traffic in the area would continue to increase due to other development. This increase in traffic would result in a decrease in intersection LOS, and unacceptable vehicle queuing at some intersections, off-ramps, and freeway mainlines. Therefore, although there would be no new trips generated under the No Project Alternative, traffic congestion would increase in the area to unacceptable conditions, and some impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Finding: The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, including increasing quality employment opportunities, providing quality R&D facilities for the East of 101 Area, generating net property taxes and sales taxes, or creating campus-style office and high- quality office and R&D uses. The No Project Alternative would not maximize opportunities for strong and sustainable economic growth that results in high quality jobs, in a manner that respects the environment by redeveloping an infill site that is close to major arterials and existing utilities. Accordingly, the City Council finds the No Project Alternative to be infeasible. B. Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 Alternative The 0.75 FAR Alternative would reduce the size of the Project by 25 percent from 267,287 to 196,715 square feet. The Project would likely result in most of the site improvements identified with the Project. Therefore, the LEED Silver level construction and operational measures would be in place along with the TDM Program and the site characterization and remediation and water quality measures would be in place. Landscaping and site porosity would be increased but likely to a lesser extent than that associated with the Project. Surface parking and paving decreased. The 25 percent reduction in development intensity would result in fewer employees at the site. The estimated number of employees under this alternative would be 675. The overall site square footage would be reduced although the footprint of the Project would not change. Biotechnology/R&D requires about a 30,000 square foot building footprint for optimal efficiency that also includes minimum floor to ceiling heights and desired floor plates. Impacts: Reducing the development intensity to 0.75 FAR would avoid two significant and unavoidable impacts related to vehicular traffic. However, although this alternative would generate fewer trips, it would not reduce all of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic and circulation. Finding: The Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 would be a possible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site and would meet all of the project's objectives, including creating a cohesive working campus environment, emphasizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and allowing the incremental and phased development of the site. However, this alternative would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic, would generate less revenue from private redevelopment and may not be economically feasible, and is incapable of fully promoting the City's underlying goals with respect to the Project. Accordingly, the City Council finds the Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 Alternative to be infeasible. C. Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative The 0.50 FAR Alternative would reduce the size of the Project by 50 percent, from 262,287 to 131,143 square feet. The resulting project would be smaller than the 152,145 square feet that currently exists on the site. Site development would likely consist of one R&D building and surface parking. Approximately 328 parking spaces would be necessary for the 0.50 FAR Alternative based upon the 2.5 spaces/1,000 square feet proposed by the Project. The 0.50 FAR Alternative would likely employ approximately half that expected with the Project, or 450 people. A project reduced by half would likely result in a dramatically different project on the ground. Structured parking would likely give way to surface parking; similar to the current development on the site. The site improvement measures that the City requires by law would be required to be incorporated into the construction and design of the 0.50 FAR Alternative. The measures include landscaping to code (but not likely beyond); and NPDES C-3 water quality improvements. A TDM Program may not be required (if Project trips do not exceed 100 during the peak period). Other Project enhancements such as additional landscaping and LEED Silver level measures would be at jeopardy as "value engineering" or reductions in development costs would likely take effect. This alternative would also result in decreased property taxes and sales taxes due to the reduced square footage. Impacts: Reducing the development intensity to 0.50 FAR would eliminate four of the five significant unavoidable impacts associated with the Project. However, although this alternative would generate fewer trips, it would not reduce all of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic and circulation. Finding: The 0.50 FAR Alternative would considerably limit the ability of the Project to be competitive in the market place. The 0.50 FAR Alternative would not result in intensification of research and development opportunities on the site or in the area; would not encourage opportunities for the continued evolution of the City's economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology or encourage the creation of a campus environment in the East of 101 area that targets and accommodates the biotech/R&D industry. The 0.50 FAR Alternative would not promote campus-style biotechnology uses. Opportunities to promote strong and sustainable economic growth resulting in high quality in a manner that respects the environment by redeveloping an infill site that is close to major arterials and existing utilities would be seriously compromised. The 0.50 FAR Alternative would not likely support the provision of environmental enhancements that exceed standard building requirements, such as qualifying for LEED certification and would likely, as noted above, give way to value engineering. This alternative would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic, would generate less revenue from private redevelopment and may not be economically feasible, and is incapable of fully promoting the City's underlying goals with respect to the Project. Accordingly, the City Council finds the Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative to be infeasible. D. Environmentally Superior Alternative The State CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be selected. The State CEQA Guidelines also note"if the environmentally superior alternative is the `no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City. Under the No Project Alternative, the site would remain vacant and no development would occur, and would have the least environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the key objectives of the proposed project with respect to development of the site. CEQA requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]). Based on the analysis provided above, it has been determined that the Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, because this alternative would result in the next greatest reduction in significant project impacts to noise and traffic. The alternatives to the project considered in this analysis propose either no development on the site, or reduced FAR of 0.75 or 0.5 on the site. However, although all of these alternatives would result in some reduction in employees and vehicle trips to the project site, none of the alternatives would reduce impacts to a level that would avoid all significant unavoidable impacts to traffic. Therefore, none of the evaluated alternatives is superior in this regard and, similar to the project, all alternatives would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts. VI. Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the 475 Eccles Avenue R&D Proj ect EIR(SCH No. 2012082101; Certified , 2016 by Resolution No. ), as further identified and described in Section III of these Findings. The City Council has carefully considered each impact, has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, and has balanced the economic, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against the significant and unavoidable impact associated with the Project. The City Council has also examined potentially feasible alternatives to the Project, none of which would both meet most of the project objectives and result in substantial reduction or avoidance of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The City Council hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project and the anticipated economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project. • The Project is expected to generate a new source of significant tax revenue for the City. Additionally, at full build out, the Project is expected to employ an additional 900 employees. • The existing physical environment consists of a vacant lot, with limited sidewalks and minimal site improvements, and which lacks amenities. The Project will convert the property to uses consistent with research and development uses, including additional amenities and improvements. The proposed project will provide site improvements that will improve the overall aesthetic character of the site. • The Project is consistent with the General Plan Guiding Policies for the East of 101 Area, which provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses and promotes high-technology and research and development uses. • The Project is consistent with General Plan Implementing Policies, which generally promote research and development uses, to the exclusion of residential and more traditional industrial uses. • The Project is designed to take advantage of and promote the use of public transit by adopting a Transportation Demand Management Plan that provides incentives for employees to use alternative modes of transportation. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION/MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY AGENCY/TIMING 4 The Project would increase existing AM Peak The applicant shall provide a fair share • City Engineer determines the fair share Hour volumes on the U.S.101 Northbound Off- contribution for a second off ramp lane financial contribution. Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive connection to the U.S.101 freeway at the • Applicant paps the full share by 1.9 percent,where current volumes already U.S.101 Northbound Off Ramp to East contribution poor to issuance of the exceed capacity limits. The off ramp volume of Grand Avenue/Executive Drive. Certificate of Occupancy by the Cite. 1,618 vehicles under Existing without Project Improvements are shown in Trafzc Figure Monitored by the City Engineer. conditions would be increased to 1,649 vehicles 22,Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane under Existing with Project conditions at a Geometrics and Control. location with an off-ramp diverge capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour. 8 The Project would increase vehicle queuing at The applicant shall provide a fair share • City Engineer determines the fair share Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. contribution to go towards adjusting the financial contribution. 101 Northbound On-Ramp during the AM Peak signal light timing at the Oyster Point • Applicant paps the full share Hour by 1.7 percent in the through lanes on the Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection. contribut on prior to issuance of the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Improvements are shown in Trafzc Figure Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Dubuque Avenue at a location with unacceptable 22,Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Monitored by the City Engineer. 2015 Without Project 95th percentile queuing. Geometrics and Control. These levels are determined to be unacceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under 2015 with Project conditions.The eastbound through movement queue per lane would increase from 336 up to 341 feet in a location with only 250 feet of storage per lane. 9.A The Project would increase year 2015 AM peak The applicant shall provide a fair share • City Engineer determines the fair share hour without Project traffic volumes by 2.3 contribution to adjust the signal timing and financial contribution. percent at the U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to restripe the Oyster Point • Applicant paps the full share Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection contribution prior to issuance of the Intersection which would increase backups eastbound approach from a left,two Certificate of Occupancy by the City. extending to the freeway mainline. There would through lanes and a combined Mon toned by the City Engineer. be more frequency with vehicles backing up to through/right turn lane to a left,two the freeway mainline. through lanes and an exclusive tight turn ADMINISTRdTI T DRAFT FIR/2.0 EXECUTIVE SU1A -L-RY 475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRz�NCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-8 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUNINLA.RY LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION/MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY AGENCY/TIMING lane. Improvements are shown in Tffic Figure 22,Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. 11 The Project would increase year 2035 without The applicant shall provide a fair share • City Engineer determines the fair share Project traffic volumes by 2.1 percent at the contribution to provide an exclusive right financial contribution. Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point • Applicant paps the full share intersection.The increase would occur during the Boulevard approach at the Oyster Point contribution prior to issuance of the AM Peak Hour and would result in a significant Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection. Certificate of Occupancy by the Cite. impact at an intersection projected to operate Improvements are shown in Trafzc Figure Monitored by the Cite Engineer. unacceptably at LOS F during year 2035 without 22,Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Project conditions. Geometrics and Control. 12.A The Project would unacceptably increase year The applicant shall provide a fair share • City Engineer determines the fair share 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle contribution to adjust the signal timing; financial contribution. queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway restripe the eastbound Oyster Point • Applicant paps the full share Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off- Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive contribution prior to issuance of the Ramp intersection in the through lanes on the left turn lane,two exclusive through lanes Certificate of Occupancy by the Cite. eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. and an exclusive right turn lane;and Project traffic would increase volumes by 1.5 restripe the exclusive right turn lane on the • Monitored by the Cite Engineer. percent,which would already be experiencing eastbound U.S.101 flyover off ramp unacceptable 2035 without Project 9511,percentile approach to allow through movements. queuing. The eastbound queues would increase This will also require provision of a third from 1,163 up to 1,187 feet in a location with eastbound departure lane for eastbound only 900 feet of storage in the existing through through traffic from the off ramp. lanes.The increase is above levels determined to Improvements are shown in Trafzc Figure be acceptable by the Cite of South San Francisco. 22,Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. 12.B The Project would unacceptably increase pear The applicant shall provide a fair share • City Engineer determines the fair share 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle contribution to restripe the exclusive financial contribution. queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque through lane on the westbound Oyster • Applicant paps the full share Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound Off Ramp Point Boulevard approach adjacent to the contribution prior to issuance of the intersection in the through lanes on the dual right turn lanes to also allow right turn Certificate of Occupancy by the City. eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. movements; and to adjust signal timing at Project traffic would increase volumes by 1.4 the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque • Monitored by the City Engineer. percent,which would already be experiencing Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. DRAFT FIR/2.0 EXECUTIVE SU1A -L-RY 475 ECCLES A-\,FNUE,SOUTH SAN FRz�NCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-9 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUNINLA.RY LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION/MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY AGENCY/TIMING unacceptable 2035 without Project queuing. The Improvements are shown in Taffic Figure eastbound queues would increase from 638 up to 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane 640 feet in a location with only 250 feet of Geometrics and Control. storage.The Project would also unacceptably increase volumes by 1.3 percent during the PAI Peak Hour in the tight turn lanes on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to the U.S.101 northbound on-ramp at a location with unacceptable 2015"without Project" queuing. The westbound tight turn queue would increase from 1,148 up to 1,156 feet in a location with only 840 feet of storage. The increase is above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco. 15 Project-related traffic would access Eccles The applicant shall be responsible • Applicant shall make the notes on the Avenue via three driveways where safety impacts maintaining landscaping along the Eccles plans submitted as part of the building would result at the southern and central driveway Avenue Project frontage between the permit review process in conformance connections due to sight line issues. central and south driveways that will allow with mitigation 15. Applicant or exiting drivers being able to maintain the designee shall maintain landscaping for minimum required 250-foot sight lines at the life of the Project as specified. the central and south driveways.The • Notes shall be shown on plans that are landscape plan shall be revised to show approved for building permits. staggered tree planting along this frontage Monitored by the Project Planner as part to allow sight lines through the trees as they grow and reach maturity;or,the trees and of the permit process. landscaping shall be maintained to provide a view from 2.5 to 6 feet above grade.The landscape plan shall be revised to note either requirement,show the line-of-sight triangles and not the requirement. These notes shall be on the building plans that are a part of the building permit issuance. The note shall be made on the plans in conformance with the lines of sight DRAFT FIR/2.0 EXECUTIVE SU1A -U1RY 475 ECCLES AvFNUE,SOUTH SAN FRz�NCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-10 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUNIlNIARY LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION/MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY AGENCY/TIMING required as set forth in Traffic Figure 24 to insure that the mitigation is permanently maintained. 16 On-site circulation would adequately conform to The applicant shall provide stop sign • Applicant shall make the notes on the City guidelines and good traffic engineering control on the southbound parking aisle plans submitted as part of the building practice with the exception of the first internal approach to the south driveway adjacent to permit review process in conformance intersection at the southern driveway which could the southeast comer of the gauge,show with mitigation 16. result in right-of-way conflicts. the stop sign on the building permit plans • Prior to issuance of a certificate of and emplace the sign prior to issuance of a occupancy the stop sign shall be in place. certificate of occupancy. • Monitored by the Project Planner as part of the permit proces s. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS IMPACTS WITH NO MITIGATION AVAILABLE # IMPACT 9B The Project would increase year 2015 AM peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 2.3 percent at the U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp(Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project would increase off-ramp volumes from 1,762 up to 1,803 vehicles with 2015 without Project volumes already exceeding the 1,500 vehicles per hour diverge capacity limit. 13.1 The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection during the AM Peak Hour.The Project would increase volumes at this off ramp by 1.4 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes.Traffic would backup to the freeway mainline more frequently- 13.B The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection during the AM Peak Hour. The Project would increase volumes at this off-ramp by 1.3 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would back up to the freeway mainline more frequently. 13.0 Implementation of the Project would increase year 2035 AM peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 1.4 percent at the U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp(Flyover diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project would increase off-ramp volumes from 2,454 up to 2,488 vehicles with 2035 without Project volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour capacity of the off-ram . 13.D The Project would increase P114 peak hour on-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the U.S.101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection.Volumes would be increased by 1.1 percent(from 2,572 up to 2,601 vehicles)with Year 2035 without Project volumes already exceeding the on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour. DRAFT FIR/2.0 EXECUTIVE SU1A -L-RY 475 ECCLES AvFNUE,SOUTH SAN FRz�NCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-11 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-214, Version: 1 Motion to waive reading and adopt an Ordinance adopting a Development Agreement for the development of a 6.1 acre Site for the 475 Eccles Avenue project in the Business and Technology Park Zoning District. WHEREAS, BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC ("Applicant") owns property consisting of approximately six and one-tenth (6.1) acres located at 475 Eccles Avenue of the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, Applicant desires to develop the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/Research and Development Campus Project ("Project") with an office/research and development ("R&D") campus and recreational open space uses; and WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of Use Permit, Design Review, Alternative Landscape Plan and a Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") Plan, which would authorize the construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0 with up to a total of 262,287 square feet; and WHEREAS, as part of its application, the Applicant has sought approval of a Development Agreement, which would clarify and obligate several project features and mitigation measures, including payment of existing fees (such as the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution Fee, East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee, Sewer Capacity Fee, General Plan Maintenance Fee, Childcare Impact Fee, and Public Safety Impact Fee), and certain other fees (including a Transit Station Enhancement Fee and Park-in-Lieu Fee); and WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant's proposal is considered a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, etseq. ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, by separate Resolution, the City Council adopted an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations on July 27, 2016 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing on March 3, 2016 to solicit public comment and consider the EIR and the proposed entitlements and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the EIR, conditionally approved the entitlements subject to the City Council's review of the Project, and recommended that the City Council approve the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings on May 25, 2016 and on July 27, 2016 to consider the Project entitlements and Development Agreement, and take public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 4 Printed on 8/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-214, Version: 1 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 Project applications; the 475 Eccles Avenue Project Plans, as prepared by CAS Architects, Inc., dated September 19, 2014; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by Fehr & Peers, dated February 2016; the 475 Eccles Avenue EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting held on March 3, 2016; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearings on May 25, 2016 and on July 27, 2016; 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: A. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. B. The proposed Development Agreement (attached as Exhibit A), is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Ordinance, as if set forth fully herein. C. 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. D. The Development Agreement and proposed Project are consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan by developing a high technology campus in the East of 101 Area, allowing for employee-serving services, and requiring the preparation of a TDM Plan to reduce congestion impacts. Consistent with these policies, the 475 Eccles Avenue Project provides for the phased construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0, as well as employee- serving amenities pursuant to a preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, subject to the terms of the Project entitlements including the proposed Development Agreement. Approval of the Project, including the proposed Development Agreement, will not impede achievement of General Plan policies. E. The City Council has independently reviewed the proposed Development Agreement, the General Plan, the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and applicable state and federal law, including Government Code section 65864, et seq., and has determined that the proposed Development Agreement complies with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations and with the General Plan. The development contemplated in the Project and Development Agreement is consistent with the Zoning standards. This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of these documents, oral and written evidence submitted at the public hearings on the Project, including advice and recommendations from City staff. F. The proposed Development Agreement for the Project states its specific duration. This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Section 2 of the Development Agreement states that the Development Agreement shall expire twelve (12) years from the effective date of this Ordinance, unless (and then only to the extent) such date is extended pursuant to the terms in Section 2 of the Development Agreement. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 4 Printed on 8/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-214, Version: 1 G. The proposed Development Agreement incorporates the permitted uses, density and intensity of use for the property subject thereto, as reflected in the proposed Project (P11-0101), Environmental Impact Report (EIR12-0001), Use Permit (UPI I-0011), Design Review (DR11-0039), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM11-0001) and Development Agreement (DA13-0001). This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to, the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that the Development Agreement sets forth the Project approvals, development standards, and the documents constituting the Project. H. The proposed Development Agreement states the maximum permitted height and size of proposed buildings on the property subject thereto. This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to, the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that the Development Agreement sets forth and incorporates the documents which state the maximum permitted height and size of buildings. L The proposed Development Agreement states specific provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. This finding is based on all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to the City Council's independent review of the Development Agreement and its determination that the Development Agreement sets forth and incorporates the documents that identify any such reservations or dedications of land. SECTION 2. Approval of Development Agreement. A. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the Development Agreement with BMR - 475 Eccles Avenue LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. B. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Development Agreement, on behalf of the City, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A, and to make revisions to such Agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which do not materially or substantially increase the City's obligations thereunder. SECTION 3. 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 4. 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. City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 4 Printed on 8/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-214, Version: 1 This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 4 Printed on 8/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 DRAFT 3/3/2016 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT [Life Science Campus at 475 Eccles Avenue] This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS AT 475 ECCLES AVENUE is dated , 2016 ("Agreement'), between BMR-475 ECCLES AVENUE LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY("Owner"), and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"), on the other hand. Owner and the City are collectively referred to herein as "Parties." RECITALS A. WHEREAS, California Government Code ("Government Code") Sections 65864 through 65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property or on behalf of those persons having same; and B. WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, the City has adopted rules and regulations, embodied in Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code ("Municipal Code" or"SSFMC"), establishing procedures and requirements for adoption and execution of development agreements; and C. WHEREAS, this Agreement concerns property consisting of a six and one-tenth(6.1) acre site located at 475 Eccles Avenue, in the East of 101 Area Plan as shown and more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached (the "Property"); and D. WHEREAS, Owner has a legal or equitable interest in the Property subject to this Agreement; and E. WHEREAS, Owner has submitted a development proposal to the City that would permit the development of the Property as depicted in the [Project Documents], prepared by CAS Architects, Reed Associates and Kier& Wright attached hereto as Exhibit B; and F. WHEREAS, prior to or concurrently with approval of this Agreement, following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council, by Resolution No. [ ], certified a final environmental impact report covering the Project("EIR") and adopted written findings, Conditions of Project Approval ("Conditions of Approval") and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MNW"), which Conditions of Approval and MMRP are attached as Exhibit C); and G. WHEREAS, prior to or concurrently with approval of this Agreement, following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council, by Resolution No. [ ], approved a conditional use permit to allow Owner to increase the base floor area ratio ("FAR")from five tenths (0.5)to one (1.0)based on an approved "Incentives Program" as provided in Municipal Code Section 20.110.003; and - 1 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 H. WHEREAS, all proceedings necessary for the valid adoption and execution of this Agreement have taken place in accordance with Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5, the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code; and I. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission have found that this Agreement is 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; and J. WHEREAS, on , 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. approving and adopting this Agreement and the Ordinance thereafter took effect on , 2016. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows: 1. Effective Date Pursuant to Section 19.60.140 of the Municipal Code, notwithstanding the fact that the City Council adopts an ordinance approving this Agreement, this Agreement shall be effective and shall only create obligations for the Parties from and after the date that the ordinance approving this Agreement takes effect("Effective Date"). 2. Duration This Agreement shall expire twelve (12) years from the Effective Date, but in no event later than December 31, 2028. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if litigation against the Owner(or any of its officers, agents, employees, contractors, representatives or consultants)to which the City also is a party should delay implementation or construction on the Property of the"Project" (as defined in Section 3 below), the expiration date of this Agreement shall be extended for a period equal to the length of time from the time the summons and complaint is served on the defendant(s)until the judgment entered by the court is final, and not subject to appeal; provided, however, that the total amount of time for which the expiration date shall be extended as a result of such litigation shall not exceed five (5) years. 3. Project Description, Development Standards For Project The project to be developed on the Property pursuant to this Agreement(the "Project") shall consist of the phased replacement of existing buildings on the 6.1-acre project site and construction of two new buildings and one parking structure, in multiple phases from 2016 to 2028, and exterior landscaping and driveways, and other related improvements, to create a connected, pedestrian-friendly campus-style development, as more particularly described in the Project Documents and as approved by the City Council. - 2 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 (a) The permitted uses, the density and intensity of uses, the maximum heights, locations and total area of the proposed buildings, the development schedule, the provisions for vehicular access and parking, any reservation or dedication of land, any public improvements, facilities and services, and all environmental impact mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions for the Project shall be exclusively those provided in the City Council resolutions required to implement the Project, the EIR dated [ ], this Agreement, and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date, except as modified in this Agreement. The Project will be redeveloped in one or two phases, at Owner's election. Each phase of development will adhere to the governing Municipal Code provisions applicable to the Property as of the Effective Date (except as modified by this Agreement), as well as the Conditions of Approval and the MMRP set forth in Exhibit C hereto. (b) Subject to Owner's fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement, upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to Owner a vested right to develop and construct on the Property all the improvements for the Project authorized by, and in accordance with, the terms of this Agreement and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date. (c) Upon such grant of right, no future amendments to the City General Plan, the City Zoning Code, the Municipal Code, or other City ordinances, policies or regulations in effect as of the Effective Date shall apply to the Project, except such future modifications that are not in conflict with and do not prevent implementation of the Project; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or preclude the City from adopting any land use regulations or amendments expressly permitted herein or otherwise required by State or Federal Law. (d) Owner shall cause the Project to be submitted for certification pursuant to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ("LEED") Green Building Rating System of the U.S. Green Building Council or other industry equivalent agency. Owner shall use good faith efforts to achieve a"Silver" (or higher) rating, pursuant to the LEED Green Building Rating System; provided, however, that Owner shall not be in default under this Agreement if, notwithstanding Owner's good faith efforts, the Project does not receive a"Silver" (or higher) rating. 4. Permits for Project All required permits for the Project("Project Permits") shall comply with all applicable Uniform Codes, the Municipal Code in effect as of the Effective Date, CEQA requirements (including any required mitigation measures) and Federal and State Laws. - 3 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 5. Vesting of Approvals Upon the City's approval of this Agreement, the approval shall be vested in Owner and its successors and assigns for the term of this Agreement, provided that the successors and assigns comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including, but not limited to, submission of insurance certificates and bonds for the grading of the Property and construction of improvements. 6. Cooperation Between Parties in Implementation of this Agreement It is the Parties' express intent to cooperate with one another and diligently work to implement all land use and building approvals for development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Accordingly, Owner and the City shall proceed in a reasonable and timely manner, in compliance with the deadlines mandated by applicable agreements, statutes or ordinances, to complete all steps necessary for implementation of this Agreement and development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The City shall proceed in an expeditious manner to complete all actions required for the development of the Project, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Scheduling all required public hearings by the City Council and City Planning Commission; and (b) Processing and checking all maps, plans, permits, building plans and specifications and other plans relating to development of the Property filed by Owner or its nominee, successor or assign as necessary for development of the Property, and inspecting and providing acceptance of or comments on work by Owner that requires acceptance or approval by the City. Owner, in a timely manner, shall provide the City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations hereunder and to cause its planners, engineers and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all necessary materials and documents. 7. Acquisition of Other Property; Eminent Domain In order to facilitate and insure development of the Project in accordance with the City Council's approval, the City may assist Owner, at Owner's request and at Owner's sole cost and expense, in acquiring any easements or properties necessary for the satisfaction and completion of any off-site components of the Project required by the City to be constructed or obtained by Owner in the City's approval of the Project, in the event Owner is unable to acquire such easements or properties or is unable to secure the necessary agreements with the applicable property owners for such easements or properties. Owner expressly acknowledges that the City is under no obligation to use its power of Eminent Domain. - 4 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 8. Maintenance Obligations on Property All of the Property subject to this Agreement shall be maintained by Owner or its successors in perpetuity in accordance with City requirements to prevent accumulation of litter and trash, to keep weeds abated, to provide erosion control, and to comply with other requirements set forth in the Municipal Code, subject to City approval as permitted or required by the Municipal Code. (a) If Owner subdivides the property or otherwise transfers ownership of a parcel or building in the Project to any person or entity such that the Owner, or Owner's member, partner, parent, or subsidiary, no longer owns a majority interest in a parcel or building in the Project, Owner shall first establish an Owner's Association and submit Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&Rs")to the City for review and approval by the City Attorney not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Said CC&Rs shall satisfy the requirements of Section 19.36.040 of the Municipal Code. (b) Any provisions of said CC&Rs governing the Project relating to the maintenance obligations under this section shall be enforceable by the City. 9. New Taxes Any subsequently enacted City-wide taxes shall apply to the Property, provided that: (i)the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (ii)the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 10. Assessments 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. 11. Additional Conditions Owner shall comply with all of the following requirements: (a) Fees. Owner shall not be responsible for any fees imposed by the City in connection with the development and construction of the Project, except as outlined in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein. No fee requirements (other than those identified herein)imposed by the City on or after the Effective Date and no changes to existing fee requirements (except those currently subject to periodic adjustments as specified in the adopting or implementing resolutions and ordinances)that occurred on or after the Effective Date, shall apply to the Project. Any application, processing, administrative, legal and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that(i) such fees have general applicability; (ii)the - 5 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (iii)the application of such fees would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. (b) Transportation Demand Management Plan. Owner shall prepare an annual Transportation Demand Management(TDM)report, and submit same to City, to document the effectiveness of the TDM plan in achieving the goal of 35% alternative mode usage by employees within the Project when the Project is built out to a 1.0 FAR or less The TDM report will be prepared by an independent consultant, retained by City with the approval of Owner(which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) and paid for by Owner, which consultant will work in concert with Owner's TDM coordinator. The TDM report will include a determination of historical employee commute methods, which information shall be obtained by survey of all employees working in the redeveloped buildings on the Property. All non-responses to the employee commute survey will be counted as a drive alone trip. TDM monitoring shall be required and conducted pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 20.400, as that Chapter may be revised, amended, or reorganized from time to time. 1) TDM Reports: The initial TDM report for each redeveloped building on the Property will be submitted two (2)years after the granting of a certificate of occupancy with respect to the building, and this requirement will apply to all of the redeveloped buildings on the Property except the parking facility. The second and all later reports with respect to each building shall be included in an annual comprehensive TDM report submitted to City covering all of the redeveloped buildings on the Property which are submitting their second or later TDM reports. 2) Report Requirements: The goal of the TDM program is to encourage alternative mode usage, as defined in Chapter 20.400 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The initial TDM report shall either: (1) state that the applicable property has achieved the Targeted Alternative Mode Usage, based on the number of employees in the redeveloped buildings at the time, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not achieved the Targeted Alternative Mode Usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the Targeted Alternative Mode Usage. 3) Penalty for Non-Compliance: If after the initial TDM report, subsequent annual reports indicate that, in spite of the changes in the TDM plan, the Targeted Alternative Mode Usage is still not being achieved, or if Owner fails to submit such a TDM report at the times described above, City may assess Owner a penalty in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00)per year for each percentage point that the actual alternative mode usage is below the Targeted Alternative Mode Usage goal. - 6 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 i. In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, City may consider whether Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals. ii. If City determines that Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals but a penalty is still imposed, and such penalty is imposed within the first three (3) years of the TDM plan (commencing with the first year in which a penalty could be imposed), such penalty sums, in the City's sole discretion, may be used by Owner toward the implementation of the TDM plan instead of being paid to City. If the penalty is used to implement the TDM Plan, an Implementation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to expending any penalty funds. iii. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amount of any penalty shall bear the same relationship to the maximum penalty as the completed construction to which the penalty applies bears to the maximum amount of square feet of Office, Commercial, Retail and Research and Development use permitted to be constructed on the Property. For example, if there is 200,000 square feet of completed construction on the Property included within the TDM report with respect to which the penalty is imposed, the penalty would be determined by multiplying Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00)times a fraction, the numerator of which is 200,000 square feet and the denominator of which is the maximum amount of square feet of building construction, excluding parking facilities, permitted on the Property; this amount would then be multiplied by the number of percentage points that the actual alternative mode usage is below the Targeted Alternative Mode Usage goal. iv. The provisions of this section are incorporated as Conditions of Approval for the Project and shall be included in the approved TDM for the Project. (c) EIR. The Parties will adhere to the Conditions of Approval for the Project and the Mitigations which result from the EIR and MMRP. Entitlement review for future Project phases will be limited in scope, so long as consistent with the EIR and the Project Documents. (d) Climate Action Plan. The Proj ect shall comply with the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan Adopted February 13, 2014 (the"CAP"). The applicable measures from the CAP are as follows: 1) Measure 2.1, Action 5 (provide conduit for future electric vehicle charging installations); - 7 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 2) Measure 3.4, Action 1 (encourage high-albedo surfaces, as identified in voluntary CALGreen standards) 3) Measure 4.1, Action 2 (requiring construction of new nonresidential conditioned space 5,000 square feet or more to comply with one of the following standards: (i) Meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity needs with on-site renewable energy sources; (ii)participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity use; (iii) comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements to exceed mandatory efficiency requirements by 20% or more.) To comply with this Measure 4.1, Action 2, the Project must demonstrate that it is projected to achieve the CAP target of a 50% or 20%reduction (or offset) below the energy demand that would result if the Project were built under the assumptions used in the CRP's Adjusted Business As Usual (ABAU)projections. 4) Measure 4.1, Action 3 (install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar); and 5) Measure 6.1, Action 2 (Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking one of the following: (i) establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features; (ii)limiting turf area in commercial and large multi-family projects; (iii)restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise; (iv)installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors; (v)landscaping with native, water-efficient plants; (vi)installing drip irrigation systems; (vii)reducing impervious surfaces. 12. Indemnity Owner agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by the City subject to the reasonable approval of Owner) and hold harmless the City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by Owner, or any actions or inactions of Owner's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Owner shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any public improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). - 8 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 13. Interests of Other Owners Owner has no knowledge of any reason why Owner, and any other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property as of the Effective Date, will not be bound by this Agreement. 14. Assignment (a) Right to Assign. Owner may at any time or from time to time transfer its right, title or interest in or to all or any portion of the Property. In accordance with Government Code Section 65868.5, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to Owner. As a condition precedent to any such transfer, Owner shall require the transferee to acknowledge in writing that transferee has been informed, understands and agrees that the burdens and benefits under this Agreement relating to such transferred property shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the transferee. (b) Notice of Assignment or Transfer. No transfer, sale or assignment of Owner's rights, interests and obligations under this Agreement shall occur without prior written notice to the City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. The City Manager shall consider and decide the matter within ten (10) days after Owner's notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and other information evidencing the ability of the transferee's ability to perform under this Agreement, are provided to the City Manager. (c) Exception for Notice. Notwithstanding Section 14(b), Owner may at any time, upon notice to the City but without the necessity of any approval by the City, transfer the Property or any part thereof and all or any part of Owner's rights, interests and obligations under this Agreement to: (i) any subsidiary, affiliate, parent or other entity which controls, is controlled by or is under common control with Owner, (ii) any member or partner of Owner or any subsidiary, parent or affiliate of any such member or partner, or (iii) any successor or successors to Owner by merger, consolidation, non-bankruptcy reorganization or government action. As used in this subsection, "control" shall mean the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management or policies, whether through the ownership of voting securities, partnership interest, contracts (other than those that transfer Owner's interest in the property to a third party not specifically identified in this subsection) or otherwise. (d) Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Owner's rights, interests and obligations under this Agreement pursuant to Section 14(a), Section 14(b) or Section 14(c) of this Agreement, Owner shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property, or portion thereof, transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of the City Manager's approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment or the effective date of - 9 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 such transfer, sale or assignment, whichever occurs later; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes any right, interest or obligation of Owner under this Agreement, Owner shall be released with respect to such rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval, where such approval is required as set forth in Section 14(b), above. (e) Owner's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding Section 14(a) and Section 14(c), Owner may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and/or obligations which Owner shall retain, provided that Owner specifies such rights, interests and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to or maintained with this Agreement and recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder prior to or concurrently with the sale, transfer or assignment. Owner's purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest in or obligations for such retained rights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Owner with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations. (f) Time for Notice. Within ten (10) days of the date escrow closes on any such transfer, Owner shall notify the City in writing of the name and address of the transferee. Said notice shall include a statement as to the obligations, including any mitigation measures, fees, improvements or other conditions of approval, assumed by the transferee. Any transfer which does not comply with the notice requirements of this Section and Section 14(b) shall not release the Owner from its obligations to the City under this Agreement until such time as the City is provided notice in accordance with Section 14(b). 15. Insurance (a) Commercial General Liability Insurance. At all times that Owner is constructing any portion or phase of the Project, or any improvement related to any portion or phase of the Project, Owner shall maintain in effect a policy of commercial general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than [ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00)]. With the exception of workers' compensation and employer's liability, this insurance shall include City as an additional insured to the extent liability is caused by work or operations performed by or on behalf of Owner. (b) Workers Compensation Insurance. At all times that Owner is constructing any portion or phase of the Project, or any improvement related to any portion or phase of the Project, Owner shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Owner for work at the Project site. Owner shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Owner agrees to indemnify the City for - 10 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 any damage resulting from Owner's failure to maintain any such required insurance. (c) Evidence of Insurance. Prior to commencement of any construction of any portion or phase of the Project, or any improvement related to any portion or phase of the Project, Owner shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in subsections (a) and(W. 1) In the event of a reduction (below the limits required in this Agreement) or cancellation in coverage, or an adverse material change in insurance coverage and limits required in this Agreement, Owner shall, prior to such reduction, cancellation or change, provide at least ten (10) days' prior written notice to the City, regardless of any notification by the applicable insurer. If the City discovers that the policies have been cancelled or reduced below the limits required in this Agreement and no notice has been provided by either insurer or Owner, said failure shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 2) In the event of a reduction (below the limits required by this Agreement) or cancellation in coverage, Owner shall have five (5) days in which to provide evidence of the required coverage during which time no persons shall enter the Property to construct improvements thereon, including construction activities related to the landscaping and common improvements. Additionally, no persons not employed by existing tenants shall enter the Property to perform such work until such time as the City receives evidence of substitute coverage. 3) If Owner fails to obtain substitute coverage within ten (10) days, the City may obtain, but is not required to obtain, substitute coverage and charge Owner the cost of such coverage plus an administrative fee equal to ten percent(10%) of the premium for said coverage. (d) The insurance shall include the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives as additional insureds on the policies. 16. Covenants Run With the Land The terms of this Agreement are legislative in nature, and apply to the Property as regulatory ordinances. During the term of this Agreement, all of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, any lot, parcel or any portion thereof, and any interest therein, whether by sale, operation of law or other manner, and they shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors. - 11 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 17. Conflict With State or Federal Law In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified (in accordance with Section 18 set forth below) or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Owner shall have the right to challenge, at its sole cost, in a court of competent jurisdiction, the law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement and, if the challenge in a court of competent jurisdiction is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. 18. Procedure for Modification Because of Conflict With State or Federal Laws In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such State or Federal law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code. 19. Periodic Review (a) During the term of this Agreement, the City shall conduct"annual" and/or "special" reviews of Owner's good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code. The City may recover reasonable costs incurred in conducting said review, including staff time expended and reasonable attorneys' fees. (b) At least five (5) calendar days prior to any hearing on any annual or special review, the City shall mail Owner a copy of all staff reports and, to the extent practical, related exhibits. Owner shall be permitted an opportunity to be heard orally or in writing regarding its performance under this Agreement before the City Council or, if the matter is referred to the Planning Commission, then before said Commission. Following completion of any annual or special review, the City shall give Owner a written Notice of Action, which Notice shall include a determination, based upon information known or made known to the City Council or the City's Planning Director as of the date of such review, whether Owner is in default under this Agreement and, if so, the alleged nature of the default, a reasonable period to cure such default, and suggested or potential actions that the City may take if such default is not cured by Owner. - 12 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 20. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement This Agreement may be further amended or terminated only in writing and in the manner set forth in Government Code Sections 65865.1, 65867.5, 65868, 65868.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code. 21. Agreement is Entire Agreement This Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto or incorporated herein contain the sole and entire agreement between the Parties concerning Owner's entitlements to develop the Property. The Parties acknowledge and agree that neither of them has made any representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations inducing the execution and delivery hereof, except representations set forth herein, and each Party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering this Agreement. The Parties further acknowledge that all statements or representations that heretofore may have been made by either of them to the other are void and of no effect, and that neither of them has relied thereon in its dealings with the other. 22. Events of Default Failure by either Party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default. Owner shall also specifically be in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events: (a) If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to the City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; or, (b) A finding and determination by the City made following an annual or special review under the procedure provided for in Government Code Section 65865.1 and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code that, upon the basis of substantial evidence, Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; or, (c) Owner fails to fulfill any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement and such failure continues beyond any applicable cure period provided in this Agreement. This provision shall not be interpreted to create a cure period for any event of default where such cure period is not specifically provided for in this Agreement. 23. Procedure Upon Default (a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, either Party may terminate or modify this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65865.1 and of Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code, provided Section 23(e) has been complied with. (b) The City shall not be deemed to have waived any claim of defect in Owner's performance if, on annual or special review, the City does not propose to terminate this Agreement. - 13 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 (c) No waiver or failure by the City or Owner to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any provision of this Agreement or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. (d) Any actions for breach of this Agreement shall be decided in accordance with California law. The remedy for breach of this Agreement shall be limited to specific performance and attorneys' fees as provided in Section 24(a). (e) The non-defaulting Party shall give the defaulting Party written notice of any default under this Agreement, and the defaulting Party shall have thirty (30) days after the date of the notice to cure the default or to reasonably commence the procedures or actions needed to cure the default; provided, however, that if such default is not capable of being cured within such thirty (30) day period, the defaulting Party shall have such additional time to cure as is reasonably necessary. 24. Attorneys' Fees and Costs (a) Action by Party. If legal action by either Party is brought because of breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. (b) Action by Third Party. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project approvals, the Parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Owner shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and 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. 25. Severability If any material term or condition of this Agreement is for any reason held by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, and if the same constitutes a material change in the consideration for this Agreement, then either Party may elect in writing to invalidate this entire Agreement, and thereafter this entire Agreement shall be deemed null and void and of no further force or effect following such election. 26. No Third Parties Benefited No person other than the City, Owner, or their respective successors is intended to or shall have any right or claim under this Agreement, this Agreement being for the sole benefit and protection of the Parties and their respective successors. Similarly, no amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall require the consent or acknowledgment of any person not a party or successor to this Agreement. - 14 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 27. Binding Effect of Agreement The provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties originally named herein and their respective successors and assigns. 28. Relationship of Parties It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and Owner and that Owner is not an agent of the City. The Parties do not intend to create a partnership,joint venture or any other joint business relationship by this Agreement. The City and Owner hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Owner joint venturers or partners. Neither Owner nor any of Owner's agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of the City in connection with the performance of Owner's obligations under this Agreement. 29. Bankruptcy The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 30. Mortgagee Protection: Certain Rights of Cure (a) Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to all liens placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date on which this Agreement or a memorandum of this Agreement is recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage'). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, invalidate, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against all persons and entities, including all deed of trust beneficiaries or mortgagees ("Mortgagees"), who acquire title to the Property or any portion thereof by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. (b) Mortgagee Not Obligated. No foreclosing Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct or complete the construction of any improvements required by this Agreement, or to pay for or guarantee construction or completion thereof. The City, upon receipt of a written request therefor from a foreclosing Mortgagee, shall permit the Mortgagee to succeed to the rights and obligations of Owner under this Agreement, provided that all defaults by Owner hereunder that are reasonably susceptible of being cured are cured by the Mortgagee as soon as is reasonably possible. The foreclosing Mortgagee thereafter shall comply with all of the provisions of this Agreement. (c) Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If the City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, the City shall deliver to the Mortgagee - 15 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 concurrently with service thereof to Owner, all notices given to Owner describing all claims by the City that Owner has defaulted hereunder. If the City determines that Owner is in noncompliance with this Agreement, the City also shall serve notice of noncompliance on the Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereof on Owner. Until such time as the lien of the Mortgage has been extinguished, the City shall: 1) Take no action to terminate this Agreement or exercise any other remedy under this Agreement, unless the Mortgagee shall fail, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice of default or notice of noncompliance, to cure or remedy or commence to cure or remedy such default or noncompliance; provided, however, that if such default or noncompliance is of a nature that cannot be remedied by the Mortgagee or is of a nature that can only be remedied by the Mortgagee after such Mortgagee has obtained possession of and title to the Property, by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or by foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings, then such default or noncompliance shall be deemed to be remedied by the Mortgagee if, within ninety (90) days after receiving the notice of default or notice of noncompliance from the City, (i)the Mortgagee shall have acquired title to and possession of the Property, by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, or shall have commenced foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings, and (ii)the Mortgagee diligently prosecutes any such foreclosure or other proceedings to completion. 2) If the Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings by reason of any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action taken by any court having jurisdiction over any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Owner, then the times specified above for commencing or prosecuting such foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for the period of such prohibition. (d) Performance by Mortgagee. Each Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, at any time prior to termination of this Agreement, to do any act or thing required of Owner under this Agreement, and to do any act or thing not in violation of this Agreement, that may be necessary or proper in order to prevent termination of this Agreement. All things so done and performed by a Mortgagee shall be as effective to prevent a termination of this Agreement as the same would have been if done and performed by Owner instead of by the Mortgagee. No action or inaction by a Mortgagee pursuant to this Agreement shall relieve Owner of its obligations under this Agreement. (e) Mortgagee's Consent to Modifications. Subject to the sentence immediately following, the City shall not consent to any amendment or modification of this Agreement unless Owner provides the City with written evidence of each Mortgagee's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, to the amendment or modification of this Agreement being sought. Each Mortgagee - 16 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 shall be deemed to have consented to such amendment or modification if it does not object to the City by written notice given to the City within thirty (3 0) days from the date written notice of such amendment or modification is given by the City or Owner to the Mortgagee, reasonable evidence of the delivery of which notice shall be provided to the City if given only by Owner. 31. Estoppel Certificate Either Party from time to time may deliver written notice to the other Party requesting written certification that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party, (i)this Agreement is in full force and effect and constitutes a binding obligation of the Parties; (ii)this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or, if it has been amended or modified, specifying the nature of the amendments or modifications; and (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and monetary amount, if any, of the default. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall endeavor to execute and return the certificate within ten (10) days after receipt thereof, and shall in all events execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. However, a failure to return a certificate within ten (10) days shall not be deemed a default of the Party's obligations under this Agreement and no cause of action shall arise based on the failure of a Party to execute such certificate within ten (10) days. The City Manager shall have the right to execute the certificates requested by Owner hereunder. The City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by permitted transferees and Mortgagees. At the request of Owner, the certificates provided by the City establishing the status of this Agreement with respect to any lot or parcel shall be in recordable form, and Owner shall have the right to record the certificate for the affected portion of the Property at its cost. 32. Force Majeure Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, either Party shall be excused for the period of any delay in the performance of any of its obligations hereunder, except the payment of money, when prevented or delayed from so doing by certain causes beyond its control, including, and limited to, major weather differences from the normal weather conditions for the South San Francisco area, war, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, explosions, floods, earthquakes, invasions by non-United States armed forces, failure of transportation due to no fault of the Parties, unavailability of equipment, supplies, materials or labor when such unavailability occurs despite the applicable Party's good faith efforts to obtain same (good faith includes the present and actual ability to pay market rates for said equipment, materials, supplies and labor), strikes of employees other than Owner's, freight embargoes, sabotage, riots, acts of terrorism and acts of the government(other than City) and/or a material adverse change in the financial and commercial real estate demand markets, conditions which indicate an insufficient economic return, including resource scarcities that make construction prohibitively expensive and/or the inability of Owner to obtain funds for the Project, due to the financial marketplace, (other than Owner's inability to obtain financing related to Owner's financial condition) and are beyond the control or without the fault of the party - 17 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 claiming an extension of time. The Party claiming such extension of time to perform shall send written notice of the claimed extension to the other Party within thirty (30) days from the commencement of the cause entitling the Party to the extension. 33. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms (a) The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. (b) Time is and shall be of the essence in this Agreement. (c) Where a Party consists of more than one person, each such person shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of such Party's obligation hereunder. (d) The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement and do not in any way limit or amplify the provisions thereof. (e) This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California in effect on the date thereof. (f) This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed an original, and may be signed in counterparts. 34. Exhibits Exhibits to this Agreement, including the following, are all incorporated into this Agreement by reference, as if set forth fully herein. Exhibit A Legal Description and Map of Property Exhibit B Project Documents Exhibit C Conditions of Approval and EIR Mitigation and Monitoring Program Exhibit D Applicable City Laws/Fees 35. Notices All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person (to include delivery by courier) or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or by overnight delivery service. Notices to the City shall be addressed as follows: City Clerk P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Notices to Owner shall be addressed as follows: - 18 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC 17190 Bernardo Center Drive San Diego, CA 92128 Attn: Vice President, Real Estate Legal A party may change its address for notice by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. - 19 - DRAFT 3/3/2016 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the Parties on the day and year first above written. CITY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney OWNER: BMR-475 ECCLES AVENUE LLC By: Its: 2614089.1 - 20 - Exhibit A Legal Description and Map of Property 475 Eccles LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAP OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED,IN THE CITY or SAN FRANCISCO,IN THE COUNTYOF SAN MATEO,, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL ONE: LOT 8,BLOCK 15,AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED"SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INDUSTRIAL PARK",UNIT NO.3-B,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,SAN MATEO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA",WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ON MARCH 24, 1965,IN BOOK 62 OF MAPS AT PAGES 3,4,5, 6,7 AND S. PARCEL TWO: A PORTION OF LOT 7, BLOCK 15, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INDUSTRIAL PARK,UNIT NO.3-B.SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,SAN MATEO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA",WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ON MARCH 24, 1965, IN BOOK 62 OF MAPS AT PAGES 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND S. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED OF TRUST FROM WILLLAM VOLKER&COMPANY OF SAN FRANCISCO,INCORPORATED,TO CROCKER CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK,RECORDED IN BOOK 4721 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,PAGE 366,SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS;THENCE FROM A TANGENT WHICH BEARS 77'40'40"W.ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 363,74 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0`1942"AN ARC,DISTANCE OF 2.15 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY,MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, 56,1.010 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE,N 39'56'25-W, 13.95 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, S 4700' 31' E, 15.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM SAID PARCELS ONE AND TWO WATER RIGHTS AS CONVEYED TO CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY,A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED MAY 14, 1965,BC�CDK 4952. PAGE 630.OFFICJAL RECORDS. PARCEL THREE: AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR OVER PORTION OF LOT 25,BLOCK 15,AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED"SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO.3".FILED FOR RECORD ON JULY 111, 1955,IN VOLUME 49 OF MAPS AT PAGES 25 TO 28 INCLUSIVE,RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA,AS GRANTED IN DEED FROM CABOT,CABOT AND FORBES CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES,INC.TO WILLIAM VOLKER AND COMPANY OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC., RECORDED APRIL 1, 1964 IN BOOK 46,79, PAGE 525, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND AS SHOWN ON MAP OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 3-B HEREIN MENTIONED. PARCEL FOUR: AN EASEMENT FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES OVER A PORTION OF LOT 9,IN BLOCK 15,AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 3-B, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA".WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ON MARCH 24, 1965,IN BOOK 62,OF MAP'S AT PAGES 3.4.5.6,7 AND& MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW& Page 1 of 3 475 Eccles LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAP OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 9;THENCE FROM SAII)POINT OF BEGINNING N 500 03'35"E 200.00 FEET-,THENCE S 39'5125"E 5.00 FEET-,THENCE S 50'03' 35"W 20.00 FEET-THENCE S 43'21' 35' W 60.00 FEET, THENCE S 37" 2516-W 123.40 FEET; THENCE N 39' 56, 25"W 39.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID EASEMENT IS APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE ABOVE,AND WAS CREATED BY THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 31, 1964 IN BOOK 4788, PAGE 71, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FIVE: ANON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR'%THICULAR TRAFFIC''OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PORTION OF SAID LOT T: BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 15, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN M-AP ENTITLED"SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO,.3-B",FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,IN BOOK 62 OF MAPS,AT PAGE(S)3 THROUGH 8 SAID POINT OF COMMENCEMENT BEING THE COMMON CORNER OF LOT 7 AND LOT 8,,BLOCK 15,ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF ECCLES AVENUE AS SAID LOTS AND AVENUE IS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP;THENCE NORTH 470 00,' 31'°WEST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 7, A DISTANCE OF 203.63 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 20 0,0' 31" EAST 28,.28 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 20.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE;THENCE SOUTH 4700' 31"EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 88.0,0 FEET-,THENCE SOUTH 17'00' 3 1­EAST 73.33 FEET TO THE SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF ECCLES AVENUE-, THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT FROM A TANGENT BEARING OF NORTH 670 24' 15"EAST,HAVING A RADIUS OF 363.74 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19016'26"AND AN ARC`LENGTH OF 65.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF LOT 7,BLOCK 15,AS DESIGNATED ON SAID MAP DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN QUITCLAIM DEED,DATED July 28, 1964,FROM CABOT,CABOT&FORBES CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES,INC. TO WILLIAM VOLKER&COMPANY OF SAN FRANCISCO INC.,RECORDED AUGUST 31, 1964,IN BOOK 4788,PAGE 73. RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO. SAID EASEMENT TO BE APPURTENANT TO AND USED JOINTLY BY THE OWNERS OF LOTS 7 AND 8,BLOCK 15, THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. Page 2 of 3 475 Eccles LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAP OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT A Co. w r 19 7 y s rx 1 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit B Project Documents Exhibit C Conditions of Approval and EIR Mitigation and Monitoring Program Exhibit D Applicable City Laws/Fees DRAFT 3/3/16 Development Agreement, by and between the City of South San Francisco and BioMed Realty Trust, LLC EXHIBIT D—APPLICABLE LAWS/FEES 1. 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). 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 East of 101 Area 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 East of 101 Area Plan, as adopted in July, 1994. 1.3 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). 2. FEES, TAXES, EXACTIONS, DEDICATION OBLIGATIONS,AND ASSESSMENTS 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 line adjustments, general plan maintenance fee, demolition permits, and building permits. DRAFT 3/3/16 2.2 Impact Fees (Existing Fees). Except as modified below, 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. 2.2.1 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee (Resolution 84-2007). East of 101 Traffic Impact fees shall be paid for each Phase of the Project, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council at their meeting of May 23, 2007, and shall be determined based on the application of the formula in effect at the time the City issues each building permit, and shall be payable prior to the issuance of such building permit. 2.2.2 Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution Fee (Resolutions 102-96 & 152-96). Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution fees shall be paid for each Phase of the Project, and shall be determined by the City Engineer, based on the application of the formula in effect at the time the City issues each building permit, and shall be payable prior the issuance of such building permit for each phase. The fee will be calculated upon reviewing the information shown on the applicant's construction plans and the latest Engineering News Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index at the time of payment. The Engineering News Record San Francisco construction cost index figure contained in the Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution fee calculation is revised each month to reflect local inflation changes in the construction industry. 2.2.3 East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee (Resolution 97-2002). The City of South San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and capacity of the sewer system within the East of 101 area. The existing sewer collection system was originally designed many years ago to accommodate warehouse and industrial use and is now proposed to accommodate uses, such as offices and biotech facilities, with a much greater sewage flow. These additional flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing sewers, due to ground settlement and the age of the system, have resulted in pumping and collection capacity constraints. The Developer shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee, as adopted by the City Council at their meeting of October 23, 2002. Sewer Impact fees shall be paid for each Phase of the Project, and shall be determined based on the application of the formula in effect at the time the City issues each building permit, and shall be payable prior to the issuance of such building permit. The East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee is determined to be $4.25 per net new square foot of development. 2.2.4 Child Care Impact Fee (SSFMC, ch. 20.310; Ordinance 1301-2001). Prior to receiving a Building Permit for each Phase of the Project, the Owner shall pay the City's Childcare Fee, as described in South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.310. 2.2.5 Public Safety Impact Fee. (Resolution 97-2012) Prior to receiving a building permit for each Phase of 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 DRAFT 3/3/16 and Fire Department vehicles, apparatus, equipment, and similar needs for the provision of public safety services. 2.2.6 Sewer Capacity Charge. (Resolution 39-2010)Prior to receiving a building permit for Tenant Improvements in each Phase of the Project, the Developer shall pay the Sewer Capacity Charge, as set forth in Resolution No. 39-2010. 2.2.7 General Plan Maintenance Fee (Resolution 74-2007). 2.3 Other Exactions. 2.3.1 Park-in-Lieu Fee. The City is evaluating a"Park In-Lieu Fee" to support the creation of additional public open space in lieu of requiring that applicants avail one-half an acre per 1,000 new employees, to the public in the East of 101 area. Owner shall pay a Park In- Lieu Fee of$4.78 per square foot of development, excluding parking structures. The fee payable may be reduced if the City adopts such a Park In-Lieu Fee applicable to developments in the East of 101 area similar to the Life Science Campus at 475 Eccles Avenue Project and the amount owed per square foot under that Park In-Lieu Fee is less than $4.78 per square foot in which case Owner shall pay the amount set forth in the Park In-Lieu Fee applicable to developments in the East of 101 area, rather than the $4.78 per square foot fee. Owner shall receive a credit to offset a portion of the Park In-Lieu Fee, for development of private open space created within the Life Science Campus at 475 Eccles Avenue Project. Owner's credit shall be identical to the credit, if any, allowed under the Park In-Lieu Fee program, if implemented, except that(i) in no case, shall owner receive a credit offsetting less than 25% of Owner's required fee, or more than 50% of Owner's required fee; and (ii)in no case shall zoning or building code required open areas, including but not limited to the ten-percent landscaping requirement(SSFMC, § 20.300.007(F)(1)(a)) and setbacks, be counted towards any offsetting credit. Owner shall pay the Park In-Lieu Fee once per phase, upon issuance of the first tenant improvement permit for each phase, based upon the total square footage approved for development for that phase. 2.3.2 Transit Station or Ferry Terminal Enhancement Contribution. Owner shall pay an in-lieu fee to be used for enhancing, enlarging, repairing, restoring, renovating, remodeling, redecorating, maintaining, and/or refurbishing the Caltrain Station located at 590 Dubuque Avenue, the Oyster Point Ferry terminal and/or their associated facilities. The in-lieu fee shall be in the amount of one dollar per square foot of building area excluding parking structures for each phase of development and shall be payable in two (2) equal installments per phase. One-half(1/2) of the in-lieu fee shall be payable substantially concurrently with, but not later than, the issuance of the building permit for the shell of the building, and one-half(1/2) of the in-lieu fee shall be payable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the shell of the building. 2.4 User Fees. 2.4.1 Sewer Service Charges (assessed as part of property tax bill) 2.4.2 Stormwater Charges (assessed as part of property tax bill) DRAFT 3/3/16 3. 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. 2614091.1 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-343, Version: 1 Resolution making findings and approving a Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the development of a 6.1 acre site for the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/Research and Development Campus project. WHEREAS, BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company ("Applicant") owns property consisting of approximately six and one-tenth (6.1) acres located at 475 Eccles Avenue of the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, ("Project Site"); and, WHEREAS, Applicant desires to develop the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/Research and Development Campus Project ("Project") with an office/research and development (R&D) campus and recreational open space uses; and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, Design Review, a Preliminary Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") Plan, and a Development Agreement, which would authorize the construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0 with up to a total of 262,287 square feet, subject to the terms of the Project entitlements, including the proposed Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant's proposal is considered a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"); and, WHEREAS, on March 3, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the EIR and the proposed entitlements, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Project, at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), and by separate resolution, certifies the EIR, including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, 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 City Council held duly noticed public hearings on May 25, 2016 and on July 27, 2016 to consider the Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, Design Review and Preliminary TDM Plan, and take City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 7 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-343, Version: 1 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 South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the 475 Eccles Avenue Project Plans, as prepared by CAS Architects, Inc., dated September 19, 2014; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by Fehr & Peers, dated January 2016; the 475 Eccles Avenue EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed March 3, 2016 meeting; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearings on May 25, 2016 and on July 27, 2016, and City Council deliberations; 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: 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), the 475 Eccles Project Plans (attached as Exhibit B), and the Preliminary TDM Plan (attached as Exhibit C) 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. 4. By Resolution No. , the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that an EIR was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which EIR adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts, its growth inducing impacts, and its cumulative impacts, and analyzed alternatives to the Project. For those impacts that could potentially exceed CEQA thresholds of significance, where feasible the City has identified and imposed mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less-than-significant. For the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project, the City has adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that the benefits of approving the Project outweigh the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 7 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-343, Version: 1 B. Use Permit 1. The proposed Project is allowed within the Business and Technology Park Zoning District and is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. The Project meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the Business and Technology Park Zoning District, with the exception of parking, for which a reduced parking standard of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet is proposed rather than the typical parking standard of 2.86 spaces per 1,000 square feet, with the exception of floor area ratio, for which a maximum ratio of 1.0 rather than 0.5 is proposed, and with the exception of landscaping, for which an Alternative Landscape Plan is proposed. The exceptions for parking, landscaping, and increased floor area ratio are permissible and warranted by the City's Zoning Ordinance because the Project incorporates a robust TDM Plan designed to encourage future employees to rely on alternatives forms of transportation and incorporates high quality, innovative design and product type, and maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use as well as expanded sustainability measures beyond what is required under Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code. 2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. The 1999 General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to encourage the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 Area, allow for employee-serving services, and requires the preparation of a TDM Plan to reduce congestion impacts. Consistent with these policies, the 475 Eccles Avenue Office/R&D Project provides for the construction of an office/R&D development at an FAR of 1.0. The Project includes employee-serving amenities in accordance with a TDM Plan and meets specific design standards established for the East of 101 Area. Further, approval of the Project, including the proposed Development Agreement, will not impede achievement of, and is consistent with, applicable General Plan policies. 3. The proposed 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 existing uses in the vicinity of the site, including the office/R&D uses. The project proposes Office/R&D uses on a site located in the City's East of 101 area, which is intended for this type of use. The East of 101 Area Plan and General Plan have analyzed this type of use in the East of 101 area, and concluded that office/R&D uses in the East of 101 area are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is consistent with surrounding office/R&D uses in the vicinity, approval of the Project will not be detrimental to the nearby properties. 4. The proposed Project complies with applicable design and development standards and City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 7 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-343, Version: 1 requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of floor area ratio, landscaping and parking requirements, which are permissible and warranted by the Zoning Ordinance. The Alternative Landscape Plan is allowable under the City's Municipal Code Section 20.300.007(D)(2). The exception for the number of parking spaces is allowable under the City's Municipal Code Section 20.330.006(D), and warranted based on the following findings: i. The parking reduction will serve to support and promote the Project's TDM Plan. ii. Special conditions exist that will reduce parking demand at the site. Namely, the Project is required to implement a TDM Plan on an on-going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%. The TDM requirements applicable to the Project, the fact that similar reduced standards have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several large developments in the City, including the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, the Gateway Specific Plan District, Britannia East Grand and the Genentech Campus, and the studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) all support that parking demand will be reduced at the site. iii. The Project provides 87% of the required parking spaces and is required, through the TDM Plan, to achieve an alternative mode use of 35%. The use will be adequately served by the proposed on-site parking and the site is not anticipated to result in a shortfall of on-site parking or create the need for overflow parking off-site. iv. The proposed parking standard of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet will be adequate for the proposed use because of the offered alternative solutions for providing and managing parking. The Project is required to implement a TDM Plan on an on-going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%. The TDM requirements applicable to the Project, the fact that similar reduced standards have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several large developments in the City, including the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, the Gateway Specific Plan District, Britannia East Grand and the Genentech Campus, and the studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) all support a reduced parking standard. v. The reduced parking rate reinforces the overall efforts of the City's General Plan and the TDM Ordinance, which encourage reduced parking standards as an effective tool in encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 7 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-343, Version: 1 vi. The parking demand generated by the Project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental effect on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding areas because the Project provides sufficient on-site parking and is implementing a TDM Plan on an on-going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%. vii. The number of parking spaces provided by the reduced standard will serve all existing, proposed and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would the standard number of parking spaces required by Chapter 20.210 and Chapter 20.330. As described above, there is ample evidence to support the proposed parking reduction, and there is added concern that an overabundance of parking could have a deleterious effect on the goals and objectives of the City's TDM efforts since such would serve as a disincentive to use of alternative modes of transportation. 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 office/R&D uses in the East of 101 Area, which is specifically intended for such uses. 6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the office/R&D uses will benefit from being located in the East of 101 Area, and the size and development is appropriate for the location and meets the City's land use and zoning standards. 7. The Project complies with CEQA for the reasons stated in Finding A.4 above. C. 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 quality, energy efficient, contemporary, office/R&D campus which will provide open spaces and a pedestrian-friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated. Subject to approval of the Alternative Landscape Plan, increased FAR and Parking Reduction, the project meets or exceeds all general development standards and all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed City of South San Francisco Page 5 of 7 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-343, Version: 1 office/R&D buildings are consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Business and Technology Park land use designation by encouraging the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 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 Employment District Standards included in Chapter 20.110. 4. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 ("Design Review Criteria") because the project has been evaluated against, and found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the"Design Review Criteria" section of the Ordinance. D. Transportation Demand Management(TDM) Plan 1. The proposed trip reduction measures contained in the TDM Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit F) are feasible and appropriate for the Project, considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project's location, size, and hours of operation. Appropriate and feasible measures have been included in the TDM Plan to achieve a projected 35% alternative mode usage, as required. The TDM Plan provides incentives for employees to use modes of transportation other than single-occupancy vehicle trips, such as secure bicycle storage, shower facilities, preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, and an employee TDM contact, among others. The TDM Plan also uses a lower parking ratio to increase ridership on BART, Caltrain and other transit services. Further, pedestrian walkways linking the Project to adjacent shuttle stops will help encourage alternative forms of transportation. 2. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target 35% alternative mode use established for the Project by Chapter 20.400 will be achieved and maintained. Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and triennial reports. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and approves the Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, the Preliminary TDM Plan (attached as Exhibit C), and Design Review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the approvals stated herein are conditioned upon the approval of City of South San Francisco Page 6 of 7 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-343, Version: 1 the Development Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and BioMed Realty Trust. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Page 7 of 7 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P11-0101: UP11-0011, DRII-0039, TDMII-0001, DA13-0001, and EIR12-0001 475 ECCLES AVENUE (As approved by City Council on July 27, 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 substantially as indicated on the plan set entitled "Life Science Campus —475 Eccles Planning Package" dated September 19, 2014 as prepared by CAS Architects, Inc. 3. The developer shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the 475 Eccles Avenue Environmental Impact Report. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall prepare a checklist outlining mitigation measures and status of implementation, for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 4. 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 or designee. 5. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall submit final phasing plans and minor modifications to final phasing plans, including parking for each respective phase, for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 6. 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 Director of Public Works and Chief Planner. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with FAA requirements regarding construction within the FAR Part 77 conical zone. 10. 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. 11. Transportation Demand Management. a) Final Transportation Demand Management Plan. Owner shall prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan in compliance with the requirements of SSFMC Chapter 20.400 as in effect on the Effective Date (the "TDM Ordinance"). As part of such compliance, Owner shall prepare (i) annual TDM surveys and (ii) triennial TDM reports, each meeting the applicable requirements of the TDM Ordinance, and shall submit same to the City, to document the effectiveness of Owner's TDM Plan in achieving the goal of thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage by employees within the Project. The annual surveys will be prepared by a TDM consultant pre-qualified with or approved by the City and retained, directed and paid for by Owner, and the triennial reports will be prepared by an independent TDM consultant retained by the City and paid for by Owner. Both the annual surveys and the triennial reports will include a determination of historical employee commute methods, which information shall be obtained by survey of all employees working in the buildings on the Property. If the response rate on which a triennial report is based is below 51 percent, additional responses needed to reach a 51 percent response rate will be counted as drive alone trips. b) TDM Surveys and Reports. The initial TDM survey for each building on the Property will be submitted two (2) years after the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to such building. The initial triennial TDM report for each building on the Property will be submitted three (3) years after the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to such building. The second and all later annual surveys and triennial reports (when applicable) with respect to each building shall be included in an annual comprehensive TDM submission to the City covering all of the buildings on the Property that are submitting their second or later TDM surveys or reports. (i) Triennial Report Requirements. The goal of the TDM program is to encourage alternative mode usage, as defined in Chapter 20.400 of the Municipal Code. The initial triennial TDM report shall either: (A) state that the applicable building or buildings have achieved thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (B) state that the applicable building or buildings have not achieved thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to try to ensure attaining the TDM goal of thirty- five percent (35%) alternative mode usage. (ii) Penalty for Non-Compliance. If, after the initial triennial TDM report, subsequent triennial reports indicate that, in spite of the changes in the TDM Plan, thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage is still not being achieved, or if Owner fails to submit such a triennial TDM report at the times required under SSFMC Chapter 20.400, the City may assess Owner a penalty in the amount of up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per year for each full percentage point by which the Property falls below the minimum thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage goal. 1. In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, the City may consider whether Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals. 2. If the City determines that Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals but a penalty is still imposed, and such penalty is imposed within the first three (3) years in which a penalty could be imposed in connection with the TDM Plan, the City in its sole discretion may agree to allow Owner to apply such penalty sums toward the implementation of the TDM Plan instead of requiring them to be paid to the City. If the penalty sums are used to implement the TDM Plan, an Implementation Plan shall be prepared by Owner and reviewed and approved by the City prior to Owner's expending any penalty funds. 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amount of any penalty shall bear the same relationship to the maximum penalty as the completed construction to which the penalty applies bears to the maximum amount of square feet of Office, Commercial, Retail (if any) and Research and Development use permitted to be constructed on the Property. For example, if there is 100,000 square feet of completed construction on the Property included within the TDM report with respect to which the penalty is imposed, the maximum penalty would be determined by multiplying fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) times a fraction, the numerator of which is 100,000 square feet and the denominator of which is the maximum amount of square feet of construction permitted on the Property (subtracting the square footage of the parking facilities); this amount would then be multiplied by the number of full percentage points by which the Project has fallen below the thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage goal for the applicable period. c) Owner shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in maintaining and enforcing the trip reduction program for the Project. 12. Notwithstanding Standard Condition 41 of the Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects, if a Development Agreement is entered into for this Project, this use permit shall expire on the expiration date indicated in the Development Agreement unless the use has commenced or building permits have been issued. 13. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the Development Agreement. 14. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.28.060, the property owner shall be responsible for the normal care, including watering, of trees, shrubs, and plants in the parkway strip abutting the property and upon any public tree easement across or through the property. 15. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction, the applicant shall provide proof satisfactory to the Director that the applicant is obligated to install art of the applicant's choosing on site, or in another location mutually agreeable to the Director and the applicant. The art shall either be visible from the public right of way, or it shall be located in an open, common area of the site such as the courtyard. The art installation shall be substantially complete prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Division contact: Billy Gross, Senior Planner, (650) 877-8353 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) Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section 1003.3. c) Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit. d) Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell. e) Each building shall have at least one elevator sized for a gurney; the minimum size shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code. Elevators shall not contain shunt-trips. f) Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. g) Plans are to conform to Building codes and the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.24.130. h) Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building. i) All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications. j) Access roads shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of 75,000 pounds. k) Road gradient and vehicle turning widths shall not exceed maximum allowed by engineering department. 1) Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix III-A. m) Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined. Fire hydrants shall have an average spacing of 400 feet between hydrants and a minimum fire flow of 3000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for duration of 4 hours. n) All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. o) Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined. p) The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code. q) Project must meet all applicable Local (SSF Municipal Code, Chapter 15.24 Fire Code), State and Federal Codes. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit the following for review and approval by the Fire Marshal or designee: a) Provide HMBP including what chemicals are present and to what quantities. b) Provide on the plan the control areas, list of hazardous material and quantities that will be present in the laboratories, include all flammable and combustible materials. c) All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code. Fire Prevention contact: Luis DaSilva, Fire Marshal, (650) 829-6645 C) Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The Developer and Project Sponsor shall comply with the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions of Approval for Commercial or Residential Subdivisions Designed in Accordance with Chapters 19.16, 19.20 and 19.24 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code". These conditions are contained in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments"booklet, dated January 2009. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 2. The developer's traffic engineering consultant should analyze the ingress/egress of the site to determine if any offsite improvements should be implemented to facilitate safe vehicular movement into and out of the site. 3. In accordance with the Standard Development Conditions, new storm water pollution control devices and filters shall be installed within the site drainage system. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all stormwater calculations, in compliance with C.3 requirements for the sizing of any stormwater facility, shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Division. All storm drains shall begin and end at a manhole, catch basin, inlet, or junction box, in order to provide access for cleaning and maintenance. Minor storm drains shall be designed to accommodate a 10-year storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 5 minutes and pipes shall be designed for open channel flow conditions. 4. The developer shall install a City Standard sewer cleanout at the front property line, so that the building sewer lateral can be properly cleaned. All work shall be accomplished at the applicant's cost. 5. The developer shall remove and replace all sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the property at no cost to the City. 6. The developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report and place a $5,000 cash deposit with the City for the peer review of the Geotechnical Report. 7. A grading permit will be required to perform the work. The developer will be responsible for paying for all fees, bonds, plan checking and all associated fees for the grading permit. The developer will also place a cash deposit of $30,000 to pay for all onsite, SWPPP compliance, grading compliance and dust control inspections. 8. All driveways and aisles shall be a minimum of 25 feet in width and shall be appropriately signed and marked for traffic control. 9. The developer shall underground all overhead utilities fronting the subject property at no cost to the City. 10. The developer shall install new East of 101 Light Standards along Eccles Avenue at no cost to the City. The East of 101 Light Standard is a Holophane Pechina with a 20-foot high aluminum pole. The developer shall submit a photometric study showing the lighting level along the sidewalk and the street. 11. All new improvements to be constructed within the street right-of-way shall be approved by the Engineering Division and installed to City standards. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division for all public improvement work, prior to receiving a Building Permit. The cost of all work and repairs shall be borne by the applicant. The developer shall be responsible to pay all fees and deposits to obtain the Encroachment Permit. 12. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the various East of 101 infrastructure impact fees detailed below. IMPACT FEES OYSTER POINT OVERPASS CONTRIBUTION FEE Prior to receiving a Building Permit for the proposed new office/R&D development, the applicant shall pay the Oyster Point Overpass fee, as determined by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Council Resolutions 102-96 and 152-96. The fee will be calculated upon reviewing the information shown on the applicant's construction plans and the latest Engineering News Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index at the time of payment. The estimated fee for the subject 262,287 SF R&D development is calculated below. (The number in the calculation, "11,174.79", is the February 2016 Engineering News Record San Francisco construction cost index, which is revised each month to reflect local inflation changes in the construction industry.) Trip Calculation EXIST.USE SQ.FOOTAGE TRIP FACTOR/1,000 SF ADT Office 47,412 12.30 583.2 Assembly 36,256 3.99 144.7 Warehouse 68,477 4.50 308.1 TOTAL 152,145 1,036.0 The following table calculates the proposed project's trip generation. USE SQ.FOOTAGE TRIP FACTOR/1,000 SF ADT R&D 262,287 5.30 1,390.1 TOTAL 262,287 1,390.1 Proposed Project Trip Generation: 1,390.1 new vehicle trips Less credit for existing trips: -1,036.0 existing vehicle trips Total new trips: 354.1 new vehicle trips Contribution Calculation 354.1 trips X $154 X (11,174.79/6552.16) = $ 93,003.98 EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any building within the proposed project, the applicant shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council at their meeting of September 26, 2001, or as the fee may be amended in the future. Fee Calculation(as of February 2016) 262,287 gsf Office/R&D x 0.90 trip/1000 sf x $6,078.47/trip = $1,434,873.29 Credit for existing trips: 47,412 gsf Office x 0.90 trip/1000 sf x $6,078.47/trip =<$259,373.18> 104,733 gsf warehouse x 0.54 trip/1000 sf x $6,078.47/trip =<$343,772.86> Traffic Impact Fee = $791,727.25 The fee adopted in July 2007 was $4,950/trip. Fee is updated every subsequent April. For February 2016, the adjusted fee is $6,078.47/trip. SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY STUDY AND IMPROVEMENT FEE The applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee of$4.57per gallon. The sewer discharge is estimated to be 400 gal/day per 1000 sf x 262,287 = 104,915 gallons per day. 104,915 gpd @ $4.57 per gpd = $479,461.55. The sewer contribution shall be due and payable prior to receiving a building permit for the proposed building. The fee will be subject to any annual increases, as approved by the City Council. Total estimated fees: Oyster Point Overpass Fee $ 93,003.98 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee $ 791,727.25 East of 101 Sewer Improvement Fee $ 479,461.55 Total $1,364,192.78 Engineering Division contact: Sam Bautista, Principal 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. 2. Commercial Building Security a. Doors i. The jamb on all aluminum frame-swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 lbs. of pressure in both a vertical distance of three (3)inches and a horizontal distance of one (1)inch each side of the strike. ii. Glass doors shall be secured with a deadbolt lock' with minimum throw of one (1)inch. The outside ring should be free moving and case hardened. iii. Employee/pedestrian doors shall be of solid core wood or hollow sheet metal with a minimum thickness of 1-3/4 inches and shall be secured by a deadbolt lock' with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside knob, handle, or turn piece. iv. Outside hinges on all exterior doors shall be provided with non-removable pins when pin-type hinges are used or shall be provided with hinge studs, to prevent removal of the door. V. Doors with glass panels and doors with glass panels adjacent to the doorframe shall be secured with burglary-resistant glazing or the equivalent, if double- cylinder deadbolt locks are not installed. 1 The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/turnpiece. A double-cylinder deadbolt lock or a single-cylinder deadbolt lock without a turnpiece may be used in"Group B" occupancies as defined by the Uniform Building Code. When used,there must be a readily visible durable sign on or adjacent to the door stating"This door to remain unlocked during business hours",employing letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. The locking device must be of type that will be readily distinguishable as locked,and its use may be revoked by the Building Official for due cause. 25/16" security laminate, 1/4" polycarbonate, or approved security film treatment, minimum. vi. Doors with panic bars will have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed on panic-equipped doors, and no exterior surface-mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astragal shall be installed on the door exterior to protect the latch. No surface-mounted exterior hardware need be used on panic-equipped doors. vii. On pairs of doors, the active leaf shall be secured with the type of lock required for single doors in this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with automatic flush extension bolts protected by hardened material with a minimum throw of three-fourths inch at head and foot and shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware. Multiple point locks, cylinder activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements, may be used instead of flush bolts. viii. Any single or pair of doors requiring locking at the bottom or top rail shall have locks with a minimum of one throw bolt at both the top and bottom rails. b. Windows i. Louvered windows shall not be used as they pose a significant security problem. ii. Accessible rear and side windows not viewable from the street shall consist of rated burglary resistant glazing or its equivalent. Such windows that are capable of being opened shall be secured on the inside with a locking device capable of withstanding a force of two hundred- (200) lbs. applied in any direction. iii. Secondary locking devices are recommended on all accessible windows that open. c. Roof Openings i. All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: 1. Rated burglary-resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material. or 2. Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened. or 3. A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh under skylight and securely fastened. ii. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: 1. If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. 2. The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3. Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non- removable pins when using pin-type hinges. iii. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: 1. Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material, spaced no more than five inches apart and securely fastened. or 2. A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh and securely fastened; and 3. If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8" diameter on the outside. d. Lighting i. All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. ii. The premises, while closed for business after dark, must be sufficiently lighted by use of interior night-lights. iii. Exterior door, perimeter, parking area, and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. e. Numbering of Buildings i. The address number of every commercial building shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four to six inches in height and of a color contrasting with the background. ii. In addition, any business, which affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot, shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. f. Alarms i. The business shall be equipped with at least a central station silent intrusion alarm system. NOTE: To avoid delays in occupancy, alarm installation steps should be taken well in advance of the final inspection. g. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan i. Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly sign posted. NOTE: For additional details, contact the Traffic Bureau Sergeant at (650) 829-7235. ii. Parking is limited to on-site and off-street only. All vehicles parked on-site and overnight must be operational and maintained in good repair. h. Parking Structure Requirements i. Exterior Construction: The building should incorporate an open design to maximize natural surveillance. Screens or metal picket fencing should be utilized on the ground floor of the structure to inhibit unauthorized access. ii. Lighting: Parking areas shall have a minimum of three foot candles, and driveways and staircases shall have a minimum of 10 foot candles. iii. Elevator: If an elevator is to be used, it should have clear windows and doors to maximize natural surveillance. iv. Wall Color: The interior walls of the parking structure shall be a light gray or white color, to maximize light reflection. V. Emergency Phones: A phone system shall be installed to allow citizens to contact on-site emergency personnel. i. Security Camera System i. Building entrances, lobbies, loading docks and garage areas shall be monitored by a closed circuit television camera system. Recordings must be maintained for a period of no less than 30 days. These cameras will be part of a digital surveillance system, which will be monitored on-site and accessible on the World Wide Web. This system must be of adequate resolution and color rendition to readily identify any person or vehicle in the event a crime is committed, anywhere on the premises. j. Misc. Security Measures i. Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in an approved type money safe with a minimum rating of TL-15. ii. Special events with more than 75 persons in attendance require prior approval from the Police Department. The Police Department will assess the need for additional security and traffic issues at the time of application. Applications must be submitted no less than 10 business days before the event. The applicant is responsible for the conduct of all persons attending the event. Police Department contact: Sergeant Mike Rudis, (650) 877-8927 E) Water Quality Control Plant requirements shall be as follows: The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and/or Pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a permit. 1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 2. Samples ports must be installed for the sampling of lab wastes, these sample ports must not be connected to sanitary waste lines. 3. Fires sprinkler test discharge line must be connected to the sanitary sewer. 4. If there is to be a food service facility on site then it must have a grease interceptor no less than 1000 gallons in liquid capacity. 5. Trash area(s) shall have a drain(s) that is connected to the sanitary sewer. 6. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 7. Install a separate water meter for landscaping. 8. Stormwater from the entire project must be included in the treatment system design. (Stormwater treatment systems must be designed to treat stormwater runoff from the entire project.)Use attached worksheets to determine rainwater harvesting and infiltration feasibility. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be installed. Prefer clustering of structures and pavement; directing roof runoff to vegetated areas; use of micro-detention, including distributed landscape-based detention; and preservation of open space. Treatment devices must be sized according Provision C.3.d Numeric Sizing Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Systems of NPDES No. CAS612008. 9. The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for Stormwater Treatment Measures form for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. a. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the inclusion of the following exhibits: A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the treatment measures that will be subject to the agreement. b. A legal description of the property. c. A maintenance plan, including specific long-term maintenance tasks and a schedule. It is recommended that each property owner be required to develop its own maintenance plan, subject to the municipality's approval. Resources that may assist property owners in developing their maintenance plans include: (i) The operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by the property owner. 10. Applicant must complete the C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist prior to issuance of a permit and return to the Technical Services Supervisor at the WQCP. a. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater 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 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. 11. Source control measures must include: • Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping. • Appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas. • Covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures. Plumbing of the following discharges to the sanitary sewer, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency's authority and standards: • Discharges from indoor floor mat/equipment/hood filter wash racks or covered outdoor wash racks for restaurants. • Dumpster drips from covered trash and food compactor enclosures. • Discharges from outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and accessories. 12. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a permit. 13. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of entrance/outlet of tire wash. 14. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted. 15. Must file a Notice of Termination with the WQCP when the project is completed. 16. Applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations. Water Quality contact: Rob Lecel, (650) 829-3882 lG DESIGN LOCATION SHEETINSEX ry r� r F � v ` fr o � z1s B M tlR alry Truz[ CASA cM1[ectz Inc IT Mp%Conrad.Mtlrew RMantl 00 raw Contaa.JOSeC no a0a3 W1 Email.alarew.lmam@piomaar y m yam Em psa @mraM.mm 10111-1 win e"a per lenasee ermrtea pemma�®w enter sunesoo uteno sruwre a"ameer czno \/\_`�/ / \w6i ME - c/+zcuurlls [me m ='a enmgntmm [ e.Peu�ree ns maer:.��retMeaignwm sn mnnetnPOre�greene mgneenmm eeemnkvemme�m=amm 1 l �� _ /+sua[s a-wai 1�1io[v[z awtl X:'(ovef here • a-waz LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS—475 ECCLES >> s1,EP-1P�1T.11E,a11 PLANNING PACKAGE 475 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco,CA 94080 Ii r / c o NOTE: SUPERSEDED BY ISSUED DEMOLITION PERMIT BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EXISTING SIZE CONDITIONS BbMed Realty .,. ,Discover flG'm REFERENCE LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES ECONOlnoNS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A0.1 �I�J�����""���1� � ��������� ��, ���� ���������������I��III1111111i1J I�/�i ✓%%/%%%/�;, �i9//!; ar SITE PHOTO 0-LOOKING NORTH SITE TOC-LOOKING NOR l� II SITE PHOTO B-LOOKING NORTH-EAST / M SITE PHOTO A-LOOKING SOUTH NOTE: SUPERSEDED BY ISSUED DEMOLITION PERMIT BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO S NoMed Realty .,. ,Discover flG'm EXISTING SITE LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES PHOTOS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A0.2 „r odo 9oe n s- a ry T as zsa< a LEGEND NOTES a nw or mx.s,” z � � ra.M aerzx ._ °M=xx s m� n°a °�xx° s= nn T�rviax °u""essw.cx mwx mxniax.."µxxrz .mmmrzw,m,ux,m r" ®Ra a'oP >eP a"m: ��.°« six .o°or,uve xurxxo« x ;rs w ,= E„° =°xry dw n a���.,��.xo�.��•° ,x�x�,ry°,�rv�rv���x°�,x=rv� ,xx��rv.� g o... a° a �'� ECCLES AVENUE(60) s \ - axae.,ais rx"ou.�en Ek` aue,c w on ac vmv� `.. °^ ax ox ox ax ox ax m x ax �ox B e ss N NOTE:SUPERSEDED BY ISSUED DEMOLITION PERMIT BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ©KIER N WRIGHT �rIY BIOMED REALTY Txvs7' T EXISTING LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES CONDITIONS 475 ECCLES AVENUE - South San Francisco,CA 94080 C1 LECEND T, o Z o" j AL ----- --- -- ----------- ----------- PXP! DETAIL %4, IE E,,IL- El Z�7 ElllEl A' (W) KIER&W IGHT E CINE- SIRIE-S N1. BIOMED REALTY TRusT "PRELIMINARY , LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES GRADING PLAN 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 C2 AREA 5 0.62 AC 0.01 AC 0.03 AC AREA 13 589.59 SF 11156.20 SF 0.110 AC _ n n n _ ♦ �♦ ♦ 1 0.01 AC �- �.� AREA 12 �I ®♦ 1 432.82 SF 1 �, .���.' n 1 0.10-AC ♦ __ _JI RID RETENTION PLANTER SIZING 1 0.03 AC 1 r q d ��T:.n e IL I 1 1,527.86 SF 11 1 1 1 1 II i AREA 20 0 �-----nn�����nV1 e�� 0.14 AC AREA 14 °II 1 1 1 ° AREA 6 1 039 AC 1 4 n I a 0.99 AC 1 II 1 1 0.03 3 .. SF 67 1,300.67 AREA 1 1 0.35 ac i 1 AREA i i - 1 ,. _ .,,.... rAREA 3 0.11 ac �. �� AREA 15 li 10,703417 SF c AREA 1 n `� 0.v ac +y II VI 0.09 ac �♦ II VI AREA 19 0.12 AC 1 AREA 18. 0.15 Al 1 L... %� -AREA 77 AC 1 r �-V-� AREA 17 AREAe 0.11 AC 1 p r+====+AREA 116 1 p1 iL'1 1 AREA 8 r 0.09 ac_; ra 11 a AREA 2 ° 0.16 ac 1 AREA 9 1 II 1� y� ♦,, 0.65 AC ° 1 0,14 AC -1 II 1 0.02 AC 748.53 SF L=.:7 o.' 1 1_______i____-_ _- w ECCLES AVENUE nnx,x♦nrnows.acs moos n, a.E M..wk'�L ©KIER&W �rIY — s BIOMED REALTY Txvsr T STORM WATER QUALITY LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES CONTROL PLAN 475 ECCLES AVENUE - South San Francisco,CA 94080 C3 PLANT NOTES: N 11-NI 411 R _ NOS. oNO.�PaN�NO PaN. II6 I o � ---- °-- ---- ® FLANr L6T lWW PE93�ANr ANU FOP 3EACOSn 0 f-__�— s= I n I o A • I li � III lil I �d o o=— s rz ro a. m a a saw w ECCLES AVENUE =9w. Imi-AmON NOTES BIOMED REALTY ZYtUST ,=` .° � . PRELIMINARY LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES PLANTING PLAN 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-L1.0 PLANT NOTES: • -_- - --_ -- _____ _ P��. owH�N.��EeENO«FceENEN�1H1,. MR _ �l--�ro�<reEo <N�'El i 1 � ����Vlliw'✓ill^�i�r^� � JAW FLANr L6T lW W PEa—Nr ANU—A—) GA DEN H - - i rJ l OR AM TAL Ln G N RASES 4 G 4 �i IRPoOATION NOTES BIOMED REALTY ZYtUST ,=` .° PRELIMINARY LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES PLAANTI GAP°N 475 ECCLES AVENUE REED A.—ATH South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-L1.1 r --____ -:--_-- =1 = MAWA e 1 m 3 . __— > o, JW E,ak�a,.a�oRRE r y = � IRRIGCTIONHVDR020NE LEGEND ` �•v wm .a'+:"c` ss �•.l -� � `• , __ —__–� ��—p�R art w4ea tZ� wnrE2 FE-ERI—E a+D O nlcROE' ECCLES AVENUE x NIr' waerc.�wo cwEx aaEn CAS ____ � +�+ .�+RUa�aa�im wrtRnr�aQmunrt raEanxrNUVnNOI BIOMED REALTY MUST ,'. LANDSCAPE LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES HYDRO-ZONE PLAN 475 ECCLES AVENUE I" REED--ATH South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-1-2.0 I_ o a. E E�. - DESCRIPTION SITE DATA ,.. - ALLOWABLE AREAS TYPE I-B PER CBC 2011,TABLE 501&SECTION 508 M xed O. BUILDINGS A AND B ARE TO BE TREATED AS ONE BUILDING i+aEk , ousE-imeEO -LmeraEE 44 Ew..iN L_Ei+IEkovE) xEOxr O =h = ,»srE _ _ °; oR Es E m b aLLOw�� o�� o a ok „WORE= 0 �E — _; �ess.EE sa�.EE I ok E, ok ALLOWABLE AREAS 6 TYPE I-B PER CBC 2011,TABLE 406.5.4 s :.9 PARKING GARAGE `L Es 000.pso LEGEND ,znEas ' nuowaeO nREn aER EUwR IS B LOCATION ON PROPERTY REOU REMENTs «; -TYPE I REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION ttPE-B SITE PLAN ROOF PLAN NoMed Realty .,. Discover f l t,r e SITE PLAN I ROOF PLAN LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES SITECALC"ULATIONS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A1.0 Q � Y µ PARKING DATA SITE NOTES o 0 -- -- a��ok I. SITE­ENAGE DATA SITE RENIARKS �-' - - — o j � o- � Z= O s o I1I r r , 0 STAIR AND EXIT VVIDTH CALCULATION s { `, area ago o_.w - -� i. ` I a i — 0 LEGEND ECCLES'AVENUE r SITE PLAN NoMed Realty .,. Discover flG'm SITE PLAN AND LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES SITE DATA 475 ECCLES AVENUE g South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A1.1 2.4 EUViraumeuial\Iensura Iucaiparatetl wta iLe % e.nm:wemrm ma�exn - A.AV Quvlin-vna mm..—m.3levmrea �_ Tb y� IlBbMed 1Realty ... G,Yf°,'xC..over hG,,,',m .a.ENVIRONMENTAL LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES MEASURES 475 ECCLES AVENUE g South San Francisco,CA 94080 a P-A1.1A 3 SIMSECMNA (A) GAS Discover hem LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES SITE SEC'nONS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A1.2 � L e ` yp - , is . PHASE 1 SITE PLAN NOTES o � i m i PaoPO=EO °,oa; Y a i' II � I LEGEND ... .. ..'.'.e 0 ECCLES AVENUE A FIRST PHASE SITE PLAN � `. BbMed Realty .,. Discover flG'r4,: SITE PLAN LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES PHASE 1 475 ECCLES AVENUE i South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A1.3 3 I I I I I I I I i .�oaE - -- -- -- 1;: J----------1---------- ---------I----------1--- ----- I a---------J---------- --------- --------------1----------�-m 1I--d---1- I----- -- ------- ------ - -- ®-�- ,------- ..-,_. - --------- ; --- - � I', 1 } 1 1 } 1 I 1 } 1 1 } BUILDING A-FOURTH FLOOR PLAN BUILDING A-SECOND FLOOR PLAN ; s T n s JZ7i..sv<so -- — — J- ------- --- -- -- ---- ® � T --.-H ----- ------------------- ----- -- ��---- ----------— -----�------ ',x BUUILDING A-THIRD FLOOR PLA 1 BUILDING FIRST FLOOR PLAN NoMed Realty .,. ,Discover fib,,;.m BUILDING LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES FLOOR PLANS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A2.1 4 --{- -- --I- -- T T -- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- -- -------------------------- - rt - -•_ � L _ -L I -----L---------J----------1---------- -L F 1 f F F 1 f F It T---T -T -T -T T - -T T BUILDING B-FOURTH FLOOR PLAN BUILDING B-SECOND FLOOR PLAN IT T n s n L s 4— —-- —-— — _ _ _ =ru cc 9 -----Y------ ----------1---------- --_—_—_—_ — �rI _ — — —--------- -------- — c a�- ------ -------- ----------}-- -------'I--- — — — ` __-T, BUILDING B-THIRD FLOOR PLAN BUILDING FIRST FLO OR PLAN �- NoMed Realty .,. ,Discover flee BUILDINGS LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES FLOOR PLANS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A2.2 e [oil WEST SOUTH T Hill I Id T 111 1`4 1 E A NORTH EAST Discover here LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES ELEVATIONS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-All T T T T T TT -T n —it SOUTH WEST T T T T T T T —F -\-ZJ EAST NORTH GAS NoMed Realty Discover hem BUILD NG B LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES ELEVATIONS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A3.2 T T T T T T T T T T SECTION B SECTION B Wed Reafty Discover hem BUILDING A LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES LONG SECTION TUDINAL 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A4.1 �m .e Ili SECTION E SECTION 0 SECTION B q I SECTION C SECTION A NoMed Reafty .,. Discover hem LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES SEICTIONS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A4.2 L J1 l n o 1 11 �' 1- y. - 9 ,w CONCEPTUAL WALL SECTION M NoMed Realty .,. Discover hem ASS LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES GL STUDY IN 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-A4.3 _a I A I e SUMMATION CHART odie�z -- / PAN GROUND LEVEL PARKING PLAN 1 �. BIOMED REALTY TRUST c s GROUND LEVEL LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES PARKING PLAN 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-P2.1 o } T T T G)-- IL IEEE N SECOND LEVEL PARKING PLAN TVPICAL LEVEL PARKING PLAN FIFTH LEVEL PARKING PLAN 1➢ioMEL REALTY TRUST / E SECOND,TYPICAL _ LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES PARKING PLAN 475 ECCLES AVENUE - South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-P2.2 — '$ gow_ �o TRANSVERSE SECTION 0 ...n.. .. .,.. _ 3 — ,.� ... —$ r� �$ / L \TRANSVERSE SECTION sA E —A 4 WALL SECTION ^ 3�LONGITUDINAL SECTION BioMED FEALTY TRuST m LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES BUILDING SECTIONS 475 ECCLES AVENUE - South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-P3.1 a s A d ON - ® $ EXTERI OR Fl NI STES ® ® $ s - Fl Fl Fl Fl ® ® $ / L 1 SOUTH ELEVATION �J s sE w $ 3�WEST ELEVATI ONs=;�+� r- —_---- sxoshsuremwere, wiu n �a M. I ONORTH ELEVATION � RIflIYdED REALTY TYi17ST 4S Y LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES auiLOiNC ELEVATIONS 475 ECCLES AVENUE - South San Francisco,CA 94080 P-P3.2 I 0. Z G11 m.. �� P, LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE maw R � o )IF NUPE SITE PLAN PHOTOMETRIC BIOMED REALTY TRUST SITE PLAN LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS-475 ECCLES PHOTOMETRIC Greene 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco,CA 94080 E1.1 :mrT LIZ, m Aerial View From South West ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �Discover here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ONS South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-1 1 { w � 1 r u a „� ., ran ', .� ✓' Aerial View From South ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �Discover here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ONS South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-2 r-- m n i fit' r Ar- Aerial View Of Entry Plaza ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �Discover here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ONS South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-3 I f � f � f fff f 1 � ff ,/ f f f f � f f f f f / / i / , Aerial View From North East ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �Discover here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ONS South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-4 EooivYrv� ��� � PRIOR- View Along Entry Drive ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �Discover here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ONS South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-5 I / I II r� r r 1 �I r View Towards Garage and Bridge ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �Discover here ���' 475 ECCLES AVENUE (Al South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-6 I r f / /r II E �I r r f �✓ r '" 'r 7s rF„ View Towards Entry Plaza ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �Discover here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ONS South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-7 „ / , iii i �� -.. „✓ / ;, w mmmmm�mma J1 � �/ffl/Ofd„ View Approaching Entry ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �`' t here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ON& South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-8 " 1�81V41 ��m.I "'8rvrc I U9 � r r View Near Building Entrance ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �Discover here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ONS South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-9 � 5 Tim �� / J � G,,,"/ � �.,.�� i✓ �IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII uuuY�YYYYYYYYYYYY�Y�YYYYYYY�Vi� View From Building Entrance ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �`' t here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ONS South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-10 v i iz � r � s OIIOP�mI�01W011W View From Terrace ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �`' t here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ON& South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-11 JJ�JJJJJJ����)))�JJ�JJJJJJ���JJ�J���,,,,,,,��i�����JJ�JJJJJJJ,�,, ��1,�� ////////���//////������/ /�/1��"'�/r�// r,,,,,�„ ,,�„�,,�, ,,,,r , ;„� r,✓z;r' er,rr, AYR r�i i ; M , w, , s r � r � J View From Balcony ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... y LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS �`' t here ��� 475 ECCLES AVENUE ONS South San Francisco,CA 94080 AI-12 4. 7 5 c c e s Av e I , �r a �n s 1,,, a �n a g e �rn e �n �r o g �r a AV f r i µ�(�»� l 3idMedl ea y 1i11Sl FEH R �'' PEERS 39 h'°"i1,1n S I ro<n1 :laar 9 Sari I'iai,m�sca, CA 94 04 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1 Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 ProjectDescription............................................................................................................................................... 1 RegulatorySetting...............................................................................................................................................3 2. Existing Transportation System ......................................................................................................................5 TransitService.....................................................................................................................................................5 BicycleFacilities ..................................................................................................................................................9 PedestrianFacilities ............................................................................................................................................9 3. Transportation Demand Management Program...........................................................................................11 RequiredMeasures ........................................................................................................................................... 13 AdditionalMeasures.......................................................................................................................................... 15 Monitoring.......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Enforcement and Financing............................................................................................................................... 16 4. Compliance with Guidelines and Effectiveness...........................................................................................17 City of South San Francisco Guidelines............................................................................................................ 17 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Guidelines..................................................... 17 APPENDICES Appendix A: Project Trip Generation and Employee Estimates Appendix B: City of South San Francisco Travel Demand Management Requirements Appendix C: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Transportation Demand Management Measures LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 Project Location......................................................................................................................................2 Figure2 Project Site Plan.....................................................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Existing Transit Service..........................................................................................................................6 Figure 4 Existing Bicycle Facilities.....................................................................................................................10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 475 Eccles Avenue Transportation Demand Management Program Measures........................................11 Table 2 Compliance with Guidelines and TDM Program Effectiveness..................................................................18 Table 2 (Continued)Compliance with Guidelines and TDM Program Effectiveness ..............................................19 Table Al Project Trip Generation Estimates............................................................................................................21 Table Al Project Employee Estimates.....................................................................................................................21 Table C1 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Transportation Demand Management Measures..........................................................................................................................................................27 Table C1 (Continued) City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Transportation Demand ManagementMeasures....................................................................................................................................28 Table C1 (Continued) City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Transportation Demand ManagementMeasures....................................................................................................................................29 Table C1 (Continued) City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Transportation Demand ManagementMeasures....................................................................................................................................30 Table C1 (Continued) City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Transportation Demand ManagementMeasures....................................................................................................................................31 1 . INTRODUCTION This report presents a Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") program for the proposed research and development project located at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The report identifies TDM measures that will exceed the amount needed to receive a 35 percent alternative mode use credit according to the City of South San Francisco ("SSF") guidelines. The TDM program also satisfies the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ("C/CAG"), the local Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo County, guidelines that require developments to implement TDM measures with the capacity to mitigate all new peak-hour trips. BACKGROUND BioMed Realty Trust purchased an existing building located at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California and plans to redevelop the property into a 262,287 square foot (sq. ft.) research and development building. This report presents a TDM program to identify measures to reduce the number of single-occupant automobile trips and the total traffic impact generated by the proposed project. PURPOSE The purpose of this TDM program is to develop a set of strategies, measures and incentives to encourage future employees of 475 Eccles Avenue to walk, bicycle, use public transportation, carpool or use other alternatives to driving alone when traveling to and from work. In general, TDM measures support more mobility using existing transportation systems, boost economic efficiency of the current transportation infrastructure, improve air quality, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. Convenience and cost are the primary factors that affect a person's choice of transportation mode. Measures that work well for some people or types of businesses do not work as well for others. Therefore, an effective TDM program needs to provide multiple options and incentives that are flexible enough to allow customization to meet the varied needs of individual employees and employers. This program presents an array of proven strategies and measures used in the Bay Area under a flexible implementation plan that can meet the needs of the future tenants of 475 Eccles Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, as shown on Figure 1 and would consist of a 262,287 sq. ft. research and development building. Additionally, the proposed project will provide 710' total parking spaces at a ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft, which is less than the SSF minimum requirement of 2.86 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft2. Reduced Parking is an Additional TDM Measure included in the City's Municipal Code. The measure limits the number of available parking spaces to further encourage carpool and vanpool or transit use. 1 The plan will also include two dual-port charging stations inside the garage for electric vehicle charging. 2 Parking requirement for Research and Development uses (1 space per 350 sq. ft.), City of South San Francisco, Municipal Code, Table 20.330.004,2016. IFEH , PEERS e rt�C;tieSDo�Iey South San Francisco Ferry Terminal P/ oyster Point Boulevard �/ I ode Ir I- ,n,�, 1m Forbes Boulevard Existing Caltrain Station d I Fast Grand Avenue 2� Esc ra�4 �eQl C 3 x" w Mrtrhell Ave 'x in 475 Eccles Avenue Transportation Demand Management Program PROJECT LOCATION SF15-0861 FIGURE 1 The floor area ratio (FAR) of the proposed project will be 0.987; meaning that the gross floor area of the site (262,287 sq. ft.) will be equal to 98.7 percent of the net area of the site (265,618 sq. ft.). A site plan for the proposed project is shown on Figure 2. The proposed project will be designed to maximize alternative transportation modes by including space for 36 bicycles in a Class I bicycle storage cage, 10 Class II bicycle racks, four shower rooms, 20 clothing storage lockers, 68 carpool parking spaces, and seven vanpool parking spaces. The proposed project is estimated to generate 325 AM peak hour trips, 283 PM peak hour trips, and 2,126 daily trips from an estimate of 768 employees3. REGULATORY SETTING The TDM program is based on guidelines provided by SSF4 and C/CAG5. City of South San Francisco Guidelines The SSF guidelines for TDM programs require that all nonresidential projects that generate greater than 100 daily trips obtain a required alternative mode use goal of 28 percent, based on a list of 14 required TDM program measures. This alternative mode use goal is required to be monitored and reported to SSF through annual surveys of employee travel habits. More stringent alternative mode use goals are required for projects that seek a TDM program FAR bonus above the maximum permitted FAR, based on land use, from a list of 10 additional TDM program measures. The proposed project is seeking an FAR bonus up to the maximum allowable FAR of 0.9 with a TDM program, under the Business and Technology Park General Plan designation. The proposed project is also seeking an additional design FAR bonus up to 0.987, which is below the maximum allowable FAR of 1.0, in combination with the TDM program FAR bonus. These additional FAR bonuses would require an alternative mode use goal of 35 percent. This alternative mode use goal is required to be monitored through triennial reports of employee travel habits. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Guidelines C/CAG guidelines require developments that generate 100 or more peak hour trips to implement TDM measures that have the capacity to mitigate all new peak hour trips, based on C/CAG programmatic trip credits. The developer/tenants are not held responsible for the extent to which the programs are actually used but are credited for peak hour trips that may potentially be mitigated due to the various components of the TDM program. 3 See Appendix A for proposed project trip generation and employee estimates. 4 City of South San Francisco,Municipal Code, Chapter 20.400,2016. 5 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Revised C/CAG Guidelines for the Implementation of the Land Use Component of the Congestion Management Program,2004. FH , PEERS 3 a ........ .. A 1::::X sa 5 X. •1•'r C � N LEGEND '" .mom ECCLES AVENUE N I T SITE PLAN 475 Eccles Avenue Transportatlon Demand Management Program PROJECT SITE PLAN SF1 e-0861 FIGURE 2 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM This chapter describes the existing transportation system in the proposed project vicinity, including the transit services and facilities, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. These facilities are described in detail below. TRANSIT SERVICE The project site is not directly served by regional rail, ferry, or bus transit services; however, commuter rail service (Caltrain and BART), ferry service (WETA), and bus service (SamTrans) is provided in the vicinity of the project site. Pedestrian accessibility to BART and Caltrain stations and the WETA ferry terminal is challenging and inconvenient, and no SamTrans bus service exists east of US-101 in South San Francisco. The project site therefore relies on supplementary shuttle services to connect employees on campus with BART and Caltrain stations. Because no direct connection exists to serve employees who use SamTrans, these employees must connect with existing Caltrain or BART stations to ride shuttles to and from work. The existing transit services are shown on Figure 3 and described in detail below. Rail Service Caltrain and BART provide rail transportation services to regional destinations, including San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. BART service headways (time between train arrivals) average about once every 7.5 minutes throughout most of the day and about once every 15-20 minutes during the early morning (4:00 — 5:15 AM) and late evening (9:15 PM — 12:00 AM). Caltrain headways vary between 20 and 40 minutes in the northbound direction and hourly in the southbound direction during the AM commute period (6:00 — 9:00 AM). During the PM commute period (4:00 — 7:00 PM), southbound headways vary between 20 and 40 minutes and hourly in the northbound direction. Caltrain operates about once every hour during off-peak periods. Caltrain The current Caltrain Station is located underneath the interchange of East Grand Avenue and US-101 approximately 1.0 mile from the project site. The station is currently served by 46 trains per day. During the AM peak period (7:00—9:00 AM), four northbound and two southbound trains stop at the Station. During the PM peak period (4:00—6:00 PM), two northbound and three southbound trains stop at the Station. Caltrain plans to implement several changes to its service and infrastructure by 2020. The Caltrain Modernization Project will electrify and upgrade the performance, operating efficiency, capacity, safety, and reliability of Caltrain service. Service at the South San Francisco Caltrain Station is planned to increase to approximately 78 trains per day. Eventually, Caltrian also plans to extend service to the Transbay Transit Center in Downtown San Francisco. Additionally, Caltrain and the City of South San Francisco will relocate the South San Francisco Caltrain station several hundred feet to the south to the intersection of Grand Boulevard and Airport Boulevard to improve pedestrian, bike, transit/shuttle accessibility, as well as passenger waiting area and platform amenities. BART In addition to Caltrain, South San Francisco employees have access to BART, a regional, rail rapid transit service provided by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). The South San Francisco BART Station is located at approximately 3.1 miles from the project site near El Camino Real and the Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility on the west side of the City of South San Francisco. BART operates the Pittsburg/Bay Point and Richmond lines through South San Francisco. FH , PEERS 5 l r,i iF South San Francisco 4 Ferry Terminal �� '���6'�rw;n,waM,YlumtrrD�wirw n r it rirrrirnrirni irwvrnwiwira rii rm!T+r awraw;mmuwrr rxnnuwroimiw rwr rMNUw"ti'ryh o8p �.. Z t� v�uixu��.�wwiuw�xwn�wu INIiIMI�)ryyyYrtll�dlU/"' !NM�yU M lPV' Ifu' ° mano wxu wnrilrwm uw,; wuwmm �ww etj1414�0� Y l� � � Aug r J� � avi Yr v w®® w �'" � T �®. • ua�arm b �I hff mUM elm w�+ rwumirwmmwrwnimi emu r 1Miu0FfRh i+ iFly. r"'Ibf?a�dN� e u n w,xwv wn x i' lm��l'�lei�"4'dWGµ"iux umrwrm i i ,rn,e a�i .,existing Caltrai Station F ­0all 1/ 111 mw uey w a ) EASY CrandA w w x�r w w�w� O I. . ........� •r"sv °® �s,�a en ". Proposep Caltrain Stati6n N�w`g�® ®��" w�ap 00, aiou����m ��� iu®�0 1-Fyn III00 1, 4"J" , aw imp �srawo w. Mgr,nm �ro� ni ® n w, ro ro owiµm�mmo in ®�® r i m vo-am i nr � LEGEND '!� 4P A WMMaWM� A 94® R �� ���� aims Oyster Point Shu le(to Ferry) ��a s um ®µ, ®��0m f 0 Oyster Point Shuttle to Caltrain a • utr�� m�j' �n i 60. nrtl1 �� ..... .... . gym..r.rsns:; OYstefPoint Shuttle(to BART) u� ® wmw®.w���.�m®tea, wd®:: If, 0u' & Utah-Grand Shu le(to Ferry) MA 74.0 Uah������ -Grand Shuttle(to Caltrain) Utah-Grand Shuttle(to BART) re oD� :0 0 Shuttle Stop s pis a n 475 Eccles Avenue Transportation Demand Management Program EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES SF15-0861 FIGURE 3 Ferry Service The Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) provides regional ferry service between the Oakland and Alameda (Main Street) Ferry Terminals and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The ferry provides three AM arrivals (7:20 AM, 8:20 AM, and 8:50 AM) and three PM departures (4:20 PM, 5:20 PM, and 7:00 PM) at the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The terminal is located adjacent to the Oyster Point Marina approximately 1.1 miles from the project site. Shuttle Service Shuttle services are provided between the east of US-101 area and the local Caltrain and BART stations and ferry terminal through several private contractors. Shuttles connecting the project site with the Caltrain and BART stations in South San Francisco are provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Mateo County Transit Authority (SamTrans), and the C/CAG. Employer membership in the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) and a valid shuttle pass is required for employee use of the Caltrain and BART shuttles; the ferry shuttles are open to the public. Two groups of shuttle service are provided: one serving the Oyster Point area (closer to the project site) and one serving the Utah/Grand area (farther from the project site).The specific shuttles are described below. Oyster Point BART Shuttle The Oyster Point BART Shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco BART station and the Oyster Point area office buildings. The closest shuttle stop location is approximately 0.1 miles from the project site at the intersection of Rozzi Place and Eccles Avenue, accessible via a sidewalk. The shuttle operates approximately every 30 minutes in the morning (serving Eccles/Rozzi from 7:01 AM to 10:01 AM) and evening (serving Eccles/Rozzi from 3:10 PM to 6:10 PM). Shuttle service is timed with BART service. Oyster Point Caltrain Shuttle The Oyster Point Caltrain Shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and the Oyster Point area office buildings. The closest shuttle stop location is approximately 0.1 miles from the project site at the intersection of Rozzi Place and Eccles Avenue, accessible via a sidewalk. The shuttle operates approximately every 25-35 minutes in the morning (serving Eccles/Rozzi from 6:25 AM to 9:52 AM)) and evening (serving Eccles/Rozzi 3:08 PM to 6:29 PM). Shuttle service is timed with Caltrain service. Oyster Point Ferry Shuttle The Oyster Point Ferry Shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal and the Oyster Point area office buildings. The closest shuttle stop location is approximately 0.1 miles from the project site at the intersection of Rozzi Place and Eccles Avenue, accessible via a sidewalk. The shuttle operates three trips in the morning (serving the Eccles/Rozzi stop at 7:32 AM, 8:27 AM, and 9:02 AM) and evening (serving Eccles/Rozzi at 4:02 PM, 5:03 PM, and 6:42 PM). Shuttle service is timed with ferry service Utah/Grand BART Shuttle The Utah/Grand BART Shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco BART station and the Oyster Point area office buildings. The closest stop is located at 169 Harbor Way, approximately 0.7 miles from the project site and accessible via a sidewalk. The shuttle operates approximately every 30 minutes in the morning (serving 169 Harbor from 6:25 AM to 9:55 AM) and evening (serving 169 Harbor from 3:04 PM to 6:02 PM). Shuttle service is timed with BART service. FH , PEERS 7 Utah/Grand Caltrain Shuttle The Utah/Grand Caltrain Shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and the Oyster Point area office buildings. The closest stop is located at 169 Harbor Way, approximately 0.7 miles from the project site and accessible via a sidewalk. The shuttle operates approximately every 25-35 minutes in the morning (serving 169 Harbor from 5:52 AM to 9:48 AM) and evening (serving 169 Harbor from 2:34 PM to 6:19 PM). Shuttle service is timed with Caltrain service. Utah/Grand Ferry Shuttle The Utah/Grand Ferry Shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal and the Oyster Point area office buildings. The closest stop is located at 169 Harbor Way approximately 0.7 miles from the project site, accessible via a sidewalk. The shuttle operates three trips in the morning (serving the 169 Harbor stop at 7:32 AM, 8:27 AM, and 9:02 AM) and evening (serving 169 Harbor at 4:02 PM, 5:03 PM, and 6:42 PM). Shuttle service is timed with ferry service. Bus Service SamTrans is the transit authority for San Mateo County that provides both local and regional bus service, primarily to San Mateo County locations. SamTrans does not provide direct service to the project site or areas east of US-101. The closest bus stop is located at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue, approximately 0.9 miles from the project site. Three routes operate near the site—the 292, 397, and 38. SamTrans Route 292 provides bus service between the Hillsdale Shopping Center, in San Mateo, and the Transbay Terminal, in downtown San Francisco. This bus route operates along Airport Boulevard within South San Francisco, and stops at Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. The hours of operation at Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue are approximately 4:30 AM to 2:00 AM on weekdays and weekends. Commute and midday headways are approximately 30 minutes on weekdays and weekends. Headways are 60 minutes during the evenings. SamTrans Route 397 provides bus service between San Francisco, South San Francisco, San Francisco International Airport, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City. This bus route operates along Airport Boulevard within South San Francisco, and stops at Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. The hours of operation at Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue are approximately 2:00 AM to 5:00 AM on weekdays and weekends. This bus service operates as a late night route and has 60 minute headways. SamTrans Route 38 provides bus service between the Colma BART Station, San Bruno BART Station, and South San Francisco. This bus route operates along Airport Boulevard within South San Francisco, and stops at Airport Boulevard/Linden Street within the vicinity of the project site. This bus service operates one weekday AM trip (6:36 AM) and two PM trips (6:25 PM and 7:05 PM)to Airport Boulevard/Linden Street. Taxi Service The Downtown Dasher Taxi Service provides free taxi vouchers between South San Francisco job sites east of US-101 and the downtown area of South San Francisco in the middle of the day (11:00 AM — 2:00 PM). The Downtown Dasher is operated by Peninsula Yellow Cab of South San Francisco and managed by the Alliance. Employer membership in the Alliance is required for employee use. Employees who wish to use the service need only employer provided vouchers and trip reservations before 10:00 AM. Additionally, transportation network services such as Uber and Lyft provide point-to-point rides through smart phone interfaces with integrated payment systems. These companies provide both trips with a single origin and EH , PEERS 8 destination as well as discounted services that combine multiple trips into one vehicle (for example, UberPool and LyftLine). BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycle facilities include bike paths (Class 1), bike lanes (Class 11), and bike routes (Class III). Bike paths are paved trails that are separated from roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes are roadways that are designated for bicycle use by signs only and may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists. In the vicinity of the project site, bike lanes are provided on parts of East Grand Avenue, Sister Cities Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive, DNA Way, Allterton Avenue, and Oyster Point Boulevard, as shown on Figure 4. Gateway Avenue and Airport Boulevard are also designated as bicycle routes. The San Francisco Bay Trail, part of a planned 400-mile system of trails encircling the Bay, is located close to the project site and provides access to the Oyster Point Marina. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and pedestrian signals. Near the project site, sidewalks are located on both sides of Oyster Point Boulevard. Marked crosswalks are provided at the Eccles Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue/Forbes Boulevard intersections. A segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail is located to the north of the project site, approximately 0.4 miles away, and runs adjacent to the Bay shoreline, as shown on Figure 4. The Bay Trail is a public pedestrian and bicycle trail that is planned to extend around the entire San Francisco Bay. Currently, there are gaps in the trail to the north, above Brisbane, and just south of South San Francisco. FEH , PEERS 9 r 0000 mil/ ��r�V�Qm • • 14111�1Nm011mgy�m`�' g�� �� �� • • IVIV���yyll��IlVlll&N1��11 �' � • + • ��p00411110t1AA111Ah1� � 4BW4kItt11111r01r01N110 / �� • • + • mtt�m�oi4iim�ry��twWW i �T�� • • � • ,< .• .. ��� •. �.+� +�i.�. +0:..0 • A + g� South San Francisco �1 . . t ��� l ...:i F4i4mtpiiF� :; Ferry Terminal �///I/rI p ster FOint DO lead • �/ ��II tI1.1�111���� • r4 �� „1 tu�mrrroivaornroitr�u�mniira�aquti rr�ititorrorrorr»rrroo»iiiiuiuiiuiimtttitutistt�nrrrorrrorrorrrorrootoe»ot�iiu�ii�iiltuiiutarrrut�iut�iouoiiiltat� ; •. iimmmmkmm�m�� � ���j� I��o�r�rN��rrorro��oro�ror��m�ti�rra�n r� (0� ..••..:..•S.......ti w' •• �• r � ��t�tmm4�� �� ���1111pi4ttti1aorlkratmuuuo , !;" w 1 �� �� �41i1�1101���@�iB�rrrrror�oi��rr���s�s��io�aa��mn��ot�rru�ii�otaN�iu�1�ti9�0114Ea�rN1�i»q��11� �•. k1911k0 Q�h111�1� • am�l0000�8 10' � � • �¢ F 14� � 11104 • y0llprlpl� � • x'' �oo�irrrrrorm �1�� . �o . aIFt° Forbes Boulevard 011m140kk��� �. Caltrh Station 0 • o � Aft t m4omuaum���nnnmotoomyt`y�t,1u�� � '+ IIIIe, of pose Caltrain Stati �lmmm�rn�titii�r»ra�rrrr��F111� Toposed Caltrain �� �<� L Of a�mukaiornl�mymF° ; f4yciefPedestrian9 LEGEND (1er�Cvererossing ���1�\�1\ Existing Bicycle Facilities IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Bike Path/Trail 1 ��kN4pINp011111mIml10111111011ttik11151t tiAAAtA�� 116k1k1kk1km Bike Lane 7 6kllWll6k19 Proposed Bike Lane Mitrneunve a' *..'.. Bike Route q 0000 ... Bay Trail fil Challenging Freeway Crossings 0.0000000.0.000.0.00000.40000.41 a L 475 Eccles Avenue Transportation Demand Management Program EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES SF15-0861 FIGURE 4 3. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The TDM program elements for 475 Eccles Avenue include on-site amenities that encourage the use of alternative modes of travel, require participation in associations that promote commute alternatives to the single- occupant vehicle, and include parking measures. It includes appropriate TDM measures that will satisfy SSF and C/CAG guidelines. Table 1 summarizes the TDM measures, which are described in detail below. TABLE 1 475 ECCLES AVENUE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MEASURES City of South TDM Measure Description San Francisco Municipal Code Required Measures Bicycle Racks and Lockers 10 bicycle racks and space for 36 bikes in a bicycle cage will be 20.400.004 (A.12, provided on-site. A.13) Carpool/Vanpool Matching The TDM coordinator will provide ride-matching services for carpools 20.400.004 (A.1) Services and vanpools users thorough 511.org and an internal program. TDM Coordinators The tenants of the building will designate a TDM coordinator. 20.400.004 (A.2) Pedestrian Connections Lighted paths and sidewalks will be provided between the buildings, 20.400.004 (A.7) parking areas, and Eccles Avenue. Direct Route to Transit Lighted paths and sidewalks will be provided on the Project site along 20.400.004 (A.3) a direct route between the building and the public right-of-way leading to the nearest transit or shuttle stops. Free Carpool/Vanpool Parking Free parking will be provided for all employees and visitors. 20.400.004 (A.14) Preferential spaces will be designated for carpools and vanpools. Guaranteed Ride Home Employees will be able to use the Alliance's free Guaranteed Ride 20.400.004 (A.4) Program Home Program for emergencies via taxicabs or rental cars. Information Boards and Kiosks Employee break rooms will include a permanent display of commute 20.400.004 (A.5) alternative information. Passenger Loading Zones A loading zone for vanpool and carpool rides will be provided near 20.400.004 (A.6) the entrance of each building. Promotional Programs The TDM coordinator will provide new employee orientation packets, 20.400.004 (A.8) flyers, posters, email, and educational programs. Showers and Changing Rooms Four shower facilities with 20 lockers will be provided on-site. 20.400.004 (A.9) Shuttle Bus Service The tenants will be able to use the Oyster Point BART, Gateway Area 20.400.004 (A.10) Caltrain, and the Oyster Point Caltrain Shuttles. TMA Membership The tenants will join the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. 20.400.004 (A.11) Additional Measures Subsidized Transit Tickets The tenants will subsidize transit tickets with Commuter Checks. 20.400.004 (B.1) Flex-Time Ten percent of all employees will be allowed flexible work hours. 20.400.004 (B.4) On-Site Vanpool Program The TDM coordinator will provide an on-site ride-matching service for 20.400.004 (A.1, carpools and vanpools. A,14) Video Conference Center Tenants will have individual video conferencing capacity and support. 20.400.004 (B.10) EHP 'PEEKS 11 TABLE 1 475 ECCLES AVENUE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MEASURES City of South TDM Measure Description San Francisco Municipal Code Pay for Park and Ride Lots The tenants will subsidize park and ride costs at transit stations. 20.400.004 (B.10) Downtown Dasher The tenants will be able to use the Downtown Dasher service. 20.400.004 Source: City of South San Francisco,2016 and Fehr&Peers,2016. EHP ' PEERS 12 REQUIRED MEASURES Site Design Features Bicycle Parking The project sponsor will provide space for 36 bicycles in a bicycle cage and outdoor bicycle racks to accommodate 10 bicycles to help promote cycling as an alternative commute option. The bicycle racks will be located in a visible location within 75 feet of the building main entrance. The bicycle lockers will be available for reservation, on a first come first served basis, by employees through the TDM coordinator. Shower and Locker Facilities The project sponsor will provide two men's and two women's shower facilities within the building. The shower facilities will include 20 lockers, available on a first come first served basis free of charge. Free Parking for Carpools and Vanpools Free parking will be provided for carpools and vanpools. Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking Ten percent of vehicle spaces will be reserved for carpools and vanpools and will be located in premium and convenient locations. There will be 68 carpool spaces and seven vanpool spaces provided on the project site. These preferential spaces will discourage single-occupant vehicle trips and improve accessibility for those sharing vehicles. Passenaer Loading Zones The project sponsor will provide a passenger loading zone for carpool and vanpool drop-off near the main entrance of both buildings. One designated parking stall near each building entrance will be time-restricted to allow vehicles to drop-off/pick-up passengers. Pedestrian Connections On-site pedestrian facilities will be provided, including on-street sidewalks and lighted paths between the buildings, parking areas, and Eccles Avenue. Direct Route to Transit A lighted path or sidewalk will be provided on the Project site along a direct route to the public right-of-way leading to the nearest transit or shuttle stop from the building, located across the street at Eccles Avenue and Rozzi Place. FEH EERS 13 TDM Programs TDM Coordinators The lease agreement between the owner and tenants will state that the tenants will designate a TDM coordinator for the site. The TDM coordinator will promote the TDM program, activities, and features to all employees, and will conduct the monitoring/reporting process. The TDM coordinator will develop an on-site transportation information center with SamTrans, BART, and Caltrain schedules and maps. The TDM coordinator will provide information via new employee orientation packets, flyers, posters, emails, and quarterly educational programs. The TDM coordinator's role will also include actively marketing alternative mode use, administering the carpool and vanpool matching program, promoting special programs such as Bike-to-Work Day or Carpool Week, and overseeing the guaranteed ride home program (working with a local taxi service or rental car agencies). The TDM coordinator will also conduct an annual employee commute surveys to identify the need for mode specific promotional material and educational programs and compile a triennial report. Carpool/Vanpool Matching Services Carpools in the Bay Area consist of two or more people riding in one vehicle for commute purposes. Vanpools provide similar commuting benefits as carpools, though a vanpool consists of seven to 15 passengers, including the driver, and the vehicle is either owned by one of the vanpoolers or leased from a vanpool rental company. The TDM Coordinator will provide an internet link to the 511.org Rideshare website to access ride matching services. The TDM coordinator will also administer an on-site carpool and vanpool matching service for employees and maintain a list of available vanpools that provide service between the Oyster Point offices and various points in the Bay Area. Guaranteed Ride Home Program A common reason that employees do not use alternative modes (i.e. carpool, vanpool, or transit) is the inability to leave work unexpectedly for a family emergency or the fear of being stranded if they need to work late. One TDM element that allays these fears is the Alliance's Guaranteed Ride Home Program. With this Program, employees can use a taxi service, rental car or another means to get home and the employer pays for the service. The lease agreement will state that the tenants must participate in the Alliance's Guaranteed Ride Home Program, which will be managed by the TDM Coordinator. Employees who wish to use the service will contact the TDM Coordinator to make the travel arrangements. Information Boards and Kiosks The TDM Coordinator will be responsible for maintaining an up-to-date display for the TDM Program located within the each employee break rooms with other required human resources information. The display will include shuttle maps and schedules, transit maps and schedules, bicycle facility maps, information regarding carpool and vanpool matching services, and information regarding alternative commute subsidies. Flyers for special programs, such as "Ride Your Bike to Work Week" and "Spare the Air" programs will also be posted. Promotional Programs The TDM Coordinator will manage promotional programs that include new employee orientation packets, flyers, posters, emails, quarterly educational programs, and the Guaranteed Ride Home Program. This will include an orientation program to new employees to explain the importance of trip reduction methods and their benefits to the community. The new employee orientation will address alternative commute options, describe on-site amenities, provide transit schedules and maps, and offer free ride matching services. FEH EERS 14 Shuttle Bus Service Caltrain and BART shuttles provide service from the South San Francisco Caltrain and BART stations to the Oyster Point and Gateway areas. The TDM Coordinator will coordinate with the Alliance to help fund their shuttle program and to identify on-site shuttle stops, if possible. The TDM Coordinator will also manage participation in the Alliance's mid-day service on the Dasher Shuttle to downtown South San Francisco. TMA Membership The 475 Eccles Avenue lease agreements will require tenants to participate with the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance, which provides ongoing support for alternative commute programs. The TDM Coordinator will work with the Alliance to create a Transportation Action Plan. ADDITIONAL MEASURES TDM Programs Subsidized Transit Passes The TDM Coordinator will facilitate tenant participation in the Commuter Check program, which provides vouchers that are redeemed for transit passes and tickets, vanpool fares, or park and ride lot costs at BART stations. The Commuter Checks will be provided tax-free to employees that ride transit to work in amounts up to $255 per month. Tenants will also subsidize parking costs at park and ride lots and transit stations. Flex-Time The 475 Eccles Avenue lease agreements will require tenants to offer the option of flextime to 10 percent of employees as alternatives to traveling during peak periods. As such, the building shall be open during early morning and late evening hours. MONITORING The TDM program will be performance based and the alternative mode use will be monitored annually, beginning one year after tenant occupancy. The alternative mode use and general perceptions of the TDM program will come from statistically valid employee surveys. The TDM Coordinator may use information from the employee surveys to adjust existing or implement new TDM program measures. The TDM Coordinator will submit a summary report presenting the findings of the annual survey to the SSF Economic Development Director. The TDM Coordinator will also work with SSF Economic Development staff to document the effectiveness of the TDM program through triennial reporting. Independent consultants, retained by the city and paid for by the tenants, will measure, through observation, the alternative mode use achieved at 475 Eccles Avenue every three years, beginning three years after tenant occupancy. If the alternative mode use goals are not achieved, the TDM Coordinator will provide an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached and a detailed description of additional measures that will be adopted to attain the required mode use. The independent consultants will submit the findings of the triennial survey to the SSF Economic Development Director. FEH EERS 15 ENFORCEMENT AND FINANCING BioMed Realty Trust will draft lease language for all tenants that requires the designation of a TDM Coordinator for the building (multiple tenants may share one TDM Coordinator), membership in the Alliance, and compliance and implementation of the TDM program. The lease language will also identify potential SSF penalties for noncompliance of the TDM program through failure to submit reports or inability to achieve the 35 percent alternative mode use. The 475 Eccles Avenue TDM program will be funded through the tenants and Alliance grants, which pay up to 50 percent of bicycle facility and Guaranteed Ride Home Program costs. FEH EERS 16 4. COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES AND EFFECTIVENESS As noted in the Regulatory Setting section of Chapter 1, the TDM program must comply with SSF and C/CAG guidelines. These guidelines and effectiveness standards are described below. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GUIDELINES The SSF guidelines require the 475 Eccles Avenue TDM program to achieve a 35 percent alternative mode use credit. According to the SSF guidelines, the TDM plan will implement all 15 required and six additional TDM measures. Based on calculations of C/CAG trip credits, as shown in Table 2, the TDM program will provide for 768 alternative mode use credit trips, which represents 36 percent of the estimated 2,126 total daily project trips. The TDM program will therefore exceed SSF TDM requirements by providing all required measures and exceeding the required 35 percent alternative mode use credit. CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY GUIDELINES C/CAG guidelines require the 475 Eccles Avenue TDM program to have the capacity to fully reduce the demand for new peak hour trips. According to C/CAG guidelines, the amount of"new" peak hour trips is calculated based on standard rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Applying ITE rates, the proposed project is estimated to generate 325 AM peak hour trips, 283 PM peak hour trips, and 2,126 daily trips from an estimate of 318 employees6. According to C/CAG trip credits, the 475 Eccles Avenue TDM program will have the capacity to reduce the demand for peak hour trips by 768 trips, as shown in Table 2. This is in excess of the maximum number of AM or PM peak hour trips calculated using ITE estimates. The 475 Eccles Avenue TDM program therefore exceeds C/CAG requirements. 6 See Appendix A for proposed project trip generation and employee estimates. FEH EERS 17 TABLE 2 COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES AND TDM PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS City of South C/CAG C/ AG TDM Measure San Francisco Amount Credit Trip Municipal Code Rate Credits Required Measures Bicycle Parking-Long Term(Class 1) 20.400.004 (A.12) 36 n/a n/a Bicycle Parking -Short Term(Class 11) 20.400.004 (A.13) 10 n/a n/a Total Secure Bicycle Storage 20.400.004 (A.12,A.13) 46 0.33 15 Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service 20.400.004 (A.1) 1 0 0 Designated Employer Contact-ETC 20.400.004 (A.2) 1 5 5 Direct Route to Transit 20.400.004 (A.3) 1 0 0 Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools 20.400.004 (A.14) 100% 0 0 Guaranteed Ride Home Program 20.400.004 (A.4) 10 1 10 Information Boards/Kiosks 20.400.004 (A.5) 2 5 10 Passenger Loading Zones 20.400.004 (A.6) 2 5 10 Pedestrian Connections 20.400.004 (A.7) 1 5 5 Preferential Carpool Parking 20.400.004 (A.14) 68 2 136 Preferential Vanpool Parking 20.400.004 (A.14) 7 7 49 New Employee Orientation Packets 20.400.004 (A.8) 1 n/a n/a Commute Alternatives Brochure Rack(Maps and Schedules) 20.400.004 (A.8) 1 n/a n/a Educational Programs 20.400.004 (A.8) 1 n/a n/a Transportation Options for Visitors (Maps and Schedules) 20.400.004 (A.8) 1 n/a n/a Total Promotional Programs 20.400.004 (A.8) 4 1 4 Showers/Clothes Lockers 20.400.004 (A.9) 4 10 40 Additional Credit for Combination with Bicycle Lockers 20.400.004 (A.9,A.12) 1 5 5 Shuttle Program(Assumes 10% Employee Use or 77 Peak- Hour Round Trip Seats) 20.400.004 (A.10) 77 1 77 Additional Credit for Guaranteed Ride Home Program 20.400.004 (A.10,A.4) 77 1 77 Transportation Management Association Participation 20.400.004 (A.11) 1 5 5 Biannual Employee Commute Survey 20.400.004 (A.2) 1 3 3 Subtotal of Required Measures 451 Source: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County,2004;City of South San Francisco,2006;and Fehr&Peers,2006. EHP 'PEEKS 18 TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES AND TDM PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS City of South C/CAG C/ AG TDM Measure San Francisco Amount Credit Trip Municipal Code Rate Credits Additional Measures Subsidized Transit Tickets(Assumes 10% Employee Use or 77 Employees) 20.400.004 (13.1) 77 1 77 Flextime (Offered to 10%of Employee Use or 77 Employees) 20.400.004 (13.4) 77 1 77 On-Site Vanpool Program 20.400.004 (A.1,A.14) 7 7 49 Additional Credit for Guaranteed Ride Home Program 20.400.004 (A.4) 7 3 21 Develop Transportation Action Plan with the Transportation Management Association 20.400.004 (B.10) 1 10 10 Pay for parking at Park and Ride Lots (Assumes 10% Employee Use or 77 Employees) 20.400.004 (B.10) 77 1 77 Downtown Dasher(Free Midday Service) 20.400.004 (B.10) 1 1 1 Additional Credit for Providing Ten or More TDM Program Measures N/A 1 5 5 Subtotal of Additional Measures 317 Total TDM Program Measures 768 35% Daily Alternative Mode Use Trip Credit Target 744 Source: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County,2004;City of South San Francisco,2016;and Fehr&Peers,2016. EHP 'PEEPS 19 APPENDIX A: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND EMPLOYEE ESTIMATES 20 The project trip generation and employee estimates, shown in Tables Al and A2, are based on information from Trip Generation 7t"Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003). TABLE Al PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE Code Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out Total Research and Development 760 ksf 1.24 83% 17% 1.08 15% 85% 8.11 Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Amount Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out Total Research and Development 262.2 1 ksf 325 270 55 283 42 241 2126 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers,2003 and Fehr&Peers,2016. TABLE Al PROJECT EMPLOYEE ESTIMATES Land Use ITE Code Amount Unit Employees Per Unit Employees Research and Development 760 262.2 1 ksf 2.93 768 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers,2003 and Fehr&Peers,2016. 21 APPENDIX B: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 22 The City of South San Francisco list of required and additional TDM measures, presented below, were taken from the Zoning section of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter on Transportation Demand Management, Section on Trip Reduction Measures (20.400.004), accessed on q.code.us on January 14, 2016: All projects subject to the requirements of this chapter shall implement the following measures as necessary to achieve the required minimum alternative mode use shown in Table 20.400.003. Guidelines regarding the range of alternative mode use achievable from each of the following measures are available from the Planning Division. A. Required Measures.All nonresidential development shall implement the following measures as determined appropriate by the Chief Planner. 1. Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Services. The designated employer contact shall be responsible for matching potential carpoolers and vanpoolers by administering a carpool/vanpool matching application. The application shall match employees who may be able to carpool or vanpool. 2. Designated Employer Contact. Each applicant shall designate or require tenants to designate an employee as the official contact for the trip reduction program. The City shall be provided with a current name and phone number of the designated employer contact. The designated employer contact shall administer carpool and vanpool ridematching services, the promotional programs, update information on the information boards/kiosks, and be the official contact for the administration of the annual survey and triennial report. 3. Direct Route to Transit. A well-lighted path or sidewalk shall be provided utilizing the most direct route to the nearest transit or shuttle stop from the building. 4. Guaranteed Ride Home. Carpool, vanpool and transit riders shall be provided with guaranteed rides home in emergency situations. Rides shall be provided either by a transportation service provider(taxi or rental car)or an informal policy using company vehicles/and or designated employees. 5. Information Boards/Kiosks. The designated employer contact shall display in a permanent location the following information: transit routes and schedules; carpooling and vanpooling information; bicycle lanes, routes and paths and facility information; and alternative commute subsidy information. 6. Passenger Loading Zones. Passenger loading zones for carpool and vanpool drop-off shall be located near the main building entrance. 7. Pedestrian Connections. Safe, convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from the project to surrounding external streets and, if applicable, trails. Lighting, landscaping and building orientation should be designed to enhance pedestrian safety. 8. Promotional Programs. The following promotional programs shall be promoted and organized by the designated employer contact: new tenant and employee orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Spare the Air(June—October); Rideshare Week (October); trip planning assistance-routes and maps. 9. Showers/Clothes Lockers. Shower and clothes locker facilities shall be provided free of charge. 10. Shuttle Program. Establish a shuttle program or participate in an existing program approved by the Chief Planner and subject to any fees for the existing program. 23 11. Transportation Management Association (TMA). The applicant shall participate or require tenant to participate in a local TMA, the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance)or a similar organization approved by the Chief Planner, that provides ongoing support for alternative commute programs. 12. Parking, Long-Term. The applicant shall install long-term bicycle parking in compliance with the requirements of the zoning district. Bicycle parking shall be located within 75 feet of a main entrance to the building and all long-term spaces must be covered. Long-term bicycle parking shall be achieved by providing one or more of the following measures: a. Parking in a locked, controlled access room or area enclosed by a fence with a locked gate; b. Lockers; c. Parking within view or within or within 100 feet of an attendant or security guard; d. Parking in an area that is monitored by a security camera; e. Providing fixed stationary objects that allow the bicycle frame and both wheels to be locked with a bicycle-locking device or the bicyclist supplying only a lock and six-foot cable; f. Additional measures may be approved by the Chief Planner. 13. Bicycle Parking, Short-Term. The applicant shall install short-term bicycle parking in compliance with the requirements of the zoning district. Bicycle parking shall be located within 100 feet of a main building entrance to the building. Security shall be achieved by using one or more of the same methods used for securing long-term bicycle parking. 14. Free Parking for Carpools and Vanpools. Ten percent of vehicle spaces shall be reserved for carpools or vanpools, with a minimum of one space required. Such spaces shall be provided in premium and convenient locations. These spaces shall be provided free of charge. B. Additional Measures. The Chief Planner shall determine the appropriateness of each additional measure chosen by the applicant. 1. Alternative Commute Subsidies/Parking Cash Out. Employees shall be provided with a subsidy, determined by the applicant and subject to review by the Chief Planner if they use transit or commute by other alternative modes. 2. Bicycle Connections. If a site is abutting a bicycle path, lane or route, a bicycle connection shall be provided close to an entrance to the building on the site. 3. Compressed Work Week. The applicant shall allow employees or require their tenants to allow employees to adjust their work schedule in order to complete the basic work requirement of five eight- hour workdays by adjusting their schedule to reduce vehicle trips to the worksite. 4. Flextime. The applicant shall provide or require their tenants to provide employees with staggered work hours involving a shift in the set work hours of all employees at the workplace or flexible work hours involving individually determined work hours. 5. Land Dedication for Transit/Bus Shelter. Where appropriate, land shall be dedicated for transit or a bus shelter shall be provided based on the proximity to a transit route. 6. Onsite Amenities. One or more of the following amenities shall be implemented: ATM, day care, cafeteria, limited food service establishment, dry cleaners, exercise facilities, convenience retail, post office, on-site transit pass sales. 24 7. Paid Parking at Prevalent Market Rates. Parking shall be provided at a cost equal to the prevalent market rate, as determined by the City based on a survey of parking in North San Mateo County. 8. Reduced Parking. In accordance with General Plan Policies related to Transportation Demand Management, reduced parking, consistent with projected trip reduction identified in the preliminary TDM plan, may be permitted subject to approval of the Planning Commission. 9. Telecommuting. The applicant shall provide or require tenants to provide opportunities and the ability to work off-site. 10. Other Measures.Additional measures not listed in this chapter, such as childcare facilities and an in-lieu fee that would be negotiated in a development agreement with the City. (Ord. 1445 § 2, 2011; Ord. 1432 § 2, 2010) 25 APPENDIX C: CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 26 The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County list of approved TDM measures, the number of mitigated peak-hour trips associated with each, and the rationale used to determine the number of mitigated trips, presented in Table C, were taken from the Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of the Land Use Component of the 1999 Congestion Management Program (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 2004). TABLE C1 CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES Transportation Demand Management Measure Number of Trips Credited Rationale Secure bicycle storage. One peak-hour trip will be credited for every Experience has shown that 3 new bike lockers/racks installed and bicycle commuters will on maintained. Lockers/racks must be installed average use this mode one- within 100 feet of the building. third of the time, especially during warmer summer months. Showers and changing rooms. Ten peak-hour trips will be credited for 10 to 1 ratio based on cost to each new combination shower and build and the likelihood that changing room installed. An additional 5 bicycle utilization will increase. peak hour trips will be credited when installed in combination with at least 5 bike lockers. Operation of a dedicated shuttle service One peak-hour trip will be credited for each Yields a one-to-one ratio (one during the peak period to a rail station or peak-hour round trip seat on the shuttle. seat in a shuttle equals one an urban residential area. Alternatively the Increases to two trips if a Guaranteed Ride auto trip reduced); utilization development could buy into a shuttle Home Program is also in place. increases when a guaranteed consortium. ride home program is also Five additional trips will be credited if the made available. shuttle stops at a child care facility enroute to/from the worksite Charging employees for parking. Two peak-hour trip will be credited for each Yields a two-to-one ratio. parking spot charged out at$20 per month for one year. Money shall be used for TDM measures such as shuttles or subsidized transit tickets. Subsidizing transit tickets for employees. One peak-hour trip will be credited for each Yields a one-to-one ratio (one transit pass that is subsidized at least $20 transit pass equals one auto per month for one year. trip reduced). One additional trip will be credited if the subsidy is increased to $75 for parents using transit to take a child to childcare enroute. Subsidizing pedestrians/bicyclists who One peak hour trip will be credited for each Yields a two-to-one ratio (One commute to work. employee that is subsidized at least $20 pedestrian/bicycle equals one per month for one year. auto trip reduced). Creation of preferential parking for Two peak-hour trips will be credited for Yields a two-to-one ratio (one carpoolers. each parking spot reserved. reserved parking spot equals a minimum of two auto trips reduced). Source: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County,2004 and Fehr&Peers,2016. 27 TABLE C1 (CONTINUED) CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES Transportation Demand Management Measure Number of Trips Credited Rationale Creation of preferential parking for Seven peak-hour trips will be credited for Yields a seven-to-one ratio vanpoolers. each parking spot reserved. (one reserved parking spot equals a minimum of seven auto trips reduced). Implementation of a vanpool program. Seven peak-hour trips will be credited for The average van capacity is each vanpool arranged by a specific seven. program operated at the site of the development. Increases to ten trips if a Guaranteed Ride Home Program is also in place. Operation of a commute assistance center, One peak-hour trip will be credited for each This is based on staff's best offering on site, one stop shopping for feature added to the information center; estimate. Short of there being transit and commute alternatives and an additional one peak-hour trip will be major disincentives to driving, information, preferably staffed with a live credited for each hour the center is staffed having an on-site TDM program person to assist building tenants with trip with a live person, up to 20 trips per each offering commute assistance is planning. 200 tenants. Possible features may include: fundamental to an effective Transit information brochure rack TDM program. Computer kiosk connected to the Internet Telephone (with commute and transit information numbers) Desk and chairs (for personalized trip planning) On-site transit ticket sales Implementation of flexible work hour schedules that allow transit riders to be 15- 30 minutes late or early (due to problems with transit or vanpool). Survey employees to examine use and Three peak hour trips will be credited for a This is based on staff's best best practices. survey developed to be administered twice estimate with the goal of finding yearly. best practices to achieve the mode shift goal. Implementation of a parking cash out One peak-hour trip will be credited for each Yields a one-to-one ratio (one program. parking spot where the employee is offered cashed out parking spot equals a cash payment in return for not using one auto trip reduces). parking at the employment site. Implementation of ramp metering. Three hundred peak-hour trips will be This is a very difficult and costly credited if the local jurisdiction in measure to implement and the cooperation with Caltrans, installs and turns reward must be significant. on ramp metering lights during the peak hours at the highway entrance ramp closest to the development. Source: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County,2004 and Fehr&Peers,2016. 28 TABLE C1 (CONTINUED) CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES Transportation Demand Management Measure Number of Trips Credited Rationale Installation of high bandwidth connections One peak-hour trip will be credited for every Yields a one-to-three ratio. in employees' homes to the Internet to three connections installed. This measure facilitate home-telecommuting. is not available as credit for a residential development. Installation of video conferencing centers Five peak-hour trips will be credited for a This is based on staff's best that are available for use by the tenants of center installed at the facility. estimate. facility. Implementation of a compressed work One peak-hour trip will be credited for every The work week will be week program. 5 employees that are offered the compressed into 4 days; opportunity to work four compressed days therefore the individual will not per week. be commuting on the 5th day. Flextime: Implementation of an alternative One peak hour trip will be credited for each This is based on staff's best hours workweek program. employee that is offered the opportunity to estimate. work staggered work hours. Those hours can be a set shift set by the employer or can be individually determined by the employee. Provision of assistance to employees so If an employer develops and offers a This assumes that a five mile they can live close to work. program to help employees find acceptable trip will generally not involve residences within five miles of the travel on the freeways. employment site, a credit of one trip will be given for each slot in the program. Implementation of a program that gives One peak-hour trip will be credited for each This assumes that a five mile preference to hiring local residents at the employment opportunity reserved for trip will generally not involve new development site. employees recruited and hired from within travel on the freeways. five miles of the employment site. Provision of on-site amenities/ One peak-hour trip will be credited for each This is based on staff's best accommodations that encourage people to feature added to the job site. Possible estimate. stay on site during the work day, making it features may include: easier for workers to leave their banking automobiles at home. grocery shopping clothes cleaning exercise facilities child care center Provide use of motor vehicles to Five peak hour trips will be credited for This is based on staff's best employees who use alternate commute each vehicle provided. estimate. methods so they can have access to vehicles during breaks for personal use. Source: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County,2004 and Fehr&Peers,2016. 29 TABLE C1 (CONTINUED) CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES Transportation Demand Management Measure Number of Trips Credited Rationale Provide use of bicycles to employees who One peak hour trip will be credited for every This is based on staff's best use alternate commute methods so they four bicycles provided. estimate. can have access to bicycles during breaks for personal use. Provision of child care services as a part of One trip will be credited for every two child This is based on staff's best the development. care slots at the job site. This amount estimate. increases to one trip for each slot if the child care service accepts multiple age groups (infants = 0-2 yrs, preschool = 3&4 yrs, school-age =5 to 13 yrs). Developer/Property owner may join an One trip will be credited for each new child This is based on staff's best employer group to expand available child care center slot created either directly by an estimate. care within 5 miles of the job site or may employer group, by the developer/property provide this service independently. owner, or by an outside provider if an agreement has been developed with the developer/property owner that makes the child care accessible to the workers at the development Join the Alliance's guaranteed ride home Two peak hour trips will be credited for Experience has shown that program. every 2 slots purchased in the program. when a guaranteed Ride Home Program is added to an over-all TDM program, the average rider ship increases by about 50%. Combine any ten of these elements and Five peak-hour trips will credited. Experience has shown that receive an additional credit for five peak offering multiple and hour trips. complementary TDM components can magnify the impact of the overall program. Work with the Alliance to Ten peak-hour trips will be credited. This is based on staff's best develop/implement a Transportation Action estimate. Plan. The developer can provide a cash legacy Peak-hour trip reduction credits will accrue Credits accrue depending on after the development is complete and as if the items were being directly what the funds are used for. designate an entity to implement any (or implemented by the developer. more than one) of the previous measures before day one of occupancy. Source: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County,2004 and Fehr&Peers,2016. 30 TABLE C1 (CONTINUED) CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES Transportation Demand Management Measure Number of Trips Credited Rationale Encourage infill development. Two percent of all peak-hour trips will be Generally acceptable TDM credited for each infill development. practices (based on research of TDM practices around the nation and reported on the Internet). Encourage shared parking Five peak-hour trips will be credited for an Generally acceptable TDM agreement with an existing development to practices (based on research of share existing parking. TDM practices around the nation and reported on the Internet). Participate in/create/sponsor a Five peak-hour trips will be credited. Generally acceptable TDM Transportation Management Association. practices (based on research of TDM practices around the nation and reported on the Internet). Coordinate Transportation Demand Five peak-hour trips will be credited. This is based on staff's best Management programs with existing estimate. developments/employers. For employers with multiple job sites, One peak-hour trip will be credited for each Yields a one-to one ratio. institute a proximate commuting program opportunity created. that allows employees at one location to transfer/trade with employees in another location that is closer to their home. Pay for parking at park and ride lots or One peak-hour trip will be credited for each Yields a one-to-one ratio. transit stations. spot purchased. Source: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County,2004 and Fehr&Peers,2016. 31 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-313, Version: 1 Report regarding amendment to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 19.32 ("Minor Subdivision Procedure") and 19.36 ("Condominiums and Community Housing Projects") to allow the creation of Condominium and Community Housing Projects with two or more units. Case Nos.: P16-0024 Address/APN: Citywide RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapters 19.32 ("Minor Subdivison Procedure) and 19.36 ("Condominium and Community Housing Projects") of the Municipal Code to allow the creation of new condominium and community housing projects with two or more units. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Overview The Housing Element of the City of South San Francisco's ("City") General Plan was updated in 2015. One of the goals identified during this process was increasing ownership opportunities for all income groups in the community. To achieve that end, the City considered reducing the minimum number of units required in condominium and community housing projects from five to two. The purpose of this reduction is to incentivize the development of for-sale housing,by lowering the threshold required for condominiums. At its April 8, 2015 meeting, City Council directed the Planning Division staff to study a reduction in the minimum number of units required for condominium and community housing projects. An amendment to Section 19.36 of the Municipal Code("Condominium and Community Housing Projects") is necessary to reduce the minimum number of units in such developments. Furthermore, a change in the minimum number of units in condominium and community housing projects would require revising the minor subdivision procedures set forth in Chapter 19.32 of the Municipal Code. This staff report outlines proposed the revisions to both Chapters 19.36 and 19.32 of the Municipal Code. PLANNING COMMISSION Although the Planning Commission is not expressly required to make a recommendation on this item, staff requested that Planning Commission consider this revision and make a recommendation to City Council at the Planning Commission's April 21, 2016 hearing. Staff was of the opinion that the amendment has potential implications for residential housing construction patterns in the City and, thus, the Planning Commission could provide valuable input on this matter for the City Council. While the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment, there was a concern expressed about a possible disincentive to construct more housing units. Although the Planning Commission acknowledged that reducing the minimum unit requirement for condominium developments gives developers more flexibility and expands ownership opportunities, a developer may choose to construct the minimum number of units under this amendment- two units -instead of five units as currently required. Proposed Revisions The proposed revisions are listed below with deletions in stt:i,°t>,..ettgi, and additions in double-underline. The City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-313, Version: 1 changes are also included as a draft ordinance amendment ("Ordinance Amendment") as Attachment 1, Exhibit A. 1. Revise Section 19.36.030 ("Procedures Generally") to modify the minimum required number of units for a condominium or community housing project. 19.36.030 Procedures Generally New cGondominium projects and new community housing projects shall result in the creation of two f-ve or more units_, a*d tThe procedure to be used in subdividing a condominium project or community housing project for four or fewer units shall be the minor subdivision procedures found in Chapter 19.48. The procedure to be used in subdividing a condominium project or community housing project for five or more units shall be the standard subdivision procedure found in Chapter 19.40, in addition to the requirements and procedures set forth in this Chapter. Nothing in this Section shall be interpreted to conflict with the provisions of Section 20.350.035. 2. Revise Section 19.32.020 Minor subdivision procedures to make it clear that new condominium or community housing projects with fewer than five units shall utilize the minor subdivision procedures. 19.32.020 Minor subdivision procedure The minor subdivision procedure set forth in Chapter 19.48 shall be used where: (a) The land before division contains less than five acres, each parcel created by the division abuts upon a maintained public street or highway and no dedications or improvements are required by the City, or (b) Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of 20 acres or more and has an approved access to a maintained public street or highway, or (c) The land consists of a parcel or parcels of land having approved access to a public street or highway which comprises part of a tract of land zoned for industrial or commercial development, and which has the approval of the City as to street alignments and widths, or (d) Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of not less than 40 acres or is not less than a quarter of a quarter section. (Ord. 993 § 9 (part), 1985: Ord. 861 § 9.02, 1981) (e) a new condominium or community housing project will result in the creation of four or fewer units. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Ordinance Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies outlined in the adopted 2015- 2023 Housing Element, specifically the adopted policy listed: Program 1-4D - Review New Development Requirements for Condominiums, SSFMC 19.36: The City shall review SSFMC 19.36, which requires a minimum of 5 units in order to construct new condominiums, to look at the possibility of reducing unit requirements with the intent of promoting home ownership. Consideration of this Ordinance Amendment will continue implementation of the adopted polices in the General Plan's Housing Element and promote the construction of for-sale residential units in the City. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-313, Version: 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed modifications are minor in nature and would not affect or change zoning designations or density limitations in the City and no land use impact is expected. Therefore, the Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). CONCLUSION Staff is recommending that the City Council make findings and adopt an ordinance amending Sections 19.32.020 and 19.36.030 of the Municipal Code. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Minutes, Meeting of April 21, 2016 2. Planning Commission Resolution 2788-2016 - Ordinance Amendment City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 RESOLUTION NO. 2788-2016 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 19.36 ("CONDOMINIUMS AND COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECTS") TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF CONDOMINIUM AND COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECTS WITH TWO OR MORE UNITS. WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed a desire to modify the condominium regulations to provide flexibility for the construction of new for-sale residential units; and WHEREAS, reducing the minimum required number of units for a condominium or community housing project from five units to two units could facilitate the production of for-sale residential units for the City of South San Francisco ("City") without changing any existing zoning designations or density limitations s within the City; and WHEREAS, the construction of additional for-sale residential units could help address the significant demand for housing units within the City; and WHEREAS, supporting the production of new residential units is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element that identifies Program 1413 to evaluate Chapter 19.36 and consider reducing minimum unit requirements with the intent of promoting home ownership; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an amendment to Chapter 19.36 of the City's Municipal Code regarding regulations for the construction of new condominium and community housing projects; and WHEREAS, reducing the minimum number of units for condominium and community housing projects will necessitate a parallel set of procedures whereby projects with four or fewer units will be processed according to the minor subdivision procedures outlined in Chapter 19.48 of the Municipal Code and projects with five or more units will be processed according to the standard subdivision procedures outlined in Chapter 19.40; and WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance Amendment is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Ordinance Amendment, as they relate to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations 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 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 April 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 Ordinance Amendment, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the 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 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 2015- 2023 Housing Element Update and IS/ND, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed April 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: SECTION 1 FINDINGS I. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Resolution 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 2015-2023 Housing Element Update and IS/ND, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed April 21, 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 Ordinance Amendment, as they relate to Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations, 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 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 Ordinance Amendment is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment. The change to the threshold for constructing a condominium or community housing project will not otherwise change zoning or increase density beyond already permitted regulations. Moreover, the Ordinance Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to affordable housing and home ownership. Modifications to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations chapter would not affect or change zoning designations or density limitations in the City and no land use impact is expected. Therefore, the Ordinance Amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Public Resources Code. 5. 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. IL Specific Findings 1. As described in Section II, adoption of the proposed Ordinance Amendment will include revisions to Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to reflect minor changes to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations (SSFMC 19.36). 2. The proposed Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the General Plan because the Ordinance Amendment would revise an existing housing policy as recommended by the adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element. Revision of Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations would promote home ownership and 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 Ordinance Amendment is suitable for the proposed uses. The Ordinance Amendment will change the threshold for constructing a condominium or community housing project, but will not otherwise change zoning or increase density beyond already permitted regulations. The Ordinance Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to affordable housing and home ownership. Modifications to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations chapter would not affect or change land use citywide and no land use impact is expected. 4. The proposed Ordinance Amendment is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Ordinance Amendment would only clarify existing regulations. More specifically, the Ordinance Amendment includes a revision to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations to reduce the minimum required number of units for a condominium or community housing project from five units to two units. The proposed Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City; instead, the Ordinance Amendments will facilitate the production of for-sale housing units within existing zoning designations and update the Municipal Code to be consistent with the recommendations of the Housing Element in the General Plan. 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 eetrt 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 19.36 Condominiums and Community Housing Proiects regulations to read as follows: 1. Revise Section 19.36.030 Procedures Generally to modify the minimum required number of units for a condominium or community housing project. 19.36.030 Procedures Generally New Gcondominium projects and new community housing projects shall result in the creation of two €nor more units.;ftn4 tThe procedure to be used in subdividing a condominium project or community housing project for four or fewer units shall be the minor subdivision procedures found in Chapter 19.48, unless the Developer elects to use the standard subdivision procedures found in Chapter 19.40. The procedure to be used in subdividing a condominium project or community housing project for five or more units shall be the standard subdivision procedure found in Chapter 19.40, in addition to the requirements and procedures set forth in this chapter. 2. Revise Section 19.32.020 Minor subdivision procedures to make it clear that new condominium or community housing projects with fewer than five units shall utilize the minor subdivision procedures. 19.32.020 Minor subdivision procedure The minor subdivision procedure set forth in Chapter 19.48 shall be used where: (a) The land before division contains less than five acres, each parcel created by the division abuts upon a maintained public street or highway and no dedications or improvements are required by the City, or (b)Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of 20 acres or more and has an approved access to a maintained public street or highway, or (c) The land consists of a parcel or parcels of land having approved access to a public street or highway which comprises part of a tract of land zoned for industrial or commercial development, and which has the approval of the City as to street alignments and widths, or (d)Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of not less than 40 acres or is not less than a quarter of a quarter section. (Ord. 993 § 9 (part), 1985: Ord. 861 § 9.02, 1981) e) a new condominium or community housing project will result in the creation of four or fewer units. 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 19.32 and 19.36, 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 a special meeting held on the 21s'day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Chairperson Khalfin, Vice Chairperson Faria, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Nagales, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Wong NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: /s/Sailesh Mehra Sailesh Mehra Secretary to the Planning Commission EXHIBIT A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT P16-0024 2633689.1 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-316, Version: 1 ORDINANCE NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 19.36 ("Condominiums and Community Housing Projects") to allow the creation of Condominium and Community Housing Projects with two or more units. WHEREAS, reducing the minimum required number of units for a condominium or community housing project from five units to two units could facilitate the production of for-sale residential units for the City of South San Francisco ("City") without changing any existing zoning designations or density limitations within the City; and WHEREAS, the construction of additional for-sale residential units could help address the significant demand for housing units within the City; and WHEREAS, supporting the production of new residential units is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element that identifies Program 14D to evaluate Chapter 19.36 and consider reducing minimum unit requirements with the intent of promoting home ownership; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an amendment to Chapter 19.36 of the City's Municipal Code regarding regulations for the construction of new condominium and community housing projects ("Ordinance Amendment"); and WHEREAS, reducing the minimum number of units for condominium and community housing projects will necessitate a parallel set of procedures whereby projects with four or fewer units will be processed according to the minor subdivision procedures outlined in Chapter 19.48 of the Municipal Code and projects with five or more units will be processed according to the standard subdivision procedures outlined in Chapter 19.40; and WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance Amendment is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, on April 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 Ordinance Amendment, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Amendment, at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the Amendment. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 5 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-316, Version: 1 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: L 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 2015-2023 Housing Element Update and IS/ND, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed April 21, 2016 meeting; and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed May 25, 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 Ordinance Amendment, as they relate to condominiums and community housing projects regulations, 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 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 Ordinance Amendment is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment. The change to the threshold for constructing a condominium or community housing project will not otherwise change zoning or increase density beyond already permitted regulations. Moreover, the Ordinance Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to affordable housing and home ownership. Modifications to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations chapter would not affect or change zoning designations or density limitations in the City and no land use impact is expected. Therefore, the Ordinance Amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Public Resources Code. 5. 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. Specific Findings City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 5 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-316, Version: 1 1. As described in Section II, adoption of the proposed Ordinance Amendment will include revisions to Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to reflect minor changes to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations (SSFMC 19.36). 2. The proposed Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the General Plan because the Ordinance Amendment would revise an existing housing policy as contemplated by the adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element. Revision of the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations would promote home ownership and 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 Ordinance Amendment is suitable for the proposed uses. The Ordinance Amendment will change the threshold for constructing a condominium or community housing project, but will not otherwise change zoning or increase density beyond already permitted regulations. The Ordinance Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to affordable housing and home ownership. Modifications to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations chapter would not affect or change land use citywide and no land use impact is expected. 4. The proposed Ordinance Amendment are not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Ordinance Amendment would only clarify existing regulations. More specifically, the Ordinance Amendment includes a revision to the Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations to reduce the minimum required number of units for a condominium or community housing project from five units to two units. The proposed Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City; instead, the Ordinance Amendment could facilitate the production of for-sale housing units within existing zoning designations and update the Municipal Code to be consistent with the recommendations of the Housing Element in the General Plan. SECTION IL AMENDMENTS. The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows (with text in stt:ikeett 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 19.36 Condominiums and Community Housing Projects regulations to read as follows: 1. Revise Section 19.36.030 Procedures Generally to modify the minimum required number of units for a condominium or community housing project. 19.36.030 Procedures Generally New cCondominium projects and new community housing projects shall result in the creation of two f-*e or more units_, a*d tThe procedure to be used in subdividing a condominium project or community housing project for four or fewer units shall be the minor subdivision procedures found in Chapter 19.48. The procedure to be used in subdividing a condominium project or community housing project for five or more units shall be City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 5 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-316, Version: 1 the standard subdivision procedure found in Chapter 19.40, in addition to the requirements and procedures set forth in this Chapter. Nothing in this Section shall be interpreted to conflict with the provisions of Section 20.350.035. 2. Revise Section 19.32.020 Minor subdivision procedures to make it clear that new condominium or community housing projects with fewer than five units shall utilize the minor subdivision procedures. 19.32.020 Minor subdivision procedure The minor subdivision procedure set forth in Chapter 19.48 shall be used where: (a) The land before division contains less than five acres, each parcel created by the division abuts upon a maintained public street or highway and no dedications or improvements are required by the City, or (b) Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of 20 acres or more and has an approved access to a maintained public street or highway, or (c) The land consists of a parcel or parcels of land having approved access to a public street or highway which comprises part of a tract of land zoned for industrial or commercial development, and which has the approval of the City as to street alignments and widths, or (d) Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of not less than 40 acres or is not less than a quarter of a quarter section. (Ord. 993 § 9 (part), 1985: Ord. 861 § 9.02, 1981) (e) a new condominium or community housing project will result in the creation of four or fewer units. 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 25th City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 5 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-316, Version: 1 day of May, 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 2633730.1 City of South San Francisco Page 5 of 5 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-351, Version: 1 Report regarding a resolution authorizing a change in scope and construction contingency budget in an amount not to exceed $94,853 for the Four Parks Playground Renovation Project. (Eric Evans, Associate Civil Engineer) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a change in scope and construction contingency budget in an amount not to exceed $94,853 for the Four Parks Playground Renovation Project (Project Nos. pk1203,pk1204,pk1206, and pk1303) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On December 10, 2014, the City Council approved the award of a construction contract to Alpha Bay Builders, Inc. for the Four Parks Playground Project in an amount not to exceed $687,404. The accompanying staff report specified a contingency budget of $68,740 to pay for staff-approved extra work. This contingency budget was spent on a new drainage system for the large play area at Buri Buri Park, extra handling of wet soils that were not adequate for the placement of concrete, an improved sidewalk at the entrance of Francisco Terrace Playlot, and other assorted items. All of these tasks were within the originally designated contingency budget of$68,740 (10% of the contract amount). In addition to the previously outlined scope changes, it was determined that the asphalt surface of Clay Avenue Park was deteriorated and should be replaced to leave the improved park in a state of good repair once reopened. For the purposes of cost efficiency and aesthetics, staff determined that replacement of the asphalt was warranted while the Contractor was on-site, at a negotiated cost of$38,646 for the additional work. With the inclusion of the asphalt replacement, the cost for all extra work totaled $98,853, or $26,113 greater than the contingency budget line item. Unspent funds in the administration and inspection line items of the project budget can be used to cover the overage. Staff recommends transferring a portion of the unspent funds from the administration and inspection line items to the construction contingency line item to cover the cost of the additional work. Council accepted construction as complete on December 16, 2015, though the exceedance of the contingency budget line item was not addressed at that time. This proposed resolution will formally approve the change in scope to include the asphalt replacement, raise the contingency budget to the necessary $94,853, and allow staff to complete change orders to close out the contract with Alpha Bay Builders. FUNDING No new funding is needed. Existing funds within the City Council approved project budget are available. The original contract amount was $687,404. Contract change orders for extra work total $94,853, for a final construction contract cost of$782,257. A total of$756,144 has been paid to Alpha Bay Builders thus far. An City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/27/2016 p owisied by Le�,pi File #: 16-351, Version: 1 additional $26,113 is still owed. Dollar figures associated with the proposed Council action are shown below. Approved Budget Actual Balance Construction Contract(Base Bid) $687,404 $687,404 $ -0- Contingency (change orders) $ 68,740 $ 94,853 ($ 26,113) Administration $ 34,370 $ 30,454 $ 3,916 Inspection $ 40,000 $ 17,744 $ 22,256 Materials Testing $ 10,000 $ 6,390 $ 3,610 Total $840,514 $836,845 $ 3,669 There is adequate balance in the Administration, Inspection, and Materials Testing line items to cover the overage in the Contingency line item. The overall project was delivered under budget by $3,669. Total construction contract amount $782,257 Amount paid to Alpha Bay Builders thus far ($756,144) Amount owed to Alpha Bay Builders $ 26,113 CONCLUSION The Four Parks Playground Renovation Project was delivered under budget by $3,669. Approval of this resolution will allow staff to close out the construction contract with Alpha Bay Builders. Unspent funds in the Administration and Inspection line items will cover the Contingency overage. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/27/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-352, Version: 1 Resolution authorizing a change in scope and construction contingency budget in an amount not to exceed $94,853 for the Four Parks Playground Renovation Project. WHEREAS, on December 10, 2014, the City Council approved the award of a construction contract to Alpha Bay Builders, Inc. for the Four Parks Playground Project("Project"); and, WHEREAS, at the time of award, the City Council approved a construction contingency line item of $68,740 to pay for changes in scope necessary to address unforeseen conditions; and, WHEREAS, changes in scope necessary to address unforeseen conditions ultimately totaled $94,853 and therefore, exceeded the contingency budget line item by $26,113; and, WHEREAS, there is sufficient unspent budget within the Project budget to pay for the additional $26,113 needed for the change in scope; and WHEREAS, all work was completed within the total approved Project budget and the City Council accepted the construction contract as complete on December 16, 2015. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby take the following actions: 1. Authorizes the change in scope for the Project; and 2. Authorizes the transfer of unspent funds from the Project budget to increase the contingency budget from $68,740 to $94,853 in order to pay Alpha Bay Builders, Inc. of San Francisco, CA the remaining balance and subsequently, closeout the Four Parks Playground Renovation Proj ect. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-360, Version: 1 Report regarding a resolution awarding a construction contract to Northwest Demolition, Inc., of San Francisco, California, for the Francisco Terrace Park Retaining Wall Project (Project No. pk1204) in an amount not to exceed $79,825 and authorizing a construction contingency budget in an amount not to exceed $16,000. (Eric Evans, Associate Civil Engineer) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding a construction contract to Northwest Demolition, Inc. of San Francisco, California, for the Francisco Terrace Park Retaining Wall Project (Project No. pk1204) in an amount not to exceed $79,825 and authorizing a construction contingency budget in an amount not to exceed$16,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Francisco Park Retaining Wall Project (Project) will result in a new retaining wall to replace the existing deteriorated retaining wall at the Francisco Terrace Park. The existing wall is constructed entirely of wood and is showing significant deterioration. Its vertical wood support posts are subject to rot and loss of strength. Because of this and its age, the wall has started to lean, allowing the retained soils to shift during the winter rains. The new 1 to 3 foot tall wall will be built using vertical support posts of concrete and steel, with an expected longevity of several decades longer than wood posts. Like the existing wall, the horizontal lagging between the posts will be wood, though for longer life it will be thicker than the existing wall. Staff advertised a Notice Inviting Bids for the construction project on April 12, 2016 and April 19, 2016. Staff additionally contacted several local contractors with experience in this type of work to ensure their awareness of the project. Three identical pre-bid meetings and jobsite tours were conducted April 18, 21, and 25, 2016. Contractor participation in at least one meeting was mandatory. On April 27, 2016, staff received four (4)bids in response. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder was Northwest Demolition, Inc., of San Francisco, California. Staff contacted their references and verified that their contractor's license with the California State Licensing Board is in good standing. Because the project is City funded, there are no Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)requirements. The following is a summary of all bids received for the construction Project: Northwest Demolition, Inc., of San Francisco, CA $ 79,825 Hillside Drilling, Inc., of Point Richmond, CA $ 83,769 Bridgeway Civil Constructors, Inc., of Vacaville, CA $110,808 Casey Construction, Inc., of Emerald Hills, CA $139,339 Engineer's Estimate $ 60,000 City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-360, Version: 1 The bids were all higher than the engineer's estimate. This is partially due to the current economy in which contractors have a high workload with less incentive to be cost competitive. Shown below is the total estimated project construction cost: Northwest Demolition, Inc. Construction Contract $ 79,825 Construction Contingency (20%) $ 16,000 Construction Materials Testing $ 10,000 Construction Inspection and Administration $ 10,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 115,825 FUNDING This project is funded by a combination of Park-in-Lieu Zone 4 and General Fund. After design work and other earlier efforts, there is a remaining total available budget of$119,310, which is sufficient to complete construction and close out the project. CONCLUSION Approving award of the construction contract to Northwest Demolition, Inc., of San Francisco, California, will allow for the replacement of a failing retaining wall in Francisco Terrace Park to ensure the safety and enjoyment of residents. Images of the location of the wall in the park, and a side view of the wall's construction are included as Attachment A to this staff report. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 Attachment A ;oaRa.;quKh� rAwub.�rA,III -RAJ.) ..... M PrJ r;GC?C:N NO d�ArL"M I"N�JhIL p;'IY"CJiM.°mot ,M 0.a'',91M A01 K '.;rnV r�wiGDlou wUu:,", CIVI N tl FINJIC rluluv"G GRAD E, FF VW 00!.;r Vlr4RErBLAf--K.lrWGfl'eI"�jj dt Nrt, A — N A (DRAIN RCKIK M 'o"rM r IN II fKuW'r PI'14G N FI L TER 1.A9 NK, a W rn✓F P'W7 oV Oro R MAL a 10X.V. II oiWV49 Im;i 77 r IC 0.IV1!r W'11F':rt T�z uuu �. II II A II II IL_J kld.r'rd;uM,C V'iRl I LC'1 r-R'u.b''< .F_ P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-361, Version: 1 Resolution awarding a construction contract to Northwest Demolition, Inc., of San Francisco, California, for the Francisco Terrace Park Retaining Wall Project (Project No. pk1204) in an amount not to exceed $79,825 and authorizing a construction contingency budget in an amount not to exceed $16,000 WHEREAS, City of South San Francisco ("City") staff issued a Notice Inviting Bids for the Francisco Terrace Park Retaining Wall Project("Project") and on April 12, 2016, received four(4)bids in response; and WHEREAS, Northwest Demolition, Inc., of San Francisco, California, was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding the total base bid construction contract to Northwest Demolition, Inc., of San Francisco, California, in a total amount not to exceed $79,825, and WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing a construction contract contingency budget in an amount not to exceed $16,000 to cover any staff-approved extra work that may be performed by the Contractor; and WHEREAS, the Project is funded by a combination Park-in-Lieu Zone 4 Funds and the General Fund, and there is sufficient budget available to complete construction and close out the project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards the total base bid construction contract for the Francisco Terrace Park Retaining Wall Project to Northwest Demolition, Inc., of San Francisco, California, in a total amount not to exceed $79,825, conditioned on Northwest Demolition, Inc.'s timely execution of the Project contract and submission of all required documents, including but not limited to, certificates of insurance and endorsements, in accordance with the Project documents. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes a construction contract contingency budget in an amount not to exceed $16,000 to cover any staff-approved extra work that may be performed by the Contractor. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the total base bid construction contract documents with Northwest Demolition, Inc., of San Francisco, California on behalf of the City upon timely submission by Northwest Demolition, Inc. of the signed contract and all other documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 2 Printed on 6/2/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-361, Version: 1 City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 2 Printed on 6/2/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-419, Version: 1 Report regarding a resolution of the City Council of South San Francisco authorizing an application for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC)Program in the amount of$8,885,024 to support pedestrian and bicycle linkages from downtown to the relocated Caltrain station and to support construction of the Mixed-Use Senior Affordable Housing Project at 3 10-3 14 Miller Avenue and an adjacent parking lot (APN 012-311-060). (Alex Greenwood, Economic and Community Development Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing an application for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Funds in the amount of $8,885,024 for the South San Francisco Connections to Caltrain: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvement Project supporting pedestrian and bicycle linkages from Downtown to the relocated Caltrain station and to support the construction of the mixed-use senior affordable housing project at 310-314 Miller Avenue and an adjacent parking lot(APN 012-311-060) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program funding is provided from the State of California's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), an account established to receive Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds. This is the second year of the AHSC program with $320 million available to invest in projects that reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions by supporting more compact infill development patterns, encouraging active transportation and transit usage, and protecting agricultural land from sprawl development. In March 2016, City staff from the Economic and Community Development Department, Beacon Development Group, and with additional assistance from Townsend Public Affairs, the City's grant administration firm, submitted a conceptual project proposal as part of the first round of evaluation to the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City's conceptual proposal, totaling $8.8 million, included two key, complementary components. The first component proposes infrastructure improvements; specifically, infrastructure that impacts bike and pedestrian pathways. The project proposes the construction of sustainable street improvements, addition of ADA features, reconstruction, pedestrian safety enhancements, signage, bicycle lanes, and connectivity enhancements. These improvements seek to increase connectivity within the City; in particular, from the affordable housing on the western side of the city to the relocated South San Francisco Caltrain station and the employment center on the eastern side of the city. The proposed enhancements will complement the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Improvement project and help to implement the recently approved Downtown Specific Plan. The project areas for these infrastructure improvements will be along the Grand Avenue corridor and the Airport Boulevard corridor; both which form the core of the downtown and serve as City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-419, Version: 1 main arteries for transit and vehicular traffic. Please refer to the attached map for overview of project area. The total amount requested for this first component is: $7,885,024 The second component involves the construction of affordable housing for seniors. In partnership with Beacon Development Group and Rotary Plaza Inc., this application is requesting for funds to supplement the construction cost of eighty one (8 1) units of affordable senior housing on city-owned sites in downtown South San Francisco. Eighty one (8 1) of these units will be comprised of seventy one (7 1) units restricted to 50% AMI and nine (9) units are restricted to 30% AMI or below. Additionally, the applicant commits to set aside 20% of the units for seniors with disabilities and two units for formerly homeless seniors. With a walk score of 80, this project's downtown location is ideal for senior housing because the future residents will be able to easily access businesses, services, and the Caltrain Station. Furthermore, this affordable housing project will be positively impacted by the proposed infrastructure improvements along the Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard corridors. The total amount requested for this second component is: $1,000,000 With these two application components combined, the total requested amount of the concept proposal is $8,885,024. The submission of this concept proposal was highly competitive as there were 130 conceptual project proposals submitted requesting over $1.1 billion. SGC and HCD evaluated the conceptual project proposals and on April 29, 2016, SGC and HCD invited the City and Beacon Development Group to enter into the second round which involves submitting a full application. As part of the submission of the full application, SGC and HCD require a resolution from the City Council authorizing staff to submit an application for the AHSC program funding. FISCAL IMPACT The conceptual proposal submitted by City staff, Beacon Development Group, and Townsend Public Affairs is requesting 100 percent of the $7,885,024 in funds needed for construction of the proposed project with no additional City match. In addition, another $1,000,000 is requested in order to be applied towards the development of mixed-use senior affordable housing project at 310-314 Miller Avenue and an adjacent parking lot (APN 012-311-060). The conceptual proposal submitted by City staff, Beacon Development Group, and Townsend Public Affairs linked the City Council's commitment of $5.9 million towards the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Improvement project. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station Improvement project complements this request for AHSC program funds because the funds will apply towards improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the Downtown, connecting affordable housing, such as the Rotary project, to other areas of the City, and linking the Downtown area to the relocated Caltrain station and employment centers east of Highway 101. CONCLUSION Adopting the attached resolution and authorizing staff to submit a full application for the AHSC program funds will allow the City to compete for the $320 million in available funding. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing an application for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Funds in the amount of$8,885,024 for the South San Francisco Connections to Caltrain: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvement Project City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-419, Version: 1 supporting pedestrian and bicycle linkages from Downtown to the relocated Caltrain station and to support the construction of the mixed-use senior affordable housing project at 310-314 Miller Avenue and an adjacent parking lot(APN 012-311-060) Prepared by: Approved by: Alex Greenwood Mike Futrell Director of Economic and City Manager Community Development Attachments: Resolution Project Area Map City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES (AHSC) PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,885,024 TO SUPPORT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE LINKAGES FROM DOWNTOWN TO THE RELOCATED CALTRAIN STATION AND TO SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION OF THE MIXED-USE SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT 310-314 MILLER AVENUE AND AN ADJACENT PARKING LOT (APN 012-311-060) WHEREAS, The State of California, the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) has issued a Notice of Funding Availability dated January 29,2016 (NOFA), under the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program established under Division 44, Part 1 of the Public Resources Code commencing with Section 75200; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (City) desires to apply for AHSC Program funds in the amount of$8,885,024 and submit the Application Package released by the Department for the AHSC Program ("Application Package"); and WHEREAS, as part of the submission of the Application Package, SGC and HCD requires the City Council of the City to pass a resolution authorizing staff to submit an application for AHSC Program funding; and WHEREAS, The SGC is authorized to approve funding allocations for the AHSC Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the NOFA, Program Guidelines, Application Package, and Standard Agreement. The Department is authorized to administer the approved funding allocations of the AHSC Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby takes the following actions: 1. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to apply for and submit to the Department the AHSC Program Application as detailed in the NOFA dated January 29, 2016, for the 2015-16 Fiscal Year in a total amount not to exceed $8,885,024 of which $1,000,000 is requested as a loan for an Affordable Housing Development (AHD) ("AHSC Loan") and $7,885,024 is requested for a grant for Housing-Related Infrastructure (HRI), Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure (STI), Transit-Related Amenities (TRA) or Program (PGM) activities ("AHSC Grant") as defined the AHSC Program Guidelines adopted by SGC on December 17, 2015. If the application is approved, the Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver a State of California Standard Agreement (Standard -1- Agreement) in a total amount not to exceed $8,885,024 ($1,000,000 for the AHSC Loan and $7,885,024 for the AHSC Grant), and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to secure the AHSC Program funds from the Department, and all amendments thereto (collectively, the "AHSC Documents"). 2. Agrees that the City shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Standard Agreement. Funds are to be used for allowable capital asset project expenditures to be identified in Exhibit A of the Standard Agreement. The application in full is incorporated as part of the Standard Agreement. Any and all activities funded, information provided, and timelines represented in the application are enforceable through the Standard Agreement. Applicant hereby agrees to use the funds for eligible capital asset(s) in the manner presented in the application as approved by the Department and in accordance with the NOFA and Program Guidelines and Application Package 3. Authorizes the City Manager to execute in the name of the City the AHSC Program Application Package and the AHSC Program Documents as required by the HCD for participation in the AHSC Program. I hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution, which has not been altered, amended or repealed, was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a duly convened meeting held on the day of 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Krista Martinelli, City Clerk 2421760.1 -2- Attachment 1: Project Area Map ¢, w t rL,p 41uNTy'41f nAWp d xir�Xrrnvlt;�sdhroat�i,��frxyrA � a,�'° �, q w ` lIP,WV1 ao C"P�i,if't"5 NN'd�Ui.T�t,'N4etlf � p -(WCd,.pr � ��a�'fwr ,. pY� Wy r Legend ;u� n�'8m u � �lit 44 L,-� rytt9 � ez Uy r 1/4,1/2,&l DWlwle A u r concentric circles fl +wr dN ,� Sf M1'113 RtF,@4rYPhl7A9d?bt�'Y}� Vt" Airport Blvd.Corridor �r �4Adr✓ r f: Grand Ave,,Corridor 4 UC.4 C, ah✓ .. n � aGr Proposed S'tstiuon r 38c", Affordable Senior " Housing li Site i� Nlddd iR°u1N/�"h.liMf YfUnfh�'.�dlhk'IN'PhYla"&P.Il,M. N -� .. r / ; /E' GdAH"PIVA r-- � � St U'I"19 Sd+h,1V ,,W rt,xadan'rrwe bcanrxh�na�s n�aris �°r �>. � �, � � f i �••�.,, 5 1h b" d � tAll Cli-#Ntv1 hdpdf,7" Mi IdAfVC,f.�"G'U'� V � � r ClNfl�dA+.npg�,,✓f9<!'n �aar�r ordar7yA/. ,r,'��' Ad 7U�iS 4ir �� mum i NDI,,a ran raw.w "xc. �,gm`�^ P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-420, Version: 1 Resolution of the City Council of South San Francisco authorizing an application for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program in the amount of $8,885,024 to support pedestrian and bicycle linkages from downtown to the relocated Caltrain station and to support construction of the Mixed-Use Senior Affordable Housing Project at 310-314 Miller Avenue and an adjacent parking lot (APN 012-311-060). WHEREAS, The State of California, the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) and the Department of Housing and Community Development(Department)has issued a Notice of Funding Availability dated January 29,2016 (NOFA), under the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program established under Division 44, Part 1 of the Public Resources Code commencing with Section 75200; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (City) desires to apply for AHSC Program funds in the amount of$8,885,024 and submit the Application Package released by the Department for the AHSC Program ("Application Package"); and WHEREAS, as part of the submission of the Application Package, SGC and HCD requires the City Council of the City to pass a resolution authorizing staff to submit an application for AHSC Program funding; and WHEREAS, The SGC is authorized to approve funding allocations for the AHSC Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the NOFA, Program Guidelines, Application Package, and Standard Agreement. The Department is authorized to administer the approved funding allocations of the AHSC Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby takes the following actions: 1. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to apply for and submit to the Department the AHSC Program Application as detailed in the NOFA dated January 29, 2016, for the 2015-16 Fiscal Year in a total amount not to exceed $8,885,024 of which $1,000,000 is requested as a loan for an Affordable Housing Development (AHD) ("AHSC Loan") and $7,885,024 is requested for a grant for Housing-Related Infrastructure (HRI), Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure (STI), Transit-Related Amenities(TRA) or Program (PGM) activities ("AHSC Grant") as defined the AHSC Program Guidelines adopted by SGC on December 17, 2015. If the application is approved, the Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver a State of California Standard Agreement (Standard Agreement) in a total amount not to exceed $8,885,024 ($1,000,000 for the AHSC Loan and $7,885,024 for the AHSC Grant), and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to secure the AHSC Program funds from the Department, and all amendments thereto (collectively, the "AHSC Documents"). City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-420, Version: 1 2. Agrees that the City shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Standard Agreement. Funds are to be used for allowable capital asset project expenditures to be identified in Exhibit A of the Standard Agreement. The application in full is incorporated as part of the Standard Agreement. Any and all activities funded, information provided, and timelines represented in the application are enforceable through the Standard Agreement. Applicant hereby agrees to use the funds for eligible capital asset(s) in the manner presented in the application as approved by the Department and in accordance with the NOFA and Program Guidelines and Application Package 3. Authorizes the City Manager to execute in the name of the City the AHSC Program Application Package and the AHSC Program Documents as required by the HCD for participation in the AHSC Program. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES (AHSC) PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,885,024 TO SUPPORT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE LINKAGES FROM DOWNTOWN TO THE RELOCATED CALTRAIN STATION AND TO SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION OF THE MIXED-USE SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT 310-314 MILLER AVENUE AND AN ADJACENT PARKING LOT (APN 012-311-060) WHEREAS, The State of California, the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) has issued a Notice of Funding Availability dated January 29,2016 (NOFA), under the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program established under Division 44, Part 1 of the Public Resources Code commencing with Section 75200; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (City) desires to apply for AHSC Program funds in the amount of$8,885,024 and submit the Application Package released by the Department for the AHSC Program ("Application Package"); and WHEREAS, as part of the submission of the Application Package, SGC and HCD requires the City Council of the City to pass a resolution authorizing staff to submit an application for AHSC Program funding; and WHEREAS, The SGC is authorized to approve funding allocations for the AHSC Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the NOFA, Program Guidelines, Application Package, and Standard Agreement. The Department is authorized to administer the approved funding allocations of the AHSC Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby takes the following actions: 1. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to apply for and submit to the Department the AHSC Program Application as detailed in the NOFA dated January 29, 2016, for the 2015-16 Fiscal Year in a total amount not to exceed $8,885,024 of which $1,000,000.00 is requested as a loan for an Affordable Housing Development (AHD) ("AHSC Loan") and $7,885,024.00 is requested for a grant for Housing-Related Infrastructure (HRI), Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure (STI), Transit-Related Amenities(TRA) or Program (PGM) activities ("AHSC Grant") as defined the AHSC Program Guidelines adopted by SGC on December 17, 2015. If the application is approved, the Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver a State of California Standard Agreement (Standard -1- Agreement) in a total amount not to exceed $8,885,024.00 ($1,000,000.00 for the AHSC Loan and $7,885,024.00 for the AHSC Grant), and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to secure the AHSC Program funds from the Department, and all amendments thereto (collectively, the "AHSC Documents"). 2. Agrees that the City shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Standard Agreement. Funds are to be used for allowable capital asset project expenditures to be identified in Exhibit A of the Standard Agreement. The application in full is incorporated as part of the Standard Agreement. Any and all activities funded, information provided, and timelines represented in the application are enforceable through the Standard Agreement. Applicant hereby agrees to use the funds for eligible capital asset(s) in the manner presented in the application as approved by the Department and in accordance with the NOFA and Program Guidelines and Application Package 3. Authorizes the City Manager to execute in the name of the City the AHSC Program Application Package and the AHSC Program Documents as required by the HCD for participation in the AHSC Program. I hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution, which has not been altered, amended or repealed, was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a duly convened meeting held on the day of 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Krista Martinelli, City Clerk 2421760.1 -2- P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-425, Version: 1 Report on Centennial Village Development - Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and El Camino and Spruce, LLC ("First Amendment") for the previously entitled Centennial Village project to allow a five-month extension to the timeframe to commence construction of the project at 180 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 19.60 & 20.090. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Centennial Village Project at 180 El Camino Real. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On March 12, 2014, the City Council approved a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM), and Development Agreement to allow the construction of a mixed-use project including approximately 222,000 square feet of commercial space, up to 284 residential units, a parking structure and surface parking, and other on- and off-site improvements (Project) to replace the existing commercial shopping center at 180 El Camino Real. As part of the Project approvals, the City and the applicant negotiated a Development Agreement to clarify and obligate several Project features and mitigation measures, including the timeframe in which construction of Phase 1 would commence after final approval by the City was granted; the approved timeframe was 18 months from approval, September 26, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the City Council approved an Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement, allowing for the following amendments to the original Development Agreement: • Minor modifications to the project design • Revise the commencement date of Phase 1 construction from 18 months to 27 months (extending the Phase 1 construction deadline to June 26, 2016) Second Administrative Agreement Amendment("Administrative Amendment') The applicant has submitted a request for a Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to further extend the Phase 1 construction deadline from 27 months to 32 months (extending the Phase 1 construction deadline to November 26, 2016). Subsequent to approval of the first Administrative Agreement Amendment last August, the applicant has submitted building permit plans, and the City anticipates being able to approve and issue building permits prior to expiration of the current Phase 1 construction deadline. With plans at a"ready-to-issue"phase, the applicant is now able to obtain construction cost bidding, and anticipates bids being received by June 9, 2016. The applicant has also submitted estimated construction milestones include the following: • Demolition of Firestone Building May 25, 2016 City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/27/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-425, Version: 1 • Start of Pre-demolition Asbestos Removal August 15, 2016 • Start of Shopping Center Building Demolition September 15, 2016 • Start of City sewer main relocation September 26, 2016 • Start of Phase 1 Building Footings construction November 26, 2016 Because of these delays, the applicant is requesting an additional minor modification to the Development Agreement to revise the commencement date of Phase 1 construction from 27 months (which would occur on June 26, 2016) to 32 months (which would occur on November 26, 2016). No other changes to the DA are proposed at this time. The proposed amended language is shown below in strikeout/underline format: Section 6.13(a)(i). Phase 1 construction will begin within 2-732 months after final approval by the City of all discretionary approvals of the overall plan, and the passage of all applicable statutes of limitations without legal challenge and will include: • Demolition of Firestone Building shall begin by no later than May 25, 2016. • Pre-demolition Asbestos Removal shall begin by no later than August 15, 2016. • Existing Shopping Center Building Demolition shall begin by no later than September 15, 2016. • City Sewer Main Relocation shall begin by no later than September 26, 2016. • All commercial buildings except Building E. • All subterranean parking under the main surface parking lot. • Phase 1 Parking Garage. • A minimum of 150 apartment units above Safeway/Major 2. • All current site improvements and design features. • No change to building architecture as approved by the City Council per DR11-0019. • The second story of Buildings C and/or D may consist of exterior walls and roof only, as shown on the plans approved concurrently herewith. • Developer must apply for the building permit for the Phase 1 Safeway/Major 2 commercial building, not including CVS concurrently with the building permit for the 150 Phase 1 residential units; the Safeway/Major 2 commercial building not including CVS and 150 unit residential building permits will only be issued concurrently. • The City shall not be obligated to issue any certificate of occupancy for the Phase 1 Safeway/Major 2 commercial building until construction of Phase 1 residential units, defined as vertical wall framing of the residential units, has commenced. Section 7.02(a) of the Development Agreement provides that amendments to the DA that do not substantially affect (i) the term of the DA, (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 (vi) or monetary contributions by the Developer, can be approved by City Council resolution as an "Administrative Agreement Amendment." None of these conditions exist here, and therefore, an Administrative Agreement Amendment is appropriate. The proposed Second Administrative Amendment is attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The Project site is designated El Camino Real Mixed Use within the General Plan. The site is also located within the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zone District, which provides zoning for high-intensity active uses and City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/27/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-425, Version: 1 mixed-use development. The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan by creating a mixed-use environment within the required FAR parameters that emphasizes pedestrian- activity with buildings built up to the sidewalk along El Camino Real and South Spruce Ave, provides a well- articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and locates parking in a way that is not visually dominant. The Project remains consistent with all development standards of the District. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the Project and was circulated on April 12, 2013 for a 30-day review period. A total of six comment letters were received from commenting agencies, but no significant environmental issues were raised. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on August 15, 2013 to receive comments from the public on the IS/MND. The City Council adopted the IS/MND on March 12, 2014. The IS/MND included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The modifications to the mixed-use development and development agreement would not include any substantive changes that would result in any additional environmental impacts and are within the parameters that were analyzed in the IS/MND. Therefore, no further CEQA action is required by the City Council at this time. CONCLUSION The proposed Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement includes amendments related to the proposed commencement date of construction, and remains consistent with the intent and purpose of the El Camino Real Mixed Use district. There are no new or increased environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed Project modifications. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Centennial Village Project. Attachments: 1. Second Amendment Request Letter from Applicant, dated May 5, 2016 2. Original Development Agreement 3. Administrative Agreement Amendment City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/27/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 WTMITC.HELL GROUP Iw VI::; IIsmLIIIS, DIVA I0II''IIIII IINIf, AS`bII l IVAINAG II:MI:IIII.I RL All L IAIII:: IfsIIIOI<I::RAGL By U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail May 5, 2016 Mike Futrell, City Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Mike.Futrellgssf.net Re: Centennial Village a Transit Oriented Development Dear Mr. Futrell: We respectfully request that in Section 6.13 a.(i) of the development agreement between the City of South San Francisco and El Camino and Spruce LLC the start date for building construction be extended to November 26, 2016. Because a major city sewer main currently located on our property must be relocated into Spruce Avenue before any work commences onsite, the building foundation work will not begin as soon as would usually be the case. Further, the mixed-use nature of the approved development, coupled with its transit-oriented density, has required considerably more design, development coordination and city plan check review time than all parties had originally anticipated. In addition the apartment plans submitted in November 2015 are still being checked by the outside plan check company, which has forced us to delay construction cost bidding until just recently. As of this date the project has plans at ready-to-issue building permit stage for the Spruce Avenue improvements, onsite work and retail building improvements. We have engaged the Build Group of San Francisco as general contractor to build the project. All the Phase I plans are currently out for construction bidding, and we anticipate bids in by June 9, 2016. This will allow us to enter into a guaranteed maximum price contract with the Build Group, close the construction loan, and start the utility construction and site preparation work that has to occur before building foundations, in time to meet the above requested date. For these reasons we request the modification to the development agreement to allow us to continue forward with the project in as expeditious a manner as possible. Sincerely, WT Mitchell Group Inc. William T. Mitchell President cc: Luis Davidsohn Alex Greenwood P®Box 5127,Walnut Creek,CA 94596 USA 1 925-988-8033 I www.wtmitchellgroup.com RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: "' 8:10 am 04106/15 AG Fee:NO FEE Cl Clerk Count of Pages 50 ' Recorded in Official Records City of South San Francisco County of San Mateo P.O. Box 711 IlWark Church Assessor- ouyni u Clerk Recorder South San Francisco, CA 94083 1111 11�1 11u 11 li'� �1 l 11111 ll�ill This instrument is exempt from recording fees h R 0 0 2V 0 0 2 4 6 6 pursuant to Government Code Sec. 27383. r (Space Above This Line Reserved For Recorder's Use) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND EL CAMINO AND SPRUCE LLC CENTENNIAL VILLAGE 180 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ik N,I`IK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT(this "Agreement") is entered into as of March 26, 2014 by and between El Camino and Spruce LLC, a Nevada limited liability company("Developer"), and the City of South San Francisco ("City"),pursuant to California Government Code § 65864 et�iM. 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 § 65864 et§N. (the "Development Agreement Statute"),which authorizes City to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property regarding the development of such property. B. Pursuant to California Government Code § 65865, City has adopted procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements (South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 19.60). This Development Agreement has been processed, considered and executed in accordance with such procedures and requirements. C. Developer has a legal and/or equitable interest in certain real property located at the southern boundary of the City of South San Francisco, west of US 101 at 180 El Camino Real and in the southern part of the South El Camino Real GPA planning area, consisting of a 14.5-acre corner lot with frontages on El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue and as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit A(the "Project Site") . D. The proposed Project(the"Project")consists of removal of existing buildings and construction at full buildout of six new ones: Buildings A, B, C, D, and Major Tenant 3 (CVS), and a mixed-use building containing ground-floor commercial with parking and residential uses above. Buildings A, B,C, D, and Major Tenant 3 (CVS) consist of two stories (up to 40 feet in height) and the mixed-use buildings consist of five stories (up to approximately 70 feet in height with one tower component at 90 feet in height above Safeway). The proposed commercial component is approximately 222,500 square feet. The proposed residential component comprises a mix of one and two bedroom units totaling 284 units. A total of 1,392 parking spaces will provide parking for the commercial and residential components of the project. Ground level parking will provide 580 spaces and a parking structure will provide 812 spaces. The residential parking ratio is 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom units and 1.8 spaces per 2-bedroom units while the commercial parking ratio (retail and office) is four spaces per 1,000 square feet. Additionally, 128 bicycle parking 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: Use Permit; Development Agreement; Design Standard Exceptions; Design Review; Transportation Demand Management Plan. Each of these has been approved. It also requires that Caltrans approve the proposed left turn on WB El Camino Real onto the south driveway. The previously granted approvals I described in this:recital E are collectively referred to herein as the "Project Approvals." The Project Approvals are shown in Exhibit B. Development of the Project may also include at Developer's option the Airspace Subdivision described in section 6.12. 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 greatly needed commercial and residential development along the El Camino Real 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 below), and therefore desires to enter into this Agreement. H. On August 15,2013, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2736-2013,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. 1485- 2014, 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 Municipal Code and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS "Administrative Project Amendment" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7.01 of this Agreement. "Administrative Agreement Amendment" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7.02 of this Agreement. "Agreement" shall mean this Development Agreement. 2 "Airspace Subdivision" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.12 of this Agreement. "Applicable Law" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.03 of this Agreement. "City Law" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.05 of this Agreement. "Deficiencies" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.02 of this Agreement. "Development Agreement Statute" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital A of this Agreement. "Effective Date" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.01 of this Agreement. "Judgment" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.02 of this Agreement. "Periodic Review" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.05 of this Agreement. "Project" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital D of this Agreement. "Project Approvals" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital E of this Agreement. "Project Site" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital C of this Agreement. "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,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, (including the Airspace Subdivision),rezonings, development agreements,use permits, sign permits and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing. "Tax" and"Taxes" shall not include any generally applicable City Business License Tax or locally imposed Sales Tax. "Term" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.02 of this Agreement. 7 3 ARTICLE 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM Section 2.01. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date the ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective (the "Effective Date"). Section 2.02. Term. The term of this Agreement(the"Term") shall commence upon the Effective Date and continue for a period of ten(10) years. ARTICLE 3. OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER Section 3.01. 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 mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration("MND"). Section 3.02. 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 (the "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 appropriate, except as otherwise provided under the Agreement. Section 3.03. Mitigation Measures. Developer shall comply with the MMRP approved in conjunction with the MND for the Project, as it maybe modified from time to time in accordance with CEQA or other law. ARTICLE 4. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY Section 4.01. 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 4 agreement to perform and abide by the long term covenants and obligations of City, as set forth herein. Section 4.02. 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 below, 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 6.09, City shall not support, adopt, or enact any City Law, or take any other action which would violate the express provisions or intent of the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals. Section 4.03. 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. Section 4.04. 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 natural disaster, changes in seismic requirements, or should the buildings located within the Project become functionally outdated, within Developer's sole discretion, due to changes in technology. 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. Section 4.05. Reimbursement for Sewer Relocation Developer shall relocate City's sewer currently located on the Project Site to a location within the public street consistent with reasonable and customary requirements of City's Public Works Director; City will reimburse Developer's cost of such relocation up to a maximum amount of one hundred seventeen thousand dollars($117,000.00)which reimbursement shall be payable solely from sales tax receipts received by the City from sale tax generating uses at the Property which receipts are in excess of the total amount of sales tax receipts received from sales tax generating uses located at the Property during 2013. Section 4.06. Multiple Sewer Laterals Pursuant to the provisions of subsection(b)of section 14.14.040`Building drain and building sanitary sewer lateral"of the City's Municipal Code, the City hereby waives the prohibition against multiple sewer laterals so long as Project sewer laterals are located substantially as shown on the Project drawings. Section 4.07 Expedited Plan Check Process 5 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. ARTICLE 5. COOPERATION- IMPLEMENTATION Section 5.01. 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 fmal policy decisions. Section 5.02. 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. Section 5.03. 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 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. Section 5.04. 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 6.09. Section 5.05. 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 6 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. Section 5.06. Assessment Districts or Other Funding Mechanisms. (a) Existing Fees . The Parties understand and agree that as of the Effective Date the fees and exactions 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 reductionleredit 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. ARTICLE 6. STANDARDS, LAWS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROJECT Section 6.01. 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. Section 6.02. 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 7 li-1— 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 shall include,without limitation those uses listed as "permitted" in the El Camino Real Mixed Use zone district. Section 6.03. 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. Section 6.04. 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. Section 6.05. No Conflicting Enactments. Except as authorized in Section 6.09, 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 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; 8 (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 mariner; (e) Apply to the Project any City Law otherwise allowed by this Agreement that is not uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and project sites; (f) 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; (g) 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; (h) Impose against the Project any condition, dedication or other exaction not specifically authorized by Applicable Law; or (i) Limit the processing or procuring of applications and approvals of Subsequent Approvals. Section 6.06. 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 6.09, 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 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 9 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. Section 6.07. Environmental Mitigation. The parties understand that the MND was 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 MND, City agrees to use the MND 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 and the MNDIMMRP or specifically required by CEQA or other Applicable Law. Section 6.08. 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. Section 6.09. State and Federal Law. As provided in California Government Code § 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. Section 6.10. Prevailing Wage. Developer shall pay, or cause to be paid,prevailing wages, for all construction work permitted to occur at the Project Site under this Agreement, including all demolition, excavation and construction but not including any tenant improvement work. For the purposes of this Agreement, "prevailing wages" means not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, as defined in Section 1770, et seq. of the California Labor Code and Subchapter 3 of Chapter 8,Division 1, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 16000 et seq.), and as established by the Director of the 10 California Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR"). In any case where the general prevailing rate of per diem wages shall be paid, such rate shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the established rate in effect as of such date. Developer's compliance with prevailing wage requirements of this section is a material consideration of City in entering into this Agreement. The Developer shall, and shall cause the contractor and subcontractors to, keep and retain such records as are necessary to determine if such prevailing wages have been paid as required pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq., and that apprentices have been employed as required by Labor Code Section 1777.5-et seq., and immediately upon request shall deliver certified payrolls in compliance with Labor Code Sections 1720 et 5eMc. to the City. Developer agrees to reimburse the City for its costs related to review of the certified payroll records, and any other costs incurred ensuring compliance with this section. These costs may include the utilization of a third party contractor specializing in prevailing wage compliance. Copies of the currently applicable per diem prevailing wages are available from the DIR. During the construction work, including all demolition, excavation and construction, the Developer shall or shall cause the contractor to post at the Project Site the applicable prevailing rates of per diem wages. The Developer's failure to comply with this section, including but not limited to deliver, or cause the delivery of, such certified payrolls to the City in accordance with this Section shall constitute a Default under the Agreement. Section 6.11. [intentionally omitted] Section 6.12. Air Space Subdivision. Developer may elect to apply to the City for one or more air space subdivisions of the Project Site into two or more residential, commercial and parking parcels, to facilitate the development of the residential and commercial components of the Project on separate legal parcel parcels ("Airspace Subdivision"). The City agrees to promptly process such application or applications, to approve such applications provided that the application meets the objective standards prescribed by applicable law for the Airspace Subdivision, and not to impose any additional or increased exactions, requirements or obligations on the Project as a condition of its approval except as specifically required by applicable law. City's compliance with this section is a material consideration of Developer entering into this Agreement. Section 6.13. 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 284 apartment units on the site during the term of the Agreement. 1.1 (i) Phase 1 construction will begin within 18 months after final approval by the City of all discretionary approvals of the overall plan, and the passage of all applicable statutes of limitations without legal challenge and will include: • All commercial buildings except Building E. • All subterranean parking under Safeway/Major 2. • Second floor parking above Safeway/Major 2. • A minimum of 150 apartment units above Safeway/Major 2 • All current site improvements and design features • No change to building architecture as approved by the City Council per DR11-0019. • Structural/foundation enhancements for Health Club building sufficient to support approved residential construction and associated parking above. • The second story of Buildings C and/or D may consist of exterior walls and roof only, as shown on the plans approved concurrently herewith. • Developer must apply for the building permit for the Phase 1 Safeway/Major 2 commercial building, not including CVS concurrently with the building permit for the 150 Phase 1 residential units;the Safeway/Major 2 commercial building not including CVS and 150 unit residential building permits will only be issued concurrently. • The City shall not be obligated to issue any certificate of occupancy for the Phase 1 Safeway/Major 2 commercial building until construction of Phase 1 residential units, defined as vertical wall framing of the residential units,has commenced. (ii) Phase 2 will include: • Building E. • All parking structure levels. • Second floor parking above Building E and the Health Club. • Remainder of up to 284 total apartment units above Building E/ Major 2. (b) Developer may alter the apartment unit mix, apartment layout and size of units at its discretion. The resulting minor modifications to the exterior of the buildings will be allowed with only the Chief Planner's approval. Provided that any modifications comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements, that the exterior elevations do not change and the overall 12 parking requirement is not increased, no further design review or public hearings will be required for exterior changes so approved. Section 6.14. No Housing Restrictions on Rental Residential Component. City acknowledges and agrees that the residential component of the Project 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 so long as the residential component is solely comprised of rental housing. ARTICLE 7. AMENDMENT Section 7.01. 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 MND,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. (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 Oil 13 forth above shall be subject to review, consideration and action pursuant to the Applicable Law and this Agreement. Section 7.02. 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) 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 Section 8.01. 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. 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 such transferee. Such determination will be made by the City Manager and will be appealable by Developer to the City Council 14 ARTICLE . COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE Section 9.01. Cooperati on. 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. Section 9.02. 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: (i) 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. 15 (ii) 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. ARTICLE 10. DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION Section 10.01. 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. Section 10.02. 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. At any time prior to: 1)transfer of any interest in the Property including any security interest; 2) approval of any subdivision of the Property; or 3) commencement of construction of Phase 1, Developer may relinquish all of its rights under the Agreement and the Project Approvals by a)providing written notice to the City to that effect, and b) executing and delivering such further documents as may be necessary to effectuate fully and finally the termination of the Agreement and the Project Approvals including an application or applications for the revocation of any such Project Approvals by the City, which application(s)the City will not unreasonably deny, and c)waiving all claims against the City for any damage to the Developer or any successor in interest to the Developer resulting from City actions taken to approve the revocation of the Project Approvals, all in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the City 16 Manager and the City Attorney. Upon delivery of such notice, and execution and delivery of such further documents,the Agreement and the Project Approvals will terminate and neither Party will have any rights or obligations with respect to the other Party under this Agreement or the Project Approvals although Developer's waiver of all claims against the City shall survive termination of this Agreement. Section 10.03. 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. Section 10.04. 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. Section 10.05. 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(the "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 California Government Code Section 65865.1. 17 (b) Notice. At least five (5) days prior to the Periodic Review, and in the manner prescribed in Section 11.09 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 fmdings 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 California 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. Section 10.06. Default by City or Developer. In the event City or Developer defaults under the terms of this Agreement, City or Developer shall have all rights and remedies provided herein or under law. Either parry may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, recover damages for any default, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the parties hereto, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. 18 Section 10.07. 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. Section 10.08. Resolution of Disputes. With regard to any dispute involving development of the Project,the resolution of which is not pro-vided 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 10.07 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 the outcome of these meetings be binding in any way on City or Developer unless expressly agreed to by the parties to such meetings. Section 10.09. 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. Section 10.10. 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 Section 11.01. 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. Section 11.02. 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 19 T�� 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. Section 11.03. 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 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 California Government Code Section 65866: Section 11.04. 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. Section 11.05. Other Necessary. 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. Section 11.06. 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. Section 11.07. Other Miscellaneous Terms. The singular shall include the plural; the masculine gender shall include the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; "may" is 20 permissive. If there is more than one signer of this Agreement,the signer obligations are joint and several. Section 11.08. 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. Section 11.09.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 or other similar courier promising overnight delivery. 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 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 parry 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 Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: (650) 829-6629 Fax: (650) 829.6623 21 With a Copy to: Meyers Nave 575 Market Street, Suite 2080 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney Phone: (415)421-3711 Fax: (415)421-3767 If to Developer, to: El Camino and Spruce LLC c/o WT Mitchell Group Inc. PO Box 5127 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: 925-407-2676 Fax: 925-988-8032 With Copies to: Morrison&Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: Zane O. Gresham Phone: (415)268-7000 Fax: (415)260-7522 Section 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 forty seven(47)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: City Fees and Exactions Section 11.11. Recordation Of Development Agreement. Pursuant to California Government Code § 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the day and year first above written. 22 CITY CITY OF SOUTH SAN SAN FRANCISCO a municipal corporation By: Name: ATTEST: By City APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney DEVELOPER EL CAMINO AND SPRUCE LLC a Nevada limited liability company By: Name: )Ejejo BALCI�"— Ncft �d L Its: om0. Qr -Nfinkr 2248480.5 23 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALLAS This instrument was acknowledged before me on the of 1 , by Eduardo Eliezer Davidsohn, of El Camino and Spruce, LLC, a Nevada limited a ` i y, on behalf of such limited liability company. JENNIFER K KOGER Notary Public, State of Texas g®� Notary Public ® Notary Name t Commission Expires: �2A2�1 '�OP ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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 County of San Mateo ) On 1 "Qyy,*1 t ' : � '° before me, Diana o ashen Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(whose name is/wL- subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ trey executed the same in hislhaMMir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/iqe#their signature on the instrument the person , or the entity upon behalf of which the person W 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. SRN WITNESS my hand and official seal. C i t o Signature (seal) 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 LOT 1,BLOCK 2, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED,"TANFORAN PARK,UNIT NO.2,"WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,JANUARY 5,1967,IN BOOK 66 OF MAPS AT PAGES 5,6,AND 7, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1,SAID CORNER BEING A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF EL CAMINO REAL AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP:THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 27°54'38"WEST,86.78 FEET(NORTH 26`38'46"WEST,86.94 FEET);THENCE NORTH 30°47'29"WEST,488.12 FEET(NORTH 29°31'37"WEST);THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89°46'45"AN ARC LENGTH OF 39.17 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 58°59' 16"EAST,4.90 FEET(NORTH 60115'08"EAST);THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT,HAVING A RADIUS OF 689.75 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°31' 15"AN ARC LENGTH OF 331.31 FEET(R OF 689.95 FEET, CENTRAL ANGLE OF 270 30'30",L OF 331.25 FEET);THENCE NORTH 31°28'01"EAST, 272.47 FEET(NORTH 32°44'38"EAST,272.47 FEET);THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT,HAVING A RADIUS OF 1961.99 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°32'44",AN ARC LENGTH OF 189.90 FEET(R OF 1959.86 FEET,CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5° 32'02",L OF 189.29 FEET);THENCE NORTH 37°00'45"EAST,45.82 FEET(NORTH 38°16' 40"EAST.46.42 FEET);THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 52°59' 15"EAST,232.76 FEET(SOUTH 51-43'20"EAST),THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT,HAVING A RADIUS OF 1999.86 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 22121",AN ARC LENGTH OF 13.00 FEET(CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0°22'22",L OF 13.01 FEET);THENCE NORTH 57°19'24"EAST, 130.66 FEET(NORTH 58°35'52"EAST, 130.53 FEET)TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF HUNTINGTON AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE ALONG A NON- TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT,HAVING A RADIUS OF 959.93 FEET,CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST,WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 530 05'43"WEST,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2°23'28",AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.06 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 57-19'24"WEST, 124.49 FEET(SOUTH 58°35152"WEST, 124.50 FEET);THENCE SOUTH 32'40"36"EAST,419.97 FEET(SOUTH 31'24'08"EAST, 419.97 FEET);THENCE NORTH 57° 19'24"EAST,124.99 FEET(NORTH 58'35'52"EAST)TO A POINT IN SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF HUNTINGTON AVENUE;THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 32°40'36"EAST,40.00 FEET(SOUTH 31°24'08" EAST);THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 57° 19'24"WEST, 134.99 FEET(SOUTH 58°35'52"WEST);THENCE SOUTH 32°40'36"EAST,82.92 FEET(SOUTH 3V 24'08"EAST);THENCE SOUTH 53'25'00"WEST,923.20 FEET(SOUTH 54'40'52"WEST, 922.99 FEET)TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL IS NORTH 580 59' 16" EAST ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK"6"OF LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS MAPS AT PAGE 77,SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS. APN: 014-183-110 JPN:014-018-183-11 A 24 . y . , y �E �a a2 � - ■ ■ £ « � ■ ■ % � � � © � � <<11 . \� ��-.. . ■ & | ( $ | ■ » ! � �. ! � m � TA) . - ) IL 3 ! 4p § | � � k~ s�� � ' � � ' � 9 ■ | � | 'O ! � | .�� � i � ( . 25 Exhibit B: Project Approvals 26 RESOLUTION NO. 31-2014 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 14.5 ACRE SITE FOR THE CENTENNIAL VILLAGE AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("Applicant"), has submitted an application for a mixed-use project on an approximately 14.5 acre site located at 180 El Camino Real, which consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and up to 284 residential rental units ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant'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 reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration("IS/MND"), and by separate resolution,adopts the IS/MND, 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 Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing on August 15, 2013 to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND and the proposed entitlements and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/MND and approve the Project;and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11,2013, which was continued to September 25,2013 and to October 23,2013 and to November 13,2013, and another duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued to February 26, 2014 and to March 12, 2014, to consider the IS/MND, the Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Development Agreement 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 27 Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, General Plan EIR and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San. Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Centennial Village Project Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated July 9, 2013; the 180 El Camino Real IS/MND, including the Draft and Final MND and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting held on August 15, 2013, and Planning Commission deliberations; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearing on September 11,2013,which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23,2013 and to November 13,2013, and duly noticed public hearing on February 12,2014,which was continued to February 26, 2014 and to March 12, 2014, and City Council deliberations; 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: A. General Findings . The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A), the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (attached as Exhibit B), and the Centennial Village Project Plans (attached as Exhibit C) 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, Susy Kalkin. 4. By Resolution No. 31-2014, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that an IS/MND was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which IS/MND adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts. For those impacts that could potentially exceed CEQA thresholds of significance,the City has identified and imposed mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less-than-significant. B. Use Permit 1. The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zone District. The Project meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zone District, with the exception of the minimum El Camino Real setback, building length and separation, required commercial frontage, depth of required 28 commercial frontage, and the maximum length of street frontage walls without an opening. The stated exceptions are permissible and warranted by the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan by creating a mixed-use environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity with buildings built up to the sidewalk along El Camino Real and South Spruce Ave, provides a well-articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the El Camino Real Master Plan and locates parking in a way that is not visually dominant, is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and articulation and provides commercial uses along both El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. 3. The proposed 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 existing uses in the vicinity of the site, including the commercial and residential. The project proposes mixed-use Commercial and Residential uses on a site located in the City's El Camino Real corridor, which is intended for this type of use. The General Plan has analyzed this type of use in the South El Camino Real corridor, and concluded that mixed-use commercial and residential uses are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is consistent with surrounding land uses, approval of the Project will not be detrimental to the nearby properties. 4. The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the minimum El Camino Real setback, building length and separation,required commercial frontage, depth of required commercial frontage, and the maximum length of street frontage walls without an opening. The stated exceptions are permissible and warranted by the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project is located in the El Camino Real Mixed Use District and, subject to the exceptions discussed above in Section B.1, which are permissible and warranted by the City's Zoning Ordinance, meets the minimum standards and requirements for that district. 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 commercial and residential uses in the El Camino Real corridor, which is specifically intended for such uses. 6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the mixed-use commercial and residential uses will benefit from being located in the El Camino Real corridor, and the size and development is appropriate for the location and meets the City's land use and zoning standards. 7. The Project is consistent with CEQA for the reasons stated in Finding A.4 above. 29 C. Deslsn 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 mixed-use commercial and residential campus which will provide a pedestrian-friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated. 2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the El Camino Real Mixed Use land use designation by encouraging the development of a mixed-use environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity in the El Camino Real corridor. 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 El Camino Real Mixed Use District Standards included in Chapter 20.090. 4. The Project is consistent with the Use Permit, as proposed for modification, for the reasons stated in Section B,above. 5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 ("Design Review Criteria") because the project has been evaluated by the Design Review Board on April 7, 2012, February 19, 2013, March 9, 2013 and August 1, 2013, 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. Transportation Demand Management(TDM)Plan The proposed trip reduction measures contained in the TDM (attached hereto as Exhibit B) are feasible and appropriate for the Project, considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project's location, size, and hours of operation. Appropriate and feasible measures have been included in the TDM plan to achieve a projected 28% alternative mode usage, as required. The TDM provides incentives for employees to use modes of transportation other than single-occupancy vehicle trips, such as secure bicycle storage, shower facilities, preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, and an employee TDM contact, among others. Further, pedestrian walkways linking the Project to adjacent BART and bus stops will help encourage alternative forms of transportation. 2. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target 28% alternative mode use established for the Project by Chapter 20.400 will be achieved and maintained. Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be 30 submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building pertnit, shall outUme the rcqc&cd process r - monitoring.including annual surveys. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of Approval, attabhed as Exhibit A to this Resolution, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and approves a Use Permit (UP11-0006), Design Review (DR11-0019) and Tranapmtation Demand Management Plan (TDMl 3-000 1)for the ProjecL BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditional approvals herein are conditioned upon the approval and execution of the Agrectnent for the Centennial Village at 180 El Camino Real Projeot. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,* this-ReNblution,shall becorne effective immediately upon its pasuge and adoption. I hereby certify that the forei6ing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the it Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting hold an the I day of March,2014 by the fbilowing vote. ® Councilmembers Mark N.A Idiego, Aa and Liza Normandy Vice Mayor Richard A. Garbarino and MM KgMl Ka_tsmoto NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: N no ATTEST: QU� Anna Brown,Deputy City Clerk 31 STATE OF CALIFOPJqFA }ss COUNTY OF SAN MATED 1,Anna M.13 Deputy City Clerk®f the cly of Sr %nu , "C xmr,do hereby Cart*"at the abm ad&qoirg is a full, 'oty of Sm Mateo'SWc of CR"Drqia,sn ex do DeM-Clerk Of the Oun'I et*my d Crig Ina]orwbi.,i'm OU 111V in MY omm W4 that I "-4 Sam with the Z1Y'Q=Parjd M WITNESS WHERE01rlhwVuu�mtmyhJtn41mddw N'S ou S of the City th im Francim jh:6 ANNA M.BROWN A AL" day Of A. j I)cPulY C4 Clerk and EX-INTM10 DcpLq Clot offt Coy Come,, Ck Of Scuth San Fkwwbw of the BY. 5wo—.t"City 32 Exhibits on File with the City Clerk Exhibits: Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan Exhibit C: Centennial Village Project Plans 2134234.1 33 ORDINANCE NO. 1485-2014 CITY COUNCIL,CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 14.5 ACRE SITE FOR THE CENTENNIAL VILLAGE AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE (ECRMX)ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC ("Applicant") has submitted an application for a mixed-use project on an approximately 14.5 acre site located at 180 El Camino Real, which consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and up to 284 residential rental units ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, as part of its application, the Applicant has sought approval of a Development Agreement, which would clarify and obligate several project features and mitigation measures, including payment of existing fees (such as the Sewer Capacity Fee, General Plan Maintenance Fee, Childcare Impact Fee,and Public Safety Impact Fee), and certain future fees(including a Park-in-Lieu Fee); and WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant's proposal is considered a "project' for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act,Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000,et seq. ("CEQA"); and, WHEREAS, by separate Resolution,the City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") on February 26, 2014 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing on August 15, 2013 to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND and the proposed entitlements and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/MND,approve the entitlements and recommended that the City Council approve the Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013, which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to November 13,2013, and another duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued to February 26, 2014 and to March 12, 2014, to consider the Project entitlements and Development Agreement, and take public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: 34 SECTION 1. Findings. 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, General Plan EIR and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Centennial Village Project Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by TJKM. Transportation Consultants, dated July'9, 2013;the 180 El Camino Real ISIMND, including the Draft and Final MND and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports,minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting held on August 15, 2013; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013,which was continued to September 25,2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to November 13, 2013, and duly noticed public hearing.on February 12, 2014, which was continued to February 26, 2014 and to March 12, 2014; 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: A. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. B. The proposed Development Agreement (attached as Exhibit A), is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Ordinance,as if set forth fully herein. C. 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, Susy Kalkin. D. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan by creating a mixed-use environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity with buildings built up to the sidewalk along El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. Further, the Project provides a well-articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and El Camino Real Master Plan and locates parking in a way that is not visually dominant, is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and articulation and provides commercial uses along both El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. 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. Specifically, the General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to redevelop low-intensity commercial uses to pedestrian-oriented high intensity mixed use development, encourage concentrated higher-intensity activity on highly visible locations, promote visually intricate development, and provide space for enhanced pedestrian connections, require development to be oriented to El Camino Real. E. The City Council has independently reviewed the proposed Development Agreement, the General Plan,the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and applicable state and 35 federal law, including Government Code section 65864, et seq., and has determined that the proposed Development Agreement complies with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations and with the General Plan. This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of these documents, oral and written evidence submitted at the public hearings on the Project, including advice and recommendations from City staff. F. The proposed Development Agreement for the Project states its specific duration. This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Section 2 of the Development Agreement states that the Development Agreement shall expire ten(10) years from the effective date of this Ordinance. G. The proposed Development Agreement incorporates the permitted uses, density and intensity of use for the property subject thereto, as reflected in the proposed Project (P11- 0065), Use Permit (UP11-0006), Design Review (DR11-0019), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM13-0001) and Development Agreement (DA13-0002). This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to, the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that the Development Agreement sets forth the Project approvals, development standards, and the documents constituting the Project. H. The proposed Development Agreement states the maximum permitted height and size of proposed buildings on the property subject thereto. This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to, the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that the Development Agreement sets forth the documents which state the maximum permitted height and size of buildings. I. The proposed Development Agreement states specific provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. This finding is based on all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to the City Council's independent review of the Development Agreement. SECTION 2. Approval of Development Agreement. A. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the Development Agreement with El Camino and Spruce, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. B. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Development Agreement, on behalf of the City, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A, and to make revisions to such Agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which do not materially or substantially increase the City's obligations thereunder. SECTION 3. 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 36 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 4. 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 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,held the 12'h day of March,2014. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the 26`h day of March,2014 by the following vote: AYES: Councihnembers Mark N. Addle o.Pradeeo Gupta. and Liza Normandy Vice Mayor Richard A Garbarino and Mayor Karyl Matsumoto NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this 26`h day of March,2014. X, )Mat&umoto,Mayor 37 thereby and shall continue in fall force and effect. To this end,Provisions of this Ordinance we severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares " it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof sections, subsections, subdivisions, pamgraphs, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences,clauses,or phreses,be held unconstitutional,invalid,or unenfo=able. SE_CTION 4. publication and Effective Date. pws=t to the provisions of Govennnent Code Secfion36933, 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 adopt4 dii-City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fiftm (IS) days after the adoption of this Ordinance,-the City Clerk sWl (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the CitY Clerk's Office a certifie4 copy of the full' text Of.this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council.Vembers voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. lUs Ordinance ohall bemmi dyeefive thirty(30) days Erom and after its adoptiorL Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,held the 1211 day of Marck 2014. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the city Council held the 26 day of Mgrrk 2014 by the fbUowing vote: Wark N. Addi _,P1 A -t d Li "�'oiman�dd . AYES: _Cnacilmembers.Mark __ cao �rad �Gu t��z Vice �4q�Ri�qhard�A. Gar�barino�and M�ar �Matsum�oto ... on oae NOES. ABSTAIN- ABSENT- one ATTEST- Deputy City Clerk As Mayor of the City Of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this 26th day of March,2014. Ma oto,mayor 38 STATF OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MA E0 1,Anne M.Brown,Deputy City'Clem of South San Fnmcls cou%y of Sun Mateo,State of Caj1fbmh6 Dqjuty Cl"k of the Ch �,a t is 7m� wawa .Y COUTIC11 thereof,do hereby emify dmi fmegoiq is a fulL dcpqed copy of dw hick isCOrdelamy of lm and LFi di.samm with ibe on'ginaL ""VC'mmfully cornpang themal of the City Of'SOU918an Francim)this V, Ltit- day of 20 A TM—H R 0 w uty ch)'c'"k snd,Ex-offido Dqm*amtof,L�r,city council ofibe Fi2ndsco By �City r6rk 39 RESOLUTION NO. 2736-2013 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT,DESIGN REVIEW, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 14.5 ACRES SITE FOR THE CENTENNIAL VILLAGE AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, WT Mitchell Group, Inc ("WT Mitchell Group")has submitted an application for a mixed-use project on an approximately 14.5 acre site located at 180 El Camino Real,which consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and up to 284 residential rental units ("Project"); WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant's proposal is considered a"project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Mitigated Negative Declaration("MND"), and by separate resolution, recommends the City Council adopt the MND, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in e discussion of the Project's environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, on August 15, 2013 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the MND and the proposed entitlements,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; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Centennial Village Project Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated July 9, 2013; the 180 El Camino Real IS/MND, including the Draft and Final MND and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part 40 of the Planning Commission's duly noticed August 15, 2013 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 Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A),the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Plan (attached as Exhibit B), the Development Agreement(attached as Exhibit C), and the Centennial Village Project Plans(attached as 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 Chief Planner, Susy KaWn. 4. By Resolution No. , the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis,has recommended that the City Council find that an IS/MND was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which ISIMND adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts. For those impacts that could potentially exceed CEQA thresholds of significance, the City has identified and imposed mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less-than-significant. B. Use Permit 1. The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zone District. The Project meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zone District,with the exception of the minimum El Camino Real setback,building length and separation,required commercial frontage, depth of required commercial frontage, and the maximum length of street frontage walls without an opening. The stated exceptions are permissible and warranted by the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan by creating a mixed-use environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity with buildings built up to the sidewalk along E1 Camino Real and South Spruce Ave,provides a well-articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and locates parking in way that is not visuaIIy dominant, is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and articulation and provides commercial uses along both El Camino 41 Real and South Spruce Ave. 3. The proposed 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 existing uses in the vicinity of the site, including the commercial and residential. The project proposes mixed-use Commercial and Residential uses on a site located in the City's El Camino Real corridor, which'is intended for this type of use. The General Plan has analyzed this type of use in the South El Camino Real corridor, and concluded that mixed-use commercial and residential uses are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is consistent with surrounding land uses, approval of the Project will not be detrimental to the nearby properties. 4. The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the minimum El Camino Real setback,building length and separation,required commercial frontage, depth of required commercial frontage, and the maximum length of street frontage walls without an opening. The stated exceptions are permissible and warranted by the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project is located in the El Camino Real Mixed Use District and, subject to the exceptions discussed above, meets the minimum standards and requirements for that district. 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 commercial and residential uses in the El Camino Real corridor, which is specifically intended for such uses. 6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the mixed-use commercial and residential uses will benefit from being located in the El Camino Real corridor, and the size and development is appropriate for the location and meets the City's land use and zoning standards. 7. The Project is consistent with CEQA for the reasons stated in Finding A.4 above. C. 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 mixed-use commercial and residential campus which will provide a pedestrian-friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated. 42 2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the El Camino Real Mixed Use land use designation by encouraging the development of a mixed-use environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity in the El Camino Real corridor. 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 El Camino Real Mixed Use District Standards included in Chapter 20.090. 4. The Project is consistent with the Use Permit, as proposed for modification, for the reasons stated in Section B, above. 5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 ("Design Review Criteria")because the project has been evaluated by the Design Review Board on April 7, 2013,February 19, 2013, March 9,2013 and August 1, 2013, 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. Transportation Demand Management(TDM)Plan 1. The proposed trip reduction measures contained in the TDM(attached hereto as Exhibit B) are feasible and appropriate for the Project, considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project's location, size, and hours of operation. Appropriate and feasible measures have been included in the TDM plan to achieve a projected 28% alternative mode usage, as required. The TDM provides incentives for employees to use modes-of transportation other than single-occupancy vehicle trips, such as secure bicycle storage, shower facilities,preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, and an employee TDM contact, among others. Further, . pedestrian walkways linking the Project to adjacent BART and bus stops will help encourage alternative forms of transportation. 2. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target 28% alternative mode use established for the Project by Chapter 20.210 will be achieved and maintained. Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan,which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys. 43 E. Development Agreement 1. The Owner and City have negotiated a Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq. The Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit C, sets for the duration,property,project criteria, and other required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2. Based on the findings in support of the Project, the Planning Commission finds that the Development Agreement, vesting a project for a mixed- use development of commercial and residential buildings, is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and any applicable zoning regulations. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The General Plan specifically contemplates the proposed type of project and the suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the Project. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Use Permit, Design Review and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the Project and further recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and El Camino and Spruce LLC. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditional approvals herein are conditioned upon the approval and execution of the Development Agreement for the Centennial Village 180 El Camino Real Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. 44 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 15th day of August,2013 by the following vote: AYES: Chairoerson Ochsenhirt,Vice Chgimerson Martin.Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Khalfin,Commissioner Wong and Commissioner Zemke NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Commissioner Sim m Attest: 42— Susy n Secretary to the Planning Commission 45 Exhibit C: City Fees and Exactions 46 Exhibit C City Fees and Exactions 180 ECR-Centennial Village Illustrative calculations of estimated proposed fees Area Estimations' 180 ECR Retail/Commercial SF Office SF Residential Units Total Existing Commercial Demolished ////" %//, 144 821 Net New Gross Sq Ft , %������ 1 77 676'. Estimated Existing and Proposed Fees,Including Fee Credits 180 SCR Fee Cate go Rafe feel Sewer Capacity Fee(1) varies by use Retail/Commercial (Resolution 39-2010) Office Residential $1,047 A General Plan Maintenance Fee 0.0015 of construction value,per GSF ,,117,000.00"< (Resolution 74-2007) ' Child Care Impact Fee $ 0.68 per NN GSF for Commercial' ' 284797.32:; (SSFMC 20.310) $ 1,851.00 per High Density Residential Unit //52/5/6%84//00 ff Park-in-Lieu Fee $ 3,276.00 per 1,000 GSF Nonresidential (per Draft Parkland Acquisition and 771 Construction Fee) Public Safety Impact Fee $ 0.44 per NN GSF for Retail (Resolution 97-2012) $ 0.44 per NN GSF for Office $ 563.00 per High Density Residential Unit `; 759,892004"' Total of Fees ,,,, �� 411,9Ok$4, Fees per GSF ?° * The areas are estimated and provided for the purpose of illustrating the fee calculation. The actual fee and fee credit for each phase will be calculated at the time of building permit submittal. (1)-Sewer Capacity Fee calculation will vary by use based on application of Resolution 39-2010. 47 ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement ("Administrative Agreement Amendment") is entered into by and between EL CAMINO AND SPRUCE LLC ("Developer") and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation ("City") on this 26th day of August,2015. RECITALS A. On March 26,2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1485-2014 ("Ordinance") concerning a Development Agreement between City and Developer ("Development Agreement"). The executed Development Agreement was recorded on April 16, 2015 (Doc. 2015-032685). B. On August 26, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement and adopted Resolution No. 109-2015. NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties herein contained, the City and Developer agree as follows: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated herein. 2. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Development Agreement. 3. Section 6.03. Section 6.03 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows,with additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough text: Section 6.03. 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, the Administrative Agreement Amendment and the Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals, and with respect to matters not addressed by this Agreement as amended or the Project Approvals or Subsequent 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 Dates of this Agreement. 4. Section 6.13(al(il. Section 6.13(a)(i) of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows,with additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough text: Section 6.13(al(il. Phase 1 construction will begin within 4927 months after final approval by the City of all discretionary approvals of the overall plan, and the passage of all applicable statutes of limitations without legal challenge and will include: • All commercial buildings except Building E. sN 17276076v6 • All subterranean parking under the main surface parking lot • Phase 1 Parking Garage . • A minimum of 150 apartment units above Safeway/Major 2. • All current site improvements and design features. • No change to building architecture as approved by the City Council per DR11-0019. • The second story of Buildings C and/or D may consist of exterior walls and roof only, as shown on the plans approved concurrently herewith. • Developer must apply for the building permit for the Phase 1 Safeway/Major 2 commercial building, not including CVS concurrently with the building permit for the 150 Phase 1 residential units; the Safeway/Major 2 commercial building not including CVS and 150 unit residential building permits will only be issued concurrently. • The City shall not be obligated to issue any certificate of occupancy for the Phase 1 Safeway/Major 2 commercial building until construction of Phase 1 residential units, defined as vertical wall framing of the residential units, has commenced. 5. Effect of this Administrative Agreement Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this Administrative Agreement Amendment, the Development Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms, and Developer and City hereby ratify and affirm all their respective rights and obligations under the Development Agreement,including but not limited to Developer's indemnification obligations as set forth in Section 10.10 of the Development Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Administrative Agreement Amendment and the Development Agreement, the provisions of this Administrative Agreement Amendment shall govern. 6. Binding Agreement. This Administrative Agreement Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, and assigns of each of the parties hereto. Any reference in this Administrative Agreement Amendment to a specifically named party shall be deemed to apply to any successor, administrator, executor, or assign of such party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this Administrative Agreement Amendment or under law. 7. Recordation: The City shall record a copy of this Administrative Agreement Amendment within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. 8. Counterparts. This Administrative Agreement Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,but all of which,when taken together, shall constitute the same document. 9. California Law. This Administrative Agreement Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. sN 17276076v6 10. Invalidity. Any provision of this Administrative Agreement Amendment that is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed severed from this Administrative Agreement Amendment, and the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if the invalid or unenforceable provision had not been a part hereof 11. Headings. The headings used in this Administrative Agreement Amendment are for convenience only and shall be disregarded in interpreting the substantive provisions of this Administrative Agreement Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Administrative Agreement Amendment has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the date and year first above written. EL CAMINO AND SPRUCE LLC CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: By: Name: Title: Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Steven T. Mattas City Attorney ATTEST: By: Krista J. Martinelli, City Clerk 2351489.1 BN 17276076v6 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-427, Version: 1 Resolution approving a Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement for the development of a 14.5 acre site for the Centennial Village at 180 El Camino Real Project in the El Camino Real Mixed Use(ECRMX) Zoning District WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC ("Owner" or"Applicant") received entitlements for a mixed- use project on an approximately 14.5 acre site located at 180 El Camino Real; and, WHEREAS, on March 26, 2014, after conducting all proceedings and making all findings necessary for the valid adoption and execution of a development agreement for the Property in accordance with Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5, the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1485-2014, approving and adopting a development agreement for the property at 180 El Camino Real ("Property"); and, WHEREAS, Applicant and City entered into a certain Development Agreement for the Centennial Village Project to permit the development of the Property with approximately 220,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and up to 284 residential rental units ("Project"), as approved and adopted by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, on August 26, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 109-2015 ("Resolution") concerning an Administrative Agreement Amendment to Development Agreement between City and Applicant ("First Administrative Agreement Amendment"); and, WHEREAS, Applicant has submitted a request for a Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement("Second Administrative Amendment") to the City to allow for minor modifications to the Phase 1 construction start date; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") on February 26, 2014 in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and, WHEREAS, Section 7.02(a) of the Development Agreement provides that amendments to the Development Agreement that do not substantially affect: (i) the term of the DA, (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(vi) or monetary contributions by the Developer, can be approved by City Council resolution as an Administrative Agreement Amendment; and WHEREAS, none of these conditions exist here, and therefore, a Second Administrative Agreement Amendment is appropriate and can be approved by City Council resolution; and City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 3 Printed on 6/10/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-427, Version: 1 WHEREAS, the modifications to the mixed-use development contemplated in the Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement are minor in nature, the approval 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 IS/MND adopted by City Council, nor does the Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement constitute a change in the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review. 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, General Plan EIR and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; all site plans, reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed May 25, 2016 meeting, which was continued to June 1, 2016; 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: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. B. The Exhibit attached to this Resolution, the proposed Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement(Exhibit A), is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. C. 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. D. The Second Administrative Agreement Amendment, in conjunction with the Administrative Agreement Amendment and the Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, sets forth the duration, property,project criteria, and other required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2. Based on the findings in support of the Project, the City Council finds that the Second Administrative Agreement Amendment, in conjunction with the Administrative Agreement Amendment and the Development Agreement, vesting a project for a mixed-use development of commercial and residential uses, is consistent with the objectives,policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and any applicable zoning regulations. E. The Second Administrative Agreement Amendment, in conjunction with the Administrative Agreement Amendment and the Development Agreement, is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to redevelop low-intensity commercial uses to pedestrian-oriented high intensity mixed use development, encourage concentrated higher-intensity activity on highly visible locations,promote visually intricate development, and provide space for enhanced pedestrian connections, require development to be oriented to El Camino Real and the suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the Project. F. The Second Administrative Agreement Amendment, in conjunction with the Administrative Agreement Amendment and the Development Agreement, is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice in that the project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 3 Printed on 6/10/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-427, Version: 1 General Plan which has planned for high intensity mixed use development at this location. G. The Second Administrative Agreement Amendment, in conjunction with the Administrative Agreement Amendment and the Development Agreement, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare because the project will proceed in compliance with all of the policies and programs specified in the General Plan and in compliance with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations of the City of South San Francisco. H. The Second Administrative Agreement Amendment, in conjunction with the Administrative Agreement Amendment and the Development Agreement, will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan. 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 Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and El Camino and Spruce, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement, on behalf of the City, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A, and to make minor revisions to such Agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which do not materially or substantially increase the City's obligations thereunder. BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 3 Printed on 6/10/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement ("Second Administrative Agreement Amendment") is entered into by and between EL CAMINO AND SPRUCE LLC ("Developer") and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation ("City") on this day of 12016. RECITALS A. On March 26,2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1485-2014 ("Ordinance") concerning a Development Agreement between City and Developer ("Development Agreement"). The executed Development Agreement was recorded on April 16, 2015 (Doc. 2015-032685). B. On August 26,2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 109-2015 ("Resolution") concerning an Administrative Agreement Amendment to Development Agreement between City and Developer ("First Administrative Agreement Amendment"). C. On , the City Council considered the proposed Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to the Development Agreement and adopted Resolution No. approving the Administrative Amendment. NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties herein contained, the City and Developer agree as follows: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated herein. 2. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Development Agreement. 3. Section 6.13(al(il. Section 6.13(a)(i) of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows,with additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough text: Section 6.13(a)(i). Phase 1 construction will begin within 2-;32 months after final approval by the City of all discretionary approvals of the overall plan, and the passage of all applicable statutes of limitations without legal challenge and will include: • Demolition of Firestone Building shall begin by no later than Maw, 2016. • Pre-demolition Asbestos Removal shall begin by no later than August 15, 2016. • Existing Shopping Center Building Demolition shall begin by no later than September 15, 2016. • City Sewer Main Relocation shall begin by no later than September 26, 2016. • All commercial buildings except Building E. • All subterranean parking under the main surface parking lot. sN 17276076v6 • Phase 1 Parking Garage. • A minimum of 150 apartment units above Safeway/Major 2. • All current site improvements and design features. • No change to building architecture as approved by the City Council per DR11-0019. • The second story of Buildings C and/or D may consist of exterior walls and roof only, as shown on the plans approved concurrently herewith. • Developer must apply for the building permit for the Phase 1 Safeway/Major 2 commercial building, not including CVS concurrently with the building permit for the 150 Phase 1 residential units; the Safeway/Major 2 commercial building not including CVS and 150 unit residential building permits will only be issued concurrently. • The City shall not be obligated to issue any certificate of occupancy for the Phase 1 Safeway/Major 2 commercial building until construction of Phase 1 residential units, defined as vertical wall framing of the residential units, has commenced. 4. Effect of this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment, the Development Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms, and Developer and City hereby ratify and affirm all their respective rights and obligations under the Development Agreement,including but not limited to Developer's indemnification obligations as set forth in Section 10.10 of the Development Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment and the First Administrative Agreement Amendment or the Development Agreement, the provisions of this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment shall govern. 5. Binding Agreement. This Second Administrative Agreement Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, and assigns of each of the parties hereto. Any reference in this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment to a specifically named party shall be deemed to apply to any successor, administrator, executor, or assign of such party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment or under law. 6. Recordation: The City shall record a copy of this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. 7. Counterparts. This Second Administrative Agreement Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,but all of which,when taken together, shall constitute the same document. 8. California Law. This Second Administrative Agreement Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. sN 17276076v6 9. Invalidity. Any provision of this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment that is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed severed from this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment, and the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if the invalid or unenforceable provision had not been a part hereof 10. Headings. The headings used in this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment are for convenience only and shall be disregarded in interpreting the substantive provisions of this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Administrative Agreement Amendment has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the date and year first above written. EL CAMINO AND SPRUCE LLC CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: By: Name: Title: Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Jason Rosenberg City Attorney ATTEST: By: Krista J. Martinelli, City Clerk sN 17276076v6 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-429, Version: 1 Report regarding a resolution authorizing a cooperative purchasing agreement with Ross McDonald, Inc. for the purchase of furniture and shelving for Grand Avenue Library in the amount of$159,084.71 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a cooperative purchasing agreement with Ross McDonald, Inc. for the purchase of furniture and shelving for Grand Avenue Library in the amount of$159,084.71 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Grand Avenue Library Renovation Project is progressing on our revised schedule. Construction will be near completion, aside from any "punch list"items, by August 18, 2016. Furniture, fixtures, and equipment will be installed in late August and early September. Due to the lead time on furniture fabrication, orders will be placed shortly. The largest order will be for 37 mobile shelving units for library books and materials located throughout the building. The contract will also cover the service desk, mobile staff workstation, and a computer table for the teen area. In order to save money and repurpose current shelving, four units on hand will be moved to Grand Library, with the remainder of new shelving matched to those specifications. The vendor we are recommending is Ross McDonald Company, Inc., of Livermore, California, who has offered a very competitive price on the shelving units via the California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS), which comes with a 32% discount. The vendor is providing an additional 22%repeat customer discount on the total discounted purchase price of the shelving units. The remaining items are custom made to match current furniture. Ross McDonald was the primary shelving and furniture provider in the 2010 Main Library renovation project. The City uses cooperative purchasing agreements when feasible and cost effective. Section 4.04.040 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) authorizes the City to take advantage of valid contract terms that had been negotiated by another government agency, where that agency had used a quote or bid process substantially conforming with SSFMC Chapter 4.04.040 and procedures established by state law. Staff has determined Ross McDonald Company, Inc. is a valid vendor under the CMAS program and the CMAS program meets the requirements of the SSFMC. FUNDING There is sufficient funding in the budget to proceed with this purchase of shelving and furniture for Grand Avenue Library. CONCLUSION City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-429, Version: 1 It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a purchasing agreement with Ross McDonald, Inc. for the purchase of furniture and shelving in the amount of$159,084.71 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 Ross McDonald Co.,, Inc. QUOTATION 3 LIBRARY FURNITURE&SiELVING SOLUTONS 1154 Stealth Street Project No.: B15163 Livermore, CA 94551 phi,925.455,1635 1 tax925,.373,1227 www.•ossmcdonald.com Quote No,: 11,E Date: 5110/2016 Valerie Sornmer Phone No.: 650029.3872 South San Francisco Public Library Cell No.: 650.867.5174 840 West Orange Avenue Fax No,: 650.829.3866 South San Francisco, CA 94080 email: s.omrnn!?-r @niLs—in—to-o-rg Wor'den Library Furniture for the South San Francisco Library Quantity Description Unit Price Total Word en Display Gondolas - Maple construction with slatwall end panels and Wheels. Finish to match existing. 13 XGDS-5928,-DF-M - Modified 36" x 48" with 10" deep shelves 6,181 -010 80,353.00 8 XGDS-5928-DF-M - Modified 36" x 48" with 8" deep shelves 6,181 .00 49,448.00 8 XGDS,-59,28-DF-M - Modified 36" x 60" with 101" deep shelves 6,181 .00 49,448.00 8 XGDS-5928-DF-M - Modified 36" x 60" with 12�" deep shelves 6,11181 .00 49,448.00 Total Material Net: 228,697.010 Less 32% per CMAS contract (4-15-010-0105D)- delivered and OM -73,183.04 installed: . Material Ned 155,513.916 Less additional 22% FMC discount: 0.22 -34,213.07 Sales Tax: 9,50% 1477383 Terms Quotafion� Totakl $136Z4.72.11 Net 30 1�iL r% E-mall: !whrnidt mssmodonald.coln -a—te- *signed quotation will allow Ross McDonaid Co. to proceed with order. B151 G3 SS F Gondolas Page 1 of 1 Quote Gondola Final(2) Kass McDonald Co,, Inc. QUOTATION 66RAW EuRNiiLJRE&SHELVING SOLUTIONS 1154 Stealth Street Livermore, CA 94551 Project No.': B16005 fah.925,455,1635 1 fax 925.373,1227 www.rossmcdonald'.com Quote No,: 1A Date: 1/15/2016 Valerie Sommer Phone No.: 65'0.82,x., 872 South San Francisco Public Library Cell No.: 650.867.5174 840 'Jest Orange Avenue Fax No.: 650.829.6866 South San Francisco, CA 94080 emalll: som erC�?pisV fo.orp Worden Library Furniture Quantity Description Unit Frio Total 1 Naviigate Desk - 4600 - 24" x 66" with an electrically operated height 10,717.00 10,717.00 adjustable top and ledge (6" deep), 30" to 391" high. Top and ledge to be grade B Corian. Trim to be custom stained maple. a 1 Custom Podium 24" 1/V x 24"D x 32/39"H. Work surface to be 2,99100 2,99100 adjustable to 3 positions on standard pins. Work surface to be Grade B Corian. Front to be perforated metal at the bottom 20". Total Material Net- 113,710.00 Sales Tax: 9,00% 1 ,233.90 Freight and Installation: 1,980.00 Terms Quotation Total. $16,923.90 Net 3o fob Schrnjdt ::J -mail: tschrnidtt@rossmcdonald,cjT *signed quotation will allow Rosa McDonald Co.to proceed with order, 816005 SSF Computer table and desk Page 1 of 1 Quote Furniture-0 fI Ross McDonald +�Co, Inc..._ QUOTATION 1154 stealth street Project No.: 816005 Livermore, CA 9455`1 p3h.925,45a1636 1 tax 925.373,1227 www.rossmcdonald.com Quote No.: 2A Gate: 1/19/2016 Valerie Sommer, Phone No.: 650'.829.3872 South, San Francisco Public Library Cell No.: 650.867.5174 840, West Orange Avenue Fax No.: 650.829.3866 Guth San Francisco, CA 914080 en"Iall: siomrrrer Isi Lg_ Quantity Description Unit Prigs Total 1 Computer Table per the attached drawing, 4,755. 16 tlr k! s square powder coated le q p g * ''mood Veneer worksurface with 1/2" hardwood edgeband. * 39" high side to be 144" x 24" and to have square corners and 8 legs * 29" side to have radius profile and to be 16" deep at the narrowest point - 3 support legs. 1 Lot Taxable Installation 288.00 Total Maternal Net: 5,643„00 Sales Tax: 9.510% 479.019 Freight: 564.0O Terris Quotation Totak $6,08U.09 Net 30 QECTl E-mail: rschrrti c t coLn _55-C t5tl6'n ,p -ce-Pte-d- —___,.-_—_- -,-—- —--—--—-- D_ ate' --- *signed quotation wHI allow Russ McDonald Co, to proceed with carder. 816005 SS cornputer table and desk Page 1 of 1 Quote Table-o(2) Ross McDonald Contract Shelving and Furniture for Grand Library Remodel 37 Shelving Units Mobile Shelving Units �% Two sided mobile shelving units ll� Children's, Adult and Marketplace areas «t«'r Shelving can be moved to allow large programs g p g rams � uuoi uumiiu� 1. ���j uumoi uuu IIIIIIIIIOf r � µ m_ Teen Genius Bar ............ • Teen Technology Area Space for up to 8 teens ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ez= 4 i Pads HI' H ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 computers 2< HIGH El ❑ l ❑ a� — ?TE ;TEFL LE<S 0. I:E< ❑-TEI; I'�.TE „OFI< S F'�,E .< 3 El;;E I, 'TI Service Desk • Custom service desk • Incorporate the design style of right image and finishes of left image j • Height adjustable, „ i g6� 44+Ip';l Podium/Mobile Workstation • Mobile staff workstation • Allows for directed services to be located near patrons f during a program, for summer reading,;etc. 1�I1�f PrOfiilrrii �j nrun �' um inpop, //// r Floor Furniture & Shelving Plan N,MApXd �� � � el ENTRA.MCE ;5— 7117, LOBB '.c:�//�/�/ '�. �. �; ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, yY CY L"��!�d as Ik� ____". ����,�✓ ", II C 2ltilLP'HEfk L] flnl�F"1 I I1 ..d rrrr „ ICI C]'I�' Deere A f t err r � ' GRAND aarau ........................................................... PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND ROSS MCDONALD CO.,INC. These terms and conditions govern the purchase of materials, supplies, and/or equipment,including any related installation, training, and/or minor services and repairs described in this Purchase Agreement ("Purchase Agreement") by Ross McDonald Co., Inc("Vendor")for the City of South San Francisco("City"). Vendor and City are collectively referred to in this Purchase Agreement as "the Parties." If the Vendor selects subcontractors to execute a portion the terms of this Purchase Agreement,that subcontractor is an agent of the Vendor,and is hereby included by reference as"the Vendor." 1. Time of Performance. This Purchase Agreement shall commence effective May 31, 2016, and shall end when Vendor has provided to the City the Products and Services described in this Purchase Agreement, and in Exhibit A("Products" and/or "Services"). The equipment and products listed in Exhibit A must be delivered by August 17, 2016. The installation and other services set forth in Exhibit A must be completed by August 26, 2016. In the event that any of the terms of Exhibit A conflict with this Purchase Agreement,the terms of the Purchase Agreement shall prevail. 2. Description of Goods. Vendor shall perform everything required to be performed and shall provide and furnish the City with 1 computer table, 37 displU gondolas, 1 service desk, and 1 podium and shall complete delivery F.O.B. to the City of South San Francisco on or before 87 days from the date of this Purchase Agreement in strict accordance with the specifications as established by this Purchase Agreement and Exhibit(s),which specifications are incorporated herein and made part of this Purchase Agreement. 3. Description of Purchase. The City hereby agrees to pay Vendor for the Products and/or Services with a not to exceed amount. The total compensation for Products and/or Services performed under this Purchase Agreement is not to exceed one hundred fifty nine thousand eighty five dollars($159,085.00). The City shall pay Vendor invoices for Products and/or Services actually delivered in accordance with this Purchase Agreement. To be eligible for payment, Vendor invoices must itemize the Products and/or Services delivered and the corresponding prices in accordance with this Purchase Agreement. Payment of Vendor invoices does not constitute acceptance of Products and/or Services delivered. Prices of Products and/or Services delivered that are not in accordance with this Purchase Agreement are subject to adjustment. In no event will the prices of Products and/or Services delivered exceed that specified on this Purchase Agreement. Payments shall be subject to adjustment for defects in quality or failure of Vendor to meet terms and conditions herein and in Exhibit A. Such adjustments shall be equal to one hundred percent (100%) of City's costs to correct such defects or Vendor's failure to meet Purchase Agreement requirements. 4. Taxes. Vendor shall pay all applicable federal, state and local taxes,which may be chargeable against the delivery of the Products and/or Services listed herein. 5. General Warranties and Product Compliance. Vendor warrants that: (A) All Products and/or Services are as described on this Purchase Agreement conform to all drawings, samples, descriptions and specifications contained in Exhibit A; (B) All Products and/or Services delivered are new and of good merchantable quality, free from material defects of workmanship and fit for the purpose for which sold or provided; (C)Vendor has good title to all Products delivered and all Products delivered are free from liens and other encumbrances; and (D) Vendor's delivery and installation of the Products and/or Services will be in strict conformity with all applicable local, state, and federal laws. For purposes of this warranty,any Products or components not meeting the foregoing quality shall be deemed defective. The foregoing warranty provisions shall also be applicable to equipment or materials provided by a third party entity to Vendor via this Purchase Agreement. Vendor also expressly warrants and guarantees,for five years that the Products and/or Services furnished by it to City shall be free from breakage or defects of material and workmanship under normal use, service and maintenance from the date of acceptance of the City,and expressly agrees to repair or replace Products and/or Services or any part thereof which proves defective as a result of inferior or defective materials, equipment or workmanship. If within the period stated above, any repairs or replacements in connection with the Products and/or Services are, in the opinion of the City, rendered necessary as a result of the use of inferior or defective materials, equipment or workmanship, Vendor agrees on receipt of notice from City and without expense to the City, for freight, parts or labor, to properly repair, replace or correct any and all such defects therein. If Vendor,after such notice,fails to proceed promptly with the terms of this warranty and guarantee, the City may perform the work necessary to effectuate such corrections, repairs and replacements,and recover the cost thereof from Vendor. Page 1 of 4 [Rev:2.13.2014] 6. Damage to City Facilities. Damage to City or public facilities or private property caused by the Vendor or by its subcontractors during delivery or installation shall be repaired and/or replaced in kind at no cost to the City. 7. Site Safety and Cleanup. The delivery and installation site shall be kept clean and free of hazards at all times during installation. After installation is completed at the site, Vendor shall clean the surrounding area to the condition prior to installation. 8. Final Inspection and Work Acceptance. Finished installation work and/or equipment shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance or rejection by the City. 9. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Vendor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, contractors and consultants(collectively,the"City Indemnitees")from and against any and all liability,loss,damage, claims, expenses and costs(including,without limitation,attorneys'fees and costs of litigation)(collectively,"Liability")of every nature arising out of or in connection with the delivery and installation of the Products and/or Services described on this Purchase Agreement or Vendor's failure to comply with this Purchase Agreement, except such Liability caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City Indemnitees. 10. Insurance. Before beginning any installation work and continuing throughout the term of this Purchase Agreement, Vendor, at its sole cost and expense, furnish the City with certificates of insurance evidencing that Contractor has obtained and maintains insurance in the following amounts: A. Workers' Compensation that satisfies the minimum statutory limits. B. Commercial General Liability and Property Damage Insurance in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence, TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) annual aggregate,for bodily injury,property damage,products, completed operations and contractual liability coverage. The policy shall also include coverage for liability arising out of the use and operation of any City-owned or City-furnished equipment used or operated by the Vendor,its personnel,agents or subcontractors. C. Comprehensive automobile insurance in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned and non-owned vehicles. All insurance policies shall be written on an occurrence basis and shall name the City Indemnitees as additional insureds with any City insurance shall be secondary and in excess to Vendor's insurance. If the Vendor's insurance policy includes a self-insured retention that must be paid by a named insured as a precondition of the insurer's liability, or which has the effect of providing that payments of the self-insured retention by others, including additional insureds or insurers do not serve to satisfy the self-insured retention, such provisions must be modified by special endorsement so as to not apply to the additional insured coverage required by this agreement so as to not prevent any of the parties to this agreement from satisfying or paying the self-insured retention required to be paid as a precondition to the insurer's liability. Additionally, the certificates of insurance must note whether the policy does or does not include any self- insured retention and also must disclose the deductible. The City Risk Manager, in writing, may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements. A valid and executed approval by Risk Manager must accompany this Purchase Agreement for a variation to be binding. It Prevailing Wage. Where applicable, the wages to be paid for a day's work to all classes of laborers, workmen, or mechanics on the work contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, shall be not less than the prevailing rate for a day's work in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where the work hereby contemplates to be performed as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to the Director's authority under Labor Code Section 1770, et seq. Each laborer,worker or mechanic employed by Contractor or by any subcontractor shall receive the wages herein provided for. The Contractor shall pay two hundred dollars($200),or whatever amount may be set by Labor Code Section 1775, as may be amended, per day penalty for each worker paid less than prevailing rate of per diem wages. The difference between the prevailing rate of per diem wages and the wage paid to each worker shall be paid by the Contractor to each worker. An error on the part of an awarding body does not relieve the Contractor from responsibility for payment of the prevailing rate of per diem wages and penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1770-1775. The City will not recognize any claim for additional compensation because of the payment by the Contractor for any wage rate in excess of prevailing wage rate set forth. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by the Contractor. Page 2 of 4 [Rev:2.13.2014] A. Posting of Schedule of Prevailing Wage Rates and Deductions. If the schedule of prevailing wage rates is not attached hereto pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, the Contractor shall post at appropriate conspicuous points at the site of the project a schedule showing all determined prevailing wage rates for the various classes of laborers and mechanics to be engaged in work on the project under this contract and all deductions, if any, required by law to be made from unpaid wages actually earned by the laborers and mechanics so engaged. B. Payroll Records. Each Contractor and subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll record, showing the name, address, social security number, work week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by the Contractor in connection with the public work. Such records shall be certified and submitted weekly as required by Labor Code Section 1776. 12. Tax Withholding. Contractor represents and warrants that Contractor is a resident of the State of California in accordance with California Revenue & Taxation Code Section 18662, as may be amended, and is exempt from withholding. Contractor accepts sole responsible for verifying the residency status of any subcontractors and withhold taxes from non-California subcontractors as required by law. 13. Termination. In addition to all other legal and equitable rights of the City, the City may terminate this Purchase Agreement upon notice to the Vendor. If the City terminates this Purchase Agreement,the City will pay the Vendor for Products and/or Services accepted in accordance with this Purchase Agreement prior to the date of termination. 14. Prevailing Party. In the event that either party to this Purchase Agreement commences any legal action or proceeding (including but not limited to arbitration)to interpret the terms of this Purchase Agreement,the prevailing party in such a proceeding shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees associated with that legal action or proceeding. 15. Assignment, Governing Law. The Vendor may not assign any of Vendor's obligations under this Purchase Agreement without the City's prior written approval. This Purchase Agreement is governed by California law. The jurisdiction for any litigation arising from this Purchase Agreement shall be in the state of California, and shall be venued in the County of San Mateo. 16. Severability. If any portion of this Purchase Agreement is held invalid, the Parties agree that such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Purchase Agreement. 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Parties. This Purchase Agreement may be modified or amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed by both Parties. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VENDOR A Municipal Corporation By: By: Mike Futrell, City Manager Cindy Anderson, Corporate Secretary Approved as to Form: ATTEST: City Attorney City Clerk Page 3 of 4 [Rev:2.13.2014] Exhibit A Ross McDonald Co. Inc. Quotations Page 4 of 4 [Rev:2.13.2014] Ross McDonald Co.,, Inc. QUOTATION 3 LIBRARY FURNITURE&SiELVING SOLUTONS 1154 Stealth Street Project No.: B15163 Livermore, CA 94551 phi,925.455,1635 1 tax925,.373,1227 www.•ossmcdonald.com Quote No,: 11,E Date: 5110/2016 Valerie Sornmer Phone No.: 650029.3872 South San Francisco Public Library Cell No.: 650.867.5174 840 West Orange Avenue Fax No,: 650.829.3866 South San Francisco, CA 94080 email: s.omrnn!?-r @niLs—in—to-o-rg Wor'den Library Furniture for the South San Francisco Library Quantity Description Unit Price Total Word en Display Gondolas - Maple construction with slatwall end panels and Wheels. Finish to match existing. 13 XGDS-5928,-DF-M - Modified 36" x 48" with 10" deep shelves 6,181 -010 80,353.00 8 XGDS-5928-DF-M - Modified 36" x 48" with 8" deep shelves 6,181 .00 49,448.00 8 XGDS,-59,28-DF-M - Modified 36" x 60" with 101" deep shelves 6,181 .00 49,448.00 8 XGDS-5928-DF-M - Modified 36" x 60" with 12�" deep shelves 6,11181 .00 49,448.00 Total Material Net: 228,697.010 Less 32% per CMAS contract (4-15-010-0105D)- delivered and OM -73,183.04 installed: . Material Ned 155,513.916 Less additional 22% FMC discount: 0.22 -34,213.07 Sales Tax: 9,50% 1477383 Terms Quotafion� Totakl $136Z4.72.11 Net 30 1�iL r% E-mall: !whrnidt mssmodonald.coln -a—te- *signed quotation will allow Ross McDonaid Co. to proceed with order. B151 G3 SS F Gondolas Page 1 of 1 Quote Gondola Final(2) Kass McDonald Co,, Inc. QUOTATION 66RAW EuRNiiLJRE&SHELVING SOLUTIONS 1154 Stealth Street Livermore, CA 94551 Project No.': B16005 fah.925,455,1635 1 fax 925.373,1227 www.rossmcdonald'.com Quote No,: 1A Date: 1/15/2016 Valerie Sommer Phone No.: 65'0.82,x., 872 South San Francisco Public Library Cell No.: 650.867.5174 840 'Jest Orange Avenue Fax No.: 650.829.6866 South San Francisco, CA 94080 emalll: som erC�?pisV fo.orp Worden Library Furniture Quantity Description Unit Frio Total 1 Naviigate Desk - 4600 - 24" x 66" with an electrically operated height 10,717.00 10,717.00 adjustable top and ledge (6" deep), 30" to 391" high. Top and ledge to be grade B Corian. Trim to be custom stained maple. a 1 Custom Podium 24" 1/V x 24"D x 32/39"H. Work surface to be 2,99100 2,99100 adjustable to 3 positions on standard pins. Work surface to be Grade B Corian. Front to be perforated metal at the bottom 20". Total Material Net- 113,710.00 Sales Tax: 9,00% 1 ,233.90 Freight and Installation: 1,980.00 Terms Quotation Total. $16,923.90 Net 3o fob Schrnjdt ::J -mail: tschrnidtt@rossmcdonald,cjT *signed quotation will allow Rosa McDonald Co.to proceed with order, 816005 SSF Computer table and desk Page 1 of 1 Quote Furniture-0 fI Ross McDonald +�Co, Inc..._ QUOTATION 1154 stealth street Project No.: 816005 Livermore, CA 9455`1 p3h.925,45a1636 1 tax 925.373,1227 www.rossmcdonald.com Quote No.: 2A Gate: 1/19/2016 Valerie Sommer, Phone No.: 650'.829.3872 South, San Francisco Public Library Cell No.: 650.867.5174 840, West Orange Avenue Fax No.: 650.829.3866 Guth San Francisco, CA 914080 en"Iall: siomrrrer Isi Lg_ Quantity Description Unit Prigs Total 1 Computer Table per the attached drawing, 4,755. 16 tlr k! s square powder coated le q p g * ''mood Veneer worksurface with 1/2" hardwood edgeband. * 39" high side to be 144" x 24" and to have square corners and 8 legs * 29" side to have radius profile and to be 16" deep at the narrowest point - 3 support legs. 1 Lot Taxable Installation 288.00 Total Maternal Net: 5,643„00 Sales Tax: 9.510% 479.019 Freight: 564.0O Terris Quotation Totak $6,08U.09 Net 30 QECTl E-mail: rschrrti c t coLn _55-C t5tl6'n ,p -ce-Pte-d- —___,.-_—_- -,-—- —--—--—-- D_ ate' --- *signed quotation wHI allow Russ McDonald Co, to proceed with carder. 816005 SS cornputer table and desk Page 1 of 1 Quote Table-o(2) DATE(MM/DD/YYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE '! 5/17/2016 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies)must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). CONTACT PRODUCER McGovern Insurance NAME: 1625 El Camino Real p//C_ Ext: 650-593-8216 p/c,No): 650-594-9130 Belmont, CA 94002 E-MAIL ADDRESS: INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# www.jemins.com INSURERA: Financial Pacific Insurance Company 31453 INSURED INSURER B: Markel Insurance Company 38970 Ross McDonald Company, Inc 1154 Stealth Street INSURERC: Livermore CA 94550 INSURER D: INSURER E: INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 29951710 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUBR POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LIMITS LTR INSD WVD POLICY NUMBER MM/DD/YYY MM/DD/YYY A �/ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY / �/ 60438173 10/20/2015 10/20/2016 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000. DAM CLAIMS-MADE 11/1 OCCUR PREM SES Ea occurrDence $ 300,000. MED EXP(Any one person) $ 5,000. PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000. GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERALAGGREGATE $ 2,000,000. ✓ POLICY ❑ PRO JECT [::] LOC PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG $ 2,000,000. OTHER I Deductible $ 1,000. A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ✓ 60438173 10/20/2015 10/20/2016 (Ea accident) 1,000,000.LIMIT $ 1'000'000. ✓ ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY(Per accident) $ ✓ AUTOS ONLY AUTOS HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $ ✓ AUTOS ONLY ✓ AUTOS ONLY Per accident A �/ UMBRELLA LAB �/ OCCUR 60438173 10/20/2015 10/20/2016 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000. EXCESS LAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ 1,000,000. DED RETENTION$ $ B WORKERS COMPENSATION ✓ MWC 0000 425-06 1/4/2016 1/4/2017 �/ STATUTE OERH AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ANYPROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE Y/N E.L.EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000. OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ N/A (Mandatory in NH) E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000. If yes,describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000. DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES (ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,maybe attached if more space is required) RE: Shelving Installation @ SSF Public Library Branch Facility, 306 Walnut Avenue,SSF RMC#B15163&B16005 Additional Insured&Primary Phrase: See Attached '30 day written Notice of Cancellation,except for non-pay of premium which is 10 days. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION City of South San Francisco SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE Y THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN South San Francisco Public Library ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 840 West Orange Avenue South San Francisco CA 94080 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Sylvia McGovern @ 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25(2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD 29951710 I ROSSM-4 1 16/17- GL, AU, EX, WC I MaryAnn Worman 1 5/17/2016 11:56:11 AM (PDT) I Page 1 of 8 AGENCY CUSTOMER ID: ROSSM-4 LOC#: ADDITIONAL REMARKS SCHEDULE Page of AGENCY NAMED INSURED McGovern Insurance Ross McDonald Company, Inc 1154 Stealth Street POLICY NUMBER Livermore CA 94550 60438173 CARRIER NAIC CODE Financial Pacific Insurance Company 31453 EFFECTIVE DATE:10/20/2015 ADDITIONAL REMARKS THIS ADDITIONAL REMARKS FORM IS A SCHEDULE TO ACORD FORM, FORM NUMBER: 25 FORM TITLE:Certificate of Liability(03/16) HOLDER: City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Public Library ADDRESS:840 West Orange Avenue South San Francisco CA 94080 This policy includes a self-insured retention with a deductible of $1, 000. The self- insured retention on this policy may be paid by either the named insured or the Additional Insured. ACORD 101 (2008/01) ©2008 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD ADDENDUM 29951710 1 ROSSM-4 1 16/17- GL, AU, EX, WC I MaryAnn Worman 1 5/17/2016 11:56:11 AM (PDT) I Page 2 of 8 AGENCY CUSTOMER ID: ROSSM-4 LOC#: ADDITIONAL REMARKS SCHEDULE Page of AGENCY NAMED INSURED McGovern Insurance Ross McDonald Company, Inc 1154 Stealth Street POLICY NUMBER Livermore CA 94550 60438173 CARRIER NAIC CODE Financial Pacific Insurance Company 31453 EFFECTIVE DATE:10/20/2015 ADDITIONAL REMARKS THIS ADDITIONAL REMARKS FORM IS A SCHEDULE TO ACORD FORM, FORM NUMBER: 25 FORM TITLE:Certificate of Liability(03/16) HOLDER: City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Public Library ADDRESS:840 West Orange Avenue South San Francisco CA 94080 Additional Insured: The City of South San Francisco, its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, contractors, and consultants ACORD 101 (2008/01) ©2008 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD ADDENDUM 29951710 1 ROSSM-4 1 16/17- GL, AU, EX, WC I MaryAnn Worman 1 5/17/2016 11:56:11 AM (PDT) I Page 3 of 8 POLICY NUMBER: 60438173 CG 20 10 BlanketAddltlonal Insured 0210 R THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY, ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OIL CONTRACTORS (WITH LIMITED COMPLETED OPERATIONS COVERAGE) This endorsement modifies Insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART BUSINESSOWNERS COVERAGE;FORM SCHEDULE NAME QE PERSON O R-0.RGANZATIA0 N---.. Any person or organization to whom or to which DESCRiPT_I-ON OF WORK: the named insured is obligated by a virtue of a The type of work performed must be that as written contract to provide Insurance that is described under classifications In the CGL afforded by this policy. Where required by Coverage Part Declarations. contract the officers, officials,employees, directors,subsidiaries, partners,successors, RE: Shelving Installation @SSF Public Library Branch parents,divisions,architects,surveyors and Facility,306 Walnut Avenue, SSF RMC#B15163& engineers are Included as additional insureds. 616005 All other entities, Including but not limited to Additional Insured(s):The City of South San Francisco, agents,volunteers,servants,members and its elected and appointed officers,officials,employees, partnerships are included as additional Insureds, agents,contractors,and consultants If required by contract, only when acting within the course and scope of their duties controlled PRIMARY CLAUSE: and supervised by the primary(first)additiona[ When this endorsement applies and when insured. If an Owner Controlled Insurance required by written contract, such Insurance as Program Is Involved,the coverage applies to off- Is afforded by the general liability policy Is site operations only. If the purpose of this primary insurance and other insurance shall be endorsement is for bid purposes only, then no excess and shall not contribute to the Insurance coverage applies. afforded by this endorsement. WHO iS AN INSURED: (Section 11) EXCLUSION: This section is amended to Include as an Insured The Insurance provided to the additional insured the person or organization shown on the does not apply to"bodily Injury",°property Certificate of Insurance, but only to the extent damage"or"personal and advertising injury" that the person or organization Is held liable for arising out of an architect's, engineer's or your acts or omissions In the course of°your surveyor's rendering or failure to render any work'for that person or organization by or for professional services, Including: you. The'products-completed operations hazard'portion of the policy coverage does not 1• The preparing, approving, or falling to apply to any work Involving or related to prepare or approve, maps, designs,shop properties Intended for residential or habitational drawings,opinions, reports,surveys, occupancy(other than apartments), field orders, change orders,or drawings and specifications;and WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: 2. Supervisory, Inspection,architectural or We waive any right of recovery, when required engineering acttMes. by written contract,that we may have against the person or organization shown in the Endorsement Certificate of Insurance because of payments we EFFECTIVE DATE: 10/20/2015 make for Injury. Endorsement LOCATiOI OEJOB,_ EXPIRATION DATE: 10/20/2016 The job location must be within the State of domicile of the named Insured, or within any contiguous State thereto. CG 20 10 Blanket Additional Insured 02 10 R Page 1 of 1 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc.,with Its permission 29951710 ROSSM-4 1 16/17- GL, AU, EX, WC I MaryAnn Worman 1 5/17/2016 11:56:11 AM (PDT) I Page 4 of 8 60438173 Ross McDonald Company, Inc FPICO200 (12-11) THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BUSINESS AUTO ELITE COVERAGE ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement,the provisions of the Coverage Form apply unless modified by this endorsement. SECTION II—LIABILITY COVERAGE—Amendments COVERAGE EXTENSIONS — SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS WHO IS AN INSURED The following are added to WHO IS AN INSURED: Supplemental--Payments is amended as follows: BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSUREDS We will pay up to $3,000 for cost of bail bonds (including bonds for related traffic law violations) required because of Any person or organization with whom you agreed, pursuant an "accident*' we cover. We do not have to ftrnish these to a written contract, to provide insurance such as is afforded bonds. wider this Coverage Part, but on1v to the extent that the person or organization is held liable for your acts or We will pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the omissions with respect to your ownership, maintenance or "insured" at our request, including actual loss of earnings up use of a covered "auto." This provision only applies if the to$300 a day, because of time off from work. written contract has been executed prior to the -bodily injw}" or-property damage.- SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE - Amendments This coverage shall be primali- and not contributoii- with respect to the person or organization included as an-insured- AUDIO, VISUAL, AND DATA ELECTRONIC wider this section. Any other insurance that person or EQUIPMENT COVERAGE EXTENSION organization has shall be excess and not contributoii- with respect to this insurance,but this provision only applies if it is Any reference to equipment for the reproduction of sound required in the written contract, identified in this section, and also includes video and global positioning systems. is permitted by law. EXPANDED TOWING COVERAGE BROAD FORM NAMED INSURED In addition to the towing and labor limit shown in the Any business entity newly acquired or formed by you, other Declarations for private passenger type "autos," we will pay than a partnership,joint venture or limited liabilih- company up to $75 for towing and labor costs incurred each time the during the policy period provided you own 50% or more of covered "auto- is disabled. However, the labor must be the business entity and the business entity is not separately performed at the place of disablement. insured for Business Auto Coverage. Coverage is extended up to a maximum of 180 days following acquisition or This coverage applies only to an "auto" covered on this formation of the business entity. policy for other physical damage coverage. EMPLOYEES AS INSURED—HIRED AUTOS EXPANDED TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE Any "employee" of yours is an-insured- while operating an "auto- hired or rented wider a contract or agreement in that Coverage Extensions—Transportation Expenses is deleted "employee's" name, with your permission, while performing and replaced by the following: duties related to the conduct of your business. We will pay up to $60 per day to a maximum of$1,800 for EMPLOYEES AS INSURED—NONOWNED AUTOS temporal-- transportation expense incurred by you because of the total theft of a covered "auto- of the private passenger Any "employee" of yours is an -insured- while using a type. We will pay only for those covered "autos- for which covered "auto- N-ou don't own, hire or borrow in N-our you can}- either Comprehensive or Specified Causes of Loss CT business. Coverage. We will pay for temporal-- transportation expenses incurred during the period beginning 48 hours after Includes copy righted material of ISO Properties,Inc.with its permission Page I of 3 29951710 I ROSSM-4 1 16/17- GL, AU, EX, WC I MaryAnn Worman 1 5/17/2016 11:56:11 AM (PDT) I Page 5 of 8 FPICO200 (12-11) the theft and ending, regardless of the policy's expiration, For each hired "auto" our obligation to pay "loss" will be when the covered "auto" is retunied to use or we pay for its reduced by a deductible equal to the highest deductible "loss." applicable to any owned "auto" for that coverage. No deductible will be applied to "loss" caused by fire or EXTRA EXPENSE—STOLEN AUTOS lightning. We will also pay up to $500 per "accident' for loss of use of the hired "auto" if it results from an"accident' We will pay up to $1,000 for the expense of returning a for which you are legally liable. The lessor must suffer an stolen covered "auto" to you. We will pay only for those actual financial"loss"for this coverage to apply. covered "autos" for which you can-- Comprehensive or Specified Causes of Loss Coverage. Hired Car Physical Damage Coverage provided by this extension is excess over any-other collectible insurance. HIRED CAR PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE LOAN/LEASE GAP COVERAGE For purposes of this section, the term "auto" is redefined to mean a land motor vehicle, "trailer" or semitrailer with a For purposes of this section, the term "auto" is redefined to gross vehicle weight under 20,000 pounds designed for travel mean a land motor vehicle, "trailer" or semitrailer with a on public roads, but does not include"mobile equipment" gross vehicle weight under 20,000 pounds designed for travel on public roads, but does not include"mobile equipment" If Comprehensive, Specified Causes of Loss or Collision coverage is provided to all owned autos by this policy, you If a lonb term leased or financed "auto" is a covered "auto" may extend that coverage to apply to Physical Damage"loss" for the Physical Damage Coverage applicable to a total to hired "autos." We will provide coverage equal to the "loss," and the lessor or financial institution is an additional minimum coverage available to any covered "auto" shown in insured under this Coverage Part, we will pay up to a the Declarations. But, the most we will pay for "loss" to a maximum of $15,000 the difference between amounts you hired"auto" in any-one"accident"is the lesser of: owe the lessor or financial institution under the lease or loan terms and the amount of insurance paid the lessor or financial 1. $50,000; or institution for the total "loss" of the covered "auto" minus: any payments overdue at the time of the loss; any financial 2. The actual cash value of the damaged or stolen property penalties imposed due to wear and tear, high mileage or as of the time of the"loss;" or similar charges; any security deposits not refluided by the lessor or financial institution; any- costs for credit life, health 3. The actual cost of repairing or replacing the damaged or and accident, or disability insurance; any costs for extended stolen property with other property of like kind or quality. warranties; or any care-over balances from previous leases A part is of like kind and quality when it is of equal or or loans. You are responsible for the deductible applicable to better condition than the pre-accident part We will use the "loss" for the covered "auto This coverage is excess the original equipment from the manufacturer when: insurance over any other collectible insurance or lease provision. a) The operational safety of the vehicle might otherwise be impaired; PERSONAL EFFECTS COVERAGE b) Reasonable and diligent efforts to locate the We will pay up to $400 for "loss" to wearing apparel and appropriate rebuilt, aftermarket or used part have other personal effects,which are: been unsuccessftil; 1. Owned bv an"insured;"and c) A new original equipment part of like kind and quality is available and will result in the lowest 2. In or on your covered "auto:- overall repair cost; in the event of a total theft"loss" of your covered"auto." d) For vehicles insured wider policies written on or No deductibles apply to Personal Effects Coverage. before December 31, 2003, the vehicle has been used no more than 15,000 miles unless the pre- RENTAL REIMBURSEMENT COVERAGE accident condition warrants otherwise; or e) For vehicles insured wider policies written on or 1. We will pay for rental reimbursement expenses incurred after Januan- 1, 2004, the vehicle has been used no by you for the rental of an"auto"because of"loss" to a more than 20,000 miles unless the pre-accident covered"auto." Payment applies in addition to the condition warrants otherwise. otherwise applicable amount of each coverage you have on a covered"auto." No deductibles apply to Rental Reimbursement Coverage. Includes copy righted material of ISO Properties,Inc.with its permission Page 2 of 3 29951710 ROSSM-4 1 16/17- GL, AU, EX, WC I MaryAnn Worman 1 5/17/2016 11:56:11 AM (PDT) I Page 6 of 8 FPICO200 (12-11) 2. We will pay only for those expenses incurred during the subsequent investigation of such claims or "snits-, under policy period beginning 24 hours after the"loss" and DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENT, CLAIM, SUIT ending,regardless of the policy's expiration,with the OR LOSS, do not apply until the -accident' or "loss" is lesser of the following number of days: known to: a) The number of days reasonably required to repair or 1. You, if you are an individual; replace the covered -auto." If"loss" is caused by theft, this number of days is added to the number of 2• A partner,if you are a partnership; days it takes to locate the covered -auto- and retur i 3. An executive officer or insurance manager,if you are a it to you. corporation; b) The number of days shown in the Schedule. 4. Your members,managers or insurance manager,if you 3. This coverage applies only to a covered-auto-for which are a limited liability company; there is Comprehensive, Specified Causes of Loss or Collision Coverage provided on this covered"auto." 5• Four elected or appointed officials, trustees, board If there is no Collision Coverage for a covered-auto," members,or your insurance manager,if you are an then Rental Reimbursement Coverage will not apply to a organization other than a partnership,joint venture,or Collision loss involving that covered-auto.- limited liability company. -4. Our payment is limited to the lesser of the following But, this section does not amend the provisions relating to amounts: notification of police, protection or examination of the property,which was subject to the"loss." a) Necessali-and actual expenses incurred. BLANKET WAIVER OF SUBROGATION b) $75 for any one day or for a maximum of 30 days. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us is 5. This coverage does not apply while there are spare or deleted and replaced by the following: reserve"autos"available to you for your operations. We waive any right of recovery we may have against any 6. If`loss" results from the total theft of a covered-auto-of person or organization to the extent required of you by a the private passenger type,we will pay under this written contract executed prior to any -accident' or "loss," coverage only that amount of your rental reimbursement provided that the -accident' or "loss" arises out of the expenses which is not already provided for wider the operations contemplated by such contract. The waiver PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE Coverage applies only to the person or organization designated in such Extension. contract. 7. Coverage does not apply to any covered-auto-for which GENERAL CONDITIONS coverage is provided by endorsement form CA 9923 on this policy. UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE—GLASS Concealment, Misrepresentation Or Fraud is amended by adding the following: Deductible is amended by adding the following: The unintentional omission of, or unintentional error in, aliv No deductible for a covered -auto- will apply to glass information given by you shall not prejudice your rights damage if the glass is repaired rather than replaced. wider this insurance. However, this provision does not affect our right to collect additional premium or exercise our right SECTION IV — BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS — of cancellation or non-renewal. Amendments SECTION V—DEFINITIONS-Amendment LOSS CONDITIONS MENTAL ANGUISH KNOWLEDGE OF ACCIDENT, CLAIM, SUIT OR LOSS The definition of "bodily injw}-" is amended to include mental anguish resulting from any -bodily in ml-,- sickness The requirements for reporting and sending claim or "suit' or disease sustained by a person. information to us,including provisions related to the Includes copy righted material of ISO Properties,Inc.with its permission Page 3 of 3 29951710 1 ROSSM-4 1 16/17- GL, AU, EX, WC I MaryAnn Worman 1 5/17/2016 11:56:11 AM (PDT) I Page 7 of 8 WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 99 03 01 (Ed. 12-06) WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT - CALIFORNIA We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an Injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against any person or organization named In the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described In the Schedule. This agreement shall not operate directly or Indirectly to benefit anyone not named In the Schedule. SCHEDULE 1. Blanket Waiver Any person or organization for whom the Named Insured has agreed by written contract to furnish this waiver. 2. Premium: The additional premium charge for this endorsement shall be 3%percent of the California Workers'Compensation premium otherwise due subject to a minimum premium of$750.per policy. The City of South San Francisco, its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, contractors, and consultants This endorsement changes the policy to which It Is attached and Is effective on the date Issued unless otherwise stated. (The Information below Is required only when this endorsement Is Issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective: 1/4/2016 Policy No.:MWC 0000 425-06 Endorsement No.: Insured: Ross McDonald Company, Inc /Promliim[Comm nhnuol Insurance Company: Markel Insurance Company Countersigned by: WC 99 03 01 29951710 1 ROSSM-4 1 16/17- GL, AU, EX, WC I MaryAnn Worman 1 5/17/2016 11:56:11 AM (PDT) I Page 8 of 8 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-430, Version: 1 Resolution approving a cooperative purchasing agreement with Ross McDonald, Inc. for the purchase of furniture and shelving for Grand Avenue Library in the amount of$159,084.71 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement WHEREAS, shelving and furniture are required as part of the Grand Avenue Renovation Project; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 4.04.040 authorizes the City of South San Francisco to take advantage of valid contract terms negotiated by another government agency that has used a quote or bid process substantially conforming to the above referenced chapter; and WHEREAS, the California Multiple Award Schedules ("CMAS")program does substantially conform to South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 4.4.040; and WHEREAS, Ross McDonald Company, Inc. is a valid vendor under the CMAS program; and WHEREAS, in addition to the 32 percent CMAS discount, Ross McDonald Company has offered a 22 percent repeat customer discount on the CMAS price for shelving units; and WHEREAS, funding for this purchase is included in the previously adopted budget; and WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing a cooperative purchasing agreement with Ross McDonald in the amount of$159,084.71. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes a purchase agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Ross McDonald, Inc. for the purchase of shelving and furniture for Grand Avenue Library in the amount of$159,084.71 and authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/2/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-468, Version: 1 Report approving resolution authorizing the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) funds allocated through the State of California to support Beverage Container Recycling Programs in City Parks and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the 2016-2017 Revenue Budget upon receipt of funds. (Sharon Ranals, Director of Parks and Recreation) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) funds allocated through the State of California in their Fiscal Year 2015-2016 budget in the amount of$16,997 to support beverage container recycling programs in City Parks and authorize the Finance Director to adjust the City's 2016-2017 revenue budget upon receipt of funds. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) funds allocated through the State of California. CalRecycle administers a program to provide and support statewide opportunities for beverage container recycling. The goal of this program is to reach and maintain an 80 percent recycling rate for all California refund value beverage containers--aluminum, glass, plastic and bi-metal. Projects implemented by cities and counties will assist in reaching and maintaining this goal. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 14581(a)(3)(A) of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, CalRecycle is distributing $10,500,000 in the 2015-2016 Fiscal Year to eligible cities and counties specifically for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. Payments are calculated annually per capita using the Department of Finance's population statistics. The application to receive the funding, which is a non-competitive payment program as opposed to a competitive grant program, is June 1, 2016. For the past several years the City has taken advantage of this funding source to enhance our support of recycling programs in the Parks and Recreation Department, by purchasing multi-stream waste receptacles which are placed in our city parks and building facilities. The proposed purchase for this year would be to install multi-stream waste receptacles in several city parks, including Alta Loma and Brentwood Parks, which are scheduled for renovation in the coming year. Due to a recent audit by the California State Auditor, CalRecycle's own fiduciary responsibility, and to align this program with our other payment programs, more strict reporting requirements have been implemented for current and future rounds of applications than previous years, including agency applicants' submission of back- up documentation for all expenditures. The new requirements also include a Resolution to accept the funding from the applying agency's City Council, to be included with the program application. FUNDING Funds received from the CalRecycle program for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 will provide for purchase of waste City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 File #: 16-468, Version: 1 receptacles which enhance the City's ability to collect and recycle beverage containers; there will be no need to increase the Parks and Recreation Department's budget for expenditures. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing or matching funding. Adopting this resolution will authorize the Finance Director to amend the 2016-2017 revenue budget upon receipt of funds from CalRecycle. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for CalRecycle funds allocated through the State of California for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 in the amount of$16,997 to support beverage container recycling programs and authorize the Finance Director to amend the revenue budget upon receipt of funds. Receipt of these funds will enable the Parks and Recreation Department to provide enhanced recycling opportunities in City parks, to the benefit of the community and the environment. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-469, Version: 1 Resolution authorizing the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) funds allocated through the State of California to support Beverage Container Recycling Programs in City Parks and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the 2016-2017 Revenue Budget upon receipt of funds. WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq., 14581, and 42023.1(g), the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has established various payment programs to make payments to qualifying jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the administration of the payment programs; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle's procedures for administering payment programs require, among other things, an applicant's governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of the payment program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of South San Francisco is authorized to submit an application to CalRecycle for any and all payment programs offered; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized as Signature Authority to execute all documents necessary to implement and secure payment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this authorization is effective until rescinded by the Signature Authority or this governing body. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-472, Version: 1 Motion approving the Minutes of meetings of June 24, 2015, July 22, 2015, March 30, 2016, April 27, 2016, May 10, 2016, May 11, 2016 and May 17, 2016. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CITY COUNCIL tro OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING Council Chambers 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2015 6:35 P.M. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order. TIME: 6:34 p.m. 2. Roll Call. PRESENT: Councilmembers Gupta, Matsumoto and Normandy, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino. ABSENT: None. 3. Public Comments —comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None. 4. Agenda Review None. Time entered Closed Session: 6:34 p.m. Open Session resumed: 7:01 p.m. 5. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators. (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 178-190 Airport Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA Agency Negotiator: Alex Greenwood, ECD Director Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco and JDA West, LLC Under Negotiations: Price and terms of payment. Report out of Closed Session: No reportable action. 6. Adjournment. Being no further business, Mayor Garbarino adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Submitted: Approved: Krista J. Martinelli City Clerk Rich Garbarino, Mayor City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24,2015 MINUTES PAGE 2 Martinelli, Krista From: Martinelli, Kri iacS,,l Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:37 PM To: Council-Only Cc: Futrell, Mike; All at City Clerk's Office Suibject, re: Minutes presented 5/25/16 Please note corrected dates reflecting 2015 in the email below: Dear Council, In the agenda, packet for next Wednesday's Regular City Council Meeting, you will receive two (2) sets of minutes that were never approved by Council, which I learned of during a periodic minutes check performed by the City Clerk's Office,, These minutes were for Special City Council Meetings that took place on the same evening as regularly scheduied City Council Meetings on June 24, 2015 and July 22, 2015. My review of the records of these meetings, including notes,videos and approved minutes from meetings that took place on the same nights informed my preparation of these documents. Note that during this process, I discovered an error in the time listed for the previously approved June 24, 2015 Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency and have revised these minutes accordingly for your approval. This email will be included along with your packets for the 5/25/16 meetings. Krista KRISTA JOY MARTINELLI SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CnY CLERK P.O. Box 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 650-877-8518 KwSTA.MART1NER.LI@SSF.NET WWW,SSF,NET From. Martinelli, Krista Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:31 PM To: Council-Only Cc. Futrell, Mike; All at City Clerk's Office Subject: Minutes presented 5/25/16 Importance: High Dear Council, In the agenda packet for next Wednesday's Regular City Council Meeting, you will receive two (2) sets of minutes that were never approved by Council, which I learned of during a periodic minutes check performed by the City Clerk's Office. These minutes were for Special City Council Meetings that took place on the same evening as regularly scheduled City Council Meetings on June 24, 2016 and July 22, 2016. My review of the records of these meetings, including notes, videos and approved minutes from meetings that took place on the same nights informed my preparation of these clocuments. Note that during this process, I discovered an error in the time listed for the previously approved June 24, 2016 Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency a,nd have revised these minutes accordingly for your approval. I This email will he included along with your packets for the 5/25/15 meetings. frusta TA joy MARTnmm sow SAN FRANcisc MY CLEF P.O. Brix 711 SOUTH SAN FRANasco, CA 94080 650-877-8518 KR3sT TINELLJ F'NET WWWSSENET 2 'SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ZIP0 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at MI 1NICIPAL SERVICE,.S BI 111,I)ING Council Chambers 33 ARROYO DRIVE Sol I'I'll SAN FRANCISCO , CA WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2015 6:00; P.M. Purpose of the meeting: I. Call to Order. TIME: 6:00 pm. 2. Roll Call. PRESENT: Councilmembers Gupta, Matsumoto and Normandy, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino. ABSENT: None. 3. Public Comments—comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None. 4. Agenda Review None. Time entered Closed Session: 6:00 p.m. Recess, 7:01 p.m,, Meeting and Closed Session resumed: 7:05 p.m. Recess: 7:28 p.m. Meeting and Closed Session resumed: 11:15 p.m. Open Session resumed: July 23, 2015 at 12:00 a.m. 5. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators. (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 178-190 Airport Boulevard, South San Francisco,, CA Agency Negotiator: Alex Greenwood, ECD Director Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco and JDA West, LLC Under Negotiations: Price and terms of payment. Report out of Closed Session: No reportable action. 6. Adjournment. Being no further business, Mayor Garbarino adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. on July 23, 2015, Submitted: Approved: Kiista J. M-artinelli IeK Rich Garbarino, Mayor City of South Sara -r . cisco City of South San Francisco �r Vitycis, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22,201.5 MINUTES PAGE 2 Martinelli, Krista From: Martinelli, Kri ta' Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:37 PM To: Council-Only Cc: Futrell, Mike; All at City Clerk's Office Subject: re: Minutes presented 5/25/16 Please note corrected dates reflecting 2015 in the email below: Dear Councii, In the agenda packet for next Wednesday's Regular City Council Meeting, you will receive two (2) sets of minutes that were never approved by Council, which I learned of during a periodic minutes check per-formed by the City Clerk's Office,, These minutes were for Special City Council Meetings that took place on the same evening as regularly scheduled City Council Meetings on June 24, 2015 and July 22, 2015, My review of the records of these meetings, including notes, videos and approved minutes from meetings that took place on the same nights informed my preparation of these documents, Note that during this process, I discovered an error in the time Misted for the previously approved June 24, 2015 Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency and have revised these minutes,accordingly for your approval. This email will be included along with your packets for the 5/25/16 meetings. Krista KRJSTA JOY MARTWELLI SouTH SAN FRANusco CnY CLr-,,Rx P.O. Box 711 SOUTH SAN FRANcisco, CA 94080 650-877-8518 KRISTAMM61NELLI@SSENET WWV.SSENET From: Martinelli, Krista Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:31 PM To: Council-Only Cc: Futrell, Mike; All at City Clerk's Office Subject: Minutes presented 5/25/16 Importance. High Dear Council, In the agenda packet for next Wednesday's Regular City Council Meeting, you will receive two (2) sets of minutes that were never approved by Council, which I learned of during a periodic minutes check performed by the City Clerk's Office. These minutes were for Special City Council Meetings that took place on the same evening as regularly scheduled City Council Meetings on June 24, 2016 andl July 22, 2016. My review of the records of these meetings, including notes, videos and approved minutes from meetings that took place on the same nights informed my preparation of these documents. Note that during this process, I discovered an error in the time listed for the previously approved June 24, 2016 Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency and have revised these minutes accordingly for your approval. 1 This email will be included along with your packets for the 5/25/16 meetings. Krista KRISTA JOY MARTINELLI Soi.TH 'SAN BRAN sco CITY CLERK P.O. Box 711 SouTH SAN FRANci'sco, C. . 940,80 650-877-8518 p�µ ^�a^n18 ry g g g g 2 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE 0 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P,O, Box 711 (City Hall, 4010 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2016 p.m. I Call to Order. Time: 6:07 p.m. 2. Roll Call. PRESENT: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Garbaiino and Normandy, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego. ABSENT: None, 3. Public Comments—comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None. 4. Agenda Review. None. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS/APPOINTMENTS 5. Interview Applicants for Multiple Positions 6:00p.m.: Alvin Zachariah (Cultural Arts Commission, Mosquito Abatement District) 6,10 p.nt: Davylyn Perez (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Parking Place Commission, Personnel Board, Planning Commission) 6:20 p.m.: Olma O'Neill (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Cultural IL— Arts Commission, Parking Place Commission, Personnel Board) 6:30p.nm Betty Yip (Cultural Arts Commission, Planning Commission) 6:40- p,m.: Natalie Gore (Cultural Arts Commission, Planning Commission) 6:50 p.in.: Dominador Oftecio (Planning Commission, Cultural Arts Commission) 7:00 p.m.; Sam Shihadch (Parking Place Commission, Planning Commission) Council interviewed applicants Alvin Zachariah, Olma ONeill, Betty Yip, Natalie Gore, Dominador Ofrecio and Sam Shihadeh, Applicant Davylyn Perez was absent, 6. Interview Applicants for Cultural Arts Commission 7:10 p,m.: Jessica Madrid-Nickle 7:20p.m.: Karen L. Ochsenhirt 7:30 p,m,: Florida Ventura Previously inter-idewed applicants Gore, O'Neill, Qfrecio, Yip and Zachariah, Council interviewed applicants Jessica Madrid-Nickle, Karen L. Ochsenhirt and Florida Ventura. 7. Interview Applicants for Personnel Board 7:40 p,m.: Teresa Avelar Previously interviewed applicants ONeill and Perez. Application submitted 4y B.J, Patel, but no interview availability for Personnel Board. Applicant Teresa Avelar was not present. Mayor Addiego suggested we move on to the next applicant. 8, Interview Applicants for Parking Place Commission(2 term expirations,James and Shihadeh) 7:50 p.m.: Shirley James Previously interviewed applicants ONeill, Perez and Shihadeh. Council interviewed applicant Shirley James. 9, Interview Applicants for Planning Commission 8.-00 p.m.: John Poletti Previously interviewed applicants Gore, Ofrecio, Patel(interviewed on March 1'6, 2016), Perez, Shihadeh, Tung (interviewed on,March 16, 2016) and Yip. Applicant John Poletti withdrew his application before the meeting. 10. Intei-view Applicants for Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee 8:10p,m.: Laura Stupi Previously interviewed applicants ONeill and Perez. Council interviewed applicant Laura Stupi. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19:,2016 MINUTES PAGE 2 11, Interview Applicant for Multiple Positions 8..20 p.m.: Kayla Halili Tolentino (Cultural Arts Commission, Mosquito Abatement District, Planning Commission) Council interviewed applicant Kayla Hahli, 11 Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicants to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Council may appoint two (2) applicants to respective seats on the Committee. Applicants O'Neill, Perez and.51upi. 13. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicants to the Personnel Board. Council may appoint one(1)applicant to a partial term to expire December 31,2016. Applicants Avela•, O'Neill, Perez and Patel. 14. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicants to the Parking Place Commission. Council may appoint two (2) applicants to respective full terms expiring December 31, 2018. Applicants dames, 0"Neill, Perez and Shihadeh. 15, Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicant to the Planning Commission. Council may appoint one (1) applicant to a partial term expiring December 31, 2018. Applicants Gore, Ofrecio, Patel, Perez, Poletti, Shihadeh, Tolentino, Tzang and Yap. 16. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicant to the Cultural Arts Commission. Council may appoint one(1) applicant to a partial term expiring June 13, 201,6. Applicants Gore, Madrid-Nickle, Ochsenhirt, Qftcio, Tolentino, ONeill, Ventura, Yip and Zachariah. 17. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicant to the Mosquito Abatement District. Council may appoint one (1) applicant to the Committee for a partial term to expire December 31, 2017. Applicants Tolentino and Zachariah, Mayor Addiego announced due to number of applicants that interviewed they will hold another meeting at a future date to discuss and appoint applicants. Recess: 8:25 p.m. Meeting resumed: 8:30 p.m, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 2016 MINUTES PAGE ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 18. Measure W Update. (Marian Lee, Assistant City Manager) Assistant City Manager Lee presented the staff report advising she needs some guidance on site selection and procuring consultant program management services to help enhance staff team to progress with this project. Assistant City Manager Lee advised the three key topics are the 1) Five- Year paving plan, 2) Relocation options for municipal services buildings, and 3) Program management structure proposing for this project. 'Mayor Addiego opposed the idea of having Inforination Technology (IT), Human Resources (HR) and City Clerk's Office being located in the new Police Department (PD), Mayor Addiego also opposed the idea of surface parking. Councilwoman Matsumoto agreed with Mayor Addiego's comments. Vice Mayor Gupta agreed with Mayor Addiego's comments. Councilman Garbarino expressed concerns regarding all the visitors that visit the Municipal Services Building (MSB) due to it being seismically unsafe. Councilwoman Matsumoto asked staff if building an amphitheater is doable if they do away with the surface parking and get podium parking instead. City Manager Futrell advised it is doable and staff would have to work on financing. They went with option 4 because that was the most the City could afford under Measure W and other monies as well. Mayor Addiego referred to the 46,000 square footage planned for the library was too small for a city that is on the verge of 70,000 residents. Mayor Addiego mentioned San Mateo has a library of 90,000 square feet with a population of 100,000 residents. Mayor Addiego calculated South San Francisco is 7010 the size of San Mateo so the library should also be 7010 the size of San Mateo's which is 63,000 square feet. Mayor Addiego stated he would not be satisfied with something that doesn't make a statement that South San Francisco is a grand community. Staff made a point to council that the trend in libraries are changing slightly due to the technology aspect where libraries book collections are getting smaller due to the popularity of digital books and more focus is being spent on program space and people space. Vice Mayor Gupta agrees that many of the books are digitized but many residents are not keeping up with the digital revolution, Vice Mayor Gupta sees the library as a place where a diversity of people can get together and have meetings or discussions. City Manager Futrell recapped the meeting stating there will be a Special Meeting on April 191'to review the details from today. There will be a closed and open session. SPECIAL CITY COLTNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 2016 MINUTES PACE 4 ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Add:.ego adjourned the meeting at :52 p.m. Submitted by: Approved b : Gabriel Rodriguez, Deputy City Clerk Marls Addicgo, Mayor City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19,2016 MINUTES PAGE MINUTES 1 SAAr SPECIAL MEETING Q CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCE R AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. BOX 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2016 6:00 p.m. I Call to Order. TIME: 6:02 p.m. 2. Roll Call. PRESENT: Councilmembers Normandy* and Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego. ABSENT: Councilmember Garbarino, * Councilmember Normandy arrived at 6-04 p.m. Councilmember Garbarino is in Sacramento on City business, 3, Agenda Review. Mike Futrell, City Manager requested to pull item 7 from the agenda and bring back to council at later date. 4. Public Comments— comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None. Tirne entered Closed Session: 6:04 p.m.. Open Session resumed-, 6:31 p.m. 5. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators: (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Properties: 201-219 Grand Avenue (APN: 012-316-110; 012-316-100; 012-316-090) and 418 Linden Avenue (APN-. 012-314-010) Agency Negotiators:Alex Greenwood Ncgotiating Parties. Brookwood Equities, LLC, the City of South San Francisco, and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco Under Negotiation: Price and terms for the disposition of the property. (Ron Gerber, Housing and Redevelopment Manager), No reportable action taken. 6. Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9) Initiation of Litigation and Significant Exposure to Litigation: One Case No reportable action taken. CITY COUNCIL ONLY 7. Closed Session: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 45957) Title: City Manager. This item was withdrawn. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS, & Report regarding Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA) between The City of South San Francisco and MidPcn Housing Corporation for a potential Disposition and Development Agreement and Ground Lease and Development of Affordable Workforce Housing at The City Owned Miller/Maple Parking Lot (APN 012311330) (Alex Greenwood: ECD Director) Ron Gerber,Economic Development and Housing Manager presented the item to council. Representative from MidPen in attendance to provide more information and answer any questions,. Councilmember Matsurnoto mentioned talking about housing for public safety and most firefighters and policemen wouldn't want to live in South San Francisco because they don't want residents approaching them when off duty, Councilmember Matsumoto referenced how school teachers would also not like to live in the school district they work in because they don't want parents coming up to them while they are in the gas stations or supeimarkets and having discussions with them. Councilmember Gupta asked about the two new funding sources mentioned in staff report and how the AMI was extremely low and very low. Councilmember Normandy mentioned the different unit sizes, She sees the studios, one bedroom and two bedrooms units but doesn't know about 3 bedroom units, Mayor Addiego agreed with Councilinember Normandy but it was explained to him that they wanted to appear family friendly. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING APFJL 13,2016 MINUTES PAGE 2 Motion - Gupta/ Second -Normandy. that this Resolution, RES 46-2016, be approved. Approved by roll call vote: Yes: 4— Mark Addiego, Liza Normandy, Kary] Matsumoto, and Pradeep Gupta, Absent: I —Richard Garbarino Adjournment. Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m. Submitted by., Approved by: 4� Gabri'elodriguez, Deputy City Clerk Mark Addiego, Mayor City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING APRIL 13,2016 MINUTES PAGE 3 MINUTES glS CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAINT FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 20,16 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER. Time; 7,04 p.m, ROLL CALL Present: Councilrnembers Normandy and Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego. Absent: Councilman Garbarino. Mayor Addiego announced that Councilman Garbarino was in Sacramento attending the League of California Cities Legislative Action bays, He expressed appreciation for the Councilman's work in this area. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Addiego. AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Futrell recommended that Item 13 be removed from the Agenda. Council agreed. PRESENTATIONS 1. 16-294 Recognition of Peninsula Council of Lions Public Safety Awards presented to Police Captain Ron Carlino, Police OJ ficer Kathleen. Walsh, Fire Captain Matt Samson, Paramedic Firefi Miter Heath. Kelly and Paramedic Firefighter Travis Higdon. (Jeff Azzopardi, Police Chief and Gerry I .ohlmann, Fire Chico. Chief of Police Azzopardi and Fire Chief Iohlmann presented the City's recipients of the Peninsula Council of Lions Public Safety Awards to Council. Police Captain Ron Carlino, Police Officer Kathleen "Walsh, Fire Captain Matt Sarnson, Paramedic Firefighter Death Kelly and Paramedic Firefighter Travis Higdon were recognized for the awards bestowed upon then. as follows: Police Service; Captain Ron Carlino Poli PUBLIC COMMENTS None, COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Councilwoman Matsurnoto requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Ron DeGrande. She further announced upcoming events including that May is Asian American and Pacific Islanders month. She noted the Farmers Market would open on May 7, 2016 coincident with the Streets Alive Parks Alive Event in Orange Memorial Park, The Councilwoman also observed comments in a Planning Commission staff report that referenced Council's expressed preference; however, it did not accurately reflect her preference. She requested that staff be cautious in its characterization of Council direction. She also noted concern about the lack of response for recent City Requests for Proposals. To this end, she was in contact with City Managers from cities that were not in this predicament, including San Mateo City Manager, Larry Patterson. She offered kudos to the CERT Team for their work on the Silver Dragon Drill. Finally, she questioned implementation of a Police escort from the Airport to City Hall for a recent visit by a developer. Mayor Addiego explained the developer, based in China, is accustomed to the accommodations provided by the Chinese Government. He further explained that the request for assistance was dialed down, but that the escort was needed to bring the contingent to City Hall in a timely fashion. Councilwoman Normandy noted she was not advised of this visit. Councilwoman Matsumoto wished Councilwoman Normandy a happy birthday, PUBLIC HEARING 2. 16-280 Public Hearing on the City's 2016-2017 One Year Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and resolution approving the City's 2016-2017 One Year Action Plan; authorizing submittal of the City's 2016-2017 One Year Action Plan and all other required documents to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); authorizing a budget transfer to incorporate the CDBG and HOME administrative funds into the 2016-2017 operating budget; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents and certifications necessary to secure and award CDBG and HOME administrative funds for the City. (Julie Barnard, ECD Coordinator) 2.a. 16-281 A Resolution No. 47-2016 approving the City's 2016-2017 One Year Action Plan; authorizing submittal of the City's 2016-2017 One Year Action Plan and all other required docurnents, to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); authorizing a budget transfer to incorporate the CDBG and HOME administrative funds into the 2016-2017 Operating Budget; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents and certifications necessary to secure and award CDBG and HOME administrative funds for the City. Public Hearing Opened: 7:41 p.m. Economic Development Coordinator Barnard presented the staff report recommending approval of a resolution approving the City's 2016-2017 One Year Action Plan; authorizing submittal of the ]UGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27,2016 MINUTES PAGE 2 City's 2016-2017 One Year Action Plan and all other required documents to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); authorizing a budget transfer to incorporate the CDBG and HOME administrative funds into the 2016-2017 Operating Budget; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents and certifications necessary to secure and award CDBG and HOME administrative funds for the City. She advised that due to recent news that the City's allocation was being increased, the CDBG Standing Committee of the City Council met on Monday and discussed adjusted funding recommendations. Cori Manthorne Director of Programs for Emergency Shelter Programs of Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse ("CORA") thanked Council for support of CORA's programs. She relayed a story regarding assistance provided to a South San Francisco woman and her sons. Through COLA's services, the family was able to obtain protection from an abusive domestic situation. Councilwoman Matsumoto thanked Ms. Manthome and CORA for their work in the community and their assistance to victims encountered by the South San Francisco Police Department. Hon. Diane Papan of John's Closet thanked Council for its support of the Daly City Agency's programs offering new clothing to children in need. Francis Ngyuen with Project Sentinel thanked Council for the proposed funding of its programs. She advised of families in South San Francisco that had been helped by the Agency's housing programs. Program Director Amanda Freeman of Rape Trauma Services thanked Council for granting the organization funds that would be implemented to help local abused children heal from trauma and stop future crimes. She advised of a program the organization sponsored at El Camino High School in which male and female students participated to raise awareness of the issue. Laura Fanucchi of HIP Housing thanked Council for its support and advised of successful home sharing operations in South San Francisco. Tippy Irwin of Ombudsman Services thanked Council for its support and noted the organization served as an integral safety net for seniors in South San Francisco. Public Hearing closed: 8.-03 p.m. Councilwoman Normandy thanked Mayor Add ego for placing her on the CDBG Standing Committee. She appreciated the opportunity to serve in this capacity and noted the Committee's recommendations were arrived at through careful study and consideration. She stated that the Committee concluded Biotech Partners was a worthy cause, but was not the best use of CDBG funds. Councilmembers thanked the CDBG Standing Committee members for their work on the program. They further thanked the advocates for the work they do in the community, Vice Mayor Gupta, observed that he believed the internship program organized by Biotech Partners was a worthy cause. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27,2016 MINUTES PAGE 3 Motion—Councilwoman Matsumoto/Second—Vice Mayor Gupta: to approve a Resolution No.47- 2016. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilinembers Nonnandy and Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego, NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Garbarino. ABSTAIN: None. 3. 16-269 Report recommending approval of a Motion to Waive Reading and Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 19.24 to Modify the Amount and Method of Calculation for the Dedication of Land and Payment of Fee In Lieu of Dedication of Land Pursuant to the Quimby Act and Introduce an Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.67 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Imposing a New Parkland Acquisition Fee and a Park Construction Fee for Residential Rental Development Projects and Certain Types of Projects Not Otherwise Subject to the Quimby Act (Sharon Ranals, Director of Parks and Recreation) 3a. 16-329 Ordinance Amending Chapter 19.24 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to Modify the Amount and Method of Calculation for the Dedication of Land and Payment of a Fee in Lieu of Dedication of Land Pursuant to the Quimby Act 3b. Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.67 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Requiring the Payment of a Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee to Mitigate the Impacts of New Developments on Park and Recreational Facilities in the City Director of Parks and Recreation Ranals, presented the staff report recommending that Council waive reading and: 1) Introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 19.24 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to modify the amount and method of calculation for Parks and Recreation fees for subdivision development projects; and 2) Introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 8.67 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code to impose a new Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee for residential rental development projects and certain types of projects not otherwise subject to the Quimby Act. Director Ranals continued to advise that the City's General Plan, Parks and Open Space Master Plan (Master Plan), and the East of 101 Area Plan establish the minimum standard of providing three (3) acres of developed parks per 1,000 residents for new residential projects, and of acquiring and developing .5 acres of parks per one thousand employees for new coinmercia:l development. Although providing these essential amenities could be accomplished through the general fund, there are many competing demands for the City's general fund resources. Accordingly, she noted that securing additional funding is necessary if South San Francisco is to meet the growing demand and stated goals and standards for parks and recreation facilities in the future. The proposed ordinance would help accomplish this goal. Public Hearing opened: 8:35 p.m. Resident Kristi Camacho addressed Council and spoke in favor of the fees to support much needed green space in the City, She observed the City is located in a world class, desirable location and believed potential projects to be profitable for, would-be developers irrespective of the proposed fees. She opined that more green space would assist community building and benefit new developments and residents. Public Hearing closed: 8:39 p.m. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2016 MINUTES PACE Vice Mayor Gupta observed the need for parks and recreational areas was significant. He stated, however, that shortly Council would be considering the City's overall fee structure vis-a-vis developers. After consulting Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood, Director Ranals advised that if the fee was not established forthwith, roughly 107 projects in the pipeline might be missed. Councilwoman Matsumoto queried the methodology for population calculation. Director Ranals advised 2014 Census data was utilized. Vice Mayor Gupta queried whether reserving a determination of the Quimby Act ordinance was appropriate. Director Ranals advised that such action could leave roughly $11 million in park fees on the table. Vice Mayor Gupta and Councilwoman Matsumoto queried the fees pertinent to "for sale units." City Manager Futrell advised the proposed ordinance simplifies the process and provides certainty to developers in terms of potential fees. This was as opposed to the current ordinance, pursuant to which it was impossible for developers to pencil out fees. Councilwoman Normandy queried how the proposed ordinance would impact the Cunco Property. Director Ranals advised that previously approved projects would not be impacted by the prospective ordinance. Councilwoman Matsumoto requested that the Planning caseload be included in the Thursday packet from the Manager's Office. Motion---Vice Mayor Gupta/Second—Councilwoman Normandy: to waive reading and introduce respective ordinances: (1) Adding Chapter 8.67 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Requiring the Payment of a Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee to Mitigate the Impacts of New Developments on Park and Recreational Facilities in the City; and (2) Amending Chapter 19.24 of the South. San Francisco Municipal Code to Modify the Amount and Method of Calculation for the Dedication of Land and Payment of a Fee in Lieu of Dedication of Land Pursuant to the Quimby Act. Approved by the following roll call vote. AYES: Councilmembers Normandy and Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Garbarino. ABSTAIN: None. Recess: 9:10 pm. Meeting resumed: 9:19 p.m. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27,2116 MINUTES PAGE ADMfNISTRATIVE BQSfNESS, 7. 16-266 Update to City Council on the residential Street Lighting Pilot Project and lighting alternatives (Dave Bockhaus, Maintenance Program Manager) Maintenance Program Manager Bockhaus presented the staff report providing an overview of the LED Street Light Program in South San Francisco. He began by summarizing information pertinent to a lighting pilot study performed in the Winston Manor Neighborhood. There were 60 responses to the study, which was inconclusive, as results were split 50150, with 30 residents preferring test light A and 30 residents preferring test light D. Manager Bockhaus advised of four options for addressing lighting concerns as follows: 1) Replace current fixtures at T-intersections and Cul-de- sacs with Type IV LED fixtures- 2) Replace current fixtures with brighter lights- Approximate Cost $1.2 Million — $350/ fixture; 3) Add Additional Lights, Approximate Cost — $3.2 Million - $1,600 fixture; 4) Establish a Porch Light Program, Resident Bill Demeter addressed Council to raise concerns about the insufficiency of the LED street lights. He further discounted the validity of the study by claiming that the test lights were installed on a short street, which made it difficult to compare those lights with others in the study. He relayed information regarding contact he had with the purported manufacturer of certain street lights. According to Mr. Demeter, the manufacturer indicated the street lights planned for use in South San Francisco had been disqualified. He queried why type four (4) lights were not delivered and requested that City Manager Futrell respond to this inquiry in one (1)weeks' time. Catherine Brosnan Dow, a resident of the Spruce Sign Hill Area, opined that the streets are too dark due to installation of the LED street lights. She stated that adequate lighting deters crime as it increases the feasibility of surveillance and deters offenders. She observed that it is the responsibility of City governments to ensure security of the people. Finally, she stated that she and others are afraid to go out at night for safety reasons, which is a quality of life issue. She closed by urging Council. to improve street lighting. Resident Vorisia Henderson of the West Winston Manor Neighborhood addressed Council. She stated the current street lighting is inadequate and must be improved. Carlos Escalante of the Old Town Neighborhood and member of Historic Old Town Homeowners and Renters Association ("HOTHRA") addressed Council. He stated current street lighting is inadequate and not capable of deterring crime. Joanne DAngelo of the Winston Manor Neighborhood read correspondence fi-om residents who could not be present. The correspondence from the Buckman Family, Dolores Valdez and Maria Teresa Etena expressed concern regarding the current state of street lighting in the City. Mrs. D'Angelo stated that the lack of adequate lighting was a safety concern. She further opined that the study was conducted during a time of heavy rain, which may have skewed the study results as very few people were able to observe the test lighting. Winston Manor resident Cindy Alger addressed Council, She expressed concerns regarding inadequate street lighting and proposed Winston Manor as a test neighborhood for the type A street lighting. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL,MEETW(Ji APRIL 27,2016 MINUTES PAGE 6 Mayor Addiego understood residents' skepticism about the intent of the study, but noted it was designed to solicit input. Resident Tom Carney addressed Council. He stated that the LED street light replacement program predated Public Works Director McMinn and Manager Bockhaus. He opined, however, that the lighting was inadequate and unsafe. Vice Mayor Gupta advised that the key factor in the LED Street Light Replacement Program was not cost savings but rather, efficiency, He advised that the human eye is not accustomed to the pattern of light disbursement refracted by LED lighting and that this might be helped by pole spacing that is more appropriate for LED lighting. Public Works Director McMinn stated his appreciation for the residents' input on the Program. Staff would continue to work with residents and the Council 011 solutions. Mayor Addiego stated that he did not feel the Council was prepared to provide direction. City Manager Futrell suggested establishing an Ad Hoc Committee of the Council to study the issue in more detail. Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego agreed to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee, 4, 16-211 Motion to accept the Fiscal Year 2015-46 quarter one through quarter three ambulance services financial report. (Chief Kohlmann) Fire Chief Kohlmann presented the staff report recommending that Council approve a motion to accept the Fiscal Year 2015-16 quarter one (1) through quarter, three (3) ambulance services financial report not to take action on write offs to further investigate secondary billing. The Chief explained that this action would permit the Fire and Finance Departments to work on hardship cases to bring to Council at a later date. Councilwoman Matsumoto thanked the Chief for this report, which she appreciated. Mayor Addiego queried the current applicability of the longstanding argument for maintenance of a BLS Service still applied. Specifically, did the BLS Service supply a pipeline of potential Fire Department employees? Chief Kohlmann confirmed that BLS was a Fire Department employment pipeline for the City. Motion—Vice Mayor Gupta/Second—Councilwoman Non-handy: to accept the Fiscal Year 2015- 16 quarter one (1) through quarter three (3) ambulance services financial report. Approved by the following roll call vote, AYES: Councilmernbers Normandy and Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Garbarino. ABSTAIN: None. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AFRIL 27,2016 MWUTES PAGE 7 5. 16-300 Report regarding resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a two year fee for services contract with Resolve Insurance Systems, LLC., for secondary billing services of aged accounts at a compensation rate not to exceed 30 percent of recovered revenue. (Chief Kohlmann) 5a. 16-301 A Resolution No. 48-2016 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a two year fee for services contract with Resolve Insurance Systems, LLC., for secondary billing services of aged accounts at a compensation rate not to exceed 30 percent of recovered revenue. Fire Chief Kohlmann presented the staff report recommending approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a two (2) year fee for services contract with Resolve Insurance Systems, LLC., for secondary billing services of aged accounts at a compensation rate not to exceed 30 percent of recovered revenue gross aged report finances. He explained that the secondary billing service market was unique as not many service providers existed. The vendor would use technology to find potential payinent, sources for existing invoices, without affecting the patients' credit reports. Motion—Vice Mayor Gupta/Second—Councilwoman Normandy: to approve Resolution No. 48- 2016. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council in ernbers, Normandy and Matsumoto., Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Add ego. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Garbarino. ABSTAIN: None. 6, 16-224 Report recommending approval of a Resolution approving the summary vacation of public utility easements on the following, properties: AP' s 012-314-100 (405 Cypress Avenue); 012-317-090 (421 Airport Boulevard); 012-317-100 (411 Airport Boulevard); 012-317-110 (401 Airport Boulevard); 012-318-040 (309 Airport Boulevard) and 012-318-080 (315 Airport Boulevard) to allow for development of the properties. (Patrick Caylao, Associate Civil Engineer) 6a. 16-225 A Resolution No. 49-2016 approving the summary vacation of public -utility easements on the -following properties: APNs 012-314-100 (405 Cypress Avenue); 012-317-090 (421 Airport Boulevard); 012,-317100 (411 Airport Boulevard); 012-317-110 (401 Airport Boulevard); 012.-318- 040 (309 Airport Boulevard); 012-318-080 (315 Airport Boulevard) Associate Civil Engineer Caylao presented the staff report recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a summary vacation of public utility easements at the former Ford properties that were the subject of Sares, Regis Development. In order to move forth with the development, vacation of the easements needed to be accomplished. Ken Busch of Sares Regis addressed Council and offered to answer any questions. Council had no questions for Mr. Busch, but thanked him for his presence late into the evening. In response to a question from Mayor Addiego, City Attorney Rosenberg advised that "summary vacation" is a procedure authorized by the California Streets and Highway Code that permits removal of the easements according to this shorter process that does not require a public hearing when the easements are no longer serving utilities. Motion—Councilwornan Normandy/Second—Vice Mayor Gupta: approving Resolution No 49- 2016. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Normandy and Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego, NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Garbarino. ABSTAIN: None. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27,2016 MINUTES PAGE 8 CONSENT CALENDAR 8. 16-338 Motion approving the Minutes of meetings of March 9, 2016, April 13, 2016. 9, 16-336 Motion confirming payment registers for April 27, 2016. 10. 16-321 Report recommending adoption of an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement With Rotary Plaza, Inc. for 300 Miller Avenue (Ron Gerber,, Economic Development & Housing Manager) 10a, 16-322 Motion to waive reading and adopt An Ordinance No, 1518-2016 Approving a Development Agreement with Rotary Plaza, Inc for 300 Miller Avenue. 11. 16-201 Report regarding a resolution authorizing the destruction of routine video recordings fi,om video surveillance systems on City of South San Francisco property after one year of retention and amending the Information Technology Department's section of the Records Retention Schedule. (Tony Barrera, IT Manager). I I a,. 16-20,2 Resolution No. 50-2016 autbo-rizing the destruction of video recordings from video surveillance systems on City of South San Francisco property after one year of retention and amending the Information Technology Department's section of the Records Retention Schedule 11 16-286 Report recommending resolution approving a consulting services agreement with Public Financial Management, Inc. for financial advisor services related to Measure W in an amount not to exceed $100,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement. (Richard Lee, Finance Director) 12a. 16-310 Resolution No. 51-2016 approving a consulting services agreement with Public Financial Management, Inc. for Financial Advisor Services related to Measure W in an amount not to exceed $100,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute Said Agreement. Item 9: Councilwoman Matsumoto questioned an expense reflected on p 20 of 39 that staff explained referred to the smart parking meters that were being installed the very next day. She further requested greater detail on travel reimbursement for Planning Manager Mehra, which expense showed up on page 20 of 39 of the report. Finally, Councilwoman Matsumoto requested that all contracts over $75,000 be placed on the Administrative Business calendar. Motion—Vice Mayor Gupta/Second—Council woman Normandy: to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by the following TOU call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Normandy and Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Garbarino. ABSTAIN: None. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL - COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilwoman Matsumoto expressed great displeasure with the newly installed Automated Agenda Management System under the implementation of the Office of the City Clerk, Councilwoman Normandy echoed these concerns. They pointed to ]Issues related to republishing of the agenda the preceding Friday and discordance between their hard copy packets and the Mad. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27,2016 MINUTES PAGE 9 City Clerk Martinelli acknowledged the initial roll out of the product during the preceding week was challenging. She stated, however, that she expected the initial discordance to resolve and yield a much more efficient public noticing program that would not only meet the needs of Council but, most importantly, satisfy the Brown Act and more effectively serve the public, This new system was necessitated by the substantial increase in legislative activity and the addition of seven (7) new legislative bodies to the City's workflow, Councilwoman Matsumoto stated the importance of setting the record straight on the impeccable service of former Councilman and Mayor Joe Fernekes. She referenced comments made by Mayor Addiego at a previous meeting in response to her efforts to ask for funding for the South City Shuttle as part of the Rotary Project at, 300 Miller Avenue, Mayor Addiego noted his comments were not about Mr. Fernekes character, but about the strategy used to ask for the funding. Councilwoman Matsumoto stated it was important to her that Mr, Fernekes' family understood how much his service was appreciated. CLOSED SESSION 13. 16-341 Closed Session: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957,6) Agency designated representatives: Mark Addiego, Mayor and Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney. Unrepresented employee: City Manager. Item not heard. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. in honor of Ron De Grande, Submitted by- Approved by: A �S—ta T�Wa — IkCity Clerk Mark Addiego, Mayor City of San Francisco City of South San Francisco REGULAR CITY COUNCTI,MFFTTNG AML 27,2016 MNUTES PAGE 10 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC SAFETY TOWN HALL CITE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FPANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2016 6-30 p.m. I Call to Order, TIME: 6:30 p.tn. 2. Roll Call. ATTENDING: Councilmembers Matsumoto, and Garbarino, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego. NOT ATTENDING: Councilwoman Normandy. 1 Public Comments. None. 4. Public Safety Town Hall City Staff will present Department Overview information to residents and hear their comments and concerns. Staff presented the Department Overview information, answered questions and heard concerns. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m, Submitted: Approved: Gabriel Rodriguez, Deputy City Clerk Mark Addiego, Mayor City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO U' b 11F0 REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2016 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Tinge: 7:01 p-m, ROLL CALL Present: Counciltnembers Carbarino,Normandy and Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego. Absent:. None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Natalia of the Martin. Elementary School Safety Patrol, AGENDA REVIEW No changes. PRESENTATIONS 1. 16-256 Proclamation recognizing National Public Works Week, 05/"15/16 - 05/21/16, accepted by Brian McMinn, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Councilman Carbarino presented the Proclamation recognizing National Public Works Week to Director of Public Works McMinn,. Director McMinn thanked Council for recognizing his Department and staff. He noted the hard work of the Public"forks staff. :2,16-287 Certificate of Recognition for Citizen ;gasper Kung presented by Jeff Azzopardi, Police Chief.. Chief of Police Azzopardi presented Jasper Kung, a 5th grade student at Martin Elementary with a Certificate of Recognition for his heroic efforts that prevented a toddler from being struck by a car while Jasper was serving on the Safety Patrol at Martin Elementary.. 3. 16-304 Certificate of Recognition presented to Martin Elementary School's Safety Patrol presented by AAA representative, Marianne Campbell Vice President Communications & Community Impact, (Jeff Azzopardi, Police Chief). Malian Campbell of AAA's National Safety Patrol Program espoused the benefits of the Program, which helps millions of students get to school on foot safely annually. She further noted the program enhances leadership skills and instills a sense of responsibility and school pride in participants. She then presented Martin Elementary Safety Patrol and its teacher representative, Mrs,. Carlino with the National Life Saving Medal. Chief of Police Azzopardi advised that teacher representative, Mrs. Carlino and the 31 Safety Patrol participants at Martin Elementary were being presented with a certificate of recognition for the event that the receipt of the AAA Medal was based on, He recounted the students' lifesaving efforts to help an elderly woman that fell while exiting her husband's vehicle at the school. Councilwoman Matsumoto then presented the Certificates of Recognition. 4. 16-392 Proclamation establishing May 2016 as Bike Month in the City of South San Francisco presented to Ali Gen-its, BPAC Member. Vice Mayor Gupta presented the Proclamation establishing May 2016 as Bike Month in the City of South San Francisco- Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Member ("BPAC"), Ari Gerrits received the Proclamation and congratulated Council on its support of bike and pedestrian initiatives in the City, PUBLIC COMMENTS Resident and former Parks and Recreation Commissioner Sal Rodriguez addressed Council with his daughter, a student at Sunshine Gardens Elementary School. Together they raised safety concerns regarding traffic conditions at the Miller Avenue Intersection near the school. On behalf of the parents, students and teachers at Sunshine Gardens Elementary School they requested a change to the speed limit in fi-ont of the school from the current 25 miles per hour (MPH) to 15 MPH and submitted a petition for the same. Mayor Addiego requested that the traffic advisory committee consider this request, COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Mayor Addiego apologized to Councilwoman Matsumoto for his comments at previous Council meetings that he stated were unfair and harsh. He commended the Councilwoman for her words in recent correspondence expressing that Councilmembers' actions and behavior reflects on the entire City, Councilman Garbafino reflected on his attendance at the League of California City's Legislative Action Days. Vice Mayor Gupta reflected on Mayor Addlego's apology and looked forward to moving forward as a unified Council with a cooperative spirit. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 11,2016 MINUTES PAGE 2 The Vice Mayor continued and applauded the large number of residents that attended the recent public safety town hall meeting. He noted that participation was excellent and thoughtful questions were presented. Mayor Addiego introduced Assistant City Manager Marian Lee, who was serving as acting City Manager in the absence of City Manager Futrell. He next advised of the festivities that took place upon the recent visit of dignitaries from the City's Sister City of Atotonilco, Mexico. Finally, he commenced what he hoped would be a new tradition of congratulatory birth announcements at Council Meetings. On behalf of the Council, he congratulated Planning Commissioner Alan Wong and his family on the birth of daughter, Haley Nicole Wong on April 29, 2016. Councilwoman Normandy requested, and Council agreed, that the upcoming Special City Council Meeting on the Fiscal Year 2016117 Budget should be started early at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 18, 2016, ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. 16-282 Report recommending the City adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute administrative, plan check and building inspection services agreements with 1) CSG Consultants Inc., in an arnount not to exceed $1,400,000 total for each year of a two year period, 2) West Coast Code Consultants Inc., in the amount not to exceed $1,400,000 total for each year of a two year period, and 3) 4Leaf, Inc., in the amount not to exceed $1,200,000 total for each year of a two year period, with the ability to renew for an additional two years at the City's sole discretion, and amend the FY 2015-16 budget, (Alex Greenwood, ECD Director) 5a.16-284 Resolution No. 52-2016 approving consulting services agreements, with CSG Consultants, Inc., West Coast Code Consultants, Inc., and 4 Leaf Inc., to provide administrative, plan check, and building inspection services and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreements and amending the FY 2015-2016 budget. Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood presented the staff report recommending adoption of a resolution approving consulting services agreements for Building Plan Review and Inspection Services. The proposed contracts were with CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG), West Coast Code Consultants WC3 and 4 Leaf, Inc. Director Greenwood presented a PowerPoint setting forth the need for the services and providing additional background on the selection process. He advised that pursuant to the Request for Proposals (RFP) process, proposals were due to the City on March 3, 2016. Seven (7) firms submitted proposals of which four(4) were deemed complete. Those four,(4) firms were, CSG, WC3, 4 Leaf and TRB+. The four (4) firms were interviewed by an independent oral board on March 23, 2016. The oral board consisted of Denis Corbett, Chief Building Official (CBO), Pleasanton; Stephen Lau, CBO, San Mateo; Roy Bronold, CBO, San Bruno. The oral board ranked the four(4) firms as follows: I) CSG; 2) WC3; 3)4 Leaf, and 4) TRB-+-. The oral board recommended that it would be advantageous to distribute work among the top three (3) scoring firms pursuant to two (2) year contracts. The contracts were proposed as follows-. CSG - $1,400,000/year; WC3 - $1,400,000/year and 4 Leaf- $1,200,000/year. Director Greenwood explained that the proposed contract amounts were not-to-exceed and based on received revenue from actual projects. He then introduced representatives of the firms that were present at the meeting. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 11,2016 MINUTES PAGE Councilwoman Matsumoto requested that future reports to Council identify all applicants. She further stated that the rates for WC3 were not attached as represented under Exhibit A. Director Greenwood advised this was an oversight. The rate sheet would be included in the final contract mid included in Council's Thursday packets from the Manager's Office. Vice Mayor Gupta supported the agreements but expressed a preference to increase in-house building staff so that a more permanent relationship could be established among the City's building officials and its businesses and residents. Councilwoman Matsumoto agreed with Vice Mayor Gupta's comments noting that there is less possibility for conflict and more potential for community buy-in with permanent building inspectors. Motion--Councilman Garbarino/Second—Vice Mayor Gupta: to approve Resolution No. 52-2016. Unanimously approved by roll call vote, 6. 16-368 Measure W Citizens' Oversight Committee By-laws. (Richard Lee, Finance Director). Director of Finance Lee presented the staff report recommending that Council establish bylaws for the Measure W Citizens Oversight Committee. He provided a brief history of Measure W noting that it was approved by the South San Francisco voters in November of 2015 and became effective April 1, 2016. He advised that an adhoc committee of the City Council had advised on the proposed bylaws for the Citizens' Oversight Committee. Pursuant to the Measure,the Oversight Committee shall consist of five (5) members that are residents or business owners in South San Francisco. The Committee would further be a legislative body subject to the California Government Code Brown Act. City Clerk Martinelli advised this was the first her Office had heard of the Committee's standing as a legislative body, which was of course warranted given the significance of the Measure. She requested to be included in discussions relating to the Committee's formation and planning so that appropriate infrastructure could be established for noticing and staffing purposes. Councilwoman Matsumoto requested that the Committee receive Measure W audit reports for review before such reports are presented to the City Council. Vice Mayor Gupta expressed a preference that the Committee be comprised of residents or business owners that also live in South San Francisco. Director Lee clarified that the ordinance specifies the Committee is to be comprised of residents or South San Francisco business owners with a preference for individuals with financial management technical expertise. City Attorney Rosenberg advised that no Resolution was presented but that the bylaws could be passed by motion. Motion—Councilwoman Matsumoto/Second—Councilwoman Normandy., to adopt the attached Measure W Citizens' Oversight Committee by-laws, Unanimously approved by roll call vote. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 11,2016 MINUTES PAGE 4 7. 16-389 Report recommending approval of resolution in support of AB2502: Local Inclusionary Housing Policies. (Jennifer Shimabukuro). Ta 16-384 Resolution No.53-2016 in support,of AB2502: Local Inclusionary Housing Policies. Assistant to the City Manager Shimabukurro presented the staff report recommending adoption of a resolution in support of AB 2502, inclusionary housing policies. Councilman Garbarino noted communication fi-om Assemblyman Mullin regarding legislation. The Councilman stated fall support for the Resolution. Motion--Councilman Gafbaiino/Second—Councilwoman Normandy: to adopt Resolution No. 53- 20I6. Unanimously approved by roll call vote. 8. 16-319 Staff Report - A presentation of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project and resolution approving the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Comprehensive Agreement between the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and the City of South San Francisco. (Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer). 8a. 16-320 Resolution No. 54-2016 approving the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Comprehensive Agreement between the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and the City of South San Francisco. Jill Gibson of Caltrain presented a PowerPoint regarding the Caltrain Station Improvement Project, She advised the Project was being closely coordinated with 'the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. South San Francisco Station Project milestones included procurement in winter 2016 and the start of construction in summer 2017. She noted an RFP for the design builder was issued in August of 2015 and it was anticipated that the contracts could be awarded this summer as early as July, Principal Engineer Bautista recommended adopting a resolution approving the Peninsula. Corridor Electrification Project Comprehensive Agreement between the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, and the City of South San Francisco. Councilwoman Matsumoto expressed concern over the proposed location of the power stations. Mr. Gwon of Caltrain advised that the platforins were proposed for placement under the newly renovated station because it was the only workable option. Motion–Pradeep Gupta/Second--Liza Normandy: to approve Resolution No, 54-2016. Unanimously approved by roll, call vote. CONSENT CALENDAR 9. 16-409 Motion approving the Minutes of meetings of April 19, 2016 and April 27, 2016. 10. 16-246 Motion confirming payment registers for May 11, 2016. (Richard Lee, Finance). REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 11,2016 MINUTES PAGE 5 11. 16-200 Participation in the Institute for Local Government's Beacon Program. (Marian Lee, Assistant City Manager). I Ia.16-283 Resolution No. 55-2016 approving participation in the Institute for Local Government's Recognition Program, the Beacon Program. 12. 16-271 Report regarding Motion to Waive Reading and Adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 19,24 to Modify the Amount and Method of Calculation for the Dedication of Land and Payment of Fee In Lieu of Dedication of Land Pursuant to the Quimby Act and Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 8,67 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Imposing a New Parkland Acquisition Fee and a Park Construction Fee for Residential Rental Development Projects and Certain Types of Projects Not Otherwise Subject to the Quimby Act. (Sharon Ranals, Director of Parks and Recreation). 12a, 16-381 Ordinance No, 1519-2016 Amending Chapter 19.24 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to Modify the Amount and Method of Calculation for the Dedication of Land and Payment of a Fee in Lieu of Dedication of Land Pursuant to the Quimby Act. 12.b. 16-382 Ordinance No. 1520-2016 Adding Chapter, 8,67 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Requiring the Payment of a Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee to Mitigate the Impacts of New Developments on Park and Recreational Facilities in the City 12.c. 16-383 Resolution No. 56-2016 setting the amount of the Fee in Lieu of Dedication of Land Pursuant to the amendments to Chapter 19.24 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and the Quimby Act. 12A. 16-385 Resolution No, 57-2016 setting the Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee to Mitigate the Impact of New Development on Park and Recreational Facilities Pursuant Chapter 8.67 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,, Item I- Councilwoman Matsumoto advised. that on page nine (9) of the minutes of the April 27, 2016 meeting a comment made by Councilwoman Normandy was erroneously attributed to Councilwoman Matsumoto. Item 2- Councilmembers queried various items on the warrants roll, including a duplicate entry related to a town hall post card mailing and expenses related to the upcoming Bio conference. Finance Director Lee advised the apparent duplicate entry related to a voided check. Councilwoman Matsumoto requested that all expenses related to Bio be tracked closely. Motion—Councilwoman Nonnandy/Second—Councilman Garbarino: to approve the Consent Calendar. Unanimously approved by roll call vote. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL - COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego noted the cooperative spirit with which recent meetings of the School District Liaison and Harbor District Liaison Standing Committee of the City Council were respectively conducted. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 11,2016 MINUTES PAGE 6 Councilmembers encouraged residents to attend the Memorial Day festivities planned at Orange Memorial Park at the Eternal Flame Sculpture. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. in honor of the birth of Haley Nicole Wong. S- itted by: Approved by: Ki ista M City Clerk Mark Addiego, Mayor i �y City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 11,2016 MINUTES PACE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MEASURE'W CITIZENS" OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE BYLAWS A. Committee Established. There is hereby established in the City of South San Francisco, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1503-2015, a Measure W Citizens' Oversight Committee (hereinafter, "Committee"). Measure W, identified as the South San Francisco Fiscal Stability and Essential Services Ordinance, adopted a one-half cent retail transactions and use tax. The Committee shall report periodically to the City Council regarding the collection and expenditure of Measure W revenue., B. Selection of Members. 1. Members of the Committee shall be appointed by majority vote of the City Council. 2. The Committee shall consist of five members. a. Three members shall serve an initial term of four years. b. Two members shall serve an initial term of three years. c. Following service by the Committee members of the foregoing initial terms, all members will subsequently serve four-year terms, 3, Any South San Francisco resident or representative of a business located in South San Francisco, who is 18 years of age or older, is eligible to be appointed to the Committee. The City Council may give preference to applicants with financial management experience. C. Committee Actions. 1. The Committee shall meet with the City's independent auditor at the initiation of each annual financial audit process to outline issues of particular interest to the Committee, and to be briefed on the independent auditor's plan for the audit scope and schedule, 2. The Committee shall review the annual audit prepared by the City's independent auditor related to the prior fiscal year's collection and expenditure of revenue from the tax authorized by Measure W. The Committee shall meet with the City's independent auditor to receive the audit findings in advance of the presentation of the final audit report to the City Council. The Committee shall report in writing to the City Council regarding the accuracy of the auditors' findings regarding the Measure W revenues and expenditures. 3. The Committee's annual report shall offer independent verification regarding the independent auditor's findings related to whether the funds collected are being spent in accordance with the terms of Measure W. The Committee's report shall be transmitted through the City Manager's Office to the City Council for consideration at a City Council meeting. The Committee shall serve in an advisory role to the City Council. 4. In order to preserve the integrity and independence of the oversight process, Committee members shall not have a formal role in contracting, project management, or any other aspect related to the use of revenue generated pursuant to Measure W. 5. The City Manager or his or her designee shall provide any reasonable administrative or technical assistance so that the Committee shall be able to fulfill its duties. D. Meetinas. The Committee shall adopt a regular meeting schedule that shall include, at minimum, one annual regular meeting for the purposes of reviewing the annual audit. The Committee may schedule additional meetings as necessary. I. The Committee is subject to the Ralph M, Brown Act. (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.)Notice must be given of all Committee meetings and the meetings shall be open to the public. The City Manager or his or her designees shall arrange for any necessary training and will assist the Committee in complying with the Brown Act, E. Attendance. Committee members are expected to attend all regular meetings and special meetings as needed, Committee members are expected to attend all committee-related orientation and training sessions (including ethics training and audit review training). F. Committee Operations. The City Council shall select two Committee members to serve as the initial chair and vice-chair of the Committee. At its first meeting of each subsequent calendar year, the Committee shall select members to serve as chair,and vice-chair. The City Manager or his or her designee shall serve as the Committee's secretary. The secretary will be responsible for the posting and distribution of agendas and the taking of minutes. Approved minutes shall be made available to the public. G. Vacancies. In the event of removal approved by the City Council, resignation, or death of a Committee member, the City Council shall appoint a person to fill the vacant Committee member seat. 2644307.2 MINUTES S SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC SAFETY TOWN IFo HALL CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: FIRE STATION 61 480 N. CANAL STREET SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016 6:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order. TIME: 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call. ATTENDING: Councilmembers Matsumoto, and Garbarino, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor Addiego. NOT ATTENDING: Councilwoman Normandy. 3. Public Comments. None. 4. Public Safety Town Hall City Staff will present Department Overview information to residents and hear their comments and concerns. Staff presented the Department Overview information, answered questions and heard concerns. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Submitted: Approved: Krista Martinelli, City Clerk Mark Addiego, Mayor City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-332, Version: 1 Motion confirming payment registers for May 25, 2016. (Richard Lee, Finance) The payments shown in the attached payment register are accurate and sufficient funds were available for payment (payroll items excluded). Attachment: Payment Register City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 04/29/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 00 NON EXPENSE ACCT LUIS CARDOVA 200.00 REFUND TRANSPORT SVC PT OVERPAYMENT 27701307 249499 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 346,489.59 MAY 2016 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS MAY-16 EFT 243,170.67 MAY 2016 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS MAY-16 EFT 27,962.61 MAY 2016 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS MAY-16 EFT 125,483.48 MAY 2016 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS MAY-16 EFT 107,108.88 MAY 2016 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS MAY-16 EFT (12,475.13) MAY 2016 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS MAY-16 EFT 5,235.20 MAY 2016 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS MAY-16 EFT EILEEN HANNA 117.14 REFUND TRANSPORT SVC PT OVERPAYMENT 36042352 249517 HEALTH NET 1,943.00 REFUND TRANSPORT SVC PT OVERPAYMENT 34515784 249518 KAISER PERMANENTE 1,792.46 REFUND TRANSPORT SVC PT OVERPAYMENT 35725994 249523 OVERPAYMENT RECOVERY 702.56 REFUND TRANSPORT SVC PT OVERPAYMENT 24959967 249530 LESHAUN SMITH 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR COMPLETED RENTAL 887948 249542 STONEGATE HIGHLANDS 112.50 REFUND FOR CANCELLED MEETING 885767 249549 Payments Issued for NON EXPENSE ACCT $848,192.96 Dept 05 CITY MANAGER U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 9.36 JS-STAFF MEETING CC323228 249558 54.92 LA-COMMUNITY/BUSINESS OUTREACH CC323582 249558 110.00 LA-COMMUNICATIONS CC323583 249558 Payments Issued for CITYMANAGER $174.28 Dept 07 NON-DEPARTMENTAL AIRPORT AUTO PARTS INC 20.56 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 259(NEW 333619 249493 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 546.69 WATER SERVICE 4635141659 249498 IMPACT TELECOM 272.76 LID PHONE CHARGES-ACCT 5202925098 608473074 249520 PACIFIC GAS&ELECTRIC COMPANY 1,544.04 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 5561797483-1 249531 51.48 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 8955325440-3 249531 115.91 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 8996992104-1 249531 SST BENEFITS CONSULTING& 6,000.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-RENEGOTIATION OF R 11324 249544 STOMMEL,INC 1,405.80 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 404/405 01122852 249548 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 12,733.33 MAY 2016 WORKERS'COMP CLAIMS ADMIN SERV 88694 249555 WATTCO 170.61 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 259(NEW 44816-2 249563 3,092.88 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 259(NEW 44816 249563 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 04/29/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Payments Issued for $25,954.06 Dept 09 HUMAN RESOURCES DOMINIC'SAT OYSTER POINT LLC 1,856.03 2016ADMIN LUNCHEON-MISCELLANEOUS HR 04/27/16-HR 249510 Payments Issued for HUMAN RESOURCES $1,856.03 Dept 11 FIRE DEPARTMENT ADPI WEST,INC. 1,902.20 AMBULANCE BILLING CONSULTING SERVICES INVADPI18451 249491 CITY OF SANTA CLARA 650.00 STAFF DEVELOPMENT PE1A/FP3BMay2016 249502 Payments Issued for FIRE DEPARTMENT $2,552.20 Dept 12 POLICE DEPARTMENT 3SI SECURITY SYSTEMS,INC. 2,108.51 NEW TRACKERS FOR CIB 0000429637 249490 ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 46.70 BUSINESS CARDS FOR LT.PLANK 30058 249492 BAY AREA BARRICADE SERVICE INC 377.00 CONES FOR MOTOR OFFICERS QUALIFICATIONS 0336821-IN 249496 81.94 CONES FOR MOTOR OFFICERS QUALIFICATIONS 0336821-IN 249496 BLUE LINE TRANSFER INC 103.00 DESTRUCTION OF OLD HELMETS 633551 249497 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 7,625.13 MESSAGE SWITCH/CLETS lYSS11603 249504 CRIME SCENE CLEANERS INC 70.00 CLEAN&DISINFECT DRYING CABINET 63331 249505 DFS GREEN,INC 398.00 CARPET CLEANING SVCS FOR JULY 1,2015 TO 24555-8 249508 LORRAINE DI NAPOLI 29.90 PETTY CASH April 22,2016 249509 65.09 PETTY CASH April 22,2016 249509 16.37 PETTY CASH April 22,2016 249509 7.08 PETTY CASH April 22,2016 249509 71.99 PETTY CASH April 22,2016 249509 97.74 PETTY CASH April 22,2016 249509 90.00 PETTY CASH April 22,2016 249509 30.00 PETTY CASH April 22,2016 249509 9.70 PETTY CASH April 22,2016 249509 MARISAJORDAN 116.86 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR DISPATCH TRAIN 4/7-4/8/16 MJ 249522 135.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR DISPATCH 04/20/16-MJ 249522 LEXISNEXIS 104.40 INVESTIGATIVE DATABASE 1603342279 249524 MARTY MAHON 91.85 SUPERVISORY LEADERSHIP MEAL EXPENSES 04/07-04/09/16 MM 249525 BLAKE MOLYNEUX 10.00 TOLL REIMBURSEMENT FEB-MAR 2016 2/23/16,3/16/16 249526 FAHMIDA MURPHY 257.64 GREAT GRADUATION REFRESHMENTS-BURI BUR 04/26/16 FM 249528 OFFICE DEPOT INC 85.57 DISPATCH OFFICE SUPPLIES 832511811001 249529 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 5 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 04/29/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 12 POLICE DEPARTMENT PET FOOD EXPRESS 179.81 CANINE FOOD-MOLYNEUX,CUST ID:514 04/15/16 BM 249534 ADAM PLANK 190.34 MILEAGE,TOLL,PARKING REIMBURSEMENT-A 04/21/16 AP 249536 GRABLE RAMIREZ 49.49 TDU-UNIFORM SHIRT PART OF NEW HIREAFT 04/12/16 GR 249537 RECALL SECURE DESTRUCTION SVC 289.94 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION SERVICES 9663000095 249538 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 126.00 POLICE ROTATIONAL TOWANNOUCEMENT 02693066 249539 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 23.52 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8038721502 249545 23.97 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8038721502 249545 450.36 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8038721502 249545 563.81 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8038721502 249545 73.23 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8038721502 249545 16.52 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8038721502 249545 374.94 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8038721502 249545 ANDREW TORGERSON 63.43 MILEAGE/TOLL REIMBURSEMENT FOR DISPATCH 04/08/16 AT 249553 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS,INC. 3,108.76 CITATION PROCESSING 24270 249556 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 65.69 MS-CHIEF'S MEETING REFRESHMENTS CC322949 249558 150.20 MS-AIRFARE FOR J.AZZOPARDI-IACP CON cc322983 249558 48.00 MS-COFFEE FOR CHIEF'S MEETING CC322984 249558 70.17 MS-CHIEF'S DEPT MEETING CC322985 249558 29.98 MS-CHIEF'S DEPT MEETING CC322986 249558 6.45 MS-SHIPPING FEES FOR RETURN FILE TO CO CC322988 249558 10.90 LS-CHIEF'S MEETING-CUPS CC323662 249558 1,013.52 LS-LODGING EXPENSES FOR J,KALLAS,LAPD CC323664 249558 800.00 LS-KATANA FORENSICS,ANNUAL FEE CC323666 249558 357.52 LS-SHI RTS FOR YOUTH ACADEMY-STAFF CC323667 249558 1,188.00 LS-12 NEW CAMERAS FOR PATROL CC323668 249558 2.70 LS-HOTEL STAY FORA.ROMANINI-DIFF I CC323672 249558 169.98 COMP VEHICLE MOUNTS-PD CC323676 249558 16.11 COMP VEHICLE MOUNTS-PD CC323676 249558 Payments Issued for POLICE DEPARTMENT $21,493.55 Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS 3M LIBRARY SYSTEMS 160.64 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPERATING SUPPLIES SS04941 249489 AIRPORT AUTO PARTS INC 14.55 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 334715 249493 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 12.00 UNIFORMS FOR CORP YARD 757332873 249495 35.95 SEAT COVERS FOR CORP YARD 757332874 249495 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 6 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 04/29/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 35.95 SHOP TOWELS FOR CORP YARD 757344482 249495 39.00 UNIFORMS FOR CORP YARD 757344481 249495 CITY AUTO SUPPLY 13.27 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 0859/7 3-305545 249501 124.27 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 255/STOC 3-305872 249501 44.80 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 32 3-305141 249501 8.59 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 32 3-305162 249501 139.19 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 3-305874 249501 363.91 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 4 3-306154 249501 37.53 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 4 3-306108 249501 9.32 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 507 3-306924 249501 18.64 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 507 3-307264 249501 101.50 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 130 3-308592 249501 39.96 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 130 3-307474 249501 135.02 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 130 3-307618 249501 EAST BAY FORD TRUCK SALES IN 268.32 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 305 811261 249511 FLYERS ENERGY LLC 3,151.05 FUEL FOR FIRE STATION#61 16-241715 249514 550.46 FUEL FOR FIRE STATION#64 16-242203 249514 2,930.65 FUEL FOR FIRE STATION#63 16-242204 249514 544.43 FUEL FOR CORP YARD 16-239032 249514 GRAND AVENUE HARDWARE 63.64 STREETLIGHTING OPERATING SUPPLIES 14995/2492 249516 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE SVC 1,274.65 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 508 153098 249519 JAM SERVICES INC 7,597.30 SIGNALS OPERATING SUPPLIES 77618 249521 8,120.50 SIGNALS OPERATING SUPPLIES 77618-1 249521 WILLIAM MORRISON 24.00 PARKING FEE REIMBURSEMENT FOR WILLIAM MO 4/13-4/14/16 249527 PENINSULA BATTERY CO 217.95 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 11 116036 249532 87.09 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 273/276 116218 249532 PETERSON TRUCKS,INC. 161.38 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 516 16324P 249535 SAN MATEO LAWNMOWER INC. 120.92 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 157075 249540 SERRAMONTE FORD INC 253.89 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 14 530565 249541 722.11 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 11 529533 249541 57.20 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 11 530551 249541 1,246.76 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 202 527971 249541 162.96 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 202 528456 249541 286.53 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 110 530996 249541 545.34 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 202 528755 249541 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 7 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 04/29/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS SERRAMONTE FORD INC 392.65 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 23 531709 249541 498.09 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 133 532700 249541 2,749.61 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 23 532475 249541 157.18 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH#1/STOCK 532075 249541 127.88 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 6 532255 249541 SOUTH CITY LUMBERAND SUPPLY 51.08 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK SUPPLI 883171 249543 43.67 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES 884473 249543 43.68 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES 884306 249543 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 115.00 RENEWAL NOTICE FOR PROFESSIONAL LICENSE L Henriquez-72036 249546 STEWART CHEVROLET 100.08 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 108 89934 249547 69.74 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 216 89834 249547 16.35 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 89957 249547 STOMMEL,INC 1,236.79 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 11/STOCK 01122447 249548 54.81 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 505 01122829 249548 TANKO STREETLIGHTING SERVICES 1,242.60 STREETLIGHTING OPERATING SUPPLIES 6537 249552 TRACTION-GENUINE PARTS CO. 53.54 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111627 249554 31.61 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111201 249554 10.71 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111192 249554 19.69 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111193 249554 23.35 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111194 249554 88.57 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111218 249554 (14.85) GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-CREDIT 853111238 249554 10.01 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111237 249554 61.66 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111527 249554 10.71 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111851 249554 21.76 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111893 249554 24.15 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853111912 249554 65.27 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES 853111846 249554 23.81 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES 853111709 249554 TURF STAR INC 463.49 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH(0857)61 6931881-00 249557 UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORP 555.42 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH-311 CI183162 249559 3,300.00 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS CI183522 249559 UNITROL/STINGER SPIKE SYSTEMS 194.35 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 6267965 249560 VERIZON WIRELESS 125.16 WQCP MODEMS-MONTHLY CHARGES 9763940420 249561 75.10 MILLER GARAGE MODEMS-MONTHLY CHARGES 9763976081 249561 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 8 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 04/29/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS W.W.GRAINGER INC. 171.72 SIGNALS OPERATING SUPPLIES 9081229800 249562 126.69 SIGNALS OPERATING SUPPLIES 9090500506 249562 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTM 673.15 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEHICLE 509 184-1074735 249564 (549.88) GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEHICLE 509 184-1074756 249564 160.84 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEHICLE 202 184-1074764 249564 182.04 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEHICLE 202 184-1074764 249564 212.68 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEHICLE 508 184-1074699 249564 476.88 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEHICLE 508 184-1074699 249564 807.78 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 184-1074692 249564 523.49 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 137 184-1074684 249564 1,274.04 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 508 184-1074578 249564 267.18 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 516 184-1074897 249564 1,111.31 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 516 184-1074897 249564 373.52 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 306 184-1074914 249564 1,672.57 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 306 184-1074914 249564 Payments Issued for PUBLIC WORKS $49,247.95 Dept 16 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT ROBERT CEBALLOS 59.99 REIMBURSMENT-MONTHLY INTERNET 042016 249500 COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN 239.02 TERRABAY INTERNET 8155 20 044 0622357 249503 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 95.00 TB-MONTHLY SECURITY RENEWAL CC323468 249558 28.67 TB-COMPUTER EQUIP-IT CC323471 249558 83.94 RC-RENEWAL OF CITY DOMAIN NAMES CC323680 249558 182.15 RC-GOTOMEETINGADUL USERS CC323681 249558 16.03 RC-UPS FREIGHT-DATA 911 CC323691 249558 54.47 RC-COMPUTER CABLES-IT CC323693 249558 51.02 RC-NETGEAR 8 SWITCH-IT CC323694 249558 DANIEL WOLDEMICHAEL 91.80 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-D.WOLDEMICHAEL 03/2016 249565 Payments Issued for INFORMATION $902.09 TECHNOL OG Y DEPARTMENT Dept 17 PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT ELITE REFRIGERATION 109.00 SERVICE 11912 249512 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 450.00 UMPIRE FEES FOR SPORTS LEAGUES 101553 249533 PAUL SWINK 568.26 EMPLOYEE REIMB FOR PICKLBALL START-UP SU 4/15/16,4/20/16 249550 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 9 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 04/29/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Payments Issued for $1,127.26 Dept 27 NON-DEPARTMENTAL CRYE PRECISION,LLC 2,060.44 NEW SWAT UNIFORMS IN00102619 249506 KRISTIN GIBSON 500.00 JACK DRAGO YOUTHART SCHOLARSHIP WINNER KG4-29-2016 249515 BRANDON TAM 500.00 JACK DRAGO YOUTH ART SCHOLARSHIP WINNER BT4-29-2016 249551 Payments Issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $3,060.44 Dept 99 CIP ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING 4,589.06 CONSTRUCTION,PUMP STATION#4 JIB CRANE 02/11/16 249494 CSG CONSULTANTS INC 8,375.00 DESIGN OF JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD&KIN 6812 249507 Payments Issued for CIP $12,964.06 Payments Made on 4/29/2016 $967,524.88 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 10 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/04/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 00 NON EXPENSE ACCT AUTHNET GATEWAY 30.00 APRIL 2016 SVC-#47768910 ONLINE BUSINESS APR2016 WIRED ULTRA CONSTRUCTION 1,006.31 CANCELLED PERMIT REFUND 562 RAILROAD AVE B15-1176 249657 172.51 CANCELLED PERMIT REFUND 562 RAILROAD AVE B15-1176 249657 95.00 CANCELLED PERMIT REFUND 562 RAILROAD AVE B15-1176 249657 139.00 CANCELLED PERMIT REFUND 562 RAILROAD AVE B15-1176 249657 1,186.08 CANCELLED PERMIT REFUND 562 RAILROAD AVE B15-1176 249657 Payments Issued for NONEXPENSEACCT $2,628.90 Dept 06 FINANCE DEPARTMENT MODULAR INFORMATION SYSTEMS 7,062.50 TRANS OF LEGACY FINANCIAL SYSTEM UNIX TO MOD3989 249621 Payments Issued for FINANCE DEPARTMENT $7,062.50 Dept 07 NON-DEPARTMENTAL CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 82.64 WATER SERVICE 3310807997 249577 101.60 WATER SERVICE 7733252569 249577 12.32 WATER SERVICE 7807444444 249577 COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN 56.34 CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOMS MONTHLY CABLE 8155 20 044 0045948 249583 PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 2,066.77 WIRELESS ACCESS PTS-GRAND LIBRARY PROJ 11673 249630 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 18,625.34 WORKERS'COMPENSATION LOSS REPLENISHMENT 98277 EFT UTILITY TELEPHONE,INC 338.07 LID PHONE CHARGES 126848 249661 Payments Issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $21,283.08 Dept 10 ECONOMIC&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CAFE 382 18,000.00 FACADE STONE VANEER/AERO CONSTR-BILLY PA 14-1045 249575 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 50.00 COUNTY FILING FEES P16-0017 249585 50.00 COUNTY FILING FEES P16-0012 249585 CSG CONSULTANTS INC 2,465.00 BUILDING INSPECTION&PLAN REVIEW SERVIC 6945 249587 JOHN PENNA 5,584.40 308 LINDEN-2AWNINGS INSTALLED-WESTERNA 4238 249631 Payments Issued for ECONOMIC&COMMUNITY $26,149.40 DEVELOPMENTDEPT Dept 11 FIRE DEPARTMENT WELLS FARGO BANK,NA 26.00 FEB BANKACCOUNT FEES FOR AMBULANCE TRAN EMSFEBRUARY2016 249664 351.00 MARCH BANK ACCOUNT FEES FOR AMBULANCE TR EMSMarch2016 249664 Payments Issued for FIRE DEPARTMENT $377.00 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 11 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/04/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 12 POLICE DEPARTMENT CHRISTINE GIL 84.68 UNIFORM ALLOWANACE REIMB-EQUIPMENT 04/29/16 CG 249596 MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING 135.00 MADD AWARD RECIPIENTS LUNCHEON(3) 05/10/16 249623 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 214.26 LS-HOTEL EXPENSES FOR M.MAHON SLI TRA CC323679 249656 Payments Issued for POLICE DEPARTMENT $433.94 Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS ALPHAANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 529.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6041992-MD_SSF 249567 173.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6042032-MD_SSF 249567 AMERICAN AIR SYSTEMS INC 5,650.00 FY15-16 HVAC,BOILERS AND LAB REF UNITS 16-0433 249568 725.00 FY15-16 HVAC,BOILERS AND LAB REF UNITS 16-0432 249568 725.00 FY15-16 HVAC,BOILERS AND LAB REF UNITS 16-0432 249568 725.00 FY15-16 HVAC,BOILERS AND LAB REF UNITS 16-0432 249568 725.00 FY15-16 HVAC,BOILERS AND LAB REF UNITS 16-0432 249568 6,646.00 FY15-16 HVAC,BOILERS AND LAB REF UNITS 16-0431 249568 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 18.00 EMPLOYEE UNIFORMS 757344466 249571 188.60 EMPLOYEE UNIFORMS 757344466 249571 99.30 UNIFORM SERVICES 757344465 249571 CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO 64.59 SIDEWALKS OPERATING SUPPLIES 17467155 249578 ECOLAB EQUIPTMENT CARE 354.95 LAB-AUTO CLAVE REPAIR 94212566 249588 FASTENAL COMPANY 31.98 SIDEWALKS OPERATING SUPPLIES CAS1024021 249591 FRY'S ELECTRONICS 141.19 FY2014-16 ELECTRONIC SUPPLIES 22787529 249593 GOLDEN STATE CHEMICAL&SUPPLY 420.60 OPERATING SUPPLIES 888848 249597 1,606.87 OPERATING SUPPLIES 888852 249597 1,480.25 OPERATING SUPPLIES 888856 249597 GRANITEROCK COMPANY 1,192.62 STREET MAINTENANCE OPERATING SUPPLIES- 954615 249599 HOWARD GRAY 135.10 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR HOWARD 4/16-4/18/16 249600 HARBOR READY MIX&CPS 519.03 SIDEWALKS OPERATING SUPPLIES 28071 249601 HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 509.24 SUPPLIES 91298 249602 K-119 OF CALIFORNIA 136.00 LANDSCAPING 64706 249606 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 55.98 BELT FOR POLYMER FEED PUMP N568565 249607 17.05 BELT FOR POLYMER FEED PUMP A445002 249607 262.58 OPERATING SUPPLIES C48052 249607 4.36 OPERATING SUPPLIES S19428 249607 DEVIN KEAHI 71.28 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR DEVIN 4/16-4/20/16 249608 KSM PRINTING 162.85 SSF WINDOW ENVELOPES 25323 249609 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 12 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/04/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS ROB LECEL 96.00 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CWEA MEMBERSHIP RENEWA 04/28/16 249610 LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 20.76 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 923745 249613 103.96 SEWER MAINTENANCE OPERATING SUPPLIES 916005 249613 21.62 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 920749 249613 55.40 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 920487 249613 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 174.11 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 55032851 249618 42.77 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 54866343 249618 145.65 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 55336221 249618 MERIT SYSTEMS SERVICES INC 4,720.00 FY 2015-16 SCADA/ELECTRICAL SERVICES 10404 249619 MOSS RUBBER&EQUIPT CORP 95.48 OPERATING SUPPLIES 507195-001 249622 NATIONAL CINEMEDIA,LLC 814.27 ON-SCREEN OUTREACH INV-087596 249624 799.91 ON-SCREEN OUTREACH INV-087371 249624 NSI SOLUTIONS,INC. 327.00 LAB SUPPLIES 331489 249626 264.00 LAB SUPPLIES 331491 249626 OFFICE DEPOT INC 64.04 OFFICE SUPPLIES 835474600001 249627 8.86 OFFICE SUPPLIES 833592684003 249627 82.10 OFFICE SUPPLIES 833822825001 249627 PETERSON POWER SYSTEMS INC 2,367.26 FY2015-16 GENERATOR&COGENERATOR MAINTE 2405538 249632 2,367.26 FY2015-16 GENERATOR&COGENERATOR MAINTE SW240131219 249632 POLYDYNE INC 8,744.23 FY2015-2016 POLYMER(CLARIFLOC)SUPPLY 1042069 249633 2,820.72 FY2015-2016 POLYMER(CLARIFLOC)SUPPLY 1042217 249633 4,372.12 FY2015-2016 POLYMER(CLARIFLOC)SUPPLY 1043504 249633 R&B COMPANY 95.82 SEWER MAINTENANCE OPER SUPPLIES-FREIGHT S1547443.002 249635 SAFETY COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT 1,595.00 HAZWOPER REFRESHER TRAINING-04/21/16 00007127 249640 SHOE DEPOT INC 186.38 SAFETY BOOTS-RYAN ESTRADA 112047/0881 249645 205.99 SAFETY BOOTS-CASEY SMITH 113615/0881 249645 SOUTH CITY LUMBERAND SUPPLY (43.68) GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-RETURN 884474 249648 79.56 SIDEWALKS OPERATING SUPPLIES 885398 249648 35.23 FACILITIES MAINT.SUPPLIES 885605 249648 17.04 FACILITIES MAINT.SUPPLIES 885625 249648 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 198.61 CORP YARD OFFICE SUPPLIES 8037008806/285571606 249650 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 115.00 RENEWAL FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENS Sam Bautista C66156 249651 TECHNICAL SAFETY SERVICES INC 390.00 FY 2015-16 FUME HOOD/ALARM CALIBRATION& IN0162771 249652 THOMAS FISH COMPANY 138.50 BIOASSAY SPECIMEN 20643 249653 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 395.00 SB CC-TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATION COURSE FO CC323951 249656 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 13 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/04/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS UNIVAR USA INC 2,279.88 FY 2015-2016 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE SJ741266 249660 4,535.19 FY 2015-2016 SODIUM BISULFITE SJ743038 249660 4,261.28 FY 2015-2016 SODIUM BISULFITE SJ742532 249660 2,232.40 FY 2015-2016 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE SJ742422 249660 VWR INTERNATIONAL LLC 218.98 LAB SUPPLIES 8044651986 249662 260.96 LAB SUPPLIES 8044640982 249662 211.17 LAB SUPPLIES 8044740561 249662 W.W.GRAINGER INC. 3,060.22 SEWER MAINTENANCE OPERATING SUPPLIES 9063404884 249663 308.43 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 9093317098 249663 Payments Issued for PUBLIC WORKS $72,654.90 Dept 15 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT AWE 181.77 AWE HEADPHONES SSFPL16001-2 249572 CALIFA GROUP 75.00 BASIC COPY CATOLOGING-SHAWNTE SANTOS 24474 249576 INSECT DISCOVERY LAB 275.00 INSECT DISCOVERY LAB CHILDREN'S PROGRAM 110715-1 249604 LIBRARY STORE INC,THE 262.89 CD/DVD CASES 196603 249611 255.14 CD/DVD CASES 199246 249611 MASE GROUP LLC 716.00 CD/DVD LABELING 00189 249616 1,623.50 CATALOGING SERVICE 00037A 249616 MIDWEST TAPE 65.39 A/V 93896961 249620 OFFICE DEPOT INC 62.22 OFFICE SUPPLIES 833823425001 249627 PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 438.55 DEBT COLLECT JAN-MARCH 2016 11685 249630 RECORDED BOOKS,INC. 43.60 A/V 75322834 249636 32.69 A/V 75317555 249636 56.41 A/V 75322669 249636 SAFEWAY INC 37.39 PROGRAM SUPPLIES/REFRESHMENTS 125129 249641 17.45 PROGRAM SUPPLIES/REFRESHMENTS 125129 249641 32.91 PROGRAM SUPPLIES/REFRESHMENTS 125129 249641 19.96 PROGRAM SUPPLIES/REFRESHMENTS 125129 249641 9.80 PROGRAM SUPPLIES/REFRESHMENTS 125129 249641 15.97 PROGRAM SUPPLIES/REFRESHMENTS 125129 249641 SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION 590.82 BOOKS-LEARNING WHEELS 13034138 249643 UNCLE JER'S COOKIES,INC 325.00 CHILDREN'S PROGRAM PRESENTATION 144588 249658 Payments Issued for LIBRARY DEPARTMENT $5,137.46 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 14 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/04/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 16 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT GRANICUS,INC. 1,013.04 ANNUAL RENEWAL-MOBILE ENCODER 71480 249598 500.00 MONTHLY MANAGED SVC-WEBSITE GOVT TRAN 70455 249598 500.00 MONTHLY MANAGED SVC-WEBSITE GOVT TRANS 75314 249598 2,536.26 MONTHLY MANAGED SVC-LEGISLATIVE MGMT S 75048 249598 Payments Issued for INFORMATION $4,549.30 TECHNOL OG Y DEPARTMENT Dept 17 PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT AQUAMATIC FIRE PROTECTION 1,575.00 FIRE STATION 65 DEFICIENCIES 1505941 249570 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 34.75 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 757321227 249571 34.75 FACILITIES UNIFORMS 757332872 249571 72.00 PARKS DIVISION UNIFORMS 757344483 249571 BROADMOOR LUMBER&PLYWOOD CO 157.68 PARKS MAINTENANCE 38517 249574 157.68 PARKS MAINTENANCE 38513 249574 157.68 PARKS MAINTENANCE 38514 249574 CINTAS FIRSTAID&SAFETY 292.99 FIRSTAID @ CORP YARD 5004785529 249579 CITY MECHANICAL INC 456.66 NO HEAT FRONT OFFICE @ CLC 73954 249580 538.52 BOILER REPLACEMENT @ CITY HALL 74168 249580 507.50 T-STAT @ MAGNOLIA CENTER 74078 249580 COLE SUPPLY COMPANY,INC. 2,092.65 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 99010 249582 257.27 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 98523 249582 288.72 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 98523-1 249582 1,111.84 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 100116 249582 32.84 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 99010-3 249582 41.56 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 99010-2 249582 96.35 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 99010-4 249582 590.64 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 99010-6 249582 21.74 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 99010-7 249582 71.65 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 99509 249582 85.08 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 101661 249582 2,604.01 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 101609 249582 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC 440.61 CITY PARKS MAINTENANCE 1337623 249589 440.62 CITY PARKS MAINTENANCE 1337623 249589 440.61 CITY PARKS MAINTENANCE 1337623 249589 2,597.78 PARKS MAINTENANCE 1337624 249589 MARISSA GARREN 72.06 FOOD&BEVERAGES FOR PARKS MAINT.MTGS. 4/11/16 249594 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 15 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/04/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 17 PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 69.61 PAINTING SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 91026 249602 207.69 PAINT SUPPLIES FOR CORP YARD 91169 249602 60.58 PAINT SUPPLIES FOR CORP YARD 91228 249602 INTERSTATE GRADING&PAVING IN 1,730.00 BURI BURI PARK-RETAINAGE 4847 249605 DONALD LOUIE 43.00 DMV REGISTRATION 4/22/16 249612 LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 598.88 WATER HEATER @ ITD 902575 249613 296.85 STATION 65 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 902297 249613 9.13 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR STATION 63 902660 249613 202.31 EARTH DAY SUPPLIES 916152 249613 24.88 OMP URINAL BOWLS 901809 249613 213.71 PLYWOOD FOR FRANCISCO TERRACE 902299 249613 MACBEATH HARDWOOD COMPANY 37.51 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 00936214 249614 MOSS RUBBER&EQUIPT CORP 221.15 RAIN GEAR 507039-001 249622 NBC SUPPLY CORP 861.32 PARKS SAFETY SUPPLIES 17260 249625 PACIFIC NURSERIES 32.37 COMMON GREENS WEST PARK 3 SI-336259 249628 MARIE PATEA 35.08 REFRESHMENTS FOR BMC RATERS 4/7/16 249629 QUENCH USA,INC. 69.65 WATER COOLER @ CORP YARD 200431609 249634 ROCHESTER MIDLAND CORPORATION 182.13 HANDSFREE RESTROOM 1256207 249639 159.36 HANDSFREE RESTROOM 1256206 249639 SHOE DEPOT INC 166.76 WORK BOOTS FOR GREG FERNANDEZ 113484/0872 249645 SMART&FINAL STORES LLC 41.85 COFFEE&SNACKS FOR MTG. 149081 249646 SOUTH CITY LUMBERAND SUPPLY 12.45 MAINT.SUPPLIES FOR MAIN LIBRARY 884028 249648 58.33 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR CLC K83678 249648 2.61 MAINT.SUPPLIES FOR MAGNOLIA CENTER 883552 249648 21.44 BULBS FOR EXIT SIGNS 883928 249648 5.02 MAINT.SUPPLIES @ IT K83653 249648 31.13 MAINT.SUPPLIES FOR ITD K83675 249648 14.65 MAINT.SUPPLIES 884383 249648 12.88 MAINT.SUPPLIES FOR MSB 884083 249648 2.51 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR PD 884199 249648 15.52 PARKS MAINT.SUPPLIES 885151 249648 17.41 CHAIN FOR FENCE 885166 249648 119.48 WEST PARK 3 MAINTENANCE 885324 249648 32.65 PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 879678 249648 28.90 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 885245 249648 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 16 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/04/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 17 PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT SOUTH CITY LUMBERAND SUPPLY 10.29 FACILITIES MAINT.SUPPLIES 877325 249648 5.62 FACILITIES MAINT.SUPPLIES 876381 249648 42.86 CORP YARD MAINT.SUPPLIES 884771 249648 2.51 FACILITIES MAINT.SUPPLIES 884925 249648 16.39 MAINT.SUPPLIES FOR SHOP&POOL 885007 249648 11.22 FACILITIES MAINT.SUPPLIES 884986 249648 19.00 MAINT.SUPPLIES FOR CORPYARD 885358 249648 10.39 POOL MAINT.SUPPLIES 885513 249648 8.74 CITY HALL MAINT.SUPPLIES 885251 249648 3.60 MSB MAINT.SUPPLIES 885250 249648 5.88 FACILITIES MAINT.SUPPLIES 885321 249648 6.01 FACILITIES MAINT.SUPPLIES 884725 249648 6.93 CITY HALL BASEBOARD 884680 249648 34.65 PARKS MAINT.SUPPLIES 879803 249648 25.04 PARKS MAINT.SUPPLIES 880239 249648 20.63 PARKS MAINT.SUPPLIES 880241 249648 6.33 CITY HALL BASBOARD 884566 249648 44.19 CITY HALL MAINT.SUPPLIES 884491 249648 27.76 PARKS MAINTENANCE 885773 249648 7.33 PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 885913 249648 39.16 ECR AND HICKEY GREENSPOT 885640 249648 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 198.00 CORP YARD OFFICE SUPPLIES 8037008806/285571606 249650 198.00 CORP YARD OFFICE SUPPLIES 8037008806/285571606 249650 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 5.43 AH-SCHLEGE LOCK cc321224 249656 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA 108.16 PORTABLE RESTROOM @ SOUTHWOOD FIELD 114-3920816 249659 130.43 PORTABLE RESTROOMS @ COMM.GARDENS 114-3976731 249659 WEST COAST PRODUCTS 1,139.87 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 850261 249665 Payments Issued for PARKS&RECREATION $23,044.46 DEPARTMENT Dept 21 NON-DEPARTMENTAL OSEGUEDAAMPARO J TR 200.00 C&D DEPOSIT REFUND 905 HILLSIDE BLVD B15-2093 249569 BELL PLUMBING 500.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT,313 MAGNOLIAAVE E16-0154 249573 CITY VENTURES 10,000.00 C&D DEPOSIT REFUND 1256 MISSION RD B15-1079 249581 EXPRESS PLUMBING&SEWER 1,200.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT,605 MILLERAVE. E16-0202 249590 GENERAL DRAINWORKS,INC. 1,128.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT,112 SUTTON AVE. E13-0316 249595 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 17 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/04/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 21 NON-DEPARTMENTAL IDEAL ROOTER AND PLUMBING 500.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT,502 COMMERCIALAVE. E16-0181 249603 RESCUE ROOFING CO. 200.00 C&D DEPOSIT REFUND 14 VISTA CT. B16-0500 249637 ERWIN ROBLES 200.00 C&D DEPOSIT REFUND 2412 WREN CT B16-0470 249638 SEWER RAT 9,000.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT,617 PARK WAY E16-0161 249644 TOM LEE'S ROOFING 200.00 C&D DEPOSIT REFUND 202 MANSFIELD DR B16-0048 249654 200.00 C&D DEPOSIT REFUND 2400 OLYMPIC DR B16-0049 249654 Payments Issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $23,328.00 Dept 99 CIP CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING LAB 698.25 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR GRANDAVE.LIB 129824 249584 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2,180.00 EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE 0416 249586 MARK THOMAS&CO.INC. 512.50 CONSULTING SVS.,TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPR. P 23274 249615 920.00 ON CALL SERVICES FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING 25383 249615 333.72 SO.AIRPORT BLVD.BRIDGE @ NO.ACCESS RD 25394 249615 2,575.77 SO.AIRPORT BLVD.BRIDGE @ NO.ACCESS RD 25394 249615 SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTR 8,997.02 FINAL DESIGN FOR GRAND BLVD.INITIATIVE 21421-04404-04 249642 SSA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS,INC. 549.00 ON-CALL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 5390 249649 Payments Issued for CIP $16,766.26 Payments Made on 5/4/2016 $203,415.20 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 18 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/05/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 00 NON EXPENSE ACCT CALPERS 101.43 REPLACEMENT BENEFIT FUND PAYMENT-04/14/ 100000014742246 WIRED Payments Issued for NON EXPENSEACCT $101.43 Payments Made on 5/5/2016 $101.43 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 19 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/06/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 00 NON EXPENSE ACCT CELINE CALALANG 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR HALL RENTAL 891541 249677 ERICA CORNEJO 352.50 REFUND OF DEPOST FOR COMPLETED HALL REN 891545 249687 CHRISTOPHER ESPIRITU 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF ORANGE PARK 890662 249695 OLIVIA MENDEZ 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF WEST PARK S 890666 249711 ALEXIA PARRA 300.00 REFUND FOR CANCELLED HALL EVENT 890999 249718 GUADALUPE ZARAGOZA 200.00 REFUND OF ORANGE PARK SHELTER ON 4/30/2 890668 249736 Payments Issued for NONEXPENSEACCT $1,602.50 Dept 06 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 294.83 PAYROLL CHECK STOCK ORDER 30075 249667 MARIE BIEHLER 23.87 5-3-16 BIEHLER MILEAGE REIMB 5-3-16 BIEHLER REIMB 249674 JENNIFER CHIU 23.87 5-3-16 CHIU REIMB MILEAGE 5-3-16 CHIU REIMB 249681 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 60.00 HR SPONSORED TRAINING-SM COUNTY CONSORTI C116-0094 249689 195.00 HR SPONSORED TRAINING SM COUNTY CONSORTI CI16-0113 249689 HIGH LINE CORPORATION 600.00 PAYROLL SYSTEM SUPPORT 19544 249702 Payments Issued for FINANCE DEPARTMENT $1,197.57 Dept 07 NON-DEPARTMENTAL PACIFIC GAS&ELECTRIC COMPANY 2,131.91 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 5548997000-8 249716 29.15 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 6152070396-0 249716 31.00 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 8923172305-0 249716 161.17 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 8286202617-4 249716 78.98 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 2814692974-1 249716 66.17 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 3635896993-3 249716 306.76 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 5177240092-8 249716 22.52 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 5534400076-9 249716 190.17 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 6035223249-4 249716 PACIFIC GAS&ELECTRIC COMPANY 86,051.96 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 5616338496-1 249717 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 219.91 CB-DEFERRED COMP COMMITTEE MEETING LUNCH CC324081 249734 22.99 VE-REFRESHMENT FOR DEFERRED COMP MEETING CC324189 249734 500.00 MM-PERFORMANCE CARD FOR WELLNESS PROGRAM CC324198 249734 Payments Issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $89,812.69 Dept 09 HUMAN RESOURCES DEBORAH GLASSER LABOR RELATION 528.00 LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2016/4 249691 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 20 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/06/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 09 HUMAN RESOURCES ESPOSTO'S INC. 1,724.84 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION EVENT MAY 6 CATERIN 49265 249696 FEDEX 30.16 SHIPPING CHARGES FOR RECRUITMENT TEST MA 5-259-62386 249697 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 142.50 LB-NCCIPMA-HR CONFERENCE NAPA VALLEY CC323993 249734 44.00 LB-LEAGUE OF CA CITIES AIRFARE CC323994 249734 48.44 LB-OFFICE SUPPLIES CC324062 249734 123.29 LB-SUCCESSION PLANNING MEETING BREAKFAST CC324071 249734 1,672.11 CB-NEW PHOTO ID PRINTER CC324074 249734 550.00 LB-LABOR ARBITRATION CONFERENCE FEE CC324084 249734 11.99 MM-ADMINISTRATIVE PARTNER'S MEETING CC324193 249734 29.90 MM-COFFEE FOR HR SPONSORED TRAINING CC324199 249734 195.00 MM-EMAIL MARKETING MONTHLY FEE CC324200 249734 WISE CONSULTING ASSOCIATES INC 1,105.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-HRIS PROJECT CONSU 25471 249735 Payments Issued for HUMAN RESOURCES $6,205.23 Dept 10 ECONOMIC&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT AT&T 98.07 BLDG DIV.DSL LINE-ANNEX 7861882 249671 Payments Issued for ECONOMIC&COMMUNITY $98.07 DEVELOPMENTDEPT Dept 11 FIRE DEPARTMENT CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS,LLC. 250.00 REALQUEST&S.MATEO FORECLOSURE MTHLY RE 81681065 249686 KAISER PERMANENTE-OHSS 31.50 APRIL 2016 PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 320900248601 249705 OFFICE DEPOT INC (23.20) OFFICE SUPPLIES 834803347001 249714 Payments Issued for FIRE DEPARTMENT $258.30 Dept 12 POLICE DEPARTMENT KAISER PERMANENTE-OHSS 239.40 APRIL 2016 PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 320900248601 249705 Payments Issued for POLICE DEPARTMENT $239.40 Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 106.76 UNIFORMS FOR CORP YARD 757356289 249669 71.17 UNIFORMS FOR CORP YARD 757356289 249669 187.10 EMPLOYEE UNIFORMS 757356277 249669 99.30 EMPLOYEE UNIFORMS 757356276 249669 BROADMOOR LUMBER&PLYWOOD CO 219.53 SEWER MAINTENANCE OPERATING SUPPLIES 38401 249676 99.51 SEWER MAINTENANCE OPERATING SUPPLIES 38473 249676 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 21 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/06/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS BROADMOOR LUMBER&PLYWOOD CO 219.53 SEWER MAINTENANCE OPERATING SUPPLIES 38520 249676 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 587.00 SMC HEALTH-ABOVEGROUND FUEL STORAGE 275598 249688 232.00 SMC HEALTH-ABOVEGROUND FUEL STORAGE 275877 249688 CULLIGAN SANTA CLARA 111.39 WATER SOFTENER SERVICE 0044145 249690 FLYERS ENERGY LLC 10,402.07 CITYWIDE CARD LOCK FUEL CFS1206183 249698 GRANITEROCK COMPANY 365.43 STREET MAINTENANCE-ASPHALT 956040 249700 HARBOR READY MIX&CPS 832.20 SIDEWALKS OPERATING SUPPLIES 28327 249701 227.76 SIDEWALKS OPERATING SUPPLIES 28275 249701 PENINSULA BATTERY CO 47.87 SEWER MAINTENANCE OPERATING SUPPLIES 116320 249720 PUMP REPAIR SERVICE 2,801.94 OPERATING SUPPLIES 037472 249721 SOUTH CITY LUMBERAND SUPPLY 0.59 SEWER MAINTENANCE OPERATING SUPPLIES 852674 249728 9.73 SEWER MAINTENANCE OPERATING SUPPLIES 885276 249728 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 151.42 RC-LANDLINE PHONES FOR CORP YARD CC323844 249734 47.25 SB CC-STAFF SUPPLIES,INTERVIEW PANEL CC323960 249734 159.00 SB CC-PROJECT MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP FOR P CC323962 249734 Payments Issued for PUBLIC WORKS $16,978.55 Dept 15 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT BAKER&TAYLOR INC 56.36 BOOKS 4011581613 249673 CALIFA GROUP 75.00 MAKER CENTERED LEARNING-ASHLEY NUNES 24617 249678 300.00 MAKER CENTERED LEARNING 24612 249678 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOC 584.06 AFTERSCHOOL FROG SNACKS/VOLUNTEER WEEK 0003-1626 249680 584.61 AFTERSCHOOL FROG SNACKS/VOLUNTEER WEEK 0003-1626 249680 429.97 AFTERSCHOOL FROG SNACKS/VOLUNTEER WEEK 0003-1626 249680 482.62 AFTERSCHOOL FROG SNACKS/VOLUNTEER WEEK 0003-1626 249680 460.94 AFTERSCHOOL FROG SNACKS/VOLUNTEER WEEK 0003-1626 249680 73.75 AFTERSCHOOL FROG SNACKS/VOLUNTEER WEEK 0003-1626 249680 CLEARLITE TROPHIES 16.43 CUSTOMER PERPETUAL PLAQUE ENGRAVED 77811 249683 JENNI FRENCHAM 148.40 CHILDREN'S PROGRAM SUPPLIES(NO TAX CHAR 042516 249699 MIDWEST TAPE 22.66 A/V 93892383 249712 25.06 A/V 93892385 249712 OFFICE DEPOT INC 133.49 OFFICE SUPPLIES 836637899001 249714 97.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES 835622204001 249714 JOANN SEMONES 100.00 AUTHOR TALK PRESENTATION 05/02/16 249726 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 42.48 VS-BOOKS cc323884 249734 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 22 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/06/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 15 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 45.97 VS-BOOKS cc323884 249734 44.03 VS-STAFF PLANNING MEETING cc323885 249734 13.10 EM-POSTAGE cc323886 249734 4.99 NC-REFRESHMENTS BOOK CLUB cc323890 249734 507.71 ABS-PROMOTIONAL PENS cc323892 249734 470.00 ABS-REFRESHMENTS MIDMANAGEMENT MEETING cc323893 249734 81.19 ABS-OFFICE SUPPLIES cc323894 249734 68.27 ABS-TRAINING FEE cc323895 249734 1.00 ABS-OFFICE SUPPLIES,CLIP ART cc323896 249734 33.99 ABS-OFFICE SUPPLIES,CLIP ART cc323896 249734 409.60 ABS-OPERATING SUPPLIES cc323897 249734 35.00 ABS-OFFICE SUPPLIES cc323898 249734 178.91 AP-AFTERSCHOOL HOMEWORK SUPPLIES cc323908 249734 30.33 AP-REFRESHMENTS,MID MANAGEMENT MEETIN cc323910 249734 71.96 AP-LUNCH,INTERVIEW PANEL cc323919 249734 27.18 RJ-OPERATING SUPPLIES,JUV cc324010 249734 3.99 VE-REFRESHMENT FOR ASST LIBRARY DIRECTOR CC324171 249734 23.95 VE-COFFEE FOR LIBRARY RECRUITMENT CC324183 249734 Payments Issued for LIBRARY DEPARTMENT $5,684.27 Dept 16 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT JUSTIN ANDERSON 475.43 STAFF DEVELOPMENT-GIS TRAINING-IT 04/2016 249668 KELSO COMMUNICATIONS 2,867.39 TELECOMMUNICATIONSASSIST/MAINTENANCE 12016047 249706 TEKSYSTEMS INC. 2,100.00 TEMP STAFF-NELSON YU-IT TK04111512 249731 2,100.00 TEMP STAFF-NELSON YU-IT TK04113710 249731 1,920.00 TEMP STAFF-MICHAEL BARNES-IT NW01343503 249731 3,200.00 TEMP STAFF-MICHAEL BARNES-IT NW01347215 249731 THE ACTIVE NETWORK INC 17,258.73 CLASS YRLY RENWAL-MAINTENANCE&SUPPORT 4100145485 249732 Payments Issued for INFORMATION $29,921.55 TECHNOL OG Y DEPARTMENT Dept 17 PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT A+LIVESCAN SERVICES 396.00 FINGERPRINTS/SUMMER CAMP 1448 249666 LAURAARMANINO 96.73 BRAVO PIZZA/PONDEROSA PARTY 4/22/16 249670 B&B CUSTOM DESIGNS 13.30 ONE ADULT T-SHIRT FOR RAPP K-2 BASKETBAL 15430 249672 BORG TRUCKING,INC. 4,000.00 MOVE OFASRP SUPPLIES 33263 249675 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 23 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/06/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 17 PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT BORG TRUCKING,INC. 1,950.00 MOVE OFASRP SUPPLIES 33263 249675 CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 2,457.75 ACADEMY OF SCIENCES/SUMMER CAMP FIELD T 913824 249679 CITY OF CUPERTINO 600.00 BLACKBERRY FARM PICNIC RESERVATION SUMME 16645 249682 COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN 62.26 MONTHLY CABLE BILL FOR MAGNOLIA SENIOR C 8155200440216218 249684 COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN 50.94 MONTHLY CABLE BILL FOR TERRABAY REC BLDG 8155200440252494 249685 DEVIL MOUNTAIN NURSERY 180.83 ARBOR DAY PLANTS&TREES 129801 249692 5,777.87 ARBOR DAY PLANTS AND TREES 129802 249692 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 149.83 REAL PROGRAM SUPPLIES W25164660001 249693 679.89 REAL PROGRAM SUPPLIES W25032790001 249693 3,024.32 SPECIALISTS SUPPLIES/SUMMER CAMP W25272380101 249693 DANELE DIXON 1,372.04 REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUMMER CAMP SUPPLIES 3/21-4/22/16 249694 61.02 PIZZA HUT/SPECIAL PIZZA PARTY 4/8/16 249694 FEDEX 53.77 SHIPPING CHARGES FOR RECRUITMENT TEST MA 5-363-17951 249697 25.77 SHIPPING CHARGES FOR RECRUITMENT TEST MA 5-400-55858 249697 HUB INTERNATIONAL INSUR SVCS 2,600.32 INS.PAYMENT FOR FACILITY RENTALS FORAP HubinsApri12016 249703 KAISER PERMANENTE-OHSS 342.00 APRIL 2016 PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 320900248601 249705 KSM PRINTING 982.64 STREETS ALIVE FLYERS FOR SCHOOLS 25321 249708 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS 458.67 LITTLE STEPS PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES/BIG LIF 2065660416 249709 458.67 LITTLE STEPS PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES/BIG LIF 2065660416 249709 PACIFIC COAST FARMERS'MARKET 200.00 CARROT CASH FOR STREETS ALIVE-FARMERS 1579 249715 PEGASUS PRODUCTS GROUP 3,789.57 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL SUPPLIES 20160132 249719 REDWOOD ROLLER RINK 960.00 SUMMER CAMP FIELDTRIP 7/22/16 RESERV 249722 SAN CARLOS CHILDREN'S THEATER 1,080.00 ALICE IN WONDERLAND PLAY/SUMMER CAMP Fl 1040 249723 SAN JOSE GIANTS 2,240.00 SAN JOSE GIANTS GAME/SUMMER CAMP FIELDTR 6/15/16 EVENT 249724 SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY 7,358.00 SANTA CRUZ BOARDWALK/SUMMER CAMP FIELD T FUN DAY 7/8/16 249725 SMART&FINAL STORES LLC 173.95 MONTE VERDE AFTER SCHOOL SNACK/ASRP 154537 249727 160.42 PONDO ASRP SNACK SUPPLIES 158971 249727 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 190.64 MONTHLY RENTAL CHARGES 181365 249733 Payments Issued for PARKS&RECREATION $41,947.20 DEPARTMENT Dept 21 NON-DEPARTMENTAL SSF CONFERENCE CENTER 3,760.00 MAR 2016 CONFERENCE CENTER TAX PASS THIRD HOTEL V 249730 Payments Issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $3,760.00 Dept 27 NON-DEPARTMENTAL Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 24 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/06/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 27 NON-DEPARTMENTAL CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOC 143.09 AFTERSCHOOL FROG SNACKS/VOLUNTEER WEEK 0003-1626 249680 JOSEPH HUNZIKER 500.00 CASH ADVANCE SENIOR SVCAND SUPPLIES 5/2/16 Cash Advance 249704 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 56.29 NC-VOLUNTEER/LIBRARY WEEK,EVENT SUPPL cc323887 249734 45.96 NC-REFRESHMENTS-VOLUNTEER WEEK cc323888 249734 70.13 NC-REFRESHMENTS-VOLUNTEER WEEK cc323888 249734 27.20 NC-VOLUNTEER WEEK SUPPLIES cc323889 249734 10.94 NC-VOLUNTEER WEEK SUPPLIES cc323891 249734 38.25 NC-REFRESHMENTS,LIBRARY WEEK cc323899 249734 30.53 AP-LIBRARY/VOLUNTEER WEEK SUPPLIES cc323914 249734 5.47 AP-LIBRARY/VOLUNTEER WEEK SUPPLIES cc323914 249734 1,215.00 JH-SENIOR VOLUNTEER LUNCH 2016 CC323967 249734 Payments Issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $2,142.86 Dept 99 CIP KI,INC. 15,277.93 FURNITURE REPLACEMENT&INSTALLATION,PL 13618398 249707 26,196.56 FURNITURE REPLACEMENT&INSTALLATION,PL 13620569 249707 10,560.13 FURNITURE REPLACEMENT&INSTALLATION,PL 13621237 249707 13,184.40 FURNITURE REPLACEMENT&INSTALLATION,BU 13620568 249707 13,353.74 FURNITURE REPLACEMENT&INSTALLATION,BU 13621778 249707 MARK THOMAS&CO.INC. 17,559.83 ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR GRAND BLVD.CHE 25406 249710 NOR-CAL PIPELINE SERVICES 130,549.29 CONSTRUCTION,SANITARY SEWER REHAB PROJE 285-CP-6 249713 SSA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS,INC. 1,584.00 ON-CALL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 5380 249729 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 150.00 SB CC-GIS MAPPING INTEGRATION CC323966 249734 Payments Issued for CIP $228,415.88 Payments Made on 5/6/2016 $428,264.07 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 25 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 00 NON EXPENSE ACCT MARIBEL BUGHAO 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR COMPLETED HALL REN 894691 249750 SCOTT CHO 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR COMPLETED HALL REN 894693 249763 REICHEL GLOVER 70.00 REFUND FOR RAINED OUT PICNIC AREA 894328 249781 ARACELI MIRANDA 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR ORANGE PARK SHELTE 893882 249800 Payments Issued for NON EXPENSE ACCT $970.00 Dept 01 CITY COUNCIL NEOPOST USA INC 1.74 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 OFFICE DEPOT INC 12.99 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-835133222001 835133222001 249803 12.99 PAPER FOR CITY HALL-833153023001 833153023001 249803 12.93 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-827790215001 827790215001 249803 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 12.15 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 Payments Issued for CITY COUNCIL $52.80 Dept 02 CITY CLERK CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 257.00 ACROBAT STANDARD DC2015 LICENSE-CLERK CPK0806 249761 DELL MARKETING L P 32.84 DELL LAPTOP ADAPTER-CLERK XJX38PR55 249768 NEOPOST USA INC 3.06 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 OFFICE DEPOT INC 28.86 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-835133222001 835133222001 249803 28.86 PAPER FOR CITY HALL-833153023001 833153023001 249803 28.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-827790215001 827790215001 249803 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 168.56 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 Payments Issued for CITY CLERK $547.91 Dept 03 CITY TREASURER FRANK HENRY RISSO 155.00 CITY TREASURER-CMTAANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 03-30-2016 249815 Payments Issued for CITY TREASURER $155.00 Dept 04 CITYATTORNEY MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK 57,369.92 CITY ATTY FEES MAR'16 405-001 CITY ATTOR 2016030263 EFT THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 3.24 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 Payments Issued for CITYATTORNEY $57,373.16 Dept 05 CITY MANAGER DELL MARKETING L P 130.78 LAPTOP CASE&DVD DRIVE-CM XJX197933 249768 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 26 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 05 CITY MANAGER DELL MARKETING L P 69.79 DELL LAPTOP ADAPTERS-CM XJX38T5P6 249768 OFFICE DEPOT INC 8.66 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-835133222001 835133222001 249803 8.66 PAPER FOR CITY HALL-833153023001 833153023001 249803 8.62 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-827790215001 827790215001 249803 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 133.47 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 Payments Issued for CITYMANAGER $359.98 Dept 06 FINANCE DEPARTMENT LINDA FUJITOMI 49.22 041916 EMP REIMB -FUJITOMI 12/18/15-4/19/16 249778 10.80 041916 EMP REIMB -FUJITOMI 12/18/15-4/19/16 249778 NEOPOST USA INC 50.78 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 OFFICE DEPOT INC 24.49 FORM W-2 ORDER 831891593001 249803 41.01 FORM W-2/W-3 REPLACEMENT ORDER 832843608001 249803 60.03 OFFICE SUPPLIES-835317169001 835317169001 249803 14.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-835133222001 835133222001 249803 77.67 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-835133222001 835133222001 249803 14.43 PAPER FOR CITY HALL-833153023001 833153023001 249803 36.07 PAPER FOR CITY HALL-833153023001 833153023001 249803 14.36 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-827790215001 827790215001 249803 57.90 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-827790215001 827790215001 249803 READYREFRESH 106.39 LOWER LEVEL WATER SERVICES 06D0030587083 249810 RELYCO SALES,INC. 773.30 PAYROLL&A/P SECURITY WINDOW ENVELOPES SIN083990 249814 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 128.93 OPERATING SUPPLIES-AIRPURIFER/FRESH 8038721567 249826 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 444.49 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 85.71 RL-AUDIT SERVICES PANEL-LUNCH CC324410 249834 150.00 RL-GFOAANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE CC324411 249834 150.00 RL-INTRO TO GOVERNMENTALACCTG:J VASQ CC324412 249834 15.00 RL-PARKING FOR STATE OF THE VALLEY CC324413 249834 400.00 RL-CDFA MEMBERSHIP FEES CC324414 249834 75.00 RL-INTRO TO GOVERNMENTALACCTG:I GOMEZ CC324415 249834 40.00 RL:SHUTTLE SERVICE FOR CSMFO ANNUAL CON CC324416 249834 16.99 RL-CSMFO ANNUAL CONE MEALS CC324417 249834 6.51 RL-COMPUTER ACCESS WHILE AT CONFERENCE CC324418 249834 12.24 RL-CSMFO ANNUAL CONFERENCE-MEALS CC324419 249834 837.72 RL-CSMFO ANNUAL CONF:ACCOMODATIONS CC324420 249834 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 27 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 06 FINANCE DEPARTMENT U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 10.67 RL-CSMFO ANNUAL CONE MEALS CC324421 249834 101.76 RL-FINANCIAL SERVICES ADVISOR PANEL-LU CC324422 249834 470.00 RL-ANNUAL DUES CC324423 249834 Payments Issued for FINANCE DEPARTMENT $4,275.90 Dept 07 NON-DEPARTMENTAL AT&T 138.42 PHONE CHARGES 650 829 1947 221 7 249744 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 18,351.87 WATER SERVICE 3779544444 249759 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 192.72 WATER SERVICE 0165444444 249760 32.37 WATER SERVICE 3194444444 249760 38.16 WATER SERVICE 9639955148 249760 199.60 WATER SERVICE 5187444444 249760 43.38 WATER SERVICE 2432384014 249760 44.61 WATER SERVICE 3310807997 249760 NEOPOST USA INC 0.05 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 READYREFRESH 175.50 1ST FLOOR BREAKROOM-WATER SERVICES 06D0030587158 249810 Payments Issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $19,216.68 Dept 09 HUMAN RESOURCES CLEARLITE TROPHIES 16.35 PERSONNEL BOARD NAME BADGE 76832 249766 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK 1,109.33 CITY ATTY FEES MAR'16 405-252 PERS COMPE 2016030256 EFT NEOPOST USA INC 1.66 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 OFFICE DEPOT INC 28.85 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-835133222001 835133222001 249803 28.85 PAPER FOR CITY HALL-833153023001 833153023001 249803 28.62 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-827790215001 827790215001 249803 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 269.21 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 Payments Issued for HUMAN RESOURCES $1,482.87 Dept 10 ECONOMIC&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT ANCHOR QEA,LLC 9,208.55 DEVELOPMENT OF MARKET STUDY/MEETING FOR 46618 249741 CALED 570.00 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR 2015-2016-ALEX 5/4/2016 249757 CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 257.00 ACROBAT STANDARD 2015 LICENSE-ECD CKL3510 249761 CITY DATA SERVICES,LLC 1,200.00 FY 15-16 CDBG ONLINE GRANT MANAGEMENT SY 1657 249764 555.00 FY 15-16 CDBG ONLINE GRANT MANAGEMENT SY 1657 249764 SAILESH MEHRA 50.00 STATEMENT OF EXPENSE,S.MEHRA 01/26/16 249796 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 28 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 10 ECONOMIC&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK 209.16 LEGAL SVCS REMB FEB'16-405-1230 2016020408 EFT 120.63 LEGAL SVCS REMB FEB'16-405.1231 488 LI 2016020409 EFT 10,772.16 LEGAL SVCS REMB FEB'16-405.1235 2016020411 EFT 55.00 LEGAL SVCS REMB FEB'16-405.1245 900 DU 2016020413 EFT 10,805.89 LEGAL SVCS REMB FEB'16-405.1247 2016020414 EFT 1,404.00 CITY ATTY FEES MAR'16 405.99010 SUCCESSO 2016030250 EFT MICHAEL BAKER INTL,INC 1,265.00 FY 15-16 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL FOR 939887 249798 NEOPOST USA INC 1.69 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 9.68 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 1.09 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 OFFICE DEPOT INC 28.86 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-835133222001 835133222001 249803 28.86 PAPER FOR CITY HALL-833153023001 833153023001 249803 28.83 OFFICE SUPPLIES&PAPER-827790215001 827790215001 249803 SKYLINE DISPLAYS BAY AREA INC 2,183.00 FURNITURE RENTAL FOR BOOTH AT 2016 BIO C SKYQ15143 249820 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 359.47 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 100.44 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 945.19 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 57.30 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 Payments Issued for ECONOMIC&COMMUNITY $40,216.80 DEVELOPMENTDEPT Dept 11 FIRE DEPARTMENT NEOPOST USA INC 6.93 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 59.42 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 3.94 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 0.83 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 25.35 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 106.09 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 403.09 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 Payments Issued for FIRE DEPARTMENT $605.65 Dept 12 POLICE DEPARTMENT NEOPOST USA INC 20.99 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 READYREFRESH 0.36 WATER COOLER RENTAL 3/11/16-04/10/16 16D5709746001 249810 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 12.39 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 280.05 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 29 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Payments Issued for $313.79 Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS ALPHAANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 161.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6043157-MD_SSF 249738 82.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6043151-MD_SSF 249738 132.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6043152-MD_SSF 249738 132.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6043153-MD_SSF 249738 82.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6043154-MD_SSF 249738 132.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6043155-MD_SSF 249738 161.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6043128-MD_SSF 249738 75.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6042903-MD_SSF 249738 3,449.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6043129-MD_SSF 249738 173.00 FY 2015-2016 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6051241-MD_SSF 249738 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH-CA,LLC 160.51 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 7007517454 249742 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 35.95 SEAT COVERS FOR CORP YARD 757356293 249743 12.00 UNIFORMS FOR CORP YARD 757356292 249743 B&B CUSTOM DESIGNS 165.58 UNIFORM/SHIRTS FOR CORP YARD 15426 249745 200.00 UNIFORM/SHIRTS FOR CORP YARD 15426 249745 321.33 STAFF UNIFORMS 15412 249745 BLUE LINE TRANSFER INC 70,793.81 BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL 0000440796 249747 BROADMOOR LUMBER&PLYWOOD CO 263.42 SIDEWALKS OPERATING SUPPLIES 38537 249749 CAL SIGNAL CORP 2,659.83 SIGNALS OPERATING SUPPLIES 6102 249756 CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 257.00 ACROBAT STANDARD DC 2015 LICENSE-ENG. CPK1208 249761 CITY OF DALY CITY 117.57 GARAGE-SMOKE OPACITY READER CALIBRATIO AR220072 249765 CUMMINS WEST INC 100.00 GARAGE REPAIR SERVICE-VEH 508 021-22839 249767 DELL MARKETING L P (708.87) CREDIT-#XJRDTF4F4-DELL COMP. XJRR2PD65 249768 DRDAUTOMOTIVE,INC. 2.69 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 098986 249771 FASTENAL COMPANY 29.59 SIGNAL OPERATING SUPPLIES CAS1024134 249774 FLYERS ENERGY LLC 617.68 FUEL FOR CORP YARD 16-250310 249775 10,224.17 CITYWIDE CARD LOCK FUEL CFS-1215062 249775 352.22 FUEL FOR FIRE STATION#64 16-251964 249775 1,288.05 FUEL FOR FIRE STATION#65 16-251965 249775 1,645.38 FUEL FOR FIRE STATION#61 16-251969 249775 GCS ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPT SVCS 84.52 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 310/311/ 13479 249779 GOLDEN GATE TRUCK CENTER 15.70 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 507 F005708932:01 249782 GOLDEN STATE CHEMICAL&SUPPLY 709.23 OPERATING SUPPLIES 888866 249783 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 30 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS GOLDEN STATE CHEMICAL&SUPPLY 933.85 OPERATING SUPPLIES 888861 249783 GRANITEROCK COMPANY 774.33 STREET MAINTENANCE OPERATING SUPPLIES/AS 957354 249784 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE SVC 340.75 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 153382 249785 HOLLISTER POWERSPORTS 796.89 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 281 169457 249786 859.18 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 282/281 169458 249786 12.80 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 281 169460 249786 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 19.18 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES X217617 249787 LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 138.07 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 916799 249792 11.61 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 923727 249792 40.32 OPERATING SUPPLIES 915083 249792 49.89 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 920935 249792 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 30.70 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 57477914 249795 127.11 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 58009835 249795 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK 606.00 CITY ATTY FEES MAR'16 405-236 SOLID WAST 2016030246 EFT 312.00 CITY ATTY FEES MAR'16 405.254 2016030260 EFT MOSS RUBBER&EQUIPT CORP 92.55 STREET ADMINISTRATION CLOTHING SUPPLIES 507235-001 249801 170.86 STREET ADMINISTRATION CLOTHING SUPPLIES 507233-001 249801 NEOPOST USA INC 2.57 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 13.73 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 8.15 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 OLE'S CARBURETOR&ELEC INC 279.82 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 212/8 397400 249804 172.79 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 305 397461 249804 PENINSULA BATTERY CO 300.84 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 505 116204 249806 RED WING BRANDS OFAMERICAN IN 240.00 SEWER MAINTENANCE-SAFETY SHOES FOR KAR 60000005456 249812 ROYALTY AUTO COLLISION CTR INC 269.40 GARAGE SERVICE REPAIR-VEH 232 17381 249816 SAN MATEO LAWNMOWER INC. 700.58 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-VEH 504/782 157294 249818 SHOE DEPOT INC 234.42 SAFETY SHOES FOR P.DUARTE 113879/0900 249819 145.17 SAFETY BOOTS FOR JOHN ELLCESSOR 112445/0905 249819 SOUTH CITY LUMBERAND SUPPLY 16.06 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 886090 249821 40.78 SIGNALS OPERATING SUPPLIES 886192 249821 44.96 STREETLIGHTING OPERATING SUPPLIES 886165 249821 11.16 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPERATING SUPPLIES 877612 249821 25.24 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPERATING SUPPLIES 878474 249821 23.56 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPERATING SUPPLIES 879567 249821 9.42 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPERATING SUPPLIES 880321 249821 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 31 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 13 PUBLIC WORKS SOUTH CITY LUMBERAND SUPPLY 29.30 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPERATING SUPPLIES 877291 249821 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 29.40 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8039110240 249826 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 15.23 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 97.21 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 170.30 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 101.72 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 111.52 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 TRACTION-GENUINE PARTS CO. 64.62 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 853112070 249833 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 456.20 SB CC-CA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION BUS CC323969 249834 128.91 SB CC-CA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION BU CC323974 249834 770.00 BS-MEMBER CONFERENCE FOR K.NAVARRE CC324107 249834 (175.00) BS-MEMBER CONFERENCE FOR K.NAVARRE CC324107 249834 40.63 BS-LUNCH MEETING W/GENENTECH WASTEWATER CC324112 249834 9.25 BS-OPERATING SUPPLIES CC324128 249834 9.03 BS-OPERATING SUPPLIES CC324128 249834 41.06 BS-STAFF MEETING CC324135 249834 84.90 BS-LAB SUPPLIES CC324136 249834 115.00 BS-EVENT REGISTRATION FORA.PARTIN CC324137 249834 102.99 BS-MONTHLY DISH BILL CC324138 249834 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA 104.40 RESTROOM FACILITIES SERVICES 114-3993742 249835 UNIVAR USA INC 2,094.19 FY 2015-2016 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE SJ743494 249838 UPS FREIGHT 8.13 SHIPPING COSTS FOR RETURNED ITEM OOOOV52111166 249840 VAN'SANTI-FREEZE RECYCLING 132.00 GARAGE-RECYCLED ANTI-FREEZE 6978 249842 VWR INTERNATIONAL LLC 12.54 LAB SUPPLIES 8044825266 249843 315.36 LAB SUPPLIES 8044815573 249843 W.W.GRAINGER INC. 165.44 SIGNALS OPERATING SUPPLIES 9090660052 249844 WINZER CORPORATION (27.41) GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-CREDIT 5460957 249846 464.33 GARAGE OPERATING SUPPLIES-STOCK PARTS 5567845 249846 ZAP MANUFACTURING INC 598.60 TRAFFIC MARKINGS-OPERATING SUPPLIES 45004 249847 Payments Issued for PUBLIC WORKS $107,850.95 Dept 15 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT BAKER&TAYLOR INC 25.52 BOOKS 4011580178 249746 34.31 BOOKS 4011580179 249746 19.03 BOOKS 4011580180 249746 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 32 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 15 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT BAKER&TAYLOR INC 42.00 BOOKS 4011580181 249746 26.01 BOOKS 4011580182 249746 56.84 BOOKS 4011580183 249746 24.60 BOOKS 4011580184 249746 25.39 BOOKS 4011580185 249746 126.95 BOOKS 4011580186 249746 192.33 BOOKS 4011580187 249746 100.84 BOOKS 4011580188 249746 65.65 BOOKS 4011580189 249746 342.57 BOOKS 4011580190 249746 121.00 BOOKS 4011580191 249746 62.26 BOOKS 4011580192 249746 113.84 BOOKS 4011580193 249746 77.44 BOOKS 4011580194 249746 12.95 BOOKS 4011580929 249746 12.95 BOOKS 4011580930 249746 13.58 BOOKS 4011580931 249746 19.78 BOOKS 4011580932 249746 76.44 BOOKS 4011580933 249746 227.27 BOOKS 4011581002 249746 20.33 BOOKS 4011581680 249746 16.51 BOOKS 4011581681 249746 16.52 BOOKS 4011581682 249746 216.62 BOOKS 4011581683 249746 83.23 BOOKS 4011581684 249746 222.30 BOOKS 4011581685 249746 113.89 BOOKS 4011581786 249746 253.63 BOOKS 4011581786 249746 23.73 BOOKS 4011585886 249746 190.35 BOOKS 4011585886 249746 CALIFA GROUP 75.00 MAKER CENTER TRAINING,M.FRENCHAM 24624 249758 DEMCO INC. 244.83 TECHNICAL PROCESSING SUPPLIES 5856613 249769 GE MONEY BANK/AMAZON 29.01 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 63.98 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 22.87 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 33 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 15 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT GE MONEY BANK/AMAZON 140.68 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 18.94 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 32.60 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 157.86 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 43.79 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 11.26 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 35.77 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 23.68 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 14.45 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 209.00 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 23.98 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 26.26 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 116.49 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 13.40 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 19.58 BOOKS/AV 0010 3871 249780 MASE GROUP LLC 244.15 DVD LABELS 00190 249793 MIDWEST TAPE 100.24 AV 93892386 249799 85.44 AV 93892387 249799 43.58 AV 93892388 249799 78.44 AV 93892389 249799 124.20 AV 93892420 249799 124.21 AV 93892421 249799 47.04 AV 93892422 249799 62.10 AV 93892423 249799 130.91 AV 93892424 249799 74.09 AV 93892425 249799 14.81 AV 93892426 249799 185.45 AV 93892427 249799 64.29 AV 93892428 249799 221.20 AV 93892429 249799 43.58 AV 93892430 249799 903.39 AV 93892467 249799 706.60 AV 93892895 249799 NEOPOST USA INC 10.20 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 RECORDED BOOKS,INC. 59.93 AV 75324010 249811 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 34 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 15 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT RECORDED BOOKS,INC. 38.14 AV 75324415 249811 65.38 AV 75324581 249811 43.59 AV 75324916 249811 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 32.15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8039110209/301295211 249826 30.18 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8039110209/301295213 249826 38.60 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8039110209/301295215 249826 120.34 OPERATING SUPPLIES 8039110209/301295216 249826 50.55 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8039110209/301295217 249826 26.87 OPERATING SUPPLIES 8039110209/301295218 249826 THE GALE GROUP,INC 24.12 BOOKS 57939408 249831 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 15.23 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 97.84 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 984.48 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 67.22 AE-MEETING AND PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS cc324373 249834 93.02 AE-MEETING AND PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS cc324373 249834 25.03 AE-PROMOTION cc324376 249834 4.33 AE-PROMOTION cc324376 249834 11.65 AE-OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES cc324377 249834 17.66 AE-OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES cc324377 249834 104.73 AE-OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES cc324377 249834 86.99 AE-OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES cc324377 249834 822.75 AE-HOTEL LODGING cc324379 249834 88.36 AE-REFRESHMENTS STAFF DEVELOPMENT cc324380 249834 79.95 AE-MOOV NOW cc324383 249834 8.00 AE-MOOV NOW cc324383 249834 7.62 KB-OFFICE SUPPLIES cc324399 249834 28.00 KB-LUNCH,MANDATORY SNACK WORKSHOP cc324401 249834 20.53 KB-READING CIRCLE/LEARNING WHEELS BOO cc324402 249834 35.77 KB-READING CIRCLE/LEARNING WHEELS BOO cc324402 249834 48.52 KB-READING CIRCLE/LEARNING WHEELS BOO cc324402 249834 48.19 KB-READING CIRCLE/LEARNING WHEELS BOO cc324402 249834 195.06 KB-READING CIRCLE/LEARNING WHEELS BOO cc324402 249834 20.67 KB-READING CIRCLE/LEARNING WHEELS BOO cc324402 249834 21.87 KB-READING CIRCLE/LEARNING WHEELS BOO cc324402 249834 32.16 KB-READING CIRCLE/LEARNING WHEELS BOO cc324402 249834 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 35 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 15 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 9.59 KB-READING CIRCLE/LEARNING WHEELS BOO cc324402 249834 14.79 KB-READING CIRCLE/LEARNING WHEELS BOO cc324402 249834 Payments Issued for LIBRARY DEPARTMENT $11,083.87 Dept 16 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT BMC SOFTWARE,INC 6,335.70 TRAK-IT AUDIT LICENSES&SUPPORT 1291299 249748 CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 39.58 SYMANTEC ESS.SUPPORT RENEWAL CPB0770 249761 NEOPOST USA INC 0.70 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 0.10 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 QUILL CORPORATION 107.57 OFFICE SUPPLIES-IT 5076175 249808 20.81 OPERATING SUPPLIES 5051661 249808 READYREFRESH 33.63 WATER&TANK RENTAL-IT 16D0023270820 249810 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 44.74 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 UTILITY TELEPHONE,INC 1,588.93 CITY INTERNET ACCESS&TRANSPORT 128202 249841 WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS,LLC 7,561.00 ANNUAL I-NET FIBER LEASE FEE 8136 75 251 0000017 249845 Payments Issued for INFORMATION $15,732.76 TECHNOL OG Y DEPARTMENT Dept 17 PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT DEVIL MOUNTAIN NURSERY 71.89 PARKS PLANTS 130221 249770 190.64 PARKS PLANTS 130222 249770 ELISIAESPINOZA 253.76 FIRST AIDE SUPPLIES/SUMMER CAMP 5/4/16 249773 FOOD SERVICE PARTNERS OF CA 2,281.50 APRIL SENIOR MEALS FOR MAGNOLIA SENIOR C SSF0138 249776 FRANK AND GROSSMAN 5,500.00 WEST PARK 1&2 MAINTENANCE 150347 249777 800.00 WEST PARK 1&2 MAINTENANCE 150347 249777 22,339.00 WEST PARK 1&2 MAINTENANCE 150347 249777 7,500.00 WEST PARK 1&2 MAINTENANCE 150347 249777 911.00 WEST PARK 1&2 MAINTENANCE 150347 249777 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS 4,946.97 COMMON CORE SUPPLIES/REAL PROGRAM 2249250416 249789 LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 277.69 ARBOR DAY SUPPLIES 902154 249792 NEOPOST USA INC 60.25 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 1.93 POSTAGE SUPPLIES NWDAR161685 249802 SAN FRANCISCO ZOOLOGICAL 1,560.00 ZOO FIELD TRIP/SUMMER CAMP 3/17/16 249817 SOUTH CITY LUMBERAND SUPPLY 183.63 MAINT.SUPPLIES FOR TREE CREW 886177 249821 20.79 PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 886186 249821 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 46.72 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 36 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 17 PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 12.39 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 170.30 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 493.10 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 1,283.81 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 17.00 KC-REFRESHMENTS FOR STAFF MEETING CC324232 249834 1,358.14 KC-CHILDCARE WRISTBANDS CC324240 249834 812.28 KC-CHAIRS-CHILDCARE CC324241 249834 71.39 KC-CHILDCARE OFFICE SUPPLIES CC324242 249834 56.85 KC-AFTERSCHOOLACTIVITYSUPPLIES CC324243 249834 968.00 KC-PONDEROSAAFTERSCHOOL LICENSING CC324244 249834 68.79 KC-SUMMERCAMPACTIVITYSUPPLIES CC324245 249834 14.67 KC-CHILDCARE SUPPLIES CC324246 249834 124.50 KC-SUMMERCAMPACTIVITYSUPPLIES CC324247 249834 35.88 KC-CHI LDCARE ACTIVITY SUPPLIES CC324248 249834 48.93 KC-SUMMERCAMPACTIVITYSUPPLIES CC324250 249834 134.68 KC-SUMMERCAMPACTIVITYSUPPLIES CC324252 249834 124.14 KC-SUMMERCAMPACTIVITYSUPPLIES CC324253 249834 (228.10) LA-RETURN OF CHAIRS-CHILDCARE CC324275 249834 (19.08) LA-RETURN OF CHAIRS-CHILDCARE CC324276 249834 (218.98) LA-RETURN OF CHAIRS-CHILDCARE CC324277 249834 209.75 LA-SUPPLIES FOR LITTLE STEP PRESCHOOL CC324278 249834 209.75 LA-SUPPLIES FOR LITTLE STEP PRESCHOOL CC324278 249834 684.28 LA-CHILDCARE-CHAIRS CC324279 249834 574.59 LA-CHAIRS-CHILDCARE PROGRAMS CC324280 249834 238.96 LA-CHAIRS-CHILDCARE PROGRAMS CC324382 249834 17.52 LA-LITTLE STEPS PROGRAM SUPPLIES CC324284 249834 17.52 LA-LITTLE STEPS PROGRAM SUPPLIES CC324284 249834 17.50 LA-CHILDCARE STAFF RENEWAL MEMBERSHIP CC324285 249834 17.50 LA-CHILDCARE STAFF RENEWAL MEMBERSHIP CC324285 249834 107.50 LA-RESOURCE AREA TRAINING-AFTERSCHOO CC324286 249834 111.47 LA-RESOURCE AREA/MEMBERSHIP REAL PROGR CC324290 249834 88.66 LA-RESOURCETEACHERAREAMEMBERSHIP- CC324291 249834 88.66 LA-RESOURCETEACHERAREAMEMBERSHIP- CC324291 249834 68.13 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES FOR PRESCHOOL CC324292 249834 68.14 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES FOR PRESCHOOL CC324292 249834 Printed on 05/12/2016 City of South San Francisco Page 37 of 37 Payment Listing for City Council Review Payments Issued between 4/28/2016 and 5/11/2016 05/11/2016 VENDOR NAME INVOICEAMOUNT INVOICE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# CHECK# Dept 17 PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 349.90 LA-CHILDCARE EQUIPMENT FOR NEW PROGRAM CC324295 249834 7.16 LA-CHILDCARE EQUIPMENT FOR NEW PROGRAM CC324295 249834 38.97 LA-CHILDCAREACTIVITYSUPPLIES CC324297 249834 38.97 LA-CHILDCAREACTIVITYSUPPLIES CC324297 249834 Payments Issued for PARKS&RECREATION $55,229.39 DEPARTMENT Dept 21 NON-DEPARTMENTAL STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 647.50 APRIL2016 USE TAX ACCRUAL 99-252901 249827 210.73 APRIL2016 USE TAX ACCRUAL 99-252901 249827 178.33 APRIL2016 USE TAX ACCRUAL 99-252901 249827 364.00 APRIL2016 USE TAX ACCRUAL 99-252901 249827 177.47 APRIL2016 USE TAX ACCRUAL 99-252901 249827 48.73 APRIL2016 USE TAX ACCRUAL 99-252901 249827 2.24 APRIL2016 USE TAX ACCRUAL 99-252901 249827 Payments Issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $1,629.00 Dept 27 NON-DEPARTMENTAL DELL MARKETING L P 756.30 DELL LAPTOP-RON C-PD XJX3TJ5T9 249768 PENINSULAYELLOW CAB 110.00 DOWNTOWN DASHERS 03/31/16 MAR312016 249807 REDWOOD EMPIRE ASC OF CODE OFF 375.00 SCARES GROUNDING&BONDING SEMINAR-MCN 051116 249813 U S BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 140.48 KB-STAFF PLANNING MEETING cc324397 249834 Payments Issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $1,381.78 Dept 99 CIP ANCHOR ENGINEERING,INC. 5,555.95 ON CALL CONSTRUCTION MANAGMENT SERVICES 2073 249740 THE SWENSON GROUP,INC. 111.53 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 111.53 CITYWIDE COPIERS&SUPPORT 178995 249832 Payments Issued for CIP $5,779.01 Payments Made on 511112016 $324,257.30 Total CITY PAYMENTS $1,923,562.88 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-413, Version: 1 Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of June 8, 2016. (Mike Futrell, City Manager). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, cancel the regular City Council meeting of June 8, 2016. CONCLUSION Cancellation of the June 8, 2016 City Council meeting will not result in an adverse effect on City business. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-460, Version: 1 Report regarding Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 122-86 and appointing directors to ABAG PLAN Corporation on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. (Richard Lee, Finance Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 122-86 and appoint directors to the Association of Bay Area Government Pooled Liability Assurance Network Corporation (ABAG PLAN) on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City of South San Francisco has been a charter member of ABAG PLAN Corporation since 1986. ABAG PLAN serves as the City's general liability risk pool, and provides risk mitigation training services. Resolution No 122-86 authorized the City Manager to serve as the City's appointee on the ABAG PLAN Board of Directors, and the Deputy City Manager as the alternate. Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached resolution to amend the staff designations above to reflect the current delegation of duties to the Director of Finance as the City's Risk Manager. CONCLUSION Adoption of the attached resolution will align the City's delegation of risk management duties to the Director of Finance with the City's representative authority in ABAG PLAN. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/19/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14 ' . .^ � . % RESOLUTION 122-86 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH'3AW FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA & RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A8AG PLAN T DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (the "City") is a municipal corpor- ation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of CalfOrO10 G�d" /th� "��at�«\ ~ ` ' WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Part 6 Of Division 3.6 of Title l, Section 990, et seq. , of the California Government Code (the "Act") to insure itself against tort or inverse condemnation liability, to insure its employees against injury resulting from an act or omission in the scope of his/her employment and to insure against the costs of defending such claims: and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 99b.4 of the Act the City is authorized to pro- vide insurance by Self-insurance which may be funded by appropriations and to establish or maintain reserves for such purposes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section ' 90.6 of the Act, the costs t0 the City of Such self-insurance is a proper charge against the City and therefore the governing board of the City is authorized to make premium payments for such coverage; and WHEREAS, pursuant t0 Section 990.8 of the Act, the City is empowered to pro- vide insurance coverage by a joint powers agreement with Other local public entities, and such pooling Of self-insured claims and the risk sharing of losses is not considered insurance and 1s not subject to regulation under the California Insurance COde^, and WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments /"A8AGo\ i8 d joint exercise Of powers agency Of which the City is a member; and WHEREAS, A&XG 1s authorized t0 exercise necessary powers t0 implement the purposes of ABAG as established by ABA8/G Executive Board; and -1- ~ ~ WHEREAS, A8AG has determined to assist the City, and other members of A8AG empowered to self-insure under the Act, /collectively the "Cities") to obtain self-insurance for liability risks; and WHEREAS, A8AG and the Cities have heretofore conclusively determined follow- ing exhaustive investigation that excess general liabilty insurance coverage is not available to the Cities from commercial insurers or from any other source at a price which is reasonably related to the expected incurred losses of such Cities' " and WHEREAS, A8A6 and the Cities have further determined, based upon the advice of independent professional insurance consultants familiar with the cyclical nature Of the reasonable availability of coverage in the commercial insurance market, that such coverage 1s not anticipated to become available util late in 1086 at the earliest, thereby in the interim exposing the Cities to self-insuring from available revenues on a year-by-year basis with the attendant risk of fiscal instability and ruinous burdens on its citizens in the event of large liability claims recoveries`" and ` WHEREAS, 8BAG and the Cities have further determined that the periodic un- willingness of the commercial insurance market to provide excess general liability insurance coverage to local governments at reasonable rates 0r, in certain cases as at present" at any rate mandates that the Cities seek not Only an immediate 'solution but also a long-term permanent solution to this problem which will in future years free them from exposure t0 the vagaries Of commercial insurance cycles; and WHEREAS, A8XG and the Cities, in consultation with independent professional insurance consultants, have formulated d 'Dint risk sharing insurance program to be administered by ABAG through the A@AG Plan I Corporation and called the A8AG Pooled Liability Assurance Network («ABAG PLAN l") t0 meet the general liability insurance coverage needs Of the Cities; and -2- . ~. - . WHEREAS, the City staff has submitted an application for premium quotation fr'OO 88AG for A@AG PLAN I , and the City warrants that the information contained and representations made there a�c true" Complete and accurate to the best of its knowledge; and WHEREAS, the City has further determined that the Total Premium to be paid in each year by the City as provided for and upon the conditions Set forth in the Liability Coverage Agreement (the "Agreement") which will be payable only upon the condition of the receipt of the consideration represented by the insurance protection and Services to be provided in such year under the Agree- ment, but in the event that such protection and services are so provided in any one year such Total Premium will be a binding obligation of the City payable from the income and revenue provided for such year; and WHEREAS, the City has further determined that the obtaining of the insurance ' protection and services provided for under the Agreement is essential in the preservation and fostering of the health, safety and property rights of the citizens of the City and the lack of availability of reasonable commercial general liability insurance to local governments generally in the State of California and to the Cities in particular constitutes a public emergency; and WHEREAS, it is a matter for the governing board of the City to determine the amount of premiums which such City shall pay for proper insurance coverage; and WHEREAS, the City has heretofore determined and does hereby confirm that the premiums to he required under the Agreement are reasonable and advantageous and to the public benefit of the Citizens Of such City; NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby: l. Authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute and deliver, On behalf Of the City, the Liability Risk Coverage Agreement for the A8AG PLAN I which shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "l^, minor technical revisions -3- ' and corrections excepted, and any other necessary supporting documentation to effect the City' s participation in ABAG PLAN I ; and 2. Appoints the City Manag4r to serve as the City' s appointee and the Deputy City Manager/CD&A as his alternate to the Board of Directors of the ABAG PLAN I Corporation, and to exercise the City' s vote in setting premiums, premium alloca- tions cancelling coverage, and admitting or expelling memebers to or from ABAG PLAN I; and 3. Elects commencement of coverage under ABAG PLAN I on a date between June 2, 1986 and July 1, 1986, inclusive, to wit July 1, 1986. 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 25th day of June 19 86 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego, Richard A. Haffey, Gus Nicolopulos; and Roberta Cerri Tegl ia NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman John "Jack" Drago STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO AT EST: /s/ Barbara A. Battaya 1, Barbara A. Battay,,C:f,,Clerk Of the city of South San Fran- City Clerk Cisco, Courts,of San Mateo, $-ate Of Caijo,nia, an ex-officio Clark of the C:-• Council the,eof, do hereby certify that the above and fore- going ie true arc correc'cop- 0, Resolution No. 121-86 On and that I have Carefully Cs;r C�jlaa Tla Sa�e tk',e 0, IN WITNESS WHEREOF I rave hereunto Set y hand and the seat of I uw ig the City of Sou th San Franc—G th�s- 27tbay of-J BARBARA A, BATTAYA C!,-,k and &-officio Clerk f the City Vr4a'of the city of South San F.anc:ScO By 14� City 0- DaPIAY City Clerk -4- P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,400 City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco,CA Legislation Text File #: 16-461, Version: 1 Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 122-86 and appointing directors to ABAG PLAN Corporation on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has been a charter member of ABAG PLAN Corporation since 1986; and WHEREAS, ABAG Plan Corporation is now providing the City with liability insurance, property insurance, and employee bonds; and WHEREAS, ABAG PLAN Corporation is a self-funded insurance pool serving public agencies; and WHEREAS, the operations of these programs are governed by a Board of Directors consisting of one representative from each member agency; and WHEREAS, since June 2, 1986, the City of South San Francisco designated representatives have been the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager; and WHEREAS, participation on the Board of Directors has been carried out by City Staff as part of its regular duties and does not result in any remuneration to the employee; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that the City Council revise the designees to ABAG PLAN Corporation Bylaws and the Memorandum of Coverage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco rescinds Resolution No. 122-86. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby designate the following individuals as appointees to the ABAG PLAN Board of Directors: Title Designation Director of Finance Director Assistant City Manager Voting Alternate Director BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these appointments shall be in accordance with ABAG PLAN Corporation Bylaws and the Memorandum of Coverage. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/8/2016 povvuiet by Le�,pit.ir'14