Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-09-09 e-packet@7:00
Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA TELECONFERENCE MEETING City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 9, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-25-20 AND N-29-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino and essential City staff will participate via Teleconference. PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY TELECONFERENCE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW A VIDEO BROADCAST OF THE MEETING BY: Internet: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27 Or via Zoom: Registration is required: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_54EOfhgkQYu36uVGUXtvzg After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the Zoom meeting follow the instructions listed under Remote Public Comments. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020 September 9, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 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. 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. RICHARD A. GARBARINO, Mayor MARK ADDIEGO, Vice Mayor MARK NAGALES, Councilmember BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Councilmember KARYL MATSUMOTO, Councilmember ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer MIKE FUTRELL, City Manager SKY WOODRUFF, City Attorney 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. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020 September 9, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PRESENTATIONS Presentation of a proclamation recognizing September 15 - October 15 as National Hispanic Heritage Month in South San Francisco. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor) 1. REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS Remote Public Comments Received2. Members of the public may address the City Council regarding items that are on the agenda or on items that are not on the agenda. The Public Comments portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter NOT on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, speaking time may be reduced subject to the Mayor’s discretion to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).). Comments that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum may be summarized for the record if they are in writing or muted if they are made live. Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting to e-mail: all-cc@ssf.net by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received by the deadline will be forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Emails received after 4:00 p.m. will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020 September 9, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda •If you are commenting on a particular item on the agenda, please identify the agenda item in the subject line of your email. •If you are commenting on an item not listed on the agenda, please identify your comment as a General Public Comment in the subject line of your email. State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred to staff for follow up. Oral Comments: Speakers are asked to register in advance via the Zoom platform, meeting information listed on the agenda. You will be asked to enter a name, an email address, and the Agenda item about which you wish to speak or to state that you wish to provide a comment about an item that is not on the agenda. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. When the City Clerk announces the item on which you wish to speak, including general public comments, your name will be called and you will be unmuted. No more than three minutes will be allocated to read each email comment, and oral comments will also be limited to no more than three minutes. Approximately 300 words total can be read in three minutes. COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of July 22, 2020.3. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,000 in grant funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) to support the South San Francisco Public Library’s 2020 Voter Education project and approving Budget Amendment 21.008. (Adam Elsholz, Assistant Library Director) 4. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,000 in grant funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to support the South San Francisco Public Library’s 2020 Voter Education project and approving Budget Amendment 21.008. 4a. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $5,146 in funding from San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division to support a 30-Day Early Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 3, 2020 Presidential General Election and approving Budget Amendment 21.010. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director) 5. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $5,146 in funding from San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division to support a 30-Day Early Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 3, 2020 Presidential General Election and approving Budget Amendment 21.010. 5a. Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020 September 9, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $22,500 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support the City of South San Francisco’s Census 2020 outreach and canvassing in hard-to-reach neighborhoods and approving Budget Amendment 21.009. (Kathy Blandón Escobar, Census 2020 Program Manager) 6. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $22,500 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support the City of South San Francisco’s Census 2020 outreach and canvassing in hard-to-reach neighborhoods and approving Budget Amendment 21.009. 6a. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the appointment of Deputy City Treasurer(s). (Frank Risso, City Treasurer and Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) 7. Resolution authorizing the appointment of Deputy City Treasurer(s).7a. PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding consideration of a Use Permit Modification, Design Review Modification, Development Agreement Amendment and Addendum to the 2012 Environmental Impact Report to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of a previously entitled project at 475 Eccles Avenue to construct two new five-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 square feet, and a five-level parking structure on a 6.1 acre site and to expand the area of property covered by the entitlements to include the adjacent rail spurs. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner) 8. Resolution making findings and determining that the Gateway of Pacific Phase 5 Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2012 Environmental Impact Report and that the 2020 Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. 8a. Ordinance adopting a First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA20-0002) between the City of South San Francisco and BMR Gateway of Pacific V LP for a Research and Development and Office Project at 475 Eccles Avenue. 8b. Resolution approving a Use Permit Modification (UPM20-0001) and Design Review Modification (DR20-0012) for the development of GOP Phase 5 / 475 Eccles Avenue in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District, subject to the Draft Conditions of Approval. 8c. Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020 September 9, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding an Ordinance approving the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project between the City of South San Francisco and BMR Gateway of Pacific I LP, BMR Gateway of Pacific II LP, BMR Gateway of Pacific III LP, and BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP to make minor modifications to the previously approved Development Agreement, and determining that the certified 2009 Environmental Impact Report continues to serve as the environmental document and there are no changes in circumstances that would require additional environmental review. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner) 9. Ordinance adopting a Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA20-0003) between the City of South San Francisco and between BMR Gateway of Pacific I LP, BMR Gateway of Pacific II LP, BMR Gateway of Pacific III LP, and BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project to make minor modifications. 9a. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services contract with Traffop Corp of Scottsdale, Arizona to procure an automated traffic signal performance measures (ATSPM) system for the East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) in an amount not to exceed $278,410. (Bianca Liu, Senior Engineer) 10. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services contract with Traffop Corp of Scottsdale, Arizona to procure an automated traffic signal performance measures (ATSPM) system for the East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) in an amount not to exceed $278,410. 10a. Report regarding an ordinance amending Section 4.04.040 of Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to permit utilization of cooperative purchasing processes between public agencies for public works projects (Eunejune Kim, Public Works Director) 11. Ordinance amending Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to Purchasing Procedures to permit utilization of cooperative purchasing processes between public agencies for public works projects. 11a. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-608 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. Presentation of a proclamation recognizing September 15 - October 15 as National Hispanic Heritage Month in South San Francisco. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/3/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ RECOGNITION OF SEPTEMBER 15 – OCTOBER 15 AS NATIONAL HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH September 9, 2020 WHEREAS, National Hispanic and Latino Heritage Month celebrates the Hispanic and Latino community and highlights its countless achievements; and WHEREAS, many Latino Americans trace their roots to the cultures of the indigenous peoples of the Americas – including the Arawaks, the Aztecs, the Incas, the Maya, and the Tainos, some trace their roots to the Spanish explorers, or to the Africans who were brought as slaves to the New World; and WHEREAS, National Hispanic Heritage Month had its origins when the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 90-498 on September 17, 1968, which authorized and requested the President of the United States to issue an annual proclamation designating the week, including September 15 and 16, as National Hispanic Heritage Week; and WHEREAS, with the U.S. Congress directing that this week should include September 15 and 16, this law celebrated Hispanic Americans and the anniversaries of independence for the five Latin American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, as well as Mexico’s independence on September 16; and WHEREAS, in 1988, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 100-402, which amended Public Law 90-498 and established National Hispanic Heritage Month, and the U.S. President was again authorized and requested to issue an annual proclamation designating the “31-day period beginning September 15 and ending on October 15” as National Hispanic Heritage Month; and WHEREAS, Hispanic and Latino Americans represent a significant and fast growing demographic of the City of South San Francisco, we honor the invaluable ways they contribute to our great city; and WHEREAS, today nearly 52 million people or 16.7 percent of Americans are of Hispanic or Latino origin and another 3.1 million are residents of Puerto Rico; in South San Francisco, nearly 33.7 percent of the population of 67,789 is of Hispanic origin. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Richard Garbarino and the City Council of South San Francisco do hereby proclaim September 15 – October 15 as National Hispanic Heritage Month in South San Francisco and encourage all residents and visitors alike to join us in celebrating this special month. City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-621 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. Remote Public Comments Received City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-607 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of July 22, 2020. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-613 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:4. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,000 in grant funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF)to support the South San Francisco Public Library’s 2020 Voter Education project and approving Budget Amendment 21.008.(Adam Elsholz, Assistant Library Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,000 in grant funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF)to support the South San Francisco Public Library’s 2020 Voter Education project and approving Budget Amendment 21.008. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION South San Francisco Public Library has been awarded $8,000 in grant funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF)to support programs and outreach campaigns to educate residents about how to vote safely in the upcoming November 2020 Presidential General Election.Through this special grant opportunity,the Library will educate voters by distributing information through our curbside pick-up service, virtual programs,social media,and community events.A main focus of the education campaign is to provide voters with safe voting options,including vote-by-mail and visiting the 30-Day Early Vote Center at the Main Library,or 4-Day Vote Centers at the Joseph A.Fernekes Recreation Building and the South San Francisco Conference Center.The Library will partner with South San Francisco City Departments,the League of Women Voters,Peninsula People Power,San Mateo County Registration &Elections Division,and local schools and organizations to promote voter education. FISCAL IMPACT Grant funds will be used to amend the Library Department’s current Fiscal Year (FY)2020-2021 Operating Budget via Budget Amendment 21.008. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Acceptance of this grant will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #6:Community Connections, by providing outreach and programs to engage voters. CONCLUSION Receipt of these funds will enable the Library to support programs and outreach campaigns for the November 2020 Presidential General Election.It is recommended City Council accept $8,000 in grant funding to support the Voter Education project and approve Budget Amendment 21.008. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-614 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:4a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,000 in grant funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to support the South San Francisco Public Library’s 2020 Voter Education project and approving Budget Amendment 21.008. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)Library Department’s Five Year Strategic Plan includes a goal of creating community connections; and WHEREAS,the Silicon Valley Community Foundation has awarded the City $8,000 in grant funding to support outreach campaigns and programs for the 2020 Voter Education project; and WHEREAS,funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation will help support programs and outreach campaigns to educate residents about how to vote safely in the November 2020 Presidential General Election; and WHEREAS,the Library will partner with the South San Francisco City Departments,League of Women Voters,Peninsula People Power,San Mateo County Registration &Election Division and local schools and organizations to promote voter education; and WHEREAS,City Council wishes to accept grant funding in the amount of $8,000 from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to support the South San Francisco Public Library’s 2020 Voter Engagement project outreach and programming; and WHEREAS,the grant funds will be used to amend Fiscal Year (FY)2020-2021 Operating Budget of the Library Department via Budget Amendment 21.008. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby accept $8,000 in grant funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation and approve Budget Amendment 21.008 to amend the Library Department’s FY 2020-2021 Operating Budget in order to reflect an increase of $8,000. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-615 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:5. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $5,146 in funding from San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division to support a 30-Day Early Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 3,2020 Presidential General Election and approving Budget Amendment 21.010.(Valerie Sommer, Library Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $5,146 in funding from San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division (SMCo)to support a 30-Day Early Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 3,2020 Presidential General Election and approving Budget Amendment 21.010. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION South San Francisco Main Library will serve as a 30-Day Early Vote Center for the upcoming November 3, 2020 Presidential General Election.Although San Mateo County has gone to an all-mailed ballot election,vote centers are still needed to assist those residents with ballot issues or to complete the voting process.Traditional polling places have been replaced by Vote Centers,which are open for voting for an extended period,and which offer expanded voter services,including voter registration,multilingual assistance,and disabled access voting options.This will be the fifth election for which the Library has provided early vote services. Anticipated voter participation during this next election is high and the establishment of accessible Early Vote Centers is an important factor in securing a successful voter turnout.Funding will target library staff facility support, Peninsula Library System Network setup costs, and copy supplies. FISCAL IMPACT Funds received from SMCo for FY 2020-2021 will be used to amend the Library Department’s current FY 2020-2021 Operating Budget per Budget Amendment 21.010.Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Acceptance of this funding will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #6:Community Connections, by providing a local vote site as an option to the mail-in ballot. CONCLUSION Receipt of these funds will support the 30-Day Early Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 3,2020 Presidential General Election.It is recommended that the City Council accept $5,146 in funding from SMCo and approve Budget Amendment 21.010. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-616 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:5a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $5,146 in funding from San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division to support a 30-Day Early Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 3,2020 Presidential General Election and approving Budget Amendment 21.010. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)Library Department’s Five Year Strategic Plan includes a goal of creating community connections; and WHEREAS,the South San Francisco Main Library will serve as a 30-Day Early Vote Center for the upcoming November 3, 2020 Presidential General Election; and WHEREAS,the San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division has awarded the City $5,146 in funding to support the 30-Day Early Vote Center at the South San Francisco Main Library; and WHEREAS,the Vote Center will be available to assist residents with ballot issues and will provide expanded voter services, including voter registration, multilingual assistance, and disabled access to voting options; and WHEREAS,this will be the fifth election for which the Library has provided early voter services to help encourage a successful voter turnout; and WHEREAS,City Council wishes to accept funding in the amount of $5,146 from the San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division to support a 30-Day Early Vote Center; and WHEREAS,funds will be used to amend Fiscal Year (FY)2020-2021 Operating Budget of the Library Department via Budget Amendment 21.010. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby accept $5,146 in funding from the San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division and approve Budget Amendment 21.010 to amend the Library Department’s FY 2020-2021 Operating Budget in order to reflect an increase of $5,146. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-617 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:6. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $22,500 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support the City of South San Francisco’s Census 2020 outreach and canvassing in hard-to-reach neighborhoods and approving Budget Amendment 21.009.(Kathy Blandón Escobar,Census 2020 Program Manager) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $22,500 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support the City of South San Francisco’s Census 2020 outreach and canvassing to ensure a fair,accurate,and complete count of the South San Francisco population and approving Budget Amendment 21.009. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The deadline to fill out the U.S.Census questionnaire has been moved up by four weeks to September 30, 2020.Due to COVID-19,on April 13,2020,The Census Bureau delayed its field operations until July 31,2020 and extended the self-response deadline to October 31.This would have given the Census Bureau until April 30,2021 to process the data for congressional reapportionment.However,on August 3,2020,the U.S.Census Bureau announced the self-response deadline has been shortened to September 30,2020,maintaining the Bureau’s statutory deadline of December 31,2020 for congressional apportionment and maintaining the March 31,2021 deadline for redistricting of legislative and congressional seats.This recent scaling back of the submittal deadline greatly interferes with the goal of getting a fair and accurate census count.In addition,the Census Bureau has not been able to hire,train and deploy canvassers and enumerators needed to reach out to and assist Hard to Reach/Least Likely to Respond residents.In response,San Mateo County is providing a $22,500 grant to enable canvassing to community members who have not yet submitted a census questionnaire, with a special focus on the low response census tracts of 6022 and 6023. Funding will be used to deploy bilingual Census Outreach Teams in easily-recognizable vests in these two areas,offering on-the-spot submittal via iPads.The team will also distribute 2 free masks per family as they walk the neighborhoods and reach out to residents.A successful census relies on everyone’s participation and will help benefit the community by providing the basis for reapportioning congressional seats,redistricting,and distributing federal funds annually to support states,counties,and communities’vital programs -housing, education, transportation, employment, health care and public policy. FISCAL IMPACT Grant funds will be used to amend the Library Department’s current Fiscal Year (FY)2020-2021 Operating Budget via Budget Amendment 21.009. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Acceptance of this grant will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #6:Community Connections, by developing an outreach plan for Census 2020. CONCLUSION Receipt of these funds will enable the City to engage Hard to Reach/Least Likely to Respond populations City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-617 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:6. Receipt of these funds will enable the City to engage Hard to Reach/Least Likely to Respond populations through the Census 2020 project.It is recommended that the City Council accept $22,500 in grant funding to support the City of South San Francisco’s Census 2020 outreach and education campaign and approve Budget Amendment 21.009. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Tract 6022.021,0 03 Addresses Sources: Esri, HERE , Garmin, USGS, Interm ap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, E sri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Tract 60231,1 96 Addresses Sources: Esri, HERE , Garmin, USGS, Interm ap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, E sri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-618 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:6a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $22,500 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support the City of South San Francisco’s Census 2020 outreach and canvassing in hard-to-reach neighborhoods and approving Budget Amendment 21.009. WHEREAS,Census Bureau is required by Article I,Section 2 of the U.S.Constitution to conduct an accurate count of the population every ten years; and WHEREAS,an accurate census will help benefit the community by providing the basis for reapportioning congressional seats,redistricting,and distributing federal funds annually to support states,counties and communities’vital programs,such as housing,education,transportation,employment,health care and public policy; and WHEREAS the deadline to fill out the U.S.Census questionnaire has been moved up by four weeks to September 30, 2020; and WHEREAS,the County of San Mateo is providing $22,500 in grant funding to enable canvassing to community members who have not yet submitted a census questionnaire,with a special focus on the low response census tracts of 6022 and 6023; and WHEREAS,it is more important than ever that local government support outreach and educational efforts to ensure our communities participate in the final weeks of Census 2020. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby accept $22,500 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support the City of South San Francisco’s Census 2020 outreach and canvassing in hard-to-reach neighborhoods and approving Budget Amendment 21.009. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-626 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:7. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the appointment of Deputy City Treasurer(s).(Frank Risso,City Treasurer and Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the appointment of Deputy City Treasurer(s). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On February 12,2014,the City Council of South San Francisco adopted Resolution No.11-2014 authorizing the appointment of a new Deputy City Treasurer and confirming the existing Deputy Treasurer.Those Deputy City Treasurers named in the resolution no longer work at the City. The adoption of this resolution by City Council would ensure the continuity of the City’s Treasury operations, which includes cash and investment management functions.This resolution would tie the appointment of Deputy Treasurers to positions versus individuals,which would allow staff to streamline the administrative process of carrying out essential liquidity and investment transactions. In approving this resolution,the City’s Director of Finance,would be a Deputy Treasurer.Moreover,this resolution would allow the appointment of any additional Deputy Treasurers to be handled administratively between the Director of Finance and the elected Treasurer going forward. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact related to the adoption of this resolution. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The adoption of this resolution would support the Financial Stability goal of the City’s Strategic Plan. CONCLUSION Approval of the attached resolution will confirm the City’s Deputy Treasurer and streamline the process of appointing Deputy Treasurer(s) going forward. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ RESOLUTION NO. 11 -2014 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CITY TREASURERS WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ( "City ") has an elected City Treasurer whose election has been certified by the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Treasurer is an elected position, and that position has the authority to appoint Deputy Treasurers at his or her discretion; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City and prudent to have additional Deputy Treasurers available to assist the Treasurer in the event the City Treasurer is not available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby confirms and certifies the City Treasurer's appointments for: Jim Steele, City Finance Director and Deputy Treasurer; Richard Lee, Financial Services Manager and Deputy Treasurer BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the Deputy Treasurers are authorized to carry out investment transactions on behalf of the City, which includes, but is not limited to the authority to deposit and withdraw funds of the City of South San Francisco monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) in the State Treasury in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Manager and Finance Director are hereby authorized to execute forms and agreements to carry out the intent of this Resolution, including, but not limited to forms and agreements with the City's banking and investment institutions in order to add the Deputy Treasurers as authorized signatories to banking and investment arrangements. Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: September 9, 2020, Reg CC Item: 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of February, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mark N Addiego Pradeo Gupta and Liza Normandy Vice Mayor Richard A Garbarino and Mayor Karyl Matsumoto NOES: None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: N ATTEST: Anna Brown, Deputy City Clerk City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-627 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:7a. Resolution authorizing the appointment of Deputy City Treasurer(s). WHEREAS, the City has an elected City Treasurer whose election has been certified by the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Treasurer is an elected position; and WHEREAS,it is in the best interest of the City to appoint Deputy Treasurers for the management of day-to-day financial operations of the City; and WHEREAS,the Deputy Treasurers appointed by Council per Resolution No.11-2014 no longer work for the City. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby confirm and certifies that the City’s Director of Finance is also the Deputy Treasurer.In the event that the title of the position of Director of Finance is changed in the future,the position shall continue to be the Deputy Treasurer regardless of the title change. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby confirms and certifies that the City’s Director of Finance,with written approval from the City Treasurer,can appoint additional Deputy Treasurers as necessary without further confirmation by the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appointment of additional Deputy Treasurers of the City by the Finance Director shall be limited to the following position classifications:Deputy Finance Director and Financial Services Manager.In the event that the titles of those positions are changed in the future,the positions shall continue to be eligible to be appointed as Deputy Treasurers regardless of the title changes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that Deputy Treasurers are authorized to carry out investment transactions on behalf of the City,which includes,but is not limited to the authority to deposit and withdraw funds of the City of South San Francisco monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)in the State Treasury in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Manager and Director of Finance are hereby authorized to execute forms and agreements to carry out the intent of this Resolution,including,but not limited to forms and agreements with the City’s banking and investment institutions in order to add the Deputy Treasurers as authorized signatories to banking and investment agreements. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-627 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:7a. City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-526 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. Report regarding consideration of a Use Permit Modification,Design Review Modification,Development Agreement Amendment and Addendum to the 2012 Environmental Impact Report to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of a previously entitled project at 475 Eccles Avenue to construct two new five-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 square feet,and a five-level parking structure on a 6.1 acre site and to expand the area of property covered by the entitlements to include the adjacent rail spurs.(Billy Gross,Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing,follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and take the following actions: 1.Adopt a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council make a determination that the Gateway of Pacific Phase 5 Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2012 Environmental Impact Report and that the 2020 Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164; 2.Introduce an Ordinance approving the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement between BMR Gateway of Pacific V LP and the City; and, 3.Adopt a Resolution approving the Use Permit and Design Review Modifications to the previously entitled project. BACKGROUND 475 Eccles Entitlement Overview In July 2016,the City Council approved a Use Permit,Development Agreement (DA),Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Plan,Design Review,Alternative Landscape Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)to construct two new office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 square feet,a four-level parking structure,and other on-and off-site improvements on a 6.1 acre site.As approved,the two office/R&D buildings and the parking structure would be situated near the perimeter of the site,framing a plaza and open space in the center of the site.All three buildings would be consistent in character,with simple geometry,maintaining a unified campus character.The entitled project plans are attached to this staff report (Attachment 1). PROJECT DESCRIPTION/DISCUSSION The 475 Eccles project is located to the southeast of the Gateway of Pacific Business Park (GOP)Campus, separated by a former rail parcel located between the two project sites.Subsequent to the 2016 entitlements,theCity of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 1 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-526 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. separated by a former rail parcel located between the two project sites.Subsequent to the 2016 entitlements,the applicant,BioMed Realty (BMR),acquired the rail spurs,which allows the 475 Eccles site to be directly connected to the GOP Campus.Based on this,BMR has submitted an application to effectively make the 475 Eccles project the fifth phase of the GOP Campus,and throughout this staff report the project will be referred to as GOP 5.While not included in the GOP Master Plan,the intent is that GOP 5 will feel like part of the overall campus.The revised building architecture will be in keeping with the rest of the GOP Campus,and the rail spurs parcel will include a pedestrian link between GOP 5 and the rest of the campus,as well as a public bicycle/pedestrian trail that will link through the campus to Forbes Blvd and Oyster Point Blvd.The applicant has prepared a “GOP 4 and 5 Project Description”memo that provides a broader overview of how the projects are related to one another (Attachment 2 to this staff report). Proposed Design Review Modifications No changes are proposed to the overall scope of the project;the total square footage of buildings and number of parking spaces will remain exactly as entitled in 2016.The primary modifications to the project are related to the architecture and site planning,allowing GOP 5 to share the campus appearance and site improvements of the larger GOP Campus.The building envelopes will consist of high-quality curtain-wall systems with energy efficient glazing and accents of terra cotta,wood and concrete.Installation of the pedestrian amenities in the former rail spurs portion of the site will enable completion of the continuous pedestrian pathway that runs through the entire GOP Campus,joining all of the Phase 1-5 buildings together.The GOP 5 site planning will also include a mixture of social spaces, amenity areas and featured landscaping to encourage pedestrian use. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant’s request for a First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DA)seeks only minor modifications to the DA. The modifications include: ·Update to the Project Description to reflect the revised project. ·Extend the expiration date from 2028 to 2030.(The applicant is also proposing to extend the Development Agreement for the GOP Phase 1-4 Campus to 2030 by a separate amendment.That entitlement is being considered separately by the City Council.) ·Expand the area of property covered by the DA to include the rail spurs property. ·Clarify that the allowable Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 for the Project’s building area does not include the rail spurs property. ·Require a public access easement for the trail improvements proposed on the rail spurs property. The proposed First Amended and Restated DA is included as Attachment 1 to the accompanying City Council Ordinance approving the amended development agreement. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The Project site is located in the Business and Technology Park land use category and zoning district,and is part of the “East of 101” Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 2 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-526 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan as it has been designed to promote campus-style uses,such as biotechnology,high-technology and research and development uses.The site layout and overall architecture would help shape the urban character of the East of 101 Area.The Use Permit Modification,Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment will not result in any substantive changes,and the overall project will remain consistent with the intent and purpose of the General Plan land use designation and comply with all development standards of the Zoning Ordinance. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD On April 21,2020 the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed modifications to the plan.The Board recommended approval of the building redesign,but had general comments related to the GOP 5 Campus and the Rail Spurs portion of the project: GOP 5 Campus 1.Prior to the issuance of building permits, provide accessibility plans from the parking garage to the buildings and public right-of-way. 2.Provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures prior to the issuance of building permits. 3.Revise the proposed planting plan to include tree species that scale to the height of the buildings. 4.Consider the following additional revisions to the planting plan: a.The tree species in zone 2 are not sufficient to create any affective wind mitigation. b.Alder, Birch and Pear are especially subject to wind damage. c.Trees to consider: Monterey Cypress (planted in loamy sand), Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Norfolk Island Pine, Eucalyptus - if the soil is not changed. d.Westringia fruiticosa may not survive a frost. e.Ceanothus “Yankee Point” is not a long lived species, consider Ceanothus “Anchor Bay”. f.Muhlenbergia Rigens does poorly in the cold windy SSF climate. Muhlenbergia Capillaris is very successful, as well as the other clump grasses. g.Cistus X Hibridus is often short lived and requires fast draining sandy soil to survive. 5.Provide details regarding the proposed depths of the topsoil and clean subsoil in the landscape areas. The success of proposed trees will depend on deep low clay soils, best is loamy sand with less than 10% clay. 6.Consider revising the connection between the promenade and Eccles Ave to make it more prominent and visible from Eccles. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 3 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-526 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. Rail Spurs 1.Revise the Park Street frontage to include a sidewalk along the southern side to connect the accessible paths. 2.Provide a detail on the proposed cantilever ramp materials and finishes. 3.Revise the plans to show a consistent trail width, either 12 ft. or 14 ft. 4.Revise the landscape plans to indicate the plant species on the slopes, the planting areas and irrigation. 5.Revise the landscape plan to show the root spaces for the proposed trees in relation to the retaining wall foundations and footing widths. 6.Consider how wind will affect the design and indicate any proposed mitigation measures. 7.Provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures prior to the issuance of building permits. Draft condition of approval A-2 requires that the applicant incorporate the DRB’s recommendations prior to the issuance of building permits. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)in 2012.The DEIR was circulated on October 31,2012 for a forty-five day review period.A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 6,2012 to receive comments from the public on the DEIR.The City Council certified the 2012 EIR (State Clearinghouse number 2012082101)on July 27,2016.The EIR included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program along with a Statement of Overriding Consideration.The 2012 EIR is attached as Exhibit A to the accompanying CEQA resolution. For the proposed GOP 5 project,an addendum to the 2012 EIR was prepared (2020 Addendum)in accordance with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 to evaluate whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required.The 2020 Addendum concludes that the implementation of GOP 5,including the rail spurs,will not cause significant impacts,that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the 2012 EIR that was previously certified,and that no significant information has come to light since the EIR was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts. The 2020 Addendum further concludes that the Project does not represent a substantial change to the 2012 EIR and that the Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis as described in the 2012 EIR.The City has reviewed the 2020 Addendum and supplemental analysis (Exhibit B to the CEQA resolution)and has determined that the Project is consistent with previously adopted environmental documents and that no further environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission reviewed the revised project at their meeting on August 6,2020.No members of the public spoke on the project.The Commission was supportive of the design modifications and connection to the larger Gateway of Pacific campus.The Commission had general questions related to the impact of the pandemic on future plans.The Commission recommended by a vote of 7-0 that the City Council approve the entitlements,make the requested CEQA determination,and approve the First Amended and Restated City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 4 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-526 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. Development Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT The developer of the project has funded the preparation of all applicable studies for the project and paid entitlement fees to process the application through the review process.Direct revenue associated with this project would include property tax revenue increase from the improvements and construction of an office/R&D campus.The project would pay the costs of meeting City requirements for off-site improvements to the public right-of-way, so the City does not expect to incur project specific costs. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The proposed project helps to achieve the following goal/objective of the City’s Strategic Plan: ·Initiative 2.4 -Promote a full range of employment options through business retention and development projects. The new biotech campus will expand an existing campus,adding additional employment opportunities and quality jobs for the City. ·Initiative 3.1 - Pursue financial stability to support City operations. The new biotech campus would buildout underutilized parcels and provide a substantial increase in property tax revenue, furthering the City’s goal of financial stability contained in the Strategic Plan. CONCLUSION The Use Permit and Design Review Modifications and Development Agreement Amendment is in keeping with the previously approved 475 Eccles Ave project entitlements,and will allow the project to be incorporated into the larger GOP Campus setting,continuing the transformation of this previously underutilized site to a high density state-of-the-art Office/R&D campus in keeping with the vision of the General Plan,East of 101 Area Plan and Business &Technology Park Zoning District.There are no new or increased environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed modifications,and thus,an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project and no further environmental review is necessary. Based on the information contained in the public record,it is recommended that the City Council make a determination that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the project,introduce the attached ordinance approving the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement,and approve a resolution making findings and approving the project entitlements. ATTACHMENTS 1.475 Eccles Ave Approved Drawings 2.Gateway of Pacific Phases 4 and 5 Project Description, dated July 21, 2020 3.Design Review Board Minutes - April 21, 2020 4.Original Development Agreement 5.Planning Commission Resolutions: a.CEQA Resolution 2860-2020 (without exhibits) City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 5 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-526 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. b.Entitlements Resolution 2861-2020 (without exhibits) 6.Power Point Presentation ASSOCIATIONS 1.Draft CEQA Resolution (20-527) A.Exhibit A - 2012 DEIR and FEIR B.Exhibit B - 2020 Addendum 2.Draft Development Agreement Amendment Ordinance (20-528) A.Exhibit A - First Amended and Restated Development Agreement 3.Draft Entitlements Resolution (20-529) A.Exhibit A1 - Revised Project Draft Conditions of Approval B.Exhibit A2 - 2016 Adopted Conditions of Approval C.Exhibit B - GOP 5 / 475 Eccles Revised Project Plans City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 6 of 6 powered by Legistar™ G A T E W A Y E X E C U TIV E D R.101AIRPORT BOULEVARD DUBUQUE AVENUELINDENAVENUEAVENUEEASTGRANDPROJECT SITEB O U L E V A R D E C C L E S A V E.FORBESBLVD.OYSTER POINT BVLDSHEET INDEXP-A1.1SITE PLAN AND SITE DATALOCATIONP-A2.2P-A3.1 BUILDING A ELEVATIONSP-A3.2 BUILDING B ELEVATIONSP-A4.1 BUILDING A SECTIONSP-A4.2 BUILDING B SECTIONSP-A1.2 SITE SECTIONSBUILDING B FLOOR PLANSSITE PLAN, ROOF PLAN AND SITE CALCULATIONSP-A1.0BUILDING A FLOOR PLANSP-A2.1PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANPRELIMINARY PLANTING PLANP-C2P-L1.0BUILDING SECTIONSSECOND, TYPICAL AND FIFTH LEVEL PARKING PLANSGROUND LEVEL PARKING PLANP-P3.1P-P2.2P-P2.1P-P3.2 BUILDING ELEVATIONSP-E1.1 SITE PLAN PHOTOMETRICSTORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANP-C3925.245.8788E-mail: sreynolds@kierwright.comContact: Stephen Reynolds925.245.8796 faxKier & WrightLivermore, CA 945512850 Collier Canyon Roadcivil engineerBioMed Realty TrustNewark, CA 94560650.967.6600E-mail: jose@casarch.com650.967.6616 faxE-mail: andrew.richard@biomedrealty.comContact: Andrew RichardMountain View, CA 940431023 Shoreline BoulevardCAS Architects, Inc.architect510.795.2985 fax510.505.60467677 Gateway Blvd, Suite 100DESIGN TEAMowner408.481.9020E-mail: paul@rala.netContact: Paul J. Reed408.481.9022 faxSunnyvale, CA 94086477 S. Taaffe StreetReed Associateslandscape architectE-mail: vish.ponnathpore@greene-engineers.comPM Greene EngineersSan Jose, CA 95110Contact: Vish Ponnathpore1740 Technology Drive, Suite 210408.200.7201 fax408.200.7200lighting engineerREFERENCE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONSEXISTING SITE PHOTOSP-A0.2P-A0.1100 Century Center Court, Suite 600E-mail: mdavis@watrydesign.comWatry Design, Inc.Contact: Matt Davis408 392-7900San Jose, CA 95112parking architect/plannerRinne & Peterson1121 San Antonio Road, Suite C200E-mail: aaronkvamme@rpse.comPalo Alto, CA 94303-4311Contact: Aaron Kvamme650.428.2861 fax650.428.2860structural engineerP-A4.3 GLASS SKIN STUDYLIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLESPLANNING PACKAGE475 Eccles AvenueSouth San Francisco, CA 94080Contact: José CottoNEXISTING CONDITIONSP-C1CAS JOB NO: 2011-073 DATE: 11.15.11PRELIMINARY COURTYARD PLANTING PLANP-L1.1PLANNING RESUBMITTAL: 05.24.12PROPOSED TREE DIMENSION PLANP-L1.2P-A1.3SITE PLAN, PHASE 1LANDSCAPE HYDRO-ZONE PLANP-L2.0TREE SHADING PLANP-L1.3PLANNING COMMISSION: 11.26.12P-A1.1A ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURESPLANNING RESUBMITTAL: 09.19.14 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDOHOHOHOHOHOHOH OH OH OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHSD CDABEXISTING SITE CONDITIONS1"=30'-0"1"=30'-0"REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALASITE PHOTO VIEW DIRECTION.SEE SHEET P-A0.2LEGENDREFERENCEEXISTING SITECONDITIONSP-A0.1NOTE: SUPERSEDED BY ISSUED DEMOLITION PERMIT BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE PHOTO A - LOOKING SOUTHSITE PHOTO B - LOOKING NORTH-EASTSITE PHOTO C - LOOKING NORTHSITE PHOTO D - LOOKING NORTHEXISTING SITEPHOTOS P-A0.2NOTE: SUPERSEDED BY ISSUED DEMOLITION PERMIT BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO NOTE: SUPERSEDED BY ISSUED DEMOLITION PERMIT BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Area IDTotal Area (AC)Total Area (SF)Pervious (SF)Impervious (SF)Minimum Swale* (SF)Number of Trees** (Each)Design Swale*** (SF)1 0.35 15246 3257 11989 480 0 5402 0.65 28314 11326 16988 680 0 7643 0.77 33541 5403 28138 1126 0 126645 0.62 27007 6089 20918 837 8 11016 0.99 43124 6990 36134 1445 8 17867 0.09 3920 1683 2237 89 0 1018 0.16 6970 2920 4050 162 0 1829 0.14 6098 3401 2697 108 0 12110 0.37 16117 3073 13044 522 0 58711 0.11 4792 1330 3462 138 0 15612 0.10 4356 125 423113 0.11 4792 1763 3029 121 2 17614 0.39 16988 3437 13551 542 2 65015 0.27 11761 2617 9144 366 0 41116 0.09 3920 2484 1436 57 0 6517 0.11 4792 323 446918a+18b 0.26 11326 2079 9247 370 4 49619 0.12 5227 819 4408 176 1 21820 0.14 6098 3404 2694 108 3 181Notes:* 4% of the Impervious Area is the minimum per the San Mateo County C.3 Guidelines** Number of Trees is per the landscape plan. Trees are counted only in the treatment p*** Design swale = 4.5% impervious area + 20sf per tree****See the Manufacturers information for treatment methods and sizingCDS Unit****CDS Unit****Not Used N 60°30'00" W 125.00'N 47°00'31" W 366.63'73.33'N 17°00'31" W N 47°00'31" W88.00'N 39°56'25" W143.11'N 81°39'31" E 65.55'N 02°00'31" W28.28'N 42°59'29" E 237.36' X XN 50°03'35" E 366.08' X X X X X X X X XN 39°56'25" W 475.15'N 50°03'35" E 325.84' X X X X X X X X X X X X51'-8" 20'-0" 32'-0"64'-0"54'-0"37'-2"48'-4"FRONT SETBACK 36'-0"25'-0"6'-0"58'-0"25'-0"PARKING STRUCTURE5 LEVELS4-STORIESBUILDING A4-STORIESBUILDING B19BGGB9113ASROOF SCREENROOF SCREENSTAIRENCLOSURESTAIRENCLOSURE117,595 SF144,692 SFMECHANICAL WELL,SIZE AND LOCATIONTO BE DETERMINEDSIZE AND LOCATIONTO BE DETERMINEDMECHANICAL WELL,99'-9" ℄ ROAD SETBACKSIDE10'-0"REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALOCCUPANCYSITE PLAN / ROOF PLANF-1/S-1B/F-2/S-2H/LNOT PERMITTED < 3'-0"OPENINGS15% < 5'-0"PROTECTED < 20'-0"NOT PERMITTED < 5'-0"3-HOUR N/C < 5'-0"2-HOUR N/C < 10'-0"1-HOUR N/C < 30'-0"NR, N/C ELSEWHERE2-HOUR N/C < 5'-0"1-HOUR N/C < 30'-0"1-HOUR N/C < 10'-0"1-HOUR N/C < 30'-0"NR, N/C ELSEWHERE1-HOUR N/C < 5'-0"EXTERIOR WALL1"=30'-0"LOCATION ON PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS - TYPE I-BSITE DATA1"=30'-0"REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION - TYPE I-BSTAIRWAY CONSTRUCTIONFLOORS AND FLOOR-CEILINGSEXTERIOR DOORS & WINDOWSROOFBEARING WALLS, EXTERIORNONBEARING WALLS, EXTERIORBEARING WALLS, INTERIORSTRUCTURAL FRAMESHAFT ENCLOSURESNONCOMBUSTIBLEPROTECTED < 20 FEETNOT PERMITTED < 5 FEET2 HOURON PROPERTY BASED ON LOCATION 2 HOUR2 HOURDESCRIPTIONBTP ZONE/BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY PARKGROUND FLOORSECOND FLOORFOURTH FLOORFOURTH FLOORGROUND FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA BUILDING AGROSS FLOOR AREA BUILDING BFLOOR AREA BY FLOOR - BUILDING BTHIRD FLOOR FLOOR AREA BY FLOOR - BUILDING AF.A.R. CALCULATIONPARCEL NUMBERGROSS FLOOR AREA - BUILDING AGROSS FLOOR AREA - BUILDING BGROSS FLOOR AREA - TOTALZONINGF.A.R. ALLOWED33,510 S.F.27,293 S.F.28,747 S.F.30,193 S.F.117,595 S.F.31,362 S.F.35,660 S.F.144,692 S.F.37,297 S.F.38,225 S.F.144,692 S.F.262,727 S.F.117,595 S.F.051-071-3301.0F.A.R. SHOWN.989BASED ON LOCATION ON PROPERTY LEGENDREQUIRED SETBACKSEXISTING EASEMENTON PROPERTYTHIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF TWO FOUR-STORY STEEL-FRAMEDSHELL STRUCTURES TOTALING 262,287 SF IN AREA AND ADETACHED FIVE LEVEL OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE.THE TWO STRUCTURES SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ONE BUILDINGFOR ALLOWABLE AREA CALCULATIONS. THE BUILDING SHELLSTRUCTURES SHALL BE OF TYPE I-B CONSTRUCTION ANDSURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES WITH YARDS OF NOT LESS THAN37'-0" IN WIDTH. THE BUILDING SHALL BE 90'-0" IN HEIGHT AT ITSHIGHEST POINT.ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL BE FROM ECCLES AVENUE. THEMAJORITY OF THE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE PARKINGSTRUCTURE WITH ADDITIONAL SURFACE PARKING LOCATEDTHOUROUGHOUT THE SITE. MOST ACCESSIBLE PARKING ISPROVIDED WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE. PARKING ISPROVIDED FOR CARPOOL AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES.THE EXISTING BUILDING, PAVING AND ASSOCIATED SERVICESTRUCTURES, ETC ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED UNDER ASEPARATE PACKAGE.TOTAL LOT AREA:265,618 S.F.+ 20:1 SLOPE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT INCREASEBUILDING HEIGHT - BUILDING AT.O. BLDG. PARAPETT.O. BLDG. PENTHOUSE+71'-6"+90'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT - BUILDING BT.O. BLDG. PENTHOUSET.O. BLDG. PARAPET+90'-0"+71'-6"BUILDING HEIGHT - PARKING STRUCTURET.O. FIFTH LEVEL RAIL+45'-7"T.O. ELEVATOR SHAFT+60'-0"(BASED ON GENERAL PLAN - AREA 161' ABOVE SEA LEVELBUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWEDEAST OF 101 SEC. 3.5-1-4)(OR +91'-6" FROM T.O.S.)NORTH OF FORBES AVE. (DIST. = 600'-0" MIN.)+121'-6"+30'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED(ELEVATION 69.5 GIVEN AS DATUM 0'-0")SITE PLAN / ROOF PLANANDSITE CALCULATIONSP-A1.0ALLOWABLE AREAS: TYPE I-B PER CBC 2013, TABLE 503 & SECTION 508, Mixed OccOCCUPANCY ALLOWABLE AREAAa = At + [At x If] + [At x Is]If = [F/P - 0.25] W/30 ORIf = [F/P - 0.25] 2 (PER UBC SECTION 506.2.1 EXECEPTION ) (Example: F/P = [1224 ft./1224/ft - 0.25] 2 = 1.5)Is = 2 FOR MORE THAN ONE STORY (EXCEPT H-3)B11 STORIESAa = UNLIMITEDF-111 STORIESAa = UNLIMITEDH-4 & H-5Aa = UNLIMITEDALLOWABLE AREA (TOTAL BUILDING)OKOKOKS-111 STORIESAa = [48,000 + (48,000 x 1.37) + (48,000 x 2)] x 3 = 628,995 SF628,995 SFH-36 STORIESAa = [60,000 + (60,000 x 1.37) + (60,000 x 1)} x 2 = 404,162 SF404,162 SFALLOWABLEHEIGHT7 STORIES (H4)4 STORIES (H5)BAa = UNLIMITEDF-1Aa = UNLIMITEDH-4 & H-5Aa = UNLIMITEDALLOWABLE AREA (PER FLOOR)S-1Aa = 48,000 + (48,000 x 1.37) + (48,000 x 2) = 209,665 SFH-3Aa = 60,000 + [60,000 x 1.37] + 0 = 202,081 SFOKOKOK209,665 SF202,081 SF1 HOUR - 2 HOUR ABOVE3RD FLOORCONTROL AREA(PARTITIONS & FLOORS)2 HOURNONCOMBUSTIBLE2 HOUR (1 HOUR IF BEARINGROOF ONLY)25% < 10'-0"NO LIMIT < 20'-0"NOT PERMITTED < 3'-0"15% < 5'-0"25% < 10'-0"NO LIMIT < 20'-0"NR, N/C ELSEWHERE20'05'10'60'30'BUILDINGS A AND B ARE TO BE TREATED AS ONE BUILDINGALLOWABLE AREAS: TYPE I-B PER CBC 2013, TABLE 406.5.4ALLOWABLE HEIGHTS-212 TIERSAa = [79,000 + (79,000 x 1.25) + (79,000 x 2)] X 3 = 1,006,809 SFPARKING GARAGEMIXED USE ALLOWED(BASE AREA GIVEN)GROSS FLOOR AREA - BRIDGE, FLOORS 2 & 3 440 S.F.ALLOWABLE AREA (PER FLOOR)S-2Aa = 79,000 + (79,000 x 1.25) + (79,000 x 2) = 335,603 SFALLOWABLE AREA (TOTAL BUILDING)120' 6N 60°30'00" W 125.00'N 47°00'31" W 366.63'73.33'N 17°00'31" W N 47°00'31" W88.00'N 39°56'25" W143.11'N 81°39'31" E 65.55'N 02°00'31" W28.28'5 LEVELSPARKING STRUCTUREN 42°59'29" E 237.36' X X32N 50°03'35" E 366.08'4-STORY BLDG.BUILDING B X X X X X X X X XN 39°56'25" W 475.15'4-STORY BLDG.BUILDING AN 50°03'35" E 325.84' X X X X12 X X X8 X X X X X001STAIR001STAIRUPROZZI PL.ECCLES AVENUEVAN31062549369R3 2 '- 0 "5BPA1.2APA1.2BPA1.2APA1.223231149GBG1B9131AS6550 PARKING STALLS910107℄ ROAD 1111111312TRASH,REFUSE &RECYCLINGTRASH, REFUSE & RECYCLING 141415REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE PLAN1"=30'-0"TOTAL AREA:STAIR AND EXIT WIDTH CALCULATIONSBUILDING A SECOND FLOOR = 35,660 SFTHIRD FLOOR = 38,225 SFFOURTH FLOOR = 37,297 SFSECOND FLOOR = 28,747 SFFOURTH FLOOR = 30,193 SFBUILDING BTHIRD FLOOR = 31,362 SFTOTAL BUILDING AREA = 144,692 SFTOTAL BUILDING AREA = 117,595 SFGROSS FLOOR AREA = 262,287 SFOCCUPANT LOAD COUNT: (TABLE 1004.1.1)FIRST FLOOR = 27,293 SFFIRST FLOOR = 33,510 SFSECOND FLOOR = 35,660 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 357 OCC.FOURTH FLOOR = 37,297 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 373 OCC.FIRST FLOOR = 33,510 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 336 OCC.THIRD FLOOR = 38,225 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 383 OCC.FOURTH FLOOR = 30,193 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 302 OCC.SECOND FLOOR = 28,747 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 288 OCC.FIRST FLOOR = 27,293 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 273 OCC.THIRD FLOOR = 31,362 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 314 OCC.EXIT WIDTH CALCULATIONS: (SECTION 1005)383 OCC. X 0.2" FACTOR = 77" / 3 EXITS = 26" < 36" WIDE DOORS, MIN.BUILDING A314 OCC. X 0.2" FACTOR = 63" / 3 EXITS = 21" < 36" WIDE DOORS, MIN.BUILDING BSTAIR WIDTH CALCULATIONS: (SECTION 1005)314 OCC. X 0.3" FACTOR = 94.2" / 2 STAIRS = 48" WIDE STAIRS, MIN.383 OCC. X 0.3" FACTOR = 114.9" / 2 STAIRS = 58" WIDE STAIRS, MIN.1"=30'-0"BUILDING A BUILDING BBUILDING B (3RD FLR.)BUILDING A (3RD FLR)PARKING PROVIDEDPARKING GARAGE PARKING:ON-GRADE PARKING:540 STALLSUNISTALL (8'6 X 18')ACCESSIBLE STALLS 9 STALLSACCESSIBLE STALLSUNISTALL (8'6 X 18') 101 STALLS2 STALLSTOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED:655 STALLSVAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS1 STALL PARKING DATASITE NOTES(12 STALLS)TOTAL ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDEDLEGEND20'-0" MIN WIDE FIRE LANE -PER FIRE DEPT STANDARDSSITE REMARKSSERVICE YARDON-GRADE LOADING AREADEPRESSED LOADING AREAOVERHEAD WALKWAYBICYCLE PARKING, 20 SPACES2534120'05'10'60'120'SITE COVERAGE DATATOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE:TOTAL PERVIOUS PERCENTAGE LOT COVERAGETOTAL IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE LOT COVERAGETOTAL BUILDING PERCENTAGE LOT COVERAGETOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA LOT COVERAGETOTAL PERVIOUS AREA LOT COVERAGEBUILDING BPARKING STRUCTURETOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE:TOTAL LOT AREA:BUILDING A31,332 SF39,636 SF109,440 SF41.2%265,618 SF38,472 SFACCESSIBLE PATH FROM PUBLIC WAY630'REFER TO SHEETS P-P2.1 AND P-2.2 FOR PARKING STALL LAYOUT AT PARKING GARAGESITE PLAN ANDSITE DATA P-A1.1VAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS2 STALLS1. FOR GRADING INFORMATION, SEE SHEET C-2, PRELIMINARYGRADING PLAN.2. FOR LANDSCAPING INFORMATION, SEE SHEETS P-L1.0 AND P-L1.1,CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN.3. FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT LEAST 10' FROM ALLDRIVEWAYS. ALL STRUCTURES TO BE WHOLLY WITHIN 500' OFHYDRANT.COVERED BICYCLE PARKING, 42 SPACES7RETAINING WALL8DOUBLE SIDED MONUMENT SIGN, 8'-0" HIGH 9VEHICLE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE10ACCESSIBLE PATH FROM PARKING AND PUBLIC WAY191,866 SF62,523 SF71%24%TRANSFORMER11COLORED CONCRETE SEATING1213WATER FEATURE, WATER FALLING OVER STONE SLABS(PARKING RATION 2.5/1000SF)14TRASH, REFUSE & RECYCLING WITHIN COVERED YARD. CURBED ANDPARTITIONED FROM SERVICE YARD.15PROPOSED FUTURE BRIDGE. REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUEENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECTENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES P-A1.1A08.21.12ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 2.4 Environmental Measures Incorporated into theProjectThe following measures are proposed as part of the Project and are shown on thearchitectural drawings (sheet P.A.1.1a) and in application materials. These measures arein addition to the City's standard requirements identified in Chapter 1 save for AirQuality items 1-3 and Site Remediation Measures that require J Permits to removeasbestos and lead based paint containing materials. The measures are designed to reducethe environmental affect of the Project.A. Air Quality and Green House Gas Emission Reduction Measures1) Aspects Of Project Designed To Limit Fugitive Dust Emissions. The constructioncontractor shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementingBAAQMD's basic fugitive dust control measures. Therefore, the Project shall includethe following requirements in construction contracts:All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, gradedareas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off siteshall be covered.All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall beremoved 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 completedas soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible aftergrading unless seeding or soil binders are used.A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number andperson to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. Thisperson shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The AirDistrict's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance withapplicable regulations.All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintainminimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by labsamples or moisture probe. (i.e., during any phase that will expose previouslycovered soils, there will be soil moisture monitoring in two locations on site,twice a day (mid-morning and mid-afternoon) and additional watering, beyondthe twice-a-day watering referenced above, will be applied if the monitoringreveals that soil moisture content has dropped below 12%)All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspendedwhen average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. [Occurs less than threepercent of the year.]Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) orother plants that offer dust mitigation measures shall be planted indisturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately untilvegetation is established.The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, andground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one timeshall be limited. To the extent feasible, activities shall be phased toreduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off priorto leaving the site.Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to preventsilt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one (1)percent.2) Aspects of Project Designed To Limit Exhaust Emissions. The constructioncontractor shall implement the following measures during construction to reduceconstruction-related exhaust emissions:Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off whennot in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two (2) minutes Clearsignage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned inaccordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall bechecked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in propercondition prior to operation.All construction equipment, diesel trucks and generators shall beequipped with Best Available Control Technology for emissionreductions of NOx and PM to the maximum extent feasible. To this end,all generators and air compressors used on site shall be electric. All onroad trucks used onsite shall be Year Model 2007 or better. Propane orLNG-fueled booms and scissor lifts shall be used.Tier 2 or better for 20 percent of horsepower-hours of off-road dieselequipment shall be used during construction and 65 percent ofhorsepower hours during demolition.All contractors shall, to the maximum extent feasible, use equipment thatmeets the ARB's most recent certification for off-road heavy duty dieselengines.No onsite grinding, crushing or shredding of asphalt or debris shall occuronsite.Potential future measures that achieve the same or better performancecriteria shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior toinitiating any changes.Applicant shall provide the City and Genentech with a list of andschedule for demolition, grading and construction equipment andactivities.A construction superintendent shall be on site during all demolition,grading and construction activities to enforce these regulations.3)Compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 during Demolition.Demolition of existing buildings and structures would be subject to BAAQMDRegulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing).BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions fromdemolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance ofasbestos-containing waste material generated or handled during these activities.The rule requires the notification of BAAQMD of any regulated renovation ordemolition activity. This notification includes a description of structures and methodsutilized to determine whether asbestos-containing materials are potentially present. Allasbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition orrenovation activity in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, includingspecific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of materialcontaining asbestos.4)Compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 for Architectural Coatings.Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to the use of architecturalcoatings 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 includemore stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised VOC architectural coating limits,which became effective on January 1, 2011, are projected to result in a 32 percentreduction of VOC emissions in the Bay Area associated with architectural coatingapplications.B. Transportation and Green House Gas Reduction MeasuresThe 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 toprojects that do not include a TDM, to qualify for a 1.0 FAR. The TDM Program isrequired by law to be reviewed by the City and modified by the Applicant as required bythe City to meet the mode shift requirements. Performance audits are also required. TheApplicant 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, coordinatedwith Alliance (TDM coordinator responsibility.)12. Membership in Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance.C. Construction and Operational Design Elements Addressing EnvironmentalSustainabilityThe LEED design and construction strategies that have been integrated into the planningdocuments include:1. The use of a previously developed site without impacts associated with endangeredspecies, 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 accessto major public transportation hubs. In addition to the requirements for bike parkingthe Project will include shower/changing room amenities for bike users.4. The Project will provide adequate preferred parking for low-emitting and alternativefuel vehicles. The Project will provide fewer parking spaces than those referencedin local zoning requirements.5. The Project provides more than 20 percent of the total site area in open space. Morethan 50 percent of all parking will be under cover to reduce heat island effects forsite surfaces.6. The Project has developed tenant design and construction guidelines includingrecommendations and requirements for tenant improvements.7. Indoor plumbing fixtures within the core and shell design and those required by thetenant scope of work will achieve greater than a 30 percent water use reduction.8. Site landscape and irrigation equipment will provide irrigation efficiencies greaterthan 50 percent reduction from a standard summer baseline.9. The Project will provide fundamental and enhanced commissioning (Cx) of MEPenergy systems, including a requirement for tenant improvement Enhanced Cx anda 10 month post-occupancy return to verify equipment warranty and operationalefficiencies. Current energy model targets anticipate a greater than 15% reductionin energy compared to Title 24 and ASHRAE 90.1. Base building and tenantimprovement mechanical and food service equipment will be required to complywith enhanced refrigerant management requirements. The Project will provideadequate areas for the collection and storage of recyclables, and tenants will berequired to implement desk-side recycling.10. The Project has developed a Construction Waste Management plan that targets atleast 75% diversion of landfill waste, with a goal of 95% diversion. The Project hasintegrated requirements into planning specifications and plans to target a greaterthan 20% recycled and regional content (by cost) in all building materials for theproject. 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 thevapor barrier of the Project to comply with LEED/CalGreen VOC & CARBrequirements, and specifically contain no-added urea-formaldehyde (NAUF)products. The Project will conduct, and require tenants to conduct, and Indoor AirQuality Management Plan for Construction Activities that requires contractors tocomply with SMACNA IAQ guidelines for best practices during construction.12.Please see Table 2.1 for a complete list of LEED Silver measures provided by theApplicant to be incorporated into the Project, or an equivalent thereto.09.30.13ENV MEASURES REVISION SERVICEYARD101TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"1st FLOOR 0'-0"13ECCLES AVENUE91TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"1st FLOOR 0'-0"REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE SECTION A1/16" = 1'-0"SITE SECTION B1/16" = 1'-0"BASITE SECTIONSP-A1.2 6N 60°30'00" W 125.00'N 47°00'31" W 366.63'73.33'N 17°00'31" W N 47°00'31" W88.00'N 39°56'25" W 143.11'N 81°39'31" E 65.55'N 02°00'31" W28.28'5 LEVELSPARKING STRUCTUREN 42°59'29" E 237.36' X XN 50°03'35" E 366.08'BUILDING BSLAB FOR X X X X X X X X XN 39°56'25" W 475.15'4-STORY BLDG.BUILDING AN 50°03'35" E 325.84' X X X X X X X8 X X X X X001STAIR001STAIRUPROZZI PL.ECCLES AVENUEVAN6493PROPOSED(FUTURE 4-STORY BLDG)LANDSCAINGLANDSCAINGLANDSCAING LANDSCAINGLANDSCAINGREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALFIRST PHASE SITE PLAN1"=30'-0"1"=30'-0"LEGEND20'-0" MIN WIDE FIRE LANE -PER FIRE DEPT STANDARDS P-A1.3ACCESSIBLE PATH FROM PARKING AND PUBLIC WAYSITE PLANPHASE 120'05'10'60'120'30'PHASE 1 SITE PLAN NOTES1. SHOULD A PHASED CONSTRUCTION BE REQUIRED, THE INTENT IS TOCONSTRUCT BUILDING A AND THE PARKING STRUCTURE WITHIN THEFIRST PHASE. THIS DRAWING SHOWS THE SITE AS IT WOULD BEFOLLOWING THE FIRST PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION.2. TEMPORARY LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALLLANDSCAPE DESIGN IS PROPOSED IN AREAS OF THE SITE WHICHWILL BE DEVELOPED IN THE SECOND PHASE. 12435GFE678ADCB910001STAIRUP38,225 S.F.12435GFE678ADCB910001STAIRUP37,297 S.F.12345678910ABCDEFG001STAIR001STAIRUP288'-0"120'-0"24'-0"33,510 S.F.BPA4.1APA4.1CPA4.2APA4.2BPA4.1BPA4.1CPA4.2APA4.2112'-0"SERVICE YARD8'-0"2'-0"22'-0"24'-0"2'-0"30'-0"32'-0"GFEADCB12435768910001STAIRUP35,660 S.F.OPEN TO SERVICEYARD BELOWBUILDING A - THIRD FLOOR PLANREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALBUILDING A - FOURTH FLOOR PLANBUILDING A - FIRST FLOOR PLANBUILDING A - SECOND FLOOR PLAN1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING AFLOOR PLANSP-A2.1 GFED214357698BCA28,747 S.F.YARD BELOWOPEN TO SERVICEFUTURE BRIDGEBUILDING AGFED214357698BCA31,362 S.F.FUTURE BRIDGEBUILDING A GFED214357698BCA30,193 S.F.GFEDBCA123456789001STAIR001STAIR232'-0"120'-0"BPA4.2BPA4.2CPA4.2CPA4.2APA4.2APA4.2DPA4.2DPA4.2EPA4.227,293 S.F.SERVICE YARD24'-0" 2'-0"22'-0"24'-0"1'-2"8'-10"2'-0"30'-0"32'-0"112'-0"BUILDING B - FIRST FLOOR PLAN1/16" = 1'-0"REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALBUILDING B - SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING B - THIRD FLOOR PLANBUILDING B - FOURTH FLOOR PLANBUILDING BFLOOR PLANSP-A2.2 TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"1st FLOOR 0'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"1234ABCDEFG567891012534678910ACBDEFG1st FLOOR 0'-0"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"METAL COMPOSITE PANELS - F2GFRC - F3GLAZED CURTAIN WALL - F1GFRC - F4PAINTED TUBE STEELGLAZED CURTAIN WALL - F1OPERABLE SASH, TYPSTAIR ENCLOSURE BEYOND - F3METAL COMPOSITE PANEL - F2GFRC ROOF SCREEN AND BALCONIES - F3GFRC - F4BRACES - F5, TYPCOLUMN COVERS -F5, TYPF5, TYPCANOPY -TYP AT BALCONY PANELSLOADING DOCKRIBBON WINDOWS - MATCH F1, TYPCOMPOSITE METAL PANELS - F2GFRC - F3, TYPPAINTED TUBE STEEL BRACES - F5, TYPBALCONY RAILINGS - MATCH F4, TYPWINDOWS - MATCH F1GFRC - F3BALCONY RAILINGS - MATCH F4, TYPLOUVERED DOORS TO SERVICE YARD MATCH F3PLASTER OVER CMU WALL TO MATCH GFRC COLOR F3PAINTED TUBE STEEL BRACES - MATCH F2, TYPWALL MOUNT LIGHTFIXTURE, TYPPLASTER OVER CMU WALL TO MATCHGFRC COLOR F3LOUVERED DOORS TO SERVICE YARDMATCH F3BRIDGE TO BUILDING BMETAL FIN SCREEN - MATCH F4 - GFRC - F3GFRC CANOPY - F4GLAZING BEHINDBRIDGE TO BUIDING BFUTURE BRIDGE TO BUILDING BREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALWEST1/16" = 1'-0"SOUTH1/16" = 1'-0"NORTH1/16" = 1'-0"EAST1/16" = 1'-0"GFRC TO MATCH PAINT COLOR DEC728 MADERAFINISH SCHEDULEBRACE PAINT AND COLUMN COVERSDEW383 COOL DECEMBERGFRC TO MATCH PAINT COLOR COMPOSITE PANEL, SILVER METALIC FINISHIN ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAMESOLARBAN 70XL F3TO MATCH F2F5F4F2F1BUILDING AELEVATIONSP-A3.1 TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"1st FLOOR 0'-0"ACBDEFG2345768911234567894th FLOOR 51'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"1st FLOOR 0'-0"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"GFRC - F3GLAZED CURTAIN WALL - F1METAL COMPOSITE PANELS - F2LOUVERS - COLOR TO MATCH F2LOADING DOCKGFRC ROOF SCREEN AND CANOPIES - F3METAL COMPOSITE PANEL - F2STAIR ENCLOSURE BEYOND - F3GFRC CANOPY - F4GFRC - F3MATCH F4 - GLAZING BEHINDMETAL FIN SCREEN - LOUVERED DOORS TO SERVICE YARD MATCH F3PAINTED TUBE STEEL BRACES - F5, TYPPLASTER OVER CMU WALL TO MATCH GFRC COLOR F3COMPOSITE METAL PANELS - F2BALCONY, TYP, GFRC PANEL F4METAL BAR RAILING - F4, TYPOPERABLE SASH, TYPGLAZED CURTAIN WALL - F1WINDOWS - MATCH F1TYP AT BALCONY PANELSPAINTED TUBE STEELBRACES - F5, TYPGFRC - F4COLUMN COVERS -F5, TYPCANOPY -F5, TYPGFRC - F3, TYPRIBBON WIDOWS - MATCH F1, TYPGFRC - F4GLAZED CURTAIN WALL - F1GFRC - F3METAL COMPOSITE PANELS - F2MATCH F4, TYPBALCONY RAILINGS - PLASTER OVER CMU WALL TO MATCH GFRC COLOR F3PAINTED TUBE STEEL BRACES - MATCH F2, TYPLOUVERED DOORS TO SERVICE YARD MATCH F3WALL MOUNT LIGHTFIXTURE, TYPFUTURE BRIDGEREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSOUTH1/16" = 1'-0"WEST1/16" = 1'-0"EAST1/16" = 1'-0"NORTH1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING BELEVATIONSP-A3.2GFRC TO MATCH PAINT COLOR DEC728 MADERAFINISH SCHEDULEBRACE PAINT AND COLUMN COVERSDEW383 COOL DECEMBERGFRC TO MATCH PAINT COLOR COMPOSITE PANEL, SILVER METALIC FINISHIN ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAMESOLARBAN 70XL F3TO MATCH F2F5F4F2F1 1st FLOOR 0'-0"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"10987654321ABCDEFG MECHANICAL PENTHOUSEMECHANICAL PENTHOUSESERVICEYARDSUNSHADES ON CURTAIN WALLCANOPY AT COLONNADE, TYPTYP SOUTH AND WEST SIDESSCREEN OVER ENTRYCANOPY AT ENTRYREVOLVING DOORREMOVABLE LOUVERSBALCONIESROOF SCREENSTAIR ENCLOSUREMECHANICAL WELLMECHANICAL WELLROOF SCREENCONCRETERETAINING WALLREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSECTION B1/16" = 1'-0"SECTION A1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING ALONGITUDINALSECTIONP-A4.1 TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"1st FLOOR 0'-0"TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"ABCDEFGGFEDCBAGFEDCBA1st FLOOR 0'-0"TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"MECHANICAL PENTHOUSEMECHANICAL PENTHOUSESERVICEYARDREVOLVING DOORCANOPY AT ENTRYCANOPY AT COLONNADESCREEN OVER ENTRYTYP SOUTH AND WEST SIDESSUNSHADE ON CURTAIN WALLROOF SCREENSTAIR ENCLOSUREBALCONIESREMOVABLE LOUVERSMECHANICAL WELLROOF SCREENMECHANICAL WELLPENTHOUSE BEYONDSTAIR ENCLOSUREROOF SCREENBALCONIESREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSECTION A1/16" = 1'-0"1/16" = 1'-0"SECTION C1/16" = 1'-0"SECTION DSECTION B1/16" = 1'-0"SECTION E1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING BSECTIONSP-A4.2 17'-0"17'-0" 3'-7"6'-7"6'-10"6'-7"10'-5" 17'-0" 3'-7"6'-7"6'-10" 17'-0" 3'-7"6'-7"6'-10"5'-10"3'-4"4'-8"10'-0"2'-0"3'-7"MTL SUNSHADE ELEMENTINSULATED SHADOWBOX, TYPAL SUNSHADE, TYPAL WINDOW FRAMES, TYPDUAL PANE SOLAR GLAZING, TYPSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORFOURTH FLOORROOFGROUND FLOORREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALGLASS SKINSTUDYP-A4.3CONCEPTUAL WALL SECTIONA1/4" = 1'-0"MTL SUNSHADE ELEMENTINSULATED SHADOWBOX, TYPAL SUNSHADE, TYPAL WINDOW FRAMES, TYPDUAL PANE SOLAR GLAZING, TYPOPERABLE WINDOW PANEL, TYP(SHOWN SHADED FOR CLARITY) 128'-0" 63'-0"63'-0"TO LEVEL BELOWRAMP DNTO LEVEL ABOVERAMP UPTO LEVEL BELOWRAMP DNOPEN 3 P3.1 1 P3.1 2 P3.1 2 P3.1 1 2 3 A B C D E F H I K L M N O P Q R S METAL SCREEN TYP. SEE P-P3.2 FOR TYPE METAL SCREEN TYP. SEE P-P3.2 FOR TYPE J 295'-0"14'-9"14'-9"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"14'-9"14'-9"OPTIONAL22'-0"1/32"=1'-0" TYPICAL LEVEL PARKING PLAN 1/32"=1'-0" FIFTH LEVEL PARKING PLAN 32 0 64 128 3 P3.1 1 P3.1 3 P3.1 1 P3.1 2 P3.1 2 P3.1 3 P3.1 1 P3.1 13'-4" PV LAYOUTSHOWN DASHED PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 09.19.14 GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL FIFTH LEVEL 3 FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAILVARIESTOP OF RAIL GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL FIFTH LEVEL TOP OF RAIL 1 3 1 3 TOP OF TOWER A S VARIES10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"13'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"10'-6"1/16"=1'-0" LONGITUDINAL SECTION 2 1/16"=1'-0" TRANSVERSE SECTION 1 1/16"=1'-0" TRANSVERSE SECTION 4 1/2"=1'-0"WALL SECTION Xref 06026P22-Opt2.dwg 14' CLR.MIN.STEEL TRUSS BRIDGE 4 P-P3.1 GROUND LEVELSECOND LEVELGROUND LEVELSECOND LEVEL7'-6"41/2"=1'-0"WALL SECTION OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 09.19.14 GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL FIFTH LEVEL 3 FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAILVARIESTOP OF RAIL GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL FIFTH LEVEL TOP OF RAIL 1 3 1 3 TOP OF TOWER A S VARIES10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"13'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"10'-6"1/16"=1'-0" LONGITUDINAL SECTION 2 1/16"=1'-0" TRANSVERSE SECTION 1 1/16"=1'-0" TRANSVERSE SECTION 4 1/2"=1'-0"WALL SECTION Xref 06026P22-Opt2.dwg 14' CLR.MIN.STEEL TRUSS BRIDGE 4 P-P3.1 GROUND LEVELSECOND LEVELGROUND LEVELSECOND LEVEL7'-6"41/2"=1'-0"WALL SECTION OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAIL FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAIL FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAIL FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAIL TOP OF RAIL 50'-6"GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAIL 47'-0"50'-6"47'-0"50'-6"47'-0"1 1/16"=1'-0" EAST ELEVATION 2 1/16"=1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 4 1/16"=1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 3 1/16"=1'-0" WEST ELEVATION STAIR MTL. CANOPY, PAINT F2 CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, PAINT F8 REVEAL IN CONC. WALL, PAINT OVERALL CONC. PARKING STRUCTURE STAIR MTL. CANOPY, PAINT F8 CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, PAINT F2 F6, TYP. TYP. STAIR MTL. CANOPY, PAINT F8 CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, PAINT F2 CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, PAINT F8 STAIR MTL. CANOPY, PAINT F2 METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 METAL SCREEN, F11 PAINT F9, TYP. METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 METAL SCREEN, F11 PAINT F9, TYP. REVEAL IN CONC. WALL, TYP. PAINT OVERALL CONC. PARKING STRUCTURE F6, TYP. METAL SCREEN, F11 METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 PAINT F9, TYP. METAL SCREEN, F11 METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 PAINT F9, TYP. PAINT F2 PAINT F8 STAIR MTL. CANOPY, CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, PAINT F2 PAINT F8 STAIR MTL. CANOPY, CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, SCREEN 2 - MEDIUMF11 METAL WOVEN WIRE CLOTH METAL WOVEN WIRE CLOTH SCREEN 3 - LARGEF12 TRIANGULAR METAL FABRIC PAINT - MAIN SCREEN AND GARAGE ENTRANCE FRAMES PAINT - TYP. SCREEN AND FRAME PAINT - OVERALL PARKING CONCRETE STRUCTURE MADERA DE6370 SCREEN 1 - FINEF10 DUNN-EDWARDS CHARCOAL SMUDGE DEC728 F9 F7 DUNN-EDWARDS PAINT - ELEVATOR TOWER / STAIR TOWER KM3902-3 KELLY-MOORE PORT ALICE F8 DE6367 COVERED IN PLATINUM DUNN-EDWARDS F6 ALPOLIC 4MM4SMX8 SILVER METALLIC STAIR CANOPY / BRIDGE METAL PANELF2 EXTERIOR FINISHES 'SHADE' GALV. STEEL & PAINT 'PLAIT' GALV. STEEL & PAINT 'BRAID' GALV. STEEL & PAINT METAL SCREEN, F12METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 PAINT F9, TYP. METAL SCREEN, F12METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 PAINT F9, TYP. F1 SOLARBAN XL70 GLAZING TO MATCH BLDG DEW383 COOL DECEMBER CONCRETE AND METAL RAIL TO MATCH F4 METAL SCREEN FRAME PAINTED TO MATCH F1 ANODIZED ALUM FRAME, TYP, ALL SIDES GREEN SCREEN MESH WITH VINESMETAL SCREEN, F7 TYP ALL FACES METAL SCREEN FRAME PAINT F7 TYP ALL FACES PAINT F8 PAINT F8 PAINT F8 PAINT F8 DEW383 COOL DECEMBER CONCRETE RAIL TO MATCH F4 OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 09.19.14 LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-1 Aerial View From South West LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-2 Aerial View From South LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-3 Aerial View Of Entry Plaza LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-4 Aerial View From North East LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-5 View Along Entry Drive LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-6 View Towards Garage and Bridge LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-7 View Towards Entry Plaza LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-8 View Approaching Entry LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-9 View Near Building Entrance LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-10 View From Building Entrance LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-11 View From Terrace LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-12 View From Balcony 148900306.2 Gateway Of Pacific (GOP) GOP 4 and 5 Project Description July 21, 2020 I. OVERVIEW Entities affiliated with BioMed Realty seek the approvals necessary to complete the Gateway Business Park Master Pan project and integrate it with the previously approved 475 Eccles project. The result will be the Gateway of Pacific (GOP) R&D campus with interconnected pedestrian and bicycle paths, reflecting high quality architecture and a design appropriate for this important gateway location. Two projects are currently proposed: GOP 4 and GOP 5. GOP 4. The City approved a revised Master Plan for the Gateway Business Park campus in 2013, and BMR entities have been building out since then. The City has approved Precise Plans for three of the four phases of the Master Plan. GOP 1 is near completion. GOP 2 and 3 have started construction. BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP now seeks approval of a Precise Plan for GOP 4. GOP 5. BMR-Gateway of Pacific V LP seeks to modify the approvals granted for 475 Eccles to update its design to complement GOP 1, 2, 3 and 4, and to include the site of some former rail spurs that currently separate GOP 1, 2, 3 and 4 from 475 Eccles. The rail spurs will be improved with pedestrian and bicycle connections. The modified project that encompasses the former 475 Eccles project plus the rail spurs is now called the GOP 5 Project. Both GOP 4 and GOP 5 are depicted below: - 2 - 148900306.2 II. GOP 4 PROJECT A. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Development To Date. The Gateway Business Park Master Plan encompasses a 22.7 -acre site comprised of 4 parcels located at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. The Master Plan project has been informally known as the Gateway of Pacific (GOP) project. This Master Plan area is within the Gateway Specific Plan zoning district (Area V of the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning Map). The 2013 Master Plan established a conceptual plan for development of a life sciences campus that achieves the allowable 1.25 FAR. As conceptually depicted in the Master Plan, the campus is envisioned to serve multiple science organizations in four major buildings supported by amenity facilities and parking garages. A central, park-like open space connects these structures in a highly sustainable and pedestrian -friendly setting. Phase 1 (GOP 1), located at 1000 Gateway Boulevard, is near completion and has been leased to AbbVie. Phases 2 and 3 (GOP 2 and GOP 3), which will complete the frontage that runs along Gateway Boulevard at 750 and 850 Gateway Boulevard, have started construction. GOP 2 is partially leased to Amgen and GOP 3 is the subject of ongoing negotiations with top -tier biotechnology firms. B. GOP 4 Proposed Development. BMR-Gateway of Pacific IV LP now seeks to complete buildout of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan by pursuing a Precise Plan for phase 4 (GOP 4). The GOP 4 site comprises 6.35 acres located at 850 and 900 Gateway Boulevard. Two five-story buildings will be constructed, each with a roof top mechanical area / penthouse level above. The overall height, as measured pursuant to the applicable zoning code, will be 98 feet above the average level of the highest and lowest point of the portion of the lot covered by the building. The two buildings will have approximately 226,000 square feet of gross floor area. A total of 531 parking spaces for this phase will be accommodated on a five level, raised -deck structure. Access from the Oyster Point Boulevard side of the site will be available via drives along Veterans Boulevard and the current Fed-ex driveway. This will be the primary access route to the site . Secondary access from Gateway Boulevard will be available via a private drive aisle named “Park Street,” to be constructed along the western edges of GOP 2, 3 and 4, and which will provide secondary access to the GOP 2, 3 and 4 garages. The architecture will respond to the site’s location as a gateway to South San Francisco’s biotechnology hub and to the general urbanization of the Gateway District. GOP 4 will enhance and expand the pedestrian experience with an interior plaza area, which will extend the open, park-like landscape of the central GOP Master Plan campus. Building form will reflect the influences of local climate and the culture of science. Open floor plates will be articulated for sculptural quality while maintaining the high efficiency needed for research environments. The building envelope will consist of a high-quality curtain-wall system with energy-efficient glazing and accents of metal panels, wood and concrete. Building and Landscape design and material selection have been selected to support LEED and high - performance energy and environmental standards. As set forth in the Development Agreement, BMR will use good faith efforts to achieve a Silver or better LEED rating for GOP 4. The design will follow the framework established by the Master Plan and the approach to sustainability and commitment to design quality are fully consistent with the other phases of GOP. - 3 - 148900306.2 The GOP 4 Project site will be integrated with the rest of the GOP campus. As noted, vehicular access will be available from both Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. The entir e Master Plan campus, and the new GOP 5 building (see below) will be connected via pedestrian and bicycle paths. This will be a continuous pedestrian pathway that joins all buildings on the GOP campus. A variety of enhanced paving materials and feature plantings, amenities and social spaces will be added to encourage pedestrian use. C. GOP 4 Approvals. The GOP 4 Project requires approval of a Precise Plan. Design review will be included in the processing of the Precise Plan . The GOP 4 approvals include amendments to the GOP Development Agreement to extend its term to December 31, 2030, and to reflect the manner in which provisions of the original Development Agreement regarding in lieu park fees have been implemented. The approvals also may address the fact that conditions at the edge of the Precise Plan for each phase of the Master Plan were modified to accommodate and be compatible with each newer, adjacent Precise Plan as it was approved. Because the Master Plan project is vested into the 2013 South San Francisco Municipal Code pursuant to the Development Agreement, the GOP 4 Project will be subject to the 2013 Zoning Code. The GOP 4 Project will meet current building standards, including CalGreen. D. GOP 4 Existing Setting. The GOP 4 Project site currently hosts two buildings that were constructed in 1988. There is a vacant building at 850 Gateway, which formerly housed Genentech. There is an operating Fed Ex shipping center at 900 Gateway. Both buildings will be demolished. The site currently has access via a driveway to Oyster Point Boulevard. III. GOP 5 PROJECT A. GOP 5 Proposed Development. BMR-Gateway of Pacific V LP seeks approvals for the GOP 5 Project. GOP 5 is planned to be the fifth phase of the GOP campus, connecting to the Master Plan area to the west. GOP 5 is not included in the Gateway Business Park Master Plan, but BMR intends that it look and feel like part of the same campus. BMR seeks modifications to the approvals previously granted for 475 Eccles to implement the GOP 5 Project. The GOP 5 Project site is 8.9 acres. It includes the site of the 475 Eccles project (6.1 acres) that was approved in 2016, plus the area of some former railroad spurs (2.8 acres) that lie between GOP 4 and 475 Eccles. Inclusion of the rail spur property will enable connections between 475 Eccles and the re st of the GOP campus. The result will be a single biotech campus that includes GOP 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which will be integrated with pathways and visually compatible architecture. The GOP 5 site is in the Business Technology Park (BTP) zoning district, which allows up to 1.0 FAR with a Use Permit, based upon a TDM. The 2016 approvals for 475 Eccles allow two - 4 - 148900306.2 buildings that achieve an FAR of approximately 1.0 as measured across the 475 Eccles site,1 based upon a TDM program that was approved in 2016. The GOP 5 Project proposes to redesign the site to bring it up to current aesthetic standards and to integrate the site with the adjacent GOP 1, 2, 3 and 4 sites to the west, all without increasing the square footage approved in 2016. A revised TDM plan will be submitted to ensure compliance with current TDM standards. As is the case for the other GOP phases, the architecture for GOP 5 responds to the site’s location as a gateway to South San Francisco’s biotechnology hub. GOP 5 will connect to the open, park-like landscape of the GOP 1, 2, 3 and 4 campus. The GOP 5 Project will incorporate the LEED Silver measures listed in the EIR prepared for 475 Eccles, will use good faith efforts to achieve LEED Silver or better certification, and will include all environmental measures that were incorporated into the 475 Eccles project as noted in that EIR . Building form will reflect the influences of local climate and the culture of science. Open floor plates have been articulated for sculptural quality while maintaining the high efficiency needed for research environments. The building envelope will consist of a high-quality curtain-wall system with energy-efficient glazing and accents of terra cotta, wood and concrete. Building and Landscape design and material selection have been selected to support LEED and high - performance energy and environmental standards. Installation of pedestrian amenities in the rail spurs wi ll enable completion of the continuous pedestrian pathway described above, which will join all buildings on the GOP campus. As noted, a variety of enhanced paving materials and feature plantings, amenities and social spaces will be added to encourage pede strian use. BMR will grant to the City a shared access easement to allow public use of a multi-use path within the rail spurs. This easement will ensure there are no conflicts with the “rails to trails” plan (also known as “Active South City” plan) the City is currently considering. No other modifications to the Use Permit are requested. As was the case in 2016, development at 475 Eccles will expand the general urbanization of the City’s gateway area to Eccles Boulevard. Vehicles will continue to access the site from Eccles Avenue. Construction will consist of two (2) five (5) story buildings with a roof top mechanical area / penthouse level on each building. There will be 262,287 square feet in these two buildings. The GOP 5 Project will implement the previously approved parking reduction that imposes a minimum parking requirement of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. GOP 5 proposes a 655- space parking structure. GOP 5 also will implement the previously approved alternate landscape plan, which eliminated a requirement for rooftop planters in light of the fact that t he parking garage facades were designed to match the buildings’ architectural facades and therefore reflected the appearance of the campus buildings, and greenscreen panels on lower- level portions of the garage façade will be included to give more screening on the building. The current GOP 5 parking structure landscape design incorporates planting strategies similar to those used in the GOP 2 and 3 parking structures. The design includes native and adapted plantings of various size and scale that will provide screening of the lower level garage façade and provide seasonal interest. The overall height, as measured pursuant to the applicable 1 While BMR is not waiving its right to seek approval of more development in the future, t he GOP 5 Project does not propose any additional square footage that could be achieved by applying the allowed FAR to the acreage of the GOP 5 Project site. - 5 - 148900306.2 zoning code, will be 98 feet above the average level of the highest and lowest point of the portion of the lot covered by the building. B. GOP 5 Approvals. The approvals sought for the GOP 5 Project are modifications of the approvals granted in 2016 for the 475 Eccles project. GOP 5 requires a modification of the Use Permit to expand the scope of the area to which the permit attaches to encompass the rail spurs, and to incorporate the upgraded design for the allowed development. BMR will demonstrate that no new TDM measures are needed to support approval of this modification to the Use Permit. A modification to the design review approval issued in 2016 will be required to reflect the current design. A tree removal permit may be required to address a protected tree in the rail spur parcels. BMR seeks modification to the Development Agreement for 475 Eccles to incorporate the modified approvals and to expand the area of property covered by the DA to include the rail spurs. BMR also seeks an extension of the Developmen t Agreement term to December 31, 2030, and some minor clerical amendments to reflect the City’s in lieu park fee ordinance. C. GOP 5 Existing Setting. 475 Eccles currently hosts a building pad left over from the demolition of the former structure. The site has paved parking and vehicular access to Eccles Avenue. The rail spur areas are currently undeveloped, with the exception of some retaining walls that were installed in connection with GOP 1, 2 and 3 to enable creation of the pedestrian walkways and a private roadway that are now proposed. IV. CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND SCHEDULE GOP 4 and GOP 5 collectively propose four buildings and two associated parking garages. BMR anticipates that GOP 4 and GOP 5 develo pment, from site preparation through certificate of occupancy, will take approximately 7 years, beginning in 2021. Site preparation and buildout will occur in response to market demand. It is anticipated that market demand will lead to one to two buildings plus associated parking being under construction at any given point in time . V. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Gateway Business Park Master Plan project, which includes GOP 1, 2, 3 and 4, was the subject of an EIR initially certified in 2010 in connection w ith the original Master Plan. (SCH #2008062059) The City determined in connection with its 2013 approval of the revised Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the GOP 1 Precise Plan that no supplemental or subsequent EIR was required. The City approved G OP 2 and 3 in 2018 based upon an addendum that likewise determined that no supplemental or subsequent EIR was required. The current GOP 4 Project will comply with all mitigation measures imposed upon the Gateway Business Park Master Plan project. The 475 Eccles project was approved in 2016 based upon an EIR the City certified for that project. (SCH# 2012082101) No subsequent approvals for the 475 Eccles project have been issued since then. The GOP 5 Project proposes to modify the 475 Eccles project by expanding the project site to encompass the rail spur properties. The inclusion of the rail spur properties in the GOP 5 Project will ensure that all mitigation and other environmentally-protective measures incorporated into the 475 Eccles EIR will apply to the rail spurs as well. - 6 - 148900306.2 BMR will implement the requirements of the prior environmental reviews by having a new Health Risk Assessment prepared that addresses the impacts of construction of GOP 4 and GOP 5 on current sensitive receptors. The GOP 4 and GOP 5 Projects include compliance with environmentally protective laws and standard practices, including the applicable tree protection ordinance, and standard surveys and other protections for nesting birds and roosting bats. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: April 21, 2020 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Mateo, Nelson, Vieira & Winchester MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF PRESENT: Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager Billy Gross, Senior Planner Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business – None 2. OWNER Gladys Ann Callan TR ET AL APPLICANT Proto Architecture LLP - Alan Cross ADDRESS 2211-2245 Gellert Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P20-0002: UP20-0001, DR20-0002, TDM20-0002 & ND20-0001 PROJECT NAME New Automotive Car Sales Lot (Case Planner: Gaspare Annibale) DESCRIPTION Use Permit, Design Review and Transportation Demand Program to allow a new automotive car sales lot at 2211 & 2245 Gellert Blvd in the Community Commercial (CC) Zone District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design concept. 2. Aesthetically the design was well presented. 3. The Board is concern with the location of a car sales lot across from a residential development. 4. The Board sees the beacon as a possible architectural feature, while others felt the beacon to be a tall monument or a billboard sign. 5. The beacon element needs additional details to include dimensions and material finish with updated renderings. 6. The Mercedes logo presented on the plans is considered signage. 7. The site is lacking the appropriate landscaping screening and is not sufficient. 8. The proposed lighting for the campus is excessive and not appropriate for nighttime. 9. The proposed lighting will glare directly into the residential development that is located across the street, as well into the surrounding area. 10. The proposed plan is lacking street trees along Gellert Blvd, as well as on-site. 11. The plan needs to incorporate trees within the development. 12. The Board needs to see larger deliberate landscape treatment along all perimeter edges and the trees closer spaced. 13. The proposed tree species selected will not grow to scale the height of the buildings or to help soften the view to the 4-story residential properties located uphill to the west. 14. The proposed Brisbane Box and Fern Pine will not reach its potential height to scale the buildings and will not survive with the SSF Wind Element. 15. The number and placement of trees and planter islands within the plan, do not meet code. 16. Consider wide finger planters that will run the length of the site with large deep soil pits that will be capable of supporting large trees. 17. The large existing trees along Gellert Blvd should be protected in place and incorporate taller evergreen species with a street tree pattern. 18. The soil on this site is poor and not deep enough to support large growth of the trees that are being proposed. 19. Consider hardy species such as Pine, Cypress, Eucalyptus, which are growing well within the surrounding area. 20. The proposed tree pit should be large enough to support mature tree size. The planting holes should be 10’ x 10’ x 3’ in depth. 21. The proposed shrubs listed are too small and will not provide any screening or visual interest along Gellert Blvd. 22. The night light levels are a big concern and any overly bright light should be avoided in both the parking lot and the signage light levels. 23. The proposed light levels are too high for the site. The typical lighting in parking lots in SSF are1 fc. 24. The photometric plan is showing 22 fc and higher along Gellert Blvd. The site is located across from residential units, which will impair their main view to the bay. 25. Consider reducing the fc levels. 26. The proposed plans are lacking an ADA accessible path to the buildings and to the public right of way. 27. The main existing sidewalk from the showroom to Gellert Blvd does not show a grading plan. 28. The main existing sidewalk from the showroom to Gellert Blvd does not clearly show the proposed grading. This appears to be an internal walkway and therefore must meet code for the slope to Gellert Blvd ROW. 29. Consider separating the sidewalk route to public ROW, from the curb, to lengthen and flatted, if you are required to meet code. 30. Consider cutting a section from the residential units west of Gellert Blvd, and through the site and Caltrans ROW to 280 to help show the relationship of the views, the trees, the open parking and lighting. 31. Show on the plans, the locations of the light poles and heights. Resubmittal required. 3. OWNER Bayside Area Develp. LLC APPLICANT Bayside Area Develp. LLC ADDRESS 328 Roebling Rd (233 East Grand Avenue) PROJECT NUMBER P07-0077: PP20-0003 & DR20-0013 PROJECT NAME Precise Plan (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Precise Plan Modification to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of a previously entitled project to construct one x-story new office/R&D building totaling xxx sf, and a x-level parking structure on a 2.97 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District and determination that the project is consistent with the previously adopted EIR. The Board had the following comments: 1. Consider revising the eastern elevation to make it less monotonous. 2. Revise the proposed planting plan to include tree species that scale to the height of the buildings. 3. Consider the following additional revisions to the planting plan: Excessive use of alders and poplars which are medium and high water use species. Honey Locust does not like the wind and Cordyline is not a tree. The poplar, Buckeye and Adler that are being proposed at the parking and service areas are all deciduous and will provide no visual screening in the winter months. The Samual Sommers Magnolia is a medium water use and too small in scale with the building. There are too many species on the list that are medium water, which will not meet the WUCOLS requirements. The proposed White Rockrose will require fast draining sandy soils to survive. Soils locally are too clayey. The applicant has the opportunity to provide tall 75 ft. – 100 ft. species that will help scale the large buildings. Consider some clumps of taller evergreen trees such as Monterey Cypress planted in loamy sand, Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Eucalyptus, if the existing poor soil is not changed. Adding height with some evergreen species will help scale the tall buildings. 4. Consider how the wind from the West & Northwest will be mitigated at the main plaza. If appropriate, incorporate wind screens or other mitigating measures to make the plaza with outdoor seating useable space. 5. Consider shifting the drop off area to the south away from the parking entry and use the extra space for wind mitigation at the plaza. 6. Provide a section showing the relationship of the parking structure to the adjacent solar farm to the east, to be sure a permanent building shadow does not interfere with the solar system. 7. Consider adding solar panels to the parking structure. Recommend Approval with Conditions 4. OWNER BioMed Realty – Railroad Spur LP APPLICANT BioMed Realty – Railroad Spur LP ADDRESS APN #: 015-071-220 PROJECT NUMBER P20-0013: PP20-0002 & DR20-0014 PROJECT NAME GOP 5 / Rail Spurs (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Precise Plan and Design Review to construct site and landscape improvements and retaining walls to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections and site infrastructure for adjacent parcels within the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District (GSPD) and Business and Technology Park Zoning District (BTP) in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and determination that the 2020 Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Board had the following comments: 1. Revise the Park Street frontage to include a sidewalk along the southern side to connect the accessible paths. 2. Provide a detail on the proposed cantilever ramp materials and finishes. 3. Revise the plans to show a consistent trail width, either 12 ft. or 14 ft. 4. Revise the landscape plans to indicate the plant species on the slopes, the planting areas and irrigation. 5. Revise the landscape plan to show the root spaces for the proposed trees in relation to the retaining wall foundations and footing widths. 6. Consider how wind will affect the design and indicate any proposed mitigation measures. 7. Provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures prior to the issuance of building permits. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 5. OWNER BioMed Realty APPLICANT BioMed Realty ADDRESS 475 Eccles Avene PROJECT NUMBER P11-0101: UPM20-0001& DR20-0012 PROJECT NAME GOP 5 – R&D Campus (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Use Permit Modification and Design Review Modification to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of a previously entitled project 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 and determination that the project is consistent with the previously adopted EIR. The Board had the following comments: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, provide accessibility plans from the parking garage to the buildings and public right-of-way. 2. Provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures prior to the issuance of building permits.. 3. Revise the proposed planting plan to include tree species that scale to the height of the buildings. 4. Consider the following additional revisions to the planting plan: a. The tree species in zone 2 are not sufficient to create any affective wind mitigation. b. Alder, Birch and Pear are especially subject to wind damage. c. Trees to consider: Monterey Cypress (planted in loamy sand), Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Norfolk Island Pine, Eucalyptus – if the soil is not changed. d. Westringia fruiticosa may not survive a frost. e. Ceanothus “Yankee Point” is not a long lived species, consider Ceanothus “Anchor Bay”. f. Muhlenbergia Rigens does poorly in the cold windy SSF climate. Muhlenbergia Capillaris is very successful, as well as the other clump grasses. g. Cistus X Hibridus is often short lived and requires fast draining sandy soil to survive. 5. Provide details regarding the proposed depths of the topsoil and clean subsoil in the landscape areas? The success of proposed trees will depend on deep low clay soils, best is loamy sand with less than 10% clay. 6. Consider revising the connection between the promenade and Eccles Ave to make it more prominent and visible from Eccles.. Recommend Approval with Comments 6. OWNER BioMed Realty- Salil Payappilly APPLICANT BioMed Realty- Salil Payappilly ADDRESS 850-900 Gateway Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P08-0034: PP20-0001 & DR20-0013 PROJECT NAME Precise Plan GOP 4 (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Precise Plan and Design Review to construct Phase 4 of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project, including 182,000 sf of Office/R&D development, a 6-story parking structure, surface parking, and other on- and off-site improvements, at 850-900 Gateway Blvd in the Gateway Specific Plan District, and determination that the project is within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2010 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that the 2020 Addendum to the EIR is consistent with CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Venturi effect of wind speeds at the southwest corner of GOP-4-N will likely render the adjacent seating to be un-useable. Concern for the wind in this portion of the plan may require a design for some wind attenuation. 2. Consider the following revisions to the planting plan: The California Sycamore is subject to mildew, consider a different species. The Groves are planted too small to medium size trees. The applicant has the opportunity to provide tall 75 ft. – 100 ft. species that will help scale the large buildings. Consider these trees: Monterey Cypress planted in loamy sand with proper and good drainage, Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Norfolk Island Pine, Eucalyptus – if the existing poor soil is not changed. The large planter west of GOP-4-S should also be planted with 75 ft. – 100 ft. species. Pinus Elderica, Afghan Pine to the northeast at the garage entry will be unsuccessful at the adjacent property. Consider an alternate species. Brisbane Box will likely not do well in the wind and should be changed to a more wind tolerant species. The tree species in zone 2 are not sufficient to create any affective wind mitigation. Alder, Birch and Pear are especially subject to wind damage Westringia fruiticosa may not survive a frost. Ceanothus “Yankee Point” is not a long lived species, consider Ceanothus “Anchor Bay”. Muhlenbergia Rigens does poorly in the cold windy SSF climate. Muhlenbergia Capillaris is very successful, as well as the other clump grasses. Cistus X Hibridus is often short lived and requires fast draining sandy soil to survive. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, provide accessibility plans from the parking garage to the buildings and public right-of-way. Consider relocating the access to the outer edges of the structure with direct access out of the building. Also consider putting accessible parking in a smaller footprint at the upper levels near the elevators, if not enough accessible space is on the ground floor. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures. Recommend Approval with Conditions. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 ______________________________________________________________________________ (Space Above This Line Reserved For Recorder’s Use) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND BMR-475 ECCLES AVENUE LLC 475 ECCLES AVENUE LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - Development Agreement page 1 of 90 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT [Life Science Campus at 475 Eccles Avenue] This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS AT 475 ECCLES AVENUE is dated September 9, 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.” R E C I T A L S 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. 93-2016, 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 (“MMRP”), 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. 94-2016, 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 - Development Agreement page 2 of 90 - 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 July 27, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1522-2016 approving and adopting this Agreement and the Ordinance thereafter took effect on August 26, 2016. A G R E E M E N T 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. - Development Agreement page 3 of 90 - (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 October 26, 2012 (DEIR) and February 2016 (FEIR), 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. - Development Agreement page 4 of 90 - 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. - Development Agreement page 5 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 6 of 90 - 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. - Development Agreement page 7 of 90 - 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 Project 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); - Development Agreement page 8 of 90 - 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 CAP’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). - Development Agreement page 9 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 10 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 11 of 90 - 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 (b). 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. - Development Agreement page 12 of 90 - 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. - Development Agreement page 13 of 90 - 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. - Development Agreement page 14 of 90 - (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. - Development Agreement page 15 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 16 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 17 of 90 - 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 (30) 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 - Development Agreement page 18 of 90 - 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: - Development Agreement page 19 of 90 - 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. *************************************************************************** - Development Agreement page 20 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 21 of 90 - Exhibit A Legal Description and Map of Property - Development Agreement page 22 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 23 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 24 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 25 of 90 - Exhibit B Project Documents - Development Agreement page 26 of 90 - G A T E W A Y E X E C U TI V E D R.101AIRPORT BOULEVARD DU B UQ UE AVENUELINDENAVENUEAVENUEEASTGRANDPROJECT SITEB O U L E V A R D E C C L E S A V E .FORBESBLVD.OYSTER POINT BVLDSHEET INDEXP-A1.1SITE PLAN AND SITE DATALOCATIONP-A2.2P-A3.1 BUILDING A ELEVATIONSP-A3.2 BUILDING B ELEVATIONSP-A4.1 BUILDING A SECTIONSP-A4.2 BUILDING B SECTIONSP-A1.2 SITE SECTIONSBUILDING B FLOOR PLANSSITE PLAN, ROOF PLAN AND SITE CALCULATIONSP-A1.0BUILDING A FLOOR PLANSP-A2.1PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANPRELIMINARY PLANTING PLANP-C2P-L1.0BUILDING SECTIONSSECOND, TYPICAL AND FIFTH LEVEL PARKING PLANSGROUND LEVEL PARKING PLANP-P3.1P-P2.2P-P2.1P-P3.2 BUILDING ELEVATIONSP-E1.1 SITE PLAN PHOTOMETRICSTORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANP-C3925.245.8788E-mail: sreynolds@kierwright.comContact: Stephen Reynolds925.245.8796 faxKier & WrightLivermore, CA 945512850 Collier Canyon Roadcivil engineerBioMed Realty TrustNewark, CA 94560650.967.6600E-mail: jose@casarch.com650.967.6616 faxE-mail: andrew.richard@biomedrealty.comContact: Andrew RichardMountain View, CA 940431023 Shoreline BoulevardCAS Architects, Inc.architect510.795.2985 fax510.505.60467677 Gateway Blvd, Suite 100DESIGN TEAMowner408.481.9020E-mail: paul@rala.netContact: Paul J. Reed408.481.9022 faxSunnyvale, CA 94086477 S. Taaffe StreetReed Associateslandscape architectE-mail: vish.ponnathpore@greene-engineers.comPM Greene EngineersSan Jose, CA 95110Contact: Vish Ponnathpore1740 Technology Drive, Suite 210408.200.7201 fax408.200.7200lighting engineerREFERENCE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONSEXISTING SITE PHOTOSP-A0.2P-A0.1100 Century Center Court, Suite 600E-mail: mdavis@watrydesign.comWatry Design, Inc.Contact: Matt Davis408 392-7900San Jose, CA 95112parking architect/plannerRinne & Peterson1121 San Antonio Road, Suite C200E-mail: aaronkvamme@rpse.comPalo Alto, CA 94303-4311Contact: Aaron Kvamme650.428.2861 fax650.428.2860structural engineerP-A4.3 GLASS SKIN STUDYLIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLESPLANNING PACKAGE475 Eccles AvenueSouth San Francisco, CA 94080Contact: José CottoNEXISTING CONDITIONSP-C1CAS JOB NO: 2011-073 DATE: 11.15.11PRELIMINARY COURTYARD PLANTING PLANP-L1.1PLANNING RESUBMITTAL: 05.24.12PROPOSED TREE DIMENSION PLANP-L1.2P-A1.3SITE PLAN, PHASE 1LANDSCAPE HYDRO-ZONE PLANP-L2.0TREE SHADING PLANP-L1.3PLANNING COMMISSION: 11.26.12P-A1.1A ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURESPLANNING RESUBMITTAL: 09.19.14- Development Agreement page 27 of 90 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDOHOHOHOHOHOHOH OH OH OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHSD CDABEXISTING SITE CONDITIONS1"=30'-0"1"=30'-0"REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALASITE PHOTO VIEW DIRECTION.SEE SHEET P-A0.2LEGENDREFERENCEEXISTING SITECONDITIONSP-A0.1NOTE: SUPERSEDED BY ISSUED DEMOLITION PERMIT BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO- Development Agreement page 28 of 90 - REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE PHOTO A - LOOKING SOUTHSITE PHOTO B - LOOKING NORTH-EASTSITE PHOTO C - LOOKING NORTHSITE PHOTO D - LOOKING NORTHEXISTING SITEPHOTOS P-A0.2NOTE: SUPERSEDED BY ISSUED DEMOLITION PERMIT BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO- Development Agreement page 29 of 90 - NOTE: SUPERSEDED BY ISSUED DEMOLITION PERMIT BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO- Development Agreement page 30 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 31 of 90 - Area IDTotal Area (AC)Total Area (SF)Pervious (SF)Impervious (SF)Minimum Swale* (SF)Number of Trees** (Each)Design Swale*** (SF)1 0.35 15246 3257 11989 480 0 5402 0.65 28314 11326 16988 680 0 7643 0.77 33541 5403 28138 1126 0 126645 0.62 27007 6089 20918 837 8 11016 0.99 43124 6990 36134 1445 8 17867 0.09 3920 1683 2237 89 0 1018 0.16 6970 2920 4050 162 0 1829 0.14 6098 3401 2697 108 0 12110 0.37 16117 3073 13044 522 0 58711 0.11 4792 1330 3462 138 0 15612 0.10 4356 125 423113 0.11 4792 1763 3029 121 2 17614 0.39 16988 3437 13551 542 2 65015 0.27 11761 2617 9144 366 0 41116 0.09 3920 2484 1436 57 0 6517 0.11 4792 323 446918a+18b 0.26 11326 2079 9247 370 4 49619 0.12 5227 819 4408 176 1 21820 0.14 6098 3404 2694 108 3 181Notes:* 4% of the Impervious Area is the minimum per the San Mateo County C.3 Guidelines** Number of Trees is per the landscape plan. Trees are counted only in the treatment p*** Design swale = 4.5% impervious area + 20sf per tree****See the Manufacturers information for treatment methods and sizingCDS Unit****CDS Unit****Not Used- Development Agreement page 32 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 33 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 34 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 35 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 36 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 37 of 90 - N 60°30'00" W 125.00'N 47°00'31" W 366.63'73.33'N 17°00'31" W N 47°00'31" W88.00'N 39°56'25" W143.11'N 81°39'31" E 65.55'N 02°00'31" W28.28'N 42°59'29" E 237.36' X XN 50°03'35" E 366.08' X X X X X X X X XN 39°56'25" W 475.15'N 50°03'35" E 325.84' X X X X X X X X X X X X51'-8" 20'-0" 32'-0"64'-0"54'-0"37'-2"48'-4"FRONT SETBACK 36'-0"25'-0"6'-0"58'-0"25'-0"PARKING STRUCTURE5 LEVELS4-STORIESBUILDING A4-STORIESBUILDING B19BGGB9113ASROOF SCREENROOF SCREENSTAIRENCLOSURESTAIRENCLOSURE117,595 SF144,692 SFMECHANICAL WELL,SIZE AND LOCATIONTO BE DETERMINEDSIZE AND LOCATIONTO BE DETERMINEDMECHANICAL WELL,99'-9" ℄ ROAD SETBACKSIDE10'-0"REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALOCCUPANCYSITE PLAN / ROOF PLANF-1/S-1B/F-2/S-2H/LNOT PERMITTED < 3'-0"OPENINGS15% < 5'-0"PROTECTED < 20'-0"NOT PERMITTED < 5'-0"3-HOUR N/C < 5'-0"2-HOUR N/C < 10'-0"1-HOUR N/C < 30'-0"NR, N/C ELSEWHERE2-HOUR N/C < 5'-0"1-HOUR N/C < 30'-0"1-HOUR N/C < 10'-0"1-HOUR N/C < 30'-0"NR, N/C ELSEWHERE1-HOUR N/C < 5'-0"EXTERIOR WALL1"=30'-0"LOCATION ON PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS - TYPE I-BSITE DATA1"=30'-0"REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION - TYPE I-BSTAIRWAY CONSTRUCTIONFLOORS AND FLOOR-CEILINGSEXTERIOR DOORS & WINDOWSROOFBEARING WALLS, EXTERIORNONBEARING WALLS, EXTERIORBEARING WALLS, INTERIORSTRUCTURAL FRAMESHAFT ENCLOSURESNONCOMBUSTIBLEPROTECTED < 20 FEETNOT PERMITTED < 5 FEET2 HOURON PROPERTY BASED ON LOCATION 2 HOUR2 HOURDESCRIPTIONBTP ZONE/BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY PARKGROUND FLOORSECOND FLOORFOURTH FLOORFOURTH FLOORGROUND FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA BUILDING AGROSS FLOOR AREA BUILDING BFLOOR AREA BY FLOOR - BUILDING BTHIRD FLOOR FLOOR AREA BY FLOOR - BUILDING AF.A.R. CALCULATIONPARCEL NUMBERGROSS FLOOR AREA - BUILDING AGROSS FLOOR AREA - BUILDING BGROSS FLOOR AREA - TOTALZONINGF.A.R. ALLOWED33,510 S.F.27,293 S.F.28,747 S.F.30,193 S.F.117,595 S.F.31,362 S.F.35,660 S.F.144,692 S.F.37,297 S.F.38,225 S.F.144,692 S.F.262,727 S.F.117,595 S.F.051-071-3301.0F.A.R. SHOWN.989BASED ON LOCATION ON PROPERTY LEGENDREQUIRED SETBACKSEXISTING EASEMENTON PROPERTYTHIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF TWO FOUR-STORY STEEL-FRAMEDSHELL STRUCTURES TOTALING 262,287 SF IN AREA AND ADETACHED FIVE LEVEL OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE.THE TWO STRUCTURES SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ONE BUILDINGFOR ALLOWABLE AREA CALCULATIONS. THE BUILDING SHELLSTRUCTURES SHALL BE OF TYPE I-B CONSTRUCTION ANDSURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES WITH YARDS OF NOT LESS THAN37'-0" IN WIDTH. THE BUILDING SHALL BE 90'-0" IN HEIGHT AT ITSHIGHEST POINT.ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL BE FROM ECCLES AVENUE. THEMAJORITY OF THE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE PARKINGSTRUCTURE WITH ADDITIONAL SURFACE PARKING LOCATEDTHOUROUGHOUT THE SITE. MOST ACCESSIBLE PARKING ISPROVIDED WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE. PARKING ISPROVIDED FOR CARPOOL AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES.THE EXISTING BUILDING, PAVING AND ASSOCIATED SERVICESTRUCTURES, ETC ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED UNDER ASEPARATE PACKAGE.TOTAL LOT AREA:265,618 S.F.+ 20:1 SLOPE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT INCREASEBUILDING HEIGHT - BUILDING AT.O. BLDG. PARAPETT.O. BLDG. PENTHOUSE+71'-6"+90'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT - BUILDING BT.O. BLDG. PENTHOUSET.O. BLDG. PARAPET+90'-0"+71'-6"BUILDING HEIGHT - PARKING STRUCTURET.O. FIFTH LEVEL RAIL+45'-7"T.O. ELEVATOR SHAFT+60'-0"(BASED ON GENERAL PLAN - AREA 161' ABOVE SEA LEVELBUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWEDEAST OF 101 SEC. 3.5-1-4)(OR +91'-6" FROM T.O.S.)NORTH OF FORBES AVE. (DIST. = 600'-0" MIN.)+121'-6"+30'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED(ELEVATION 69.5 GIVEN AS DATUM 0'-0")SITE PLAN / ROOF PLANANDSITE CALCULATIONSP-A1.0ALLOWABLE AREAS: TYPE I-B PER CBC 2013, TABLE 503 & SECTION 508, Mixed OccOCCUPANCY ALLOWABLE AREAAa = At + [At x If] + [At x Is]If = [F/P - 0.25] W/30 ORIf = [F/P - 0.25] 2 (PER UBC SECTION 506.2.1 EXECEPTION ) (Example: F/P = [1224 ft./1224/ft - 0.25] 2 = 1.5)Is = 2 FOR MORE THAN ONE STORY (EXCEPT H-3)B11 STORIESAa = UNLIMITEDF-111 STORIESAa = UNLIMITEDH-4 & H-5Aa = UNLIMITEDALLOWABLE AREA (TOTAL BUILDING)OKOKOKS-111 STORIESAa = [48,000 + (48,000 x 1.37) + (48,000 x 2)] x 3 = 628,995 SF628,995 SFH-36 STORIESAa = [60,000 + (60,000 x 1.37) + (60,000 x 1)} x 2 = 404,162 SF404,162 SFALLOWABLEHEIGHT7 STORIES (H4)4 STORIES (H5)BAa = UNLIMITEDF-1Aa = UNLIMITEDH-4 & H-5Aa = UNLIMITEDALLOWABLE AREA (PER FLOOR)S-1Aa = 48,000 + (48,000 x 1.37) + (48,000 x 2) = 209,665 SFH-3Aa = 60,000 + [60,000 x 1.37] + 0 = 202,081 SFOKOKOK209,665 SF202,081 SF1 HOUR - 2 HOUR ABOVE3RD FLOORCONTROL AREA(PARTITIONS & FLOORS)2 HOURNONCOMBUSTIBLE2 HOUR (1 HOUR IF BEARINGROOF ONLY)25% < 10'-0"NO LIMIT < 20'-0"NOT PERMITTED < 3'-0"15% < 5'-0"25% < 10'-0"NO LIMIT < 20'-0"NR, N/C ELSEWHERE20'05'10'60'30'BUILDINGS A AND B ARE TO BE TREATED AS ONE BUILDINGALLOWABLE AREAS: TYPE I-B PER CBC 2013, TABLE 406.5.4ALLOWABLE HEIGHTS-212 TIERSAa = [79,000 + (79,000 x 1.25) + (79,000 x 2)] X 3 = 1,006,809 SFPARKING GARAGEMIXED USE ALLOWED(BASE AREA GIVEN)GROSS FLOOR AREA - BRIDGE, FLOORS 2 & 3 440 S.F.ALLOWABLE AREA (PER FLOOR)S-2Aa = 79,000 + (79,000 x 1.25) + (79,000 x 2) = 335,603 SFALLOWABLE AREA (TOTAL BUILDING)120'- Development Agreement page 38 of 90 - 6N 60°30'00" W 125.00'N 47°00'31" W 366.63'73.33'N 17°00'31" W N 47°00'31" W88.00'N 39°56'25" W143.11'N 81°39'31" E 65.55'N 02°00'31" W28.28'5 LEVELSPARKING STRUCTUREN 42°59'29" E 237.36' X X32N 50°03'35" E 366.08'4-STORY BLDG.BUILDING B X X X X X X X X XN 39°56'25" W 475.15'4-STORY BLDG.BUILDING AN 50°03'35" E 325.84' X X X X12 X X X8 X X X X X001STAIR001STAIRUPROZZI PL.ECCLES AVENUEVAN31062549369R3 2 ' - 0 "5BPA1.2APA1.2BPA1.2APA1.223231149GBG1B9131AS6550 PARKING STALLS910107℄ ROAD 1111111312TRASH,REFUSE &RECYCLINGTRASH, REFUSE & RECYCLING 141415REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE PLAN1"=30'-0"TOTAL AREA:STAIR AND EXIT WIDTH CALCULATIONSBUILDING A SECOND FLOOR = 35,660 SFTHIRD FLOOR = 38,225 SFFOURTH FLOOR = 37,297 SFSECOND FLOOR = 28,747 SFFOURTH FLOOR = 30,193 SFBUILDING BTHIRD FLOOR = 31,362 SFTOTAL BUILDING AREA = 144,692 SFTOTAL BUILDING AREA = 117,595 SFGROSS FLOOR AREA = 262,287 SFOCCUPANT LOAD COUNT: (TABLE 1004.1.1)FIRST FLOOR = 27,293 SFFIRST FLOOR = 33,510 SFSECOND FLOOR = 35,660 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 357 OCC.FOURTH FLOOR = 37,297 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 373 OCC.FIRST FLOOR = 33,510 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 336 OCC.THIRD FLOOR = 38,225 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 383 OCC.FOURTH FLOOR = 30,193 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 302 OCC.SECOND FLOOR = 28,747 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 288 OCC.FIRST FLOOR = 27,293 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 273 OCC.THIRD FLOOR = 31,362 SF/100 SF PER OCC. = 314 OCC.EXIT WIDTH CALCULATIONS: (SECTION 1005)383 OCC. X 0.2" FACTOR = 77" / 3 EXITS = 26" < 36" WIDE DOORS, MIN.BUILDING A314 OCC. X 0.2" FACTOR = 63" / 3 EXITS = 21" < 36" WIDE DOORS, MIN.BUILDING BSTAIR WIDTH CALCULATIONS: (SECTION 1005)314 OCC. X 0.3" FACTOR = 94.2" / 2 STAIRS = 48" WIDE STAIRS, MIN.383 OCC. X 0.3" FACTOR = 114.9" / 2 STAIRS = 58" WIDE STAIRS, MIN.1"=30'-0"BUILDING A BUILDING BBUILDING B (3RD FLR.)BUILDING A (3RD FLR)PARKING PROVIDEDPARKING GARAGE PARKING:ON-GRADE PARKING:540 STALLSUNISTALL (8'6 X 18')ACCESSIBLE STALLS 9 STALLSACCESSIBLE STALLSUNISTALL (8'6 X 18')101 STALLS2 STALLSTOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED:655 STALLSVAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS1 STALL PARKING DATASITE NOTES(12 STALLS)TOTAL ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDEDLEGEND20'-0" MIN WIDE FIRE LANE -PER FIRE DEPT STANDARDSSITE REMARKSSERVICE YARDON-GRADE LOADING AREADEPRESSED LOADING AREAOVERHEAD WALKWAYBICYCLE PARKING, 20 SPACES2534120'05'10'60'120'SITE COVERAGE DATATOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE:TOTAL PERVIOUS PERCENTAGE LOT COVERAGETOTAL IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE LOT COVERAGETOTAL BUILDING PERCENTAGE LOT COVERAGETOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA LOT COVERAGETOTAL PERVIOUS AREA LOT COVERAGEBUILDING BPARKING STRUCTURETOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE:TOTAL LOT AREA:BUILDING A31,332 SF39,636 SF109,440 SF41.2%265,618 SF38,472 SFACCESSIBLE PATH FROM PUBLIC WAY630'REFER TO SHEETS P-P2.1 AND P-2.2 FOR PARKING STALL LAYOUT AT PARKING GARAGESITE PLAN ANDSITE DATA P-A1.1VAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS2 STALLS1. FOR GRADING INFORMATION, SEE SHEET C-2, PRELIMINARYGRADING PLAN.2. FOR LANDSCAPING INFORMATION, SEE SHEETS P-L1.0 AND P-L1.1,CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN.3. FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT LEAST 10' FROM ALLDRIVEWAYS. ALL STRUCTURES TO BE WHOLLY WITHIN 500' OFHYDRANT.COVERED BICYCLE PARKING, 42 SPACES7RETAINING WALL8DOUBLE SIDED MONUMENT SIGN, 8'-0" HIGH 9VEHICLE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE10ACCESSIBLE PATH FROM PARKING AND PUBLIC WAY191,866 SF62,523 SF71%24%TRANSFORMER11COLORED CONCRETE SEATING1213WATER FEATURE, WATER FALLING OVER STONE SLABS(PARKING RATION 2.5/1000SF)14TRASH, REFUSE & RECYCLING WITHIN COVERED YARD. CURBED ANDPARTITIONED FROM SERVICE YARD.15PROPOSED FUTURE BRIDGE.- Development Agreement page 39 of 90 - REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUEENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECTENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES P-A1.1A08.21.12ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 2.4 Environmental Measures Incorporated into theProjectThe following measures are proposed as part of the Project and are shown on thearchitectural drawings (sheet P.A.1.1a) and in application materials. These measures arein addition to the City's standard requirements identified in Chapter 1 save for AirQuality items 1-3 and Site Remediation Measures that require J Permits to removeasbestos and lead based paint containing materials. The measures are designed to reducethe environmental affect of the Project.A. Air Quality and Green House Gas Emission Reduction Measures1) Aspects Of Project Designed To Limit Fugitive Dust Emissions. The constructioncontractor shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementingBAAQMD's basic fugitive dust control measures. Therefore, the Project shall includethe following requirements in construction contracts:All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, gradedareas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off siteshall be covered.All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall beremoved 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 completedas soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible aftergrading unless seeding or soil binders are used.A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number andperson to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. Thisperson shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The AirDistrict's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance withapplicable regulations.All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintainminimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by labsamples or moisture probe. (i.e., during any phase that will expose previouslycovered soils, there will be soil moisture monitoring in two locations on site,twice a day (mid-morning and mid-afternoon) and additional watering, beyondthe twice-a-day watering referenced above, will be applied if the monitoringreveals that soil moisture content has dropped below 12%)All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspendedwhen average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. [Occurs less than threepercent of the year.]Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) orother plants that offer dust mitigation measures shall be planted indisturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately untilvegetation is established.The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, andground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one timeshall be limited. To the extent feasible, activities shall be phased toreduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off priorto leaving the site.Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to preventsilt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one (1)percent.2) Aspects of Project Designed To Limit Exhaust Emissions. The constructioncontractor shall implement the following measures during construction to reduceconstruction-related exhaust emissions:Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off whennot in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two (2) minutes Clearsignage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned inaccordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall bechecked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in propercondition prior to operation.All construction equipment, diesel trucks and generators shall beequipped with Best Available Control Technology for emissionreductions of NOx and PM to the maximum extent feasible. To this end,all generators and air compressors used on site shall be electric. All onroad trucks used onsite shall be Year Model 2007 or better. Propane orLNG-fueled booms and scissor lifts shall be used.Tier 2 or better for 20 percent of horsepower-hours of off-road dieselequipment shall be used during construction and 65 percent ofhorsepower hours during demolition.All contractors shall, to the maximum extent feasible, use equipment thatmeets the ARB's most recent certification for off-road heavy duty dieselengines.No onsite grinding, crushing or shredding of asphalt or debris shall occuronsite.Potential future measures that achieve the same or better performancecriteria shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior toinitiating any changes.Applicant shall provide the City and Genentech with a list of andschedule for demolition, grading and construction equipment andactivities.A construction superintendent shall be on site during all demolition,grading and construction activities to enforce these regulations.3)Compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 during Demolition.Demolition of existing buildings and structures would be subject to BAAQMDRegulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing).BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions fromdemolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance ofasbestos-containing waste material generated or handled during these activities.The rule requires the notification of BAAQMD of any regulated renovation ordemolition activity. This notification includes a description of structures and methodsutilized to determine whether asbestos-containing materials are potentially present. Allasbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition orrenovation activity in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, includingspecific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of materialcontaining asbestos.4)Compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 for Architectural Coatings.Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to the use of architecturalcoatings 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 includemore stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised VOC architectural coating limits,which became effective on January 1, 2011, are projected to result in a 32 percentreduction of VOC emissions in the Bay Area associated with architectural coatingapplications.B. Transportation and Green House Gas Reduction MeasuresThe 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 toprojects that do not include a TDM, to qualify for a 1.0 FAR. The TDM Program isrequired by law to be reviewed by the City and modified by the Applicant as required bythe City to meet the mode shift requirements. Performance audits are also required. TheApplicant 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, coordinatedwith Alliance (TDM coordinator responsibility.)12. Membership in Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance.C. Construction and Operational Design Elements Addressing EnvironmentalSustainabilityThe LEED design and construction strategies that have been integrated into the planningdocuments include:1. The use of a previously developed site without impacts associated with endangeredspecies, 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 accessto major public transportation hubs. In addition to the requirements for bike parkingthe Project will include shower/changing room amenities for bike users.4. The Project will provide adequate preferred parking for low-emitting and alternativefuel vehicles. The Project will provide fewer parking spaces than those referencedin local zoning requirements.5. The Project provides more than 20 percent of the total site area in open space. Morethan 50 percent of all parking will be under cover to reduce heat island effects forsite surfaces.6. The Project has developed tenant design and construction guidelines includingrecommendations and requirements for tenant improvements.7. Indoor plumbing fixtures within the core and shell design and those required by thetenant scope of work will achieve greater than a 30 percent water use reduction.8. Site landscape and irrigation equipment will provide irrigation efficiencies greaterthan 50 percent reduction from a standard summer baseline.9. The Project will provide fundamental and enhanced commissioning (Cx) of MEPenergy systems, including a requirement for tenant improvement Enhanced Cx anda 10 month post-occupancy return to verify equipment warranty and operationalefficiencies. Current energy model targets anticipate a greater than 15% reductionin energy compared to Title 24 and ASHRAE 90.1. Base building and tenantimprovement mechanical and food service equipment will be required to complywith enhanced refrigerant management requirements. The Project will provideadequate areas for the collection and storage of recyclables, and tenants will berequired to implement desk-side recycling.10. The Project has developed a Construction Waste Management plan that targets atleast 75% diversion of landfill waste, with a goal of 95% diversion. The Project hasintegrated requirements into planning specifications and plans to target a greaterthan 20% recycled and regional content (by cost) in all building materials for theproject. 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 thevapor barrier of the Project to comply with LEED/CalGreen VOC & CARBrequirements, and specifically contain no-added urea-formaldehyde (NAUF)products. The Project will conduct, and require tenants to conduct, and Indoor AirQuality Management Plan for Construction Activities that requires contractors tocomply with SMACNA IAQ guidelines for best practices during construction.12.Please see Table 2.1 for a complete list of LEED Silver measures provided by theApplicant to be incorporated into the Project, or an equivalent thereto.09.30.13ENV MEASURES REVISION - Development Agreement page 40 of 90 - SERVICEYARD101TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"1st FLOOR 0'-0"13ECCLES AVENUE91TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"1st FLOOR 0'-0"REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE SECTION A1/16" = 1'-0"SITE SECTION B1/16" = 1'-0"BASITE SECTIONSP-A1.2- Development Agreement page 41 of 90 - 6N 60°30'00" W 125.00'N 47°00'31" W 366.63'73.33'N 17°00'31" W N 47°00'31" W88.00'N 39°56'25" W 143.11'N 81°39'31" E 65.55'N 02°00'31" W28.28'5 LEVELSPARKING STRUCTUREN 42°59'29" E 237.36' X XN 50°03'35" E 366.08'BUILDING BSLAB FOR X X X X X X X X XN 39°56'25" W 475.15'4-STORY BLDG.BUILDING AN 50°03'35" E 325.84' X X X X X X X8 X X X X X001STAIR001STAIRUPROZZI PL.ECCLES AVENUEVAN6493PROPOSED(FUTURE 4-STORY BLDG)LANDSCAINGLANDSCAINGLANDSCAING LANDSCAINGLANDSCAINGREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALFIRST PHASE SITE PLAN1"=30'-0"1"=30'-0"LEGEND20'-0" MIN WIDE FIRE LANE -PER FIRE DEPT STANDARDS P-A1.3ACCESSIBLE PATH FROM PARKING AND PUBLIC WAYSITE PLANPHASE 120'05'10'60'120'30'PHASE 1 SITE PLAN NOTES1. SHOULD A PHASED CONSTRUCTION BE REQUIRED, THE INTENT IS TOCONSTRUCT BUILDING A AND THE PARKING STRUCTURE WITHIN THEFIRST PHASE. THIS DRAWING SHOWS THE SITE AS IT WOULD BEFOLLOWING THE FIRST PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION.2. TEMPORARY LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALLLANDSCAPE DESIGN IS PROPOSED IN AREAS OF THE SITE WHICHWILL BE DEVELOPED IN THE SECOND PHASE.- Development Agreement page 42 of 90 - 12435GFE678ADCB910001STAIRUP38,225 S.F.12435GFE678ADCB910001STAIRUP37,297 S.F.12345678910ABCDEFG001STAIR001STAIRUP288'-0"120'-0"24'-0"33,510 S.F.BPA4.1APA4.1CPA4.2APA4.2BPA4.1BPA4.1CPA4.2APA4.2112'-0"SERVICE YARD8'-0"2'-0"22'-0"24'-0"2'-0"30'-0"32'-0"GFEADCB12435768910001STAIRUP35,660 S.F.OPEN TO SERVICEYARD BELOWBUILDING A - THIRD FLOOR PLANREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALBUILDING A - FOURTH FLOOR PLANBUILDING A - FIRST FLOOR PLANBUILDING A - SECOND FLOOR PLAN1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING AFLOOR PLANSP-A2.1- Development Agreement page 43 of 90 - GFED214357698BCA28,747 S.F.YARD BELOWOPEN TO SERVICEFUTURE BRIDGEBUILDING AGFED214357698BCA31,362 S.F.FUTURE BRIDGEBUILDING A GFED214357698BCA30,193 S.F.GFEDBCA123456789001STAIR001STAIR232'-0"120'-0"BPA4.2BPA4.2CPA4.2CPA4.2APA4.2APA4.2DPA4.2DPA4.2EPA4.227,293 S.F.SERVICE YARD24'-0" 2'-0"22'-0"24'-0"1'-2"8'-10"2'-0"30'-0"32'-0"112'-0"BUILDING B - FIRST FLOOR PLAN1/16" = 1'-0"REV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALBUILDING B - SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING B - THIRD FLOOR PLANBUILDING B - FOURTH FLOOR PLANBUILDING BFLOOR PLANSP-A2.2- Development Agreement page 44 of 90 - TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"1st FLOOR 0'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"1234ABCDEFG567891012534678910ACBDEFG1st FLOOR 0'-0"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"METAL COMPOSITE PANELS - F2GFRC - F3GLAZED CURTAIN WALL - F1GFRC - F4PAINTED TUBE STEELGLAZED CURTAIN WALL - F1OPERABLE SASH, TYPSTAIR ENCLOSURE BEYOND - F3METAL COMPOSITE PANEL - F2GFRC ROOF SCREEN AND BALCONIES - F3GFRC - F4BRACES - F5, TYPCOLUMN COVERS -F5, TYPF5, TYPCANOPY -TYP AT BALCONY PANELSLOADING DOCKRIBBON WINDOWS - MATCH F1, TYPCOMPOSITE METAL PANELS - F2GFRC - F3, TYPPAINTED TUBE STEEL BRACES - F5, TYPBALCONY RAILINGS - MATCH F4, TYPWINDOWS - MATCH F1GFRC - F3BALCONY RAILINGS - MATCH F4, TYPLOUVERED DOORS TO SERVICE YARD MATCH F3PLASTER OVER CMU WALL TO MATCH GFRC COLOR F3PAINTED TUBE STEEL BRACES - MATCH F2, TYPWALL MOUNT LIGHTFIXTURE, TYPPLASTER OVER CMU WALL TO MATCHGFRC COLOR F3LOUVERED DOORS TO SERVICE YARDMATCH F3BRIDGE TO BUILDING BMETAL FIN SCREEN - MATCH F4 - GFRC - F3GFRC CANOPY - F4GLAZING BEHINDBRIDGE TO BUIDING BFUTURE BRIDGE TO BUILDING BREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALWEST1/16" = 1'-0"SOUTH1/16" = 1'-0"NORTH1/16" = 1'-0"EAST1/16" = 1'-0"GFRC TO MATCH PAINT COLOR DEC728 MADERAFINISH SCHEDULEBRACE PAINT AND COLUMN COVERSDEW383 COOL DECEMBERGFRC TO MATCH PAINT COLOR COMPOSITE PANEL, SILVER METALIC FINISHIN ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAMESOLARBAN 70XL F3TO MATCH F2F5F4F2F1BUILDING AELEVATIONSP-A3.1- Development Agreement page 45 of 90 - TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"1st FLOOR 0'-0"ACBDEFG2345768911234567894th FLOOR 51'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"1st FLOOR 0'-0"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"GFRC - F3GLAZED CURTAIN WALL - F1METAL COMPOSITE PANELS - F2LOUVERS - COLOR TO MATCH F2LOADING DOCKGFRC ROOF SCREEN AND CANOPIES - F3METAL COMPOSITE PANEL - F2STAIR ENCLOSURE BEYOND - F3GFRC CANOPY - F4GFRC - F3MATCH F4 - GLAZING BEHINDMETAL FIN SCREEN - LOUVERED DOORS TO SERVICE YARD MATCH F3PAINTED TUBE STEEL BRACES - F5, TYPPLASTER OVER CMU WALL TO MATCH GFRC COLOR F3COMPOSITE METAL PANELS - F2BALCONY, TYP, GFRC PANEL F4METAL BAR RAILING - F4, TYPOPERABLE SASH, TYPGLAZED CURTAIN WALL - F1WINDOWS - MATCH F1TYP AT BALCONY PANELSPAINTED TUBE STEELBRACES - F5, TYPGFRC - F4COLUMN COVERS -F5, TYPCANOPY -F5, TYPGFRC - F3, TYPRIBBON WIDOWS - MATCH F1, TYPGFRC - F4GLAZED CURTAIN WALL - F1GFRC - F3METAL COMPOSITE PANELS - F2MATCH F4, TYPBALCONY RAILINGS - PLASTER OVER CMU WALL TO MATCH GFRC COLOR F3PAINTED TUBE STEEL BRACES - MATCH F2, TYPLOUVERED DOORS TO SERVICE YARD MATCH F3WALL MOUNT LIGHTFIXTURE, TYPFUTURE BRIDGEREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSOUTH1/16" = 1'-0"WEST1/16" = 1'-0"EAST1/16" = 1'-0"NORTH1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING BELEVATIONSP-A3.2GFRC TO MATCH PAINT COLOR DEC728 MADERAFINISH SCHEDULEBRACE PAINT AND COLUMN COVERSDEW383 COOL DECEMBERGFRC TO MATCH PAINT COLOR COMPOSITE PANEL, SILVER METALIC FINISHIN ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAMESOLARBAN 70XL F3TO MATCH F2F5F4F2F1- Development Agreement page 46 of 90 - 1st FLOOR 0'-0"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"10987654321ABCDEFG MECHANICAL PENTHOUSEMECHANICAL PENTHOUSESERVICEYARDSUNSHADES ON CURTAIN WALLCANOPY AT COLONNADE, TYPTYP SOUTH AND WEST SIDESSCREEN OVER ENTRYCANOPY AT ENTRYREVOLVING DOORREMOVABLE LOUVERSBALCONIESROOF SCREENSTAIR ENCLOSUREMECHANICAL WELLMECHANICAL WELLROOF SCREENCONCRETERETAINING WALLREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSECTION B1/16" = 1'-0"SECTION A1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING ALONGITUDINALSECTIONP-A4.1- Development Agreement page 47 of 90 - TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"1st FLOOR 0'-0"TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"ABCDEFGGFEDCBAGFEDCBA1st FLOOR 0'-0"TOP OF PENTHOUSE 90'-0"TOP OF ROOF SCREEN 76'-6"TOP OF BUILDING PARAPET 71'-6"3rd FLOOR 34'-0"4th FLOOR 51'-0"2nd FLOOR 17'-0"MECHANICAL PENTHOUSEMECHANICAL PENTHOUSESERVICEYARDREVOLVING DOORCANOPY AT ENTRYCANOPY AT COLONNADESCREEN OVER ENTRYTYP SOUTH AND WEST SIDESSUNSHADE ON CURTAIN WALLROOF SCREENSTAIR ENCLOSUREBALCONIESREMOVABLE LOUVERSMECHANICAL WELLROOF SCREENMECHANICAL WELLPENTHOUSE BEYONDSTAIR ENCLOSUREROOF SCREENBALCONIESREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALSECTION A1/16" = 1'-0"1/16" = 1'-0"SECTION C1/16" = 1'-0"SECTION DSECTION B1/16" = 1'-0"SECTION E1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING BSECTIONSP-A4.2- Development Agreement page 48 of 90 - 17'-0"17'-0" 3'-7"6'-7"6'-10"6'-7"10'-5" 17'-0" 3'-7"6'-7"6'-10" 17'-0" 3'-7"6'-7"6'-10"5'-10"3'-4"4'-8"10'-0"2'-0"3'-7"MTL SUNSHADE ELEMENTINSULATED SHADOWBOX, TYPAL SUNSHADE, TYPAL WINDOW FRAMES, TYPDUAL PANE SOLAR GLAZING, TYPSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORFOURTH FLOORROOFGROUND FLOORREV.DATEDESCRIPTIONCAS Architects, Inc1023 N Shoreline BlvdMountain View, CA 94043TEL 650.967.6600FAX 650.967.6616www.casarch.comJosé Cotto, A.I.ASouth San Francisco, CA 94080LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS - 475 ECCLES475 ECCLES AVENUE11.15.11PLANNING SUBMITTAL04.12.12PLANNING REVIEW05.24.12PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.26.12PLANNING COMMISSION 09.19.14PLANNING RESUBMITTALGLASS SKINSTUDYP-A4.3CONCEPTUAL WALL SECTIONA1/4" = 1'-0"MTL SUNSHADE ELEMENTINSULATED SHADOWBOX, TYPAL SUNSHADE, TYPAL WINDOW FRAMES, TYPDUAL PANE SOLAR GLAZING, TYPOPERABLE WINDOW PANEL, TYP(SHOWN SHADED FOR CLARITY)- Development Agreement page 49 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 50 of 90 - 128'-0" 63'-0"63'-0"TO LEVEL BELOWRAMP DNTO LEVEL ABOVERAMP UPTO LEVEL BELOWRAMP DNOPEN 3 P3.1 1 P3.1 2 P3.1 2 P3.1 1 2 3 A B C D E F H I K L M N O P Q R S METAL SCREEN TYP. SEE P-P3.2 FOR TYPE METAL SCREEN TYP. SEE P-P3.2 FOR TYPE J 295'-0"14'-9"14'-9"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"14'-9"14'-9"OPTIONAL22'-0"1/32"=1'-0" TYPICAL LEVEL PARKING PLAN 1/32"=1'-0" FIFTH LEVEL PARKING PLAN 32 0 64 128 3 P3.1 1 P3.1 3 P3.1 1 P3.1 2 P3.1 2 P3.1 3 P3.1 1 P3.1 13'-4" PV LAYOUTSHOWN DASHED PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 09.19.14 - Development Agreement page 51 of 90 - GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL FIFTH LEVEL 3 FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAILVARIESTOP OF RAIL GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL FIFTH LEVEL TOP OF RAIL 1 3 1 3 TOP OF TOWER A S VARIES10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"13'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"10'-6"1/16"=1'-0" LONGITUDINAL SECTION 2 1/16"=1'-0" TRANSVERSE SECTION 1 1/16"=1'-0" TRANSVERSE SECTION 4 1/2"=1'-0"WALL SECTION Xref 06026P22-Opt2.dwg 14' CLR.MIN.STEEL TRUSS BRIDGE 4 P-P3.1 GROUND LEVELSECOND LEVELGROUND LEVELSECOND LEVEL7'-6"41/2"=1'-0"WALL SECTION OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 09.19.14 GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL FIFTH LEVEL 3 FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAILVARIESTOP OF RAIL GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL FIFTH LEVEL TOP OF RAIL 1 3 1 3 TOP OF TOWER A S VARIES10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"13'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"10'-6"1/16"=1'-0" LONGITUDINAL SECTION 2 1/16"=1'-0" TRANSVERSE SECTION 1 1/16"=1'-0" TRANSVERSE SECTION 4 1/2"=1'-0"WALL SECTION Xref 06026P22-Opt2.dwg 14' CLR.MIN.STEEL TRUSS BRIDGE 4 P-P3.1 GROUND LEVELSECOND LEVELGROUND LEVELSECOND LEVEL7'-6"41/2"=1'-0"WALL SECTION OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED - Development Agreement page 52 of 90 - FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAIL FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAIL FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAIL FIFTH LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAIL TOP OF RAIL 50'-6"GROUND LEVEL TOP OF RAIL 47'-0"50'-6"47'-0"50'-6"47'-0"1 1/16"=1'-0" EAST ELEVATION 2 1/16"=1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 4 1/16"=1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 3 1/16"=1'-0" WEST ELEVATION STAIR MTL. CANOPY, PAINT F2 CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, PAINT F8 REVEAL IN CONC. WALL, PAINT OVERALL CONC. PARKING STRUCTURE STAIR MTL. CANOPY, PAINT F8 CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, PAINT F2 F6, TYP. TYP. STAIR MTL. CANOPY, PAINT F8 CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, PAINT F2 CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, PAINT F8 STAIR MTL. CANOPY, PAINT F2 METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 METAL SCREEN, F11 PAINT F9, TYP. METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 METAL SCREEN, F11 PAINT F9, TYP. REVEAL IN CONC. WALL, TYP. PAINT OVERALL CONC. PARKING STRUCTURE F6, TYP. METAL SCREEN, F11 METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 PAINT F9, TYP. METAL SCREEN, F11 METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 PAINT F9, TYP. PAINT F2 PAINT F8 STAIR MTL. CANOPY, CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, PAINT F2 PAINT F8 STAIR MTL. CANOPY, CONCRETE STAIR TOWER, SCREEN 2 - MEDIUMF11 METAL WOVEN WIRE CLOTH METAL WOVEN WIRE CLOTH SCREEN 3 - LARGEF12 TRIANGULAR METAL FABRIC PAINT - MAIN SCREEN AND GARAGE ENTRANCE FRAMES PAINT - TYP. SCREEN AND FRAME PAINT - OVERALL PARKING CONCRETE STRUCTURE MADERA DE6370 SCREEN 1 - FINEF10 DUNN-EDWARDS CHARCOAL SMUDGE DEC728 F9 F7 DUNN-EDWARDS PAINT - ELEVATOR TOWER / STAIR TOWER KM3902-3 KELLY-MOORE PORT ALICE F8 DE6367 COVERED IN PLATINUM DUNN-EDWARDS F6 ALPOLIC 4MM4SMX8 SILVER METALLIC STAIR CANOPY / BRIDGE METAL PANELF2 EXTERIOR FINISHES 'SHADE' GALV. STEEL & PAINT 'PLAIT' GALV. STEEL & PAINT 'BRAID' GALV. STEEL & PAINT METAL SCREEN, F12METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 PAINT F9, TYP. METAL SCREEN, F12METAL SCREEN FRAME, PAINT F9 PAINT F9, TYP. F1 SOLARBAN XL70 GLAZING TO MATCH BLDG DEW383 COOL DECEMBER CONCRETE AND METAL RAIL TO MATCH F4 METAL SCREEN FRAME PAINTED TO MATCH F1 ANODIZED ALUM FRAME, TYP, ALL SIDES GREEN SCREEN MESH WITH VINESMETAL SCREEN, F7 TYP ALL FACES METAL SCREEN FRAME PAINT F7 TYP ALL FACES PAINT F8 PAINT F8 PAINT F8 PAINT F8 DEW383 COOL DECEMBER CONCRETE RAIL TO MATCH F4 OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED OPTIONAL PV ARRAY SHOWN DASHED PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 09.19.14 - Development Agreement page 53 of 90 - - Development Agreement page 54 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-1 Aerial View From South West - Development Agreement page 55 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-2 Aerial View From South - Development Agreement page 56 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-3 Aerial View Of Entry Plaza - Development Agreement page 57 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-4 Aerial View From North East - Development Agreement page 58 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-5 View Along Entry Drive - Development Agreement page 59 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-6 View Towards Garage and Bridge - Development Agreement page 60 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-7 View Towards Entry Plaza - Development Agreement page 61 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-8 View Approaching Entry - Development Agreement page 62 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-9 View Near Building Entrance - Development Agreement page 63 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-10 View From Building Entrance - Development Agreement page 64 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-11 View From Terrace - Development Agreement page 65 of 90 - LIFE SCIENCES CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE South San Francisco, CA 94080 AI-12 View From Balcony - Development Agreement page 66 of 90 - Exhibit C Conditions of Approval and EIR Mitigation and Monitoring Program - Development Agreement page 67 of 90 - FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P11-0101: UP11-0011, DR11-0039, TDM11-0001, 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. - Development Agreement page 68 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 69 of 90 - 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 #1 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 - Development Agreement page 70 of 90 - 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. l) 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. - Development Agreement page 71 of 90 - 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. - Development Agreement page 72 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 73 of 90 - 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: - Development Agreement page 74 of 90 - 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 lock1 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 lock1 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 glazing2 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, l/4" polycarbonate, or approved security film treatment, minimum. - Development Agreement page 75 of 90 - 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.2 or 2. Iron bars of at least l/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 l/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: - Development Agreement page 76 of 90 - 1. If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the outside with at least l6 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 l/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 l/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 - Development Agreement page 77 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 78 of 90 - 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. - Development Agreement page 79 of 90 - 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. - Development Agreement page 80 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 81 of 90 - 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 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. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution 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. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 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. The applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution to go towards adjusting the signal light timing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 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. The applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution 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 City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. - Development Agreement page 82 of 90 - LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION /MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY/ AGENCY/TIMING lane. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. 11 The Project would increase year 2035 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. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution to provide an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach at the Oyster Point Boulevard /Eccles Avenue intersection. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 12.A The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.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. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution 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.101 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. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 12.B The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue /U.S.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 The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution 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. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. - Development Agreement page 83 of 90 - LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION /MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY/ AGENCY/TIMING 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. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. 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. The applicant shall be responsible maintaining landscaping along the Eccles Avenue Project frontage between the central and south driveways that will allow exiting drivers being 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 Applicant shall make the notes on the plans submitted as part of the building permit review process in conformance with mitigation 15. Applicant or designee shall maintain landscaping for the life of the Project as specified. Notes shall be shown on plans that are approved for building permits. Monitored by the Project Planner as part of the permit process. - Development Agreement page 84 of 90 - 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 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. 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 emplace the sign prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Applicant shall make the notes on the plans submitted as part of the building permit review process in conformance with mitigation 16. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy the stop sign shall be in place. Monitored by the Project Planner as part of the permit process. 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.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. 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.C 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-ramp. 13.D 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. - Development Agreement page 85 of 90 - Exhibit D Applicable City Laws/Fees - Development Agreement page 86 of 90 - 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. - Development Agreement page 87 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 88 of 90 - 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) - Development Agreement page 89 of 90 - 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 - Development Agreement page 90 of 90 - RESOLUTION NO. 2860-2020 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINING THAT THE GATEWAY OF PACIFIC PHASE 5 PROJECT IS FULLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS IN THE 2012 PARTIAL RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THAT THE 2020 ADDENDUM TO THE EIR IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE PROJECT. WHEREAS , in 2016 the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted (1) Resolution No. 93-2016 certifying the 2012 Partial Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (“2012 Partial Recirculated EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2012082101), (2) Resolution No. 94-2016 approving a use permit, alternative landscape plan, design review and transportation demand management (“TDM”) program, and (3) Ordinance No. 1522-2016 approving a development agreement with BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC, fo r the construction of two R&D/ Office buildings, a parking structure, and related improvements on an approximately 6.1-acre site located at 475 Eccles Avenue; and WHEREAS, BioMed Realty (“Owner” or “Applicant”) submitted an application requesting approval of a Use Permit Modification, Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of the previously entitled project and to expand the area of property covered by the entitlements to include the adjacent rail spurs property, incorporating the previously entitled project into the adjacent Gateway of Pacific (“GOP”) Campus as GOP Phase 5 (“Project”); 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 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to the 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR was prepared for the Project (“2020 Addendum”) which evaluates whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and WHEREAS, the 2020 Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162, the implementation of GOP Phase 5 will not cause significant impacts, that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR, that no substantial changes in the project or circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous EIR have occurred, and that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts nor shows new, different or more feasible mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, both of which remain in full force and effect; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on August 6, 2020 to solicit public comment and take public testimony, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to consider the Project and the 2020 Addendum, as well as supporting documents, prior to the Planning Commission making its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW THEREFORE, 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 Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; 2020 Addendum to the 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR; the Project applications; the BMR GOP Phase 5 Precise Plan, as prepared by Flad Architects, dated June 8, 2020; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed August 6, 2020 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 and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR (Exhibit A) and the 2020 Addendum (attached as Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference as if they were each set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. B. CEQA Findings 1. The Planning Commission, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subsection (d), has considered the 2020 Addendum prepared for the Project including the related environmental analysis, along with the previously certified 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR. 2. Upon consideration of the 2020 Addendum, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Project will not result in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 that would require further environmental review through preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 3. The Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR. Further, the Planning Commission finds that there is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new or substantially more severe significant effects, as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA documents. Nor are any new, additional, or more feasible mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Project. 4. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any further CEQA review, and that the 2020 Addendum, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project. 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 makes the determination that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project and no further environmental review is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Chair Wong, Vice-Chair Evans, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner Shihadeh, Commissioner Murphy, Commissioner Bernardo, Commissioner Tzang NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: RECUSE: Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________ Secretary to the Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 2861-2020 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DAA20-0002) BETWEEN BMR GATEWAY OF PACIFIC V LP AND THE CITY; AND (2) ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT MODIFICATION (UPM20-0001) AND DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION (DR20-0012) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GOP PHASE 5 / 475 ECCLES AVENUE IN THE BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK (BTP) ZONE DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. WHEREAS, BMR Gat eway of Pacific V LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership (“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, in 2016 the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted (1) Resolution No. 93-2016 certifying the 2012 Partial Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (“2012 Partial Recirculated EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2012082101), (2) Resolution No. 94-2016 approving a use permit, alternative landscape plan, design review and transportation demand management (“TDM”) program, and (3) Ordinance No. 1522-2016 approving a development agreement with BMR Gateway of Pacific V LP (formerly known as BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC), for the construction of two R&D/ Office buildings, a parking structure, and related improvements on an approximately 6.1-acre site located at 475 Eccles Avenue; and WHEREAS, Applicant submitted an application requesting approval of a Use Permit Modification, Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of the previously entitled project and to expand the area of property covered by the entitlements to include the adjacent rail spurs property, incorporating the previously entitled project into the adjacent Gateway of Pacific (“GOP”) Campus as GOP Phase 5 (“Project”); 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 the Planning Commission has considered the environmental impacts by separate resolution; and WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of the First Amended and Restated Development Agreeme nt (DAA20-0002), Use Permit Modification (UPM20-0001) and Design Review Modification (DR20-0012); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on August 6, 2020 to solicit public comment and take public testimony, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to consider the Use Permit Modification, Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Revised 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 California Subdivision Map Act; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; 2020 Addendum to the 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR; the Project applications; the BMR GOP Phase 5 Precise Plan, as prepared by Flad Architects, dated June 8, 2020; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed August 6, 2020 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 A. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Draft City Council Ordinance regarding the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Exhibit A), Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit B) and the GOP Phase 5 / 475 Eccles Revised Project Plans (Exhibit C), are each incorporated 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. C. Use Permit 1. The Project is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District, with the exception of the parking and allowable floor area ratio, for which exceptions were granted by the City Council as part of the previous project entitlements. 2. The Project is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed Research and Development buildings and campus are consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan by encouraging the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 Area. Further, the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations in the General Plan. Specifically, the project site is designated Business and Technology Park. This designation accommodates R&D uses, subject to certain development and FAR restrictions. The proposed Project complies with development restrictions and proposes a FAR of 1.0, which conforms to the maximum allowable FAR in the Business and Technology Park General Plan designation, with an acceptable TDM plan and meeting high design standards. 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 Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of landscaping and parking requirements, for which exceptions were granted by the City Council as part of the previous project entitlements. 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 B.1 above. D. Design Review 1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code for the reasons stated in Finding C.1 above. 2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan for the reasons stated in Finding C.2 above. 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 projects in the East of 101 Area and remains a campus-style development that provides on-site amenities and is consistent with the Business and Technology Park District Development Standards and Supplemental Regulations included in Section 20.110.003 and 20.110.004. 4. The Project is consistent is consistent with the Use Permit as approved as part of the Entitled Project, which granted a parking reduction to a ratio of 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, based on the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan on an on-going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%. The Revised Project would continue to be subject to the reduced parking ratio and the TDM implementation requirement. 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 against, and found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. E. Development Agreement Findings 1. The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan because the proposed project is an Office/ R&D facility that meets the Business and Technology Park general plan land use provisions and programs. 2. The proposed Amendment to 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 because the project provides an office/ R&D facility with a campus-style environment. 3. The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice because the amendment enhances the site plan and further improves the pedestrian environment from the public right-of-way. 4. The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare because the amendment preserves a campus-like environment and creates pedestrian connections between the broader campus, including a rails-to-trails connection, for employees and visitors. 5. The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property valued because the amendment improves the property’s campus-like environment and is consistent with surrounding R&D and office uses. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit B 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 take the following actions: (1) introduce and subsequently adopt an ordinance approving the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA20-0002), attached as Exhibit A; and (2) adopt a resolution approving a Use Permit Modification (UPM20-0001) and Design Review Modification (DR20-0012) for the Project . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Chair Wong, Vice-Chair Evans, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner Shihadeh, Commissioner Murphy, Commissioner Bernardo, Commissioner Tzang NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: RECUSE: Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________ Secretary to the Planning Commission City Council September 9, 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Integrate GOP Campus & 475 Eccles Project GOP Phase 4 Precise Plan (approved by Planning Commission on August 6, 2020) Update design of 475 Eccles Project to be in keeping with GOP Campus (consider as GOP Phase 5) Incorporate former rail spurs between properties to allow connection between upper and lower campus, provide improved bike/ped connections with larger area Minor amendments to Development Agreements for both projects 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Update the Project Description Extend the expiration date from 2028 to 2030 Expand the area of property covered by the DA to include the rail spurs property Clarify that the 1.0 FAR does not currently include the rail spurs property Require a public access easement for the trail improvements on the rail spurs 16 Business and Technology Park Zoning District Provides zoning for the coordinated development of planning areas with various commercial and R&D uses Subject to previously approved exceptions, Project complies with all of the applicable Employment District development standards Gen Plan Designation Business and Tech Park Consistent with the guiding and implementing policies by creating a campus-style development of research and development uses 17 Environmental Impact Report City Council certified the EIR on July 27, 2016 Included Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Consideration 2020 Addendum to the EIR was prepared for 475 Eccles/ GOP Phase 5 Project No further CEQA action required 18 Reviewed the proposed entitlements on August 6, 2020 Recommended approval unanimously 19 That the City Council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions: 1.Adopt a Resolution making findings and determining that the Phase 5 Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2012 EIR and that the 2020 Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and, 20 2.Introduce an Ordinance approving the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement between BMR Gateway of Pacific V LP and the City, and waive further reading. 3.Adopt a Resolution approving the Use Permit and Design Review Modifications to the previously entitled project. City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-527 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8a. Resolution making findings and determining that the Gateway of Pacific Phase 5 Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2012 Environmental Impact Report and that the 2020 Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. WHEREAS,in 2016 the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted (1)Resolution No.93-2016 certifying the 2012 Environmental Impact Report (“2012 EIR”)(State Clearinghouse No.2012082101),(2)Resolution No.94-2016 approving a use permit,alternative landscape plan,design review and transportation demand management (“TDM”)program,and (3)Ordinance No.1522-2016 approving a development agreement with BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC,for the construction of two R&D/Office buildings,a parking structure,and related improvements on an approximately 6.1-acre site located at 475 Eccles Avenue; and WHEREAS,BioMed Realty (“Owner”or “Applicant”)submitted an application requesting approval of a Use Permit Modification,Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of the previously entitled project and to expand the area of property covered by the entitlements to include the adjacent rail spurs property,incorporating the previously entitled project into the adjacent Gateway of Pacific (“GOP”) Campus as GOP Phase 5 (“Project”); 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 2012 EIR was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,§§21000,et seq.,“CEQA”)and CEQA Guidelines,which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,an addendum to the 2012 EIR was prepared for the Project (“2020 Addendum”)which evaluates whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and WHEREAS,the 2020 Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162,the implementation of GOP Phase 5 will not cause significant impacts,that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2012 EIR,that no substantial changes in the project or circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous EIR have occurred,and that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2012 EIR was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts nor shows new,different or more feasible mitigation measures; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-527 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8a. WHEREAS,the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, both of which remain in full force and effect; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 6,2020,at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to consider the Project and the 2020 Addendum,as well as supporting documents,at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council find that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document and to approve the Project; and WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the 2020 Addendum, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution,and approves the 2020 Addendum as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Revised Project’s environmental impacts. NOW THEREFORE,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 Environmental Impact Report;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;2012 EIR,and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs;2020 Addendum to the 2012 EIR;the Project applications;the BMR GOP Phase 5 Precise Plan,as prepared by Flad Architects,dated June 8,2020;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed August 6,2020 meeting;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed September 9,2020 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the 2012 EIR (Exhibit A)and the 2020 Addendum (attached as Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference as if they were each set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. B.CEQA Findings 1.The City Council,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164,subsection (d),has considered the 2020 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-527 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8a. 1.The City Council,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164,subsection (d),has considered the 2020 Addendum prepared for the Project including the related environmental analysis,along with the previously certified 2012 EIR. 2.Upon consideration of the 2020 Addendum,the City Council finds that the proposed Project will not result in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 that would require further environmental review through preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 3.The Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2012 EIR.Further,the City Council finds that there is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new or substantially more severe significant effects,as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA documents.Nor are any new, additional, or more feasible mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Project. 4.Accordingly,the City Council finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any further CEQA review,and that the 2020 Addendum,prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164,is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project. 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 makes the determination that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project and no further environmental review is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Exhibit A 2012 EIR Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached. Draft EIR available online at: http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/doc/133212/Page1.aspx 1 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH# 2012082101 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- PLANNING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083 PREPARED BY: ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM CONSULTING AllisonKnappConsulting.com February, 2016 6 i 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 STUDY CHANGES 2-1 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 B C Liberty Gold Letter – 11/14/12 Caltrans Letter – 12/14/12 Liberty Gold and Caltrans Letters and Response to Comments D November, 2015 Letter from Applicant with ENVIRON Air Quality and Noise Analysis E F KB Engineering Peer Review Basic and Expanded Air Quality Measures G September 2013 Demolition Process Letter H State Clearinghouse Letter of Compliance 7 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 1 - PAGE 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: o There is no longer a building on the Project site; o Relocation of a cell tower on the site is no longer proposed; o An alternative landscape plan is requested in lieu of roof top landscaping (South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.07.D2). 8 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 1 - PAGE 2 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). 9 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 1 - PAGE 3 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 10 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 1 - PAGE 4 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 Air 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. 11 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 1 - PAGE 5 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 12 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY JANUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2- PAGE 1 EXHIBIT A REVISED OCTOBER, 2013 AGAIN FEBRUARY, 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 13 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 2 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. FIGURE 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT SITE 14 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 3 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 2035.1 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. Three 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. 15 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 4 Gateway Boulevard 0.3 miles southwest; 444 Allerton Avenue 0.4 miles southeast; and 125 feet northwest of the Project site on the Gateway Business Park Campus at 850 Gateway Boulevard. Therefore there is one sensitive receptor located within a 0.25 mile radius 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, is a concrete tilt-up office/warehouse structure that was constructed in the 1960’s, is located on the site was demolished in December, 2013 with the benefit of a demolition permit issued 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. 16 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 5 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.” 17 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 6 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 acre3 Project site. The site is currently developed with an approximate ly 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 feet5 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 currently was developed with approximately 152,145 square feet of building area consisting of ground floor and mezzanine areas in 2012. The building was demolished in December, 2013 with City permits. The analysis contained in the initial study rounded up to 155,000 square feet for geology, hydrology, air quality and other impact analyses. 5 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. 18 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 7 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. Conditional Use Permit for the interim relocation of the wireless facility located on the site. 19 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 8 Consideration of an “Alternative Landscape Plan” in lieu of roof top landscaping pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal 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.B 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. 20 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 9 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. 21 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 10 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 Report Life Science Campus, 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California , 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 rooftop planters with a minimum dimension of 24 inches in width around the perimeter of the roof of the parking structure as required by the City’s Zoning Code (Section 20.330.010.L.8) an alternative landscape plan pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.07.D2 in lieu of rooftop landscaping. 22 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 11 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 Ballanti, 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. 23 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 12 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 building and preparation would be estimated to start in January occurred in December, 2013. Removal of the remaining building pads and construction of the Project The applicant’s contractor would require the contractor to mobilize the site upon confirmation that PG&E has disconnected the utility services. by installing a jobsite trailer. would be located on the site. An approved Stormwater Pollution and Protection Plan (SWPPP) would be implemented to provide erosion control measures. A temporary construction site fence would be was erected during demolition. During removal of the remaining building pads and construction of the Project, this time 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 start the be used during all building demolition processes. Site characterization would be completed during the building pad 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. 24 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 13 CONSTRUCTION7 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 late 2016 May or June, 2013. Building B would be constructed after Building A, with construction starting approximately five weeks later. in July, 2013. The completion of the parking structure and exterior shells of Buildings A and B is estimated to occur in early 2017 March, 2014. Core and tenant improvements for Buildings A and B are estimated to be complete in late 2017 July, 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, 20136 with core and tenant improvements estimated to be completed in early 20137. 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 in July, 2014 early 2017. Potholing, fill analysis and sampling of groundwater would follow the 7 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. 25 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 14 same procedures as Phase 1, if relevant. The exterior shell of Building B would be estimated to be completed in June, late 20157. Core and tenant improvements would be estimated to be completed in early 20158. 3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT The following measures, or their equivalent, are proposed as part of the Project, are shown on the architectural drawings (sheet P.A.1.1a), in application materials and identified in the initial study for the Project (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 Project. A. AIR QUALITY AND GREEN HOUSE GAS - EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES 1) BASIC AND EXPANDED FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES. The construction contractor shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s basic and expanded fugitive dust control measures. Therefore, the Project 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 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. 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 demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. [Occurs less than three percent of the year.] All exposed surfaces (during grading and construction) shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content will be verified by lab samples or moisture probe at two locations on the Project site. 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. 26 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 15 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. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one (1) percent. 2) BASIC AND EXPANDED 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 equipment to two (2) minutes and for on-road equipment to five (5) 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. All construction equipment, diesel trucks and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM to the maximum extent feasible. To this end, all generators and air compressors used on site shall be electric. All on road trucks used onsite shall be Year Model 2007 or better. Propane or LNG-fueled booms and scissor lifts shall be used. Tier 2 or better for 20 percent of horsepower-hours of off-road diesel equipment shall be used during construction and 65 percent of horsepower hours during demolition. All contractors shall, to the maximum extent feasible, use equipment that meets the ARB’s most recent certification for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. No onsite grinding, crushing or shredding of asphalt or debris shall occur onsite. Potential future measures that achieve the same or better performance criteria shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any changes. Applicant shall provide the City and Genentech with a list of and schedule for demolition, grading and construction equipment and activities. A construction superintendent shall be on site during all demolition, grading and construction activities to enforce these regulations. 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). 27 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 16 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, SSF Ferry and downtown Dasher, coordinated with Alliance (TDM coordinator responsibility.) 12. Membership in Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. 13. Subsidized Transit Tickets 28 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 17 14. Flexible Work Hours 15. On-Site Vanpool Program 16. Video Conference Center 17. Subsidized park and ride 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) 29 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 18 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 building in December 2013, minor amounts of asbestos would be were removed as electrical equipment iswas 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 concrete Investigation All Mobilize equipment to remove metal cover 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. 30 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 Soil Remediation (ex- situ) Fuels Reuse on Site (if concentration is less than 100 ppm). Haul and Dispose at appropriate landfill. Capping and vapor barrier. Treat on site (see below). Soil Remediation (ex-situ) VOCs (gasoline fuels, solvents) Consult the SMCEHD for requirements. Haul and Dispose. Aeration – requires a notification to BAAQMD, daily volumes 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 (ex-situ) Inorganics (metals) Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. Haul and Dispose. Chemical Stabilization. Sorting – reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant particle size. Soil Remediation (in-situ) VOCs Consult SMCEHD for requirements. 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 (in-situ) SVOCs Consult SMCEHD for requirements. Bioremediation – saturate soils with bio-treatment materials. Chemical Stabilization – saturate soils with chemicals to immobilize contaminants. In-Situ Vitrification. Capping . Groundwater - Investigation All If contaminants are detected in the 20 foot below ground 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 Remediation VOCs Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. 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 Remediation SVOCs Consult BAAQMD for requirements. Pump and Treat. 31 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 20 Media Material(s) Approach (continued) Bioremediation. Chemical Oxidation. Groundwater Remediation Inorganics Consult BAAQMD for requirements. Pump and Treat. Chemical Immobilization – inject chemicals to precipitate or chemically 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. 32 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 21 MODIFICATIONS TO THE INITIAL STUDY CONTAINED IN APPENDIX A OF THE DEIR. 3.3 AIR QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III . AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria 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 the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X 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. Three 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 850 Gateway Boulevard 125 feet northwest of the Project site on the Gateway Business Park Campus. Therefore there is one sensitive receptor located within a 0.25 mile radius of the Project site. Residential land uses are approximately 33 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 22 2,400 feet (0.45 miles) to the east (west of Route 101). There are no sensitive receptors located within a 0.25 mile radius of the Project site. 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 Air 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 Risk Screening 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 Tier 2 measures or their equivalent 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 (day care) receptor would be 0.03 8.2 per million based upon the construction schedule provided by the Applicant which assumes demolition within a year and construction following approximately two years later, 2015 through 16. Thus, the unmitigated cancer risk due to construction activities is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 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 34 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 23 implementation of the measures the City requires by law. The maximum cancer risk from the Project operations for a school child (day care) receptor would be 0.046 per million. Thus, the health impacts from Project operations would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per 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 g/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 OEHHA8 as 2.5 g/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 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. 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 unmitigated maximum annual PM2.5 concentration as a result of Project construction would be less than 0.01 µg/m3 for a residential 8 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010. http://www.oehha.ca.gov//. 35 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 24 receptor and 0.07 µg/m3 for a school child (day care) receptor. The annual PM2.5 concentration due to implementation of the Project would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/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 Risk & Hazard Analysis 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 greater9. 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 Site # Facility Type Address Cancer Risk Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration 13861 City of SSF Water Quality Plant 955 Gateway Blvd 0.99 <0.01 <0.01 17664 Gallo 440 Forbes Blvd <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 13778 UPS Supply Chain Solutions 455 Forbes Blvd 2.1 <0.01 <0.01 19547 Chamberlin Associates 200 Oyster Point Blvd 8.5 0.003 0.027 9 BAAQMD County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and CEHTP Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration, http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp 36 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 25 Site # Facility Type Address Cancer Risk Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration 18885 Chamberlin Associates 180 Oyster Point Blvd. 1.7 0.001 0.0053 Permitted Sources Total 13.3 <0.01 0.03 Proposed Project 0.44 8.2 0.03 <0.01 0.07 Grand Total 13.7 21.5 0.03 0.03 0.13 Significance Thresholds 100 10 0.3 Significant Impact? No No No 37 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 26 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 Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list 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? X e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? X f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X PAGE 3-54 OF THE INITIAL STUDY IS REVISED AS FOLLOWS: c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence 38 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 27 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 or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project site. There is one day care facility approximately 125 feet northwest of the Project at 850 Gateway Boulevard. 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.gov/database/Calsites/Cortese_List.cfm and Phase I). As noted in the Setting Section further assessment would be conducted at the site during demolition activities to determine the presence and/or extent of potential environmental contamination associated with the small area of concrete staining inside the building. The investigation would include removal of the metal cover on the vault/sump and inspection of the interior for the presence of oil or oil staining. The integrity of the concrete in the vault would also be evaluated along with the extent of the staining. Further investigation, in the form of subsurface drilling, could 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 vault and/or there are any issues with the concrete integrity (i.e., if the concrete is damaged and has allowed the staining to progress beyond surface areas). The work 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. 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 because the Project will comply with the stated procedures and permitting requirements and because the Project site is not listed on the Cortese List. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FINDING ON PAGE 3-55, PARAGRAPH 2 IS REVISED AS FOLLOWS: Finding: There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project site. There is one day care facility approximately 125 feet northwest of the Project at 850 Gateway Boulevard. The work 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. The procedures and permitting requirements identified as part of the Project are designed to reduce the 39 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 28 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 because the Project will comply with the stated procedures and permitting requirements and because the Project site is not listed on the Cortese List. 3.12 NOISE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. NOISE — Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? X e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? X f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? X 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 day care facility approximately 125 feet northwest of the Project at 850 Gateway Boulevard. There are two child care centers located more than 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 40 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 29 (west of Route 101). There are no sensitive receptors located within a 0.25 mile radius of the Project site. 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.11 Exterior sound levels reaching the closest sensitive receptor, the child care facility at 850 Gateway Boulevard on Allerton Avenue 1,320 125 feet northwest of the Project, would reach 77 dB during the noisiest phases of Project grading. Therefore, during outdoor play time, a non-noise sensitive activity, exterior sound levels would reach 77 dB at the day care play area. Sound reaching the interior of the day care facility would be expected to attenuate 20-25 dB with doors and windows closed. This attenuation factor is assumed for the day care facility as it is newer construction without operable windows; therefore the maximum attenuation of 25 dB would be expected to be achieved bringing the interior ambient noise levels to approximately 52 dB. Classroom environments are typically between 55-60 dB (National Assessments of Noise Control Officials, Office of the Scientific Assistant, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, 1979, revised 1981. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Therefore, 52 dB resulting from Project construction would be lower than a typical classroom environment, and would be considered acceptable. attenuate to background levels; due to the distance as well as the building envelope. Addition of paragraph 5 on page 3-63 is as follows: 10 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. 41 FINAL EIR-475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL STUDY FEBRUARY, 2016 CHAPTER 2-PAGE 30 South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.050(d) identifies 90 dB, Lmax as the maximum sound level permitted at a property line. Grading operations may exceed this standard by 1 dB (ENVIRON, 2013). The Chief Building Official may grant an exception to the standard. The Project area does afford opportunity for attenuation given the soft surfaces to the west and northwest of the site and given that the surrounding buildings are sparsely placed reducing the potential for reflection and intensification of sound levels. The 1 dB potential sound level exceedance is considered less than significant. 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 conditionally permitted in an environment 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; and 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 noise exposure received at the day care facility would reach 77 dB during outdoor play time, a non-noise sensitive land use activity. During noise-sensitive activities, conducted inside the building, noise levels would be expected to attenuate 20-25 dB (to 52-57 dB) requisite for learning, conversing.; and 6) South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.050(d) identifies 90 dB, Lmax as the maximum sound level permitted at a property line. Grading operations may exceed this standard by 1 dB. The Chief Building Official may grant an exception to the standard. The Project area does afford opportunity for attenuation given the soft surfaces to the west and northwest of the site and given that the surrounding buildings are sparsely placed reducing the potential for reflection and intensification of sound levels. The 1 dB potential sound level exceedance is considered less than significant. 2606336.1 42 Attachment A Liberty Gold Letter – 11/14/12 43 LIBERTY GOLD FRUIT COMPANY, INC. 500 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080 Mailing address: P.O. Box 2187, South San Francisco, California 94083 Telephone: (650) 583-4700 Fax: (650) 583-4770 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, 44 LIBERTY GOLD FRUIT COMPANY, INC. 500 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080 Mailing address: P.O. Box 2187, South San Francisco, California 94083 Telephone: (650) 583-4700 Fax: (650) 583-4770 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, Thomas Battat President 45 Attachment B Caltrans Letter – 12/14/12 46 Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; .. :.:: .::.�:·.::·,:.. . . . ... ,, . ,, •' :·:·.·:· .. :'.· .. :,.:::.,:· .. : .. S'l'AmcircAUfcmNHYSJNi.1S.·�-ss�iit�i1wAND .. umi�¢:@rwr;·i·.·.: .. ·.·.·.· .. · DEPAl�}tM�Nr:OF·�s�tllt�ATi6�: ·· .. l i fGRAND AVENUE · . . .. .· .... P. O.BOX236� .·. .. . .·. . .. Dec-13-12 12:03PM; ,•, .... ··· .... ' • ' ... '' : ,• Page 1/1 OAKLAND, CA .. 9:4623.-0660· . . . · . ·: ·. ·.. . PHONE· :(SlO) 286:.:60:53 ·.. . ·. . : :. . F� '(510) 286·5559· · . · · .. . .··.::.. .. . I •.• . .·na yurir pow"err·· ·Jle �nerfiy ejfit:Umt! .... TJ'Y 711 ·· .. Decembet.· 14, 2ot2 . · . . . .. ·.Mt. Billy Grt>s� ·.: · .. '.." ... :: . ._: : ·.: ··.·: · .' . · ·C.jty ·of South S�ii·Fraru:isco .. ' ·· ... . ·· J>lanning'Divisio� .. . . . · · .·.· _ .. 315 Maple Avenue· ·:: · ·:.:.·.· ·.-.... ·_. · ... · .: . ·.South San Francisco. CA:94083-·. : . · . .'. . . . · Dear Mr. Gross: · . · .. ·· , . · ·· · · · ·. · · .·· .··SMl01471 . .. . : ·· · . SM-101·�22..1. . .. . : · · .. 'SCH#201208'2.l01 · ·.. . ... ..· , ....... · .... . : ·.4fs·Ec��·Av-u�·�:i:���·���t�/,�;�·a��:._';:. :.: .. · ·.·· ·· · · ..... :niank_you foi:··�d�ti�u1�:��i�ii�lit�a:ri�cntor·Tr���i6n.(c��) iri :the·· .. ·.. . en'Viromnen.talreviewp�: fpr·ijie":aij)·ve' project; 'l'ht. "followingt:0mriiciits are based on the Dratl .... . -:Envin>nrnen1al Imp!ict R� (DEIR); ... .'i. · .. ... ·: :-r�p �·��-ti�� )i�fri�::+tbi�··i��::$1�{T@:q��ti9,n;· W,liC.:.4.�fZ:,.: · ·.· ·. . . . . .... . · Acoorcling fo. the 'In;stitute:<?f.'T:�r.tafi.on.En.gineers,.Trip Generation·:g!h Edition, the trip vqltmies 'in . · · .. · .. ··T:abfo .. }9,are.under�e.stith�?Peak;�.bips·for.�.20lS.AM:(P�Ysbould'be 243(22) and.year· . . "2035 AM.(PM}22S(2l4)-i_P�e:ctmfiiiti,-your·rnunbers· and correct ·�s· neees�uy. . . . . • ', ' ... · .'·M.tt�non·:� ��:4� :E#�tfu�\y,th·:�fui��.·-�tsi:··act. 3;· page··4�39 · · · · · . . . . : .. :.· . ... . .. . . · Please piovide·.measlires· to.:ifiitigatethc:'c�cess·it'4ffic.f.'v<Jlumes 'on the· 300-foot southbound. left-tum. . . . . pock.et ofthe Airport·Briulevard/Grimd Avenue-intersection to accommodate the Existing Plns Project '.. · ·. ·... :t,raffic queu�. o'f.3 3'7:..feet.. ·.: :': . · . . · · · · . . . · · .. F�ir"S�are � Plc��·�toJ��·i dol� �·Ioi'tlle'la,i;::�e fecf��ti�. . .. . . . .. . ',,, . : Pi�se.feeJ.ftee·t<i·cal�.'>t:;� ... San�-���� :at (Sin}.622-.:l� :or san4ti finegan@dot:�;g�v: �ith : ..any question.s regardibg·ffii:s. letter. ·· · · · · ··Since�ly, . .... .. . ,'•, .. . .' :ERiI{At1�( A1Ct>'. -: ... · ........ ,, . · .. . ....... . . .. . .. . . . .· · Distriet' Branch: Chief.· .. .' .. · ... .' . . · .. . . . :;. : ... : . . . . . . · · · : . · . . Local. Devc.topme�� -'-:·��gcivernttJentatR.�lv... ·. _: .· . ·:· .. ':.: . . .. . .. ,, ... ...... . . ,,, . .... ,, .·. c:. ..... . . .. . . . .. · .. •, · ..... :'.·�·�;tJ.��� .. ��;,��.J:� caiifomta·� . . .. • . . ' . . ......... ,'· · .. :· ··. ·�: .... : .. : .. · .. :, . . ... . . · . ·. ·. : .. · . . . . .. .. . ... .... . It' o �:•, '� ,, ' ,, ' ... , • . . �· . . . . .. : ,:.,' ::·: _::. .... ,, ..... , ..... : ·. : ; ... · .. .'•. . . .. . ... . . . . . . . .........,' 47 Attachment C Liberty Gold and Caltrans Response to Comments 48 Response to Comments 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, CA Page 1 of 2 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 1. It is acknowledged that Liberty Gold is adjacent to the Project site. Thank you for your comment. Response 2. 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 project) and a larger number are projected to experience unacceptable operation by 2035 (again, with or without the 475 Eccles project). 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 Trip 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 49 Response to Comments 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, CA Page 2 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 50 Attachment D November, 2015 Letter from Applicant with ENVIRON Air Quality and Noise Analysis 51 52 53 54 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. 1• 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. 1 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. 55 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 Fall2013 staying through age 4Y2), 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 ~gency, 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- 56 475 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 other small tools required for the demolition of the building. Demolition Equipment includes: • PC 360 2012 tier 4 hydraulic excavator • PC 450 2011 tier 3 hydraulic excavator • 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. 58 Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Understanding 2 Modeling Methodology 2.1 Source Parameters 2.2 Emissions 2.2.1 Construction Equipment Emissions 2.2.2 On-Road Equipment Emissions 2.2.3 Construction Worker Commuting Vehicles 2.3 Receptor Selection 2.4 Modeling Adjustment Factors 3 Risk Characterization Methods 3.1 Exposure Assessment 3.2 Toxicity Assessment 3.3 Cancer Risk Adjustment Factors 3.4 Risk Characterization 3.4.1 Estimation of Cancer Risks Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Page ES-1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 8 8 9 10 10 12 13 14 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 5.3 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 ENVIRON 63 List of Tables Table 1: Table2: Table 3: Table4a: Table4b: Table 5: Table Sa: Table Sb: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: List of Appendices Appendix A: Appendix 8: Appendix C: Appendix D: Contents Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Model Selection and Options Source Parameters Construction Equipment Emissions Calculations Methodology Exposure Parameters -Scenario 1 Exposure Parameters -Scenario 2 Carcinogenic Toxicity Values Cancer Risk Adjustment Factors-Scenario 1 Cancer Risk Adjustment Factors-Scenario 2 Noise Level Standards Construction Equipment Summary Table Construction Noise at Nearest Noise Sensitive Receiver Modeled Sources Sensitive Receptors Receptors over 850 Gateway Boulevard Construction Equipment List Construction Emissions Data (electronic files) Air Dispersion Modeling Files (electronic files) BAAQMD Recommended Mitigation Measures ii ENVIRON 64 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Acronyms and Abbreviations 1Jg/m3: ARB: ASF: AT: BAAQMD: BMR: Cai/EPA: CaiEEMod: CEQA: CNEL: CPF: CRAF: days/year: dBA: DBR: DPM: Draft EIR: ED: EF: ET: FHWA: g/hp-hr: g/mile: g/s: HRA: Ukg-day: lb: LCFS: m: microgram per meter cubed (California) Air Resources Board Age Sensitivity Factor Averaging Time Bay Area Air Quality Management District BioMed Realty chemical concentration in air for chemical i California Environmental Protection Agency California Emissions Estimator Model California Environmental Quality Act Community Noise Exposure Level cancer potency factor cancer risk adjustment factors days per year decibel, A-weighted Daily Breathing Rate diesel particulate matter Draft Environmental Impact Report Exposure Duration Exposure Frequency Exposure Time Federal Highway Administration gram per horsepower-hour gram per mile gram per second Health Risk Assessment Intake Factor, Inhalation liter per kilogram-day pound Low Carbon Fuel Standard meter Acronyms and Abbreviations iii ENVIRON 65 m3/kg-day: m3/L: mg/I.Jg: miles/day: mph: OEHHA: RCNM: SCAQMD: SSFMC: tons/day: TSD: USEPA: g/veh-hr: VMT: meters cubed per kilogram-day meters cubed per liter milligram per microgram miles per day miles per hour Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Roadway Construction Noise Model South Coast Air Quality Management District City of South San Francisco Municipal Code tons per day Technical Support Document United States Environmental Protection Agency grams per vehicle-hour vehicle miles traveled Acronyms and Abbreviations iv ENVIRON 66 Executive Summary Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 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 850 Gateway Boulevard in South San 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 remain 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. ENVIRON 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 overlap during any construction or demolition period.1 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 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) methods, California Environmental Protection Agency's (CaiEPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 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 USEPA computer models and OEHHA risk assessment and toxicity information to conservatively estimate the excess lifetime cancer risks and noncancer hazard indices (His) and PM2.s (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter) concentrations that might 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 modeling and analysis, the impacts predicted are expected to be higher than what is actually experienced at the 1 Demolition for both Eccles and GOP is projected to occur in Q3 of 2013, but the actual days within that quarter that each building is being demolished are not projected to overlap. Executive Summary ES-1 ENVIRON 67 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."2 The results of the HRA were compared with the following May 2011 BAAQMD significance thresholds, which are meant to be health protective for sensitive receptors such as infants and children:3 • 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 1.0; or • An increase in the annual average PM 2 .5 of greater than 0.3 1Jg/m 3 In accordance with BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, this HRA 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 level 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 (CRAFs), 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 6. 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 BMR is projecting a multi-year break 2 http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Engineering/Air-Toxics/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx (accessed July 2013) 3 A March 2012 Alameda County Superior Court judgment determined that the BAAQMD had failed 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 backed by a comprehensive study and analysis as documented in Appendix D 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 ENVIRON 68 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 24- 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 inside. 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, long-term exposure, using long term wind data ensures 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 8 hours per day, 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 BMR 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 BAAQMD recommended construction mitigation measures, which are set forth in Appendix D 2. Limit all offroad trucks to 2 minutes of idling while onsite 3. Electrify all generators 4. Model Year 2007 or better onroad trucks 5. Tier 2 or better for 65% of horsepower-hours of off road diesel equipment during demolition activities and 20% of horsepower-hours during construction activities Executive Summary ES-3 ENVIRON 69 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 6. 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 cancer risk, PM2.s concentration, and chronic HI. 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 ES-4 ENVIRON 70 1 Introduction Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting 2012), but includes additional sensitive receptors . This Sensitive Receptors Air Quality 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 DEIR, this analysis follows guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (BAAQMD 2012), the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the Office· 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 San Francisco, east of US Route 101. The Project sponsor is BioMed Realty (BMR). 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 BMR's current best estimate of anticipated demolition and construction activities. As Project plans for Mure 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. Introduction 1 ENVIRON 71 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 2 Modeling Methodology This Sensitive Receptors Air Quality Technical Analysis follows the methods of the Project DEIR. The same air dispersion model, AERMOD, was selected, and other parameters were selected to match the modeling performed for the DEIR, as shown in Table 1. AERMOD was run with regulatory default options selected . Table 1: Model Selection and Options Parameter Value 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 AERMAP version 11103 Consistent with Project DEIR and USEPA 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 None 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 X/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: -( (zJ J -Qannual X Q Average Concentration annual ; Modeling Methodology 2 ENVIRON 72 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Table 2: Source Parameters Parameter Value Selected Description "·;' Consthictlon Volume So~n::es Release height 3.05m Consistent with Project DEIR Initial lateral dimension 4.65m Length of a 10-m by 10-m volume source divided by 2.15, as per USEPA guidance (USEPA 2004) Initial vertical dimension 4.15m Consistent with Project DEIR Hours of operation 8 hours daily corresponding to a Based on construction schedule daytime shift provided by Project sponsor Haul Truck, Vendor, and Employee Trip Line Sources Release height 5m SCAQMD2008 Initial lateral dimension 5.58m Consistent with Project DEIR modeling files Length of volume source divided by 2.15, as per USEPA guidance (USEPA 2004). The length of the volume source is based on the width of the roadway. Initial vertical dimension 1.42 m Consistent with Project DEIR modeling files Hours of operation 8 hours 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 em issions identified for the Project arise from "Off-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 matter (DPM) are modeled. Emissions were calculated separately for off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles as follows. All demolition and construction was presumed to comply with BAAQM D 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 ARB Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles (ARB 2007). For construction equipment of unknown tier, average emission factors from ARB's 2011 Off- Road Equipment Model (OFFROAD2011) 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 74 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California of equipment are based on the default load factor in the OFFROAD2011 model for in-use off- road diesel equipment (ARB 2011 b). At least 20% of total horsepower-hours for non-demolition related construction equipment will meet the Tier 2 standard for its engine size, 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 OFFROAD2011. In the demolition fleet, 65% 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 just 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, off-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 PM 2 .5 emissions was taken in to account, based on the CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2012). Onsite 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 (EMFAC2011 [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'Neilllnc., 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 [CaiEEMod™] 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 (LCFS). 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 EMFAC2011, and an assumed 7.3-mile one-way trip length (based on the CaiEEMod default trip length). Hauling and vendor trip idling emission factors for criteria pollutants were obtained from the EMFAC2011 Idling Emission Rates database (ARB 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 ATCM (California Code of Regulations Title 13 §2485). Diesel-fired on-road equipment will not idle for longer than 5 minutes. The default CaiEEMod fleet mix was Modeling Methodology 5 ENVIRON 75 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 diesel-fueled. Running 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 76 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue , South San Francisco, California Table 3: Construction Equipment Emissions Calculations Methodology Source Type Methodology and Formula Reference Off-Road Construction Ec = I:(EFc * HP * LF * Hr * C) ARB/USEPA Engine Equipment Standards (ARB 2013) Where : OFFROAD2011 (ARB Ec: off-road equipment exhaust emissions (lb) 2011b) EFc: emission factor (g/hp-hr) from ARB/USEPA Engine standards or OFFROAD2011 emission factors used HP: equipment horsepower provided by BMR or CaiEEMod default value LF : equipment load factor from OFFROAD2011 Hr: equipment hours C: unit conversion factor Construction On-Road ER = I:(EFR * VMT * C), EMFAC2011 (ARB Mobile Sources where VMT = Trip Length * Trip Number 2011c) Exhaust-Running 1 Where: ER: running exhaust emissions (lb) EFR1 : running emission factor (g/mile) from EMFAC2011 VMT: vehicle miles traveled C: unit conversion factor Construction On-Road El = I:(EFI * Idling Time * Trip Number * C) EMFAC2011 (ARB Mobile Sources 2011d) Exhaust-ldling 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 77 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Table 3: Construction Equipment Emissions Calculations Methodology Notes: 1 For hauling diesel trucks: EFR = EFHHDT, where EFHHDT is the emission factor from EMFAC2011 for heavy-heavy duty trucks (T7 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/mile. 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 miles for hauling trips and 7.3 miles for vendor trips, the default CaiEEMod value. c. Trip Number: J.M.O'Neilllnc., demolition contractor to BMR, provided the number of trips for haul trucks . The number of vendor trips is calculated using CaiEEMod defaults. 2 For hauling diesel trucks: EFI = EFHHDT, where EFHHDT is the emission factor from EMFAC2011 for heavy-heavy duty trucks (T7 single construction in EMFAC2011), in g/veh-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% T6 and 50% T7 single construction in EMFAC2011 ), in g/veh-hr. 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. Idling Time: Assuming 5 minutes of onsite idling time per roundtrip. c. Trip Number: J.M.O'Neilllnc., 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 CaiEEMod defaults. Worker trips are assumed to be in gasoline-powered vehicles only. Based 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, infant 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 3.1. Modeling Methodology 8 ENVIRON 78 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 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. Other 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 Modeling Adjustment Factors Cai/EPA (2003) 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 be exposed to construction emissions 24 hours per day, seven days per week. This assumption is consistent with the modeled annual average air concentration (24 hours per day, 7 days per week). Thus, the annual average concentration need not be 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 hours/12 hours]*[7 days/5 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: Ci = Ci.annual x MAF Where: c = Exposure point concentration of chemical i (~g/m 3 ) Ci,annual = Annual average concentration of chemical i (~g/m 3 ) MAF = Modeling adjustment factor (unitless) Modeling Methodology 9 ENVIRON 79 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California ED AT CF = = = Exposure Duration (years) Averaging Time (days) Conversion Factor, 0.001 (m3/L) The chemical intake or dose is estimated by multiplying the inhalation intake factor, IFinh. by the chemical concentration in air, Cj. 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 1 Exposure Parameter ~nits Adult Child Day Care Resident Resident Child Daily Breathing Rate (DBR) 1 [Ukg-day] 302 581 581 Exposure Time (ET) 2 [hours/24 hours] 24 24 12 Exposure Frequency (EF) 3 [days/year] 350 350 245 Exposure Duration (ED) 4 [years] 4.5 4.5 4.5 Averaging Time (AT) [days] 25550 25550 25550 Intake Factor, Inhalation (IFinh) [m3 /kg-day] 0.019 0.036 0.013 Equation used: IFinh = DBR * ET * EF *ED* CF I AT CF = 0.001 (m 3/L) Abbreviations : BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District kg = kilogram L =Liter m3 = cubic meters Notes: 1. Daily breathing rates reflect default breathing rates from BAAQMD 2010 . 2. Exposure times reflect default exposure times for residents from BAAQMD 2010. Based on information provided by the client, the hours of operation for the daycare center are 6:30 am- 6:30pm. 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 4 .5 years for demolition plus project construction. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA) Guidelines. January. Exposure Assessment 11 ENVIRON 81 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 (DBR) 1 [Ukg-day] 302 581 581 Exposure Time (ET) 2 [hours/24 hours] 24 24 12 Exposure Frequency (EF) 3 [days/year] 350 350 245 Exposure Duration (ED) 4 [years] 1.5 1.5 1.5 Averaging Time (AT) [day_s] 25550 25550 25550 Intake Factor, Inhalation (IFinh) [m3/kg-day] 0.0062 0 .012 0.0042 Equation used : IFinh = DBR * ET * EF * ED * CF I AT CF = 0.001 (m 3/L) Abbreviations: BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District kg= kilogram L =Liter m3 = cubic meters Notes: 1. Daily breathing rates reflect default breathing rates from BAAQMD 2010 . 2. Exposure times reflect default exposure times for residents from BAAQMD 2010. Based on information provided by the client, the hours of operation for the daycare center are 6:30 am- 6:30pm. 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 NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA) Guidelines. January. 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, ENVIRON used the toxicity values for DPM which are summarized in Table 5. Exposure Assessment 12 ENVIRON 82 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue , South San Francisco, California Table 5: Carcinogenic and Chronic Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Values Analysis Chemical Cancer Potency Chronic Reference Factor Exposure Level Cancer Risk and Chronic HI Diesel PM 1.1 (mglkg-dayr1 5 ~g/m 3 Abbreviations: [mg/kg-day)-1: per milligram per kilogram-day (Jg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter ARB: Air Resources Board HI: Hazard Index OEHHA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PM: Particulate Matter Source: California Environmental Protection Agency (Cai/EPA). 2012 . OEHHAIARB Consolidated Table of Approved Risk 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 Cai/EPA OEHHA Technical Support Document (TSD) (Cai/EPA 2009) and the cancer risk adjustment factors (CRAFs) recommended by BAAQMD (2010). This approach accounts for an "anticipated special sensitivity to carcinogens" of infants and children. Cancer risk estimates are weighted by a factor of 1 0 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 6a shows the CRAFs used for adult and child residents and daycare children for a construction period lasting approximately 4.5 years 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 6a: Cancer Risk Adjustment Factors -Scenario 1 Receptor Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor (CRAF) Note Resident Adult 1.0 1, 2 Resident Child 6.5 1, 3 Daycare Child 5.9 1, 4 Notes: 1. Based on BAAQMD 2010. 2. A resident adult is assumed to be 16 years old and above. 3. 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 6 weeks to 4.6 years old. Exposure Assessment 13 ENVIRON 83 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 NSR Pro_g_ram Health Risk Screening Analysis lHRSA) Guidelines. January. Table 6b: Cancer Risk Adjustment Factors -Scenario 2 Receptor Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor (CRAF) Note Resident Adult 1.0 1, 2 Resident Child 10 1, 3 Daycare Child 10 1, 4 Notes: 1. Based on BAAQMD 2010. 2. A resident adult is assumed to be 16 years old and above. 3. 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 age 6 weeks to two years old. Abbreviations : BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management District Sources: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA) Guidelines. January . 3.4 Risk Characterization Risks and hazards associated with the Project fall into two categories, cancer risks and noncancer hazards. Each of these is discussed separately below. 3.4.1 Estimation of Cancer Risks 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 : Riskinh =Ci x CF x IFinh x CPF x CRAF Where: Exposure Assessment 14 ENVIRON 84 Riskinh = ci = CF = IFinh = CPFi = CRAF = Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Cancer Risk; the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of inhalation exposure to a particular potential carcinogen (unitless) Annual Average Air Concentration for Chemical i (1Jg/m 3) Conversion Factor (mg/IJg) Intake Factor for Inhalation (m3/kg-day) Cancer Potency Factor for Chemical i (mg chemical/kg body weight-dayr1 Caner Risk Adjustment Factor (unitless) 3.4.2 Estimation of Chronic Noncancer 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. DPM is the only pollutant evaluated for chronic non-cancer hazard in this HRA; therefore the HQ for DPM is the same as the overall HI. Where: HQ; = HI = ci = cREL; = Exposure Assessment -C,/ -jcREL; HI= LHQ Chronic hazard quotient for chemical i Hazard index Annual average concentration of chemical i (1Jg/m 3 ) Chronic non cancer reference exposure level for chemical i (1Jg/m 3 ) 15 ENVIRON 85 Sensitive Rec;eptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, Cal ifornia 4 Risk Results At the maximally affected sensitive receptor, the Genentech daycare center located 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 2016, 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 2013 (the first scenario), the cancer risk from Project sources is 5.2 in one million . The annual average PM 2 .s concentration at this receptor is 0.073 1Jg/m 3 , and the chronic HI is 0.015. These results are below the thresholds in the BAAQMD 2011 guidance . Results 16 ENVIRON 86 5 Noise Analysis Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California The Project Site is located within the City of South San Francisco, where it is 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 Land Use Category Time Sound Level Limit (decibel, A- weighted [dBA)) R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones or any single-10:00 p.m.-7:00a.m. 50 family or duplex residential in a specific plan district 7:00 a.m.-1 0:00 p.m. 60 R-3 and D-C zones or any multiple-10:00 p.m.-7:00a.m. 55 family residential or mixed residential/commercial in any specific plan district 7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 60 C-1, P-C, Gateway and Oyster Point Marina specific plan districts or any 10:00 p.m .-7:00a.m. 60 commercial use in any specific plan district 7:00 a.m.-1 0:00 p.m . 65 M-1, P-1 Anytime 70 From the South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 8.32, Table 8.32.030, 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 + 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour • Limit + 1 0 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour • Limit + 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour • Limit + 20 dBA for no period of time In addition to the noise level standards identified in Table 7, Chapter 8.32.050, titled Special Provisions, identifies provisions that relate to noise emitted from events such as performances, Noise Analysis 17 ENVIRON 87 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California vehicle horns, utilities, and construction. SSFMC 8.32.050(d) states that construction is permitted between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekdays, between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekends, and between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on holidays, provided at least one of the following noise limitations is met: • 8.32.050(d)(1): No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible. • 8.32 .050(d)(2): The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB (Ord. 1088 § 1, 1990) The SSFMC therefore allows for construction noise to exceed to the Noise Level Standards identified in Table 7 provided construction equipment meets the criteria outlined in 8.32.050(d). 5.1 Existing Acoustic Environment The existing acoustic environment in the vicinity of the Project Site is typical of a commercial or light industrial area, where primary noise sources include traffic and light industrial activity. Chapter 9.3 of the South San Francisco General Plan identifies City-wide Community Noise Exposure Levels (CNEL) based on proximity and exposure to roads, rail, and industrial sources. The CNEL is a 24-hour average sound level with a 5-dBA penalty added to sounds between the hours of 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. (evening), and a 10-dBA penalty applied to sounds between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (nighttime). The CNEL is commonly used in the State of California to evaluate noise levels based on the expected human response to noise. Figure 9-2 in Chapter 9.3 of the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan identifies CNEL noise contours (i.e., sound level isopleths) for road, rail, and transit sources throughout the entire City, projected to 2006. The Project Site lies within close proximity to a 60 dBA CNEL contour line. Note that this CNEL value is an estimate only, and is based on projections from 1999 to 2006. Therefore actual levels in 2013 may be higher or lower than 60 dBA CNEL, and will depend on current traffic volumes, road conditions, train activity, intervening structures, and other variables. Regardless, and in lieu of ambient sound level measurements, these data provide a reasonable best guess for estimating existing ambient conditions. 5.2 Construction Equipment and Noise Levels Construction equipment and related noise levels at 475 Eccles Avenue will vary over the life of the Project, as well as within the Site. To estimate sound levels from various equipment within the Site, ENVIRON used the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). RCNM allows the user to select from a list of construction equipment and identify the distance between the equipment and the receiver. The calculated sound levels are presented as either L1o or Lmax levels. The L1o is the sound level exceeded 10 percent of a given time period, the Lmax is the maximum sound level over the given time period. The Lmax was used in this assessment because it can be compared directly with the SSFMC 8.32.050(d) limits for construction equipment (i.e., the limits identified in SSFMC 8.32.050(d) are interpreted as not-to-be-exceeded, and therefore maximum, noise levels). Noise Analysis 18 ENVIRON 88 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 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 FHWARCNM SSFMC Construction Sound Level at Construction Equipment Construction 25 feet (dBA) b Noise Limit at 25 feet Equivalent • (dBA) Excavator Excavator 87 Skid Steer Loader Front end loader 85 Water Truck Dump Truck 82 Backhoe Backhoe 84 Street Sweeper Vacuum Street 88 Sweeper Metal Torches Welder/torch 80 Compressors Compressor (air) 84 90 Rubber Tired Dozers Dozer 88 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Tractor 90 Grader Grader 91 Crane Crane 87 Forklift Front End Loader 85 Pavers Paver 83 Roller Roller 86 Notes: a RCNM 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 b Sound levels reported as Lmax at 25 feet from construction equipment, comparable with the SSFMC construction noise equipment limit in SSFMC 8.23.050(d) Noise Analysis 19 ENVIRON 89 5.3 Compliance Assessment Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Compliance with the SSFMC construction noise limits was evaluated for all major equipment expected at the Project Site4 • Equipment details were provided by BMR 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 SSFMC construction noise limits. Noise from the grader is predicted to emit sound levels that exceed the SSFMC limit by 1 dBA at 25 feet. This relatively small increase above the SSFMC 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 Exemptions 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 SSFM 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 SSFMC 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 SSFMC 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 4 Major equipment includes large equipment such as those identified 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 90 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 9: Construction Noise at Nearest Noise Sensitive Receiver Noise Level Standard -C-1 (dBA) Standard Standard Standard +5 + 10 + 15 Standard Maximum Receiver Daylme (not to be (not to be (not to be +20 Construction Sound Level exceeded exceeded exceeded (not to be Noise Event a Limits (dBA) for more for more for more exceeded at than 15 than 5 than 1 any time) minutes) minutes) minute) Genentech 2nd Generation 65 70 75 80 85 77 Child Care Center Notes: a Maximum construction noise event based on RCNM Lmax calculation of a grader operating at 125 feet 5.6 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 21 ENVIRON 91 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 6 References Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting. 2012. 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2012082101. October. Available online at: http://ca- southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/DocumentCenterNiew/4176 . BAAQMD. 2010. Air Taxies 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://www.baaqmd.gov/-/media/Files/Pianning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20 CEQA %20Guidelines_Finai_May%202012.ashx?la=en. California Code of Regulations Title 13 §2485. 2009 . Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cai/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: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/de-fnds.htm. Accessed February 2013 . Cai/EPA. 2003. The Air Taxies Hot 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/hraguidefinal.html. Accessed February 2013. Cai/EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors: Methodologies for Derivation, Listing of Available Values, and Adjustment to Allow for Early Life Stage Exposures. May. Available online at: http:l/oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2009/TSDCancerPotency.pdf. Accessed February 2013. Cai/EPA. 2012. OEHHA/ARB Consolidated Table of Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. May 3. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/contable.pdf. Accessed February 2013. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Regulation for In-use Off-road Diesel Vehicles . Available online at: http://www.arb.ca .gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal . pdf ARB. 2011 a . In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. December. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/reglanguage.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/finaloffroadreg .pdf. ARB . 2011 b . Off-Road Diesel Equipment 2011 Inventory Model (OFFROAD2011 ). Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#offroad_motor_vehicles. ARB . 2011 c. EMission FACtors Model, 2011 (EMFAC2011). Available online at: http://www.arb.ca .gov/msei/modeling.htm#emfac2011_web_based_data. ARB. 2011d . EMFAC2011 Idling Emission Rates database. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac2011_idling_emission_rates.xlsx. References 22 ENVIRON 92 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbookllst/Method_final.pdf. Accessed July 2013. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. User's Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models . Volume II -Description of Model Algorithms. September. Available at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/userg/regmodlisc3v2.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. User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model -AERMOD. EPA-454/8-03- 001. September. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/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: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf. USEPA. 2013. Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines-Exhaust Emission Standards. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/nonroadci.htm Accessed July 2013. References 23 ENVIRON 93 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Figures ENVIRON 94 Appendix A Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Appendix A Construction Equipment List ENVIRON 98 475 Eccles Avenue Construction Equipment Ust Phase 10 Phase 1 Demolition 1 Demolition 1 Demolition 1 Demolition 1 Demolition 1 Demolition 1 Demolition 1 Demolition r-1 Dem~;;--- 1 Demolition 2 Site Preparation 2 Site Preparation 3 Grading 3 Grading 3 Grading 3 Grading 4 Building Construction 4 Building Construction 4 Building Construction 4 Building Construction l ~ Building Construction Paving __ R= Paving Paving ___ Architectural Coating Project Equipment PC 360 2012 tier 4 hydraulic excavator PC 450 2011 tier 3 hydraulic excavator PC 600 2006 tier 3 hydraulic excavator 863 Bobcat skid steer tier 2 loader Backhoe Street sweeper Bobcat -~c. Equipment (metal torches) Misc. Equipment (metal cut offs) Compressors Rubber Tired Dozers . Tractors/Loaders£!1ackhoes Excavators Graders Rubber Tired Dozers Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Cranes Forklifts Generator Sets Tractors/loaders/Backhoes ____ Welders Pavers Paving Equipment Rollers Air Compressors OFFROAD OFFROAD Equipment HP HPBin Excavators 257 500 Excavators 345 500 Excavators 385 500 Skid Steer loaders 73 120 Tractors/loaders/Backhoes 75 120 Sweepers/Scrubbers 88 120 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 75 120 Other Construction Equipment 46 50 Other Construction Equipment 5 50 Other Construction Equipment 78 120 Rubber Tired Dozers 358 500 Tractors/loaders/Backhoes 75 120 Excavators 157 175 Graders 162 175 Rubber Tired Dozers 358 500 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 75 120 Cranes 208 ' 250 Forklifts 149 175 Other Construction Equipment 84 120 Tractors/loaders/Backh ~ 75 120 Other Construction Equipment 46 50 -.~'-- Pavers 89 120 Paving Equipment 82 120 Rollers 84 120 Other Construction Equipment 78 120 TierHP Total calendar Construction Model Unique Bin LF Quantity 1Hours Year Year Scenario Fuel Enllinener DPF ID ID 300 0.382 1 309.3 2013 1 Project Diesel 4 0 Ecdes 1 600 0.382 1 309.3 2013 1 Project Diesel 3 0 Eccles 2 600 0.382 1 309.3 2013 1 Project Diesel 3 0 Eccles 3 75 0.369 2 928 2013 1 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 4 100 0.369 2 928 2013 1 Project Diesel OFFROAD 0 Eccles 5 100 0.456 1 464 2013 1 Project Diesel OFFROAD 0 Eccles 6 100 0.369 1 464 2013 1 Project Diesel OFFROAD 0 Eccles 7 50 0.302 1 464 2013 1 Project Diesel OFFROAD 0 Eccles 8 11 0.41S 1 464 2013 1 Project Diesel OFF ROAD 0 Eccles 9 100 0.322 1 464 2013 1 Project Diesel OFF ROAD 0 Eccles 10 600 0.395 3 240 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 11 100 0.369 4 320 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 12 175 0.382 1 160 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Ecdes 13 175 0.409 1 160 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 14 600 0.395 1 160 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 15 100 0.369 3 480 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 16 300 0.288 1 1610 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 17 175 0.201 3 5520 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 18 100 0.496 1 0 2016 4 Project Electric 2 0 Ecdes 19 100 0.369 3 4830 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 20 50 0.302 1 1840 2016 4 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 21 100 0.415 2 320 2017 5 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 22 100 0.355 2 32o 1 2017 5 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 23 100 0.375 2 320 2017 5 Project Diesel 2 0 Eccles 24 100 0.322 1 120 I 2017 5 --cJ'r!lj~_ Diesel 2 0 Eccles 2S 99 Appendix B Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Appendix B Construction Emissions Data (electronic files) ENVIRON 100 Appendix C Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Appendix C Air Dispersion Modeling Files (electronic files) ENVIRON 101 Appendix D Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California Appendix D BAAQMD-Recommended Mitigation Measures 1 ENVIRON 102 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 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: 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. 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 (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). Appendix D 1 ENVIRON 103 Sensitive Receptors Air Quality and Noise Technical Analysis 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco , California 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 taxies control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). 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. Appendix D 2 ENVIRON 104 Attachment E KB Engineering Peer Review 105 1 PO Box 365 Indianola, WA 98342 T – 360.265.8111 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 Study1 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 1 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. 3 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Air Toxics Hot Spot Program Risk Assessment Guideline, August 2003 and Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html. 106 2 PO Box 365 Indianola, WA 98342 T – 360.265.8111 (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 μg/m3 (less than the significance threshold of 0.3 μg/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.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Engineering/Air-Toxics/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx 107 3 PO Box 365 Indianola, WA 98342 T – 360.265.8111 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 108 4 PO Box 365 Indianola, WA 98342 T – 360.265.8111 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. 109 Attachment F Basic and Expanded Air Quality Measures 110 1)BASIC AND EXPANDED 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 Project 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 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. 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 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. 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.] 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. 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. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one (1) percent. 2)BASIC AND EXPANDED 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. All construction equipment, diesel trucks and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and 111 PM to the maximum extent feasible. To this end, all generators and air compressors used on site shall be electric. All on road trucks used onsite shall be Year Model 2007 or better. Propane or LNG-fueled booms and scissor lifts shall be used. Tier 2 or better for 20 percent of horsepower-hours of off-road diesel equipment shall be used during construction and 65 percent of horsepower hours during demolition. All contractors shall, to the maximum extent feasible, use equipment that meets the ARB’s most recent certification for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. No onsite grinding, crushing or shredding of asphalt or debris shall occur onsite. Potential future measures that achieve the same or better performance criteria shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any changes. Applicant shall provide the City and Genentech with a list of and schedule for demolition, grading and construction equipment and activities. A construction superintendent shall be on site during all demolition, grading and construction activities to enforce these regulations. 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 112 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 113 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. 114 Attachment G September 2013 Demolition Process Letter 115 116 117 118 Attachment H State Clearinghouse Letter of Compliance 119 120 121 122 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 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. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution 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. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 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. The applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution to go towards adjusting the signal light timing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 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. The applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution 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 City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 138 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION /MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY/ AGENCY/TIMING lane. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. 11 The Project would increase year 2035 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. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution to provide an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach at the Oyster Point Boulevard /Eccles Avenue intersection. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 12.A The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.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. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution 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.101 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. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 12.B The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue /U.S.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 The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution 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. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 139 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION /MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY/ AGENCY/TIMING 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. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. 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. The applicant shall be responsible maintaining landscaping along the Eccles Avenue Project frontage between the central and south driveways that will allow exiting drivers being 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 Applicant shall make the notes on the plans submitted as part of the building permit review process in conformance with mitigation 15. Applicant or designee shall maintain landscaping for the life of the Project as specified. Notes shall be shown on plans that are approved for building permits. Monitored by the Project Planner as part of the permit process. 140 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 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. 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 emplace the sign prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Applicant shall make the notes on the plans submitted as part of the building permit review process in conformance with mitigation 16. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy the stop sign shall be in place. Monitored by the Project Planner as part of the permit process. 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.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. 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.C 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-ramp. 13.D 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. 141 GOP 5 ADDENDUM – PAGE 1 OF 10 148464042.5 GOP 5 Addendum To 475 ECCLES EIR (SCH2012082101) July 21, 2020 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The City of South San Francisco approved the 475 Eccles Avenue project in 2016 (“2016 Project”). The 2016 Project proposes two buildings that together would comprise 262,287 square feet, a five-level parking structure and limited surface parking. The applicant, BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC (“BMR”), now seeks to modify the 2016 Project to update the design of the buildings and site to complement the Gateway of Pacific (GOP) Master Plan project, which includes phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Gateway of Pacific campus, to the west. BMR also seeks to expand the Project site from 6.1 acres to 8.9 acres by including the site of some former rail spurs that currently separate the GOP Master Plan project and 475 Eccles. The rail spurs will be improved with pedestrian and bicycle connections, resulting in a development that will operate as a coordinated R&D campus with interconnected pedestrian and bicycle paths, reflecting high quality architecture and design. The modifications to the 475 Eccles Project do not include any increase in building square footage. The modified 475 Eccles Project, which now includes both 475 Eccles and the site of the former rail spurs, is referred to as Phase 5 of the Gateway of Pacific campus, or the “GOP 5 Project.” The applications for the GOP 5 Project are being processed concurrently with those for the GOP 4 project. See the project description attached as Exhibit C for more detail regarding the GOP 4 and GOP 5 projects. This Addendum analyzes whether additional review of the environmental impacts associated with modification of the 2016 Project is required by CEQA. The City certified an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2012082101; “EIR”) for the 2016 Project in Resolution 93-2016, adopted on July 27, 2016. The EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of redevelopment of approximately 6.1 acres of land located at 475 Eccles Boulevard into a research and development complex. In Resoluti on 94- 2016, the City Council approved a Use Permit, Alternative Landscape Plan, Design Review and Transportation Demand Management Plan for development of up to 262,287 square feet of research and development uses, with associated structured parking. In Ordinance 1522-2016, the City Council approved a Development Agreement with the landowner and developer, BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC. This Addendum analyzes the GOP 5 Project as a modified 2016 Project and evaluates whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required in light of the proposals and surrounding circumstances. Because the GOP 5 GOP 5 ADDENDUM – PAGE 2 OF 9 148464042.5 Project only modifies the previously-approved 2016 Project, the scope of the current review is limited to a review of the modifications, and CEQA review is correspondingly limited. Specifically, in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162, this Addendum evaluates whether any of the following triggers necessitating preparation of supplemental environmental review are present: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopt ed, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EI R; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. As documented more fully below, approval and implementation of the GOP 5 Project does not involve any of the changes or significant new information contemplated in Public Resources Code § 21166 or CEQA Guidelines § 15162. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15164, an addendum is the appropriate environmental document and no supplemental environmental review is required or appropriate . This GOP 5 ADDENDUM – PAGE 3 OF 9 148464042.5 Addendum concludes that the implementation of the GOP 5 Project will not cause significant new impacts, will not trigger any new or more severe significant impacts than were identified for the 2016 Project, and that no significant information has come to light since the Project approvals were issued in 2016 that shows new or more severe significant impacts. No changes to impact conclusions, mitigation measures, evaluation of alternatives, or overriding considerations are necessary or appropriate. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The environmental impacts discussed and analyzed below include impacts specific to the GOP 5 Project, the 2016 Project, and cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts include the impacts of the adjacent GOP Phase 4 precise plan project. This Addendum addresses the impacts of the GOP 5 Project, and analyzes whether it would trigger any changes to the conclusions in the Resolution 93-2016 certifying the EIR as adequate for approval of the 2016 Project. The 2016 Project and the GOP 5 Project are subject to numerous requirements. The City imposed mitigation measures on the 2016 Project, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program previously adopted for the 2016 Project. In addition, the EIR references “Environmental Measures Incorporated Into the Project” starting on page 2-11 of Appendix A to the Draft EIR and starting on page 14 of Chapter 2 of the Final EIR, which would be implemented as part of the Project . The City also imposed conditions of approval in connection with the 2016 Project. This Addendum refers to all these as “requirements.” All these requirements, except those that apply to the demolition activity that has already occurred, are applicable to GOP 5 Project. Aesthetics. The proposed development for the GOP 5 Project includes construction of R&D/Office buildings as contemplated by the 2016 Project. The development conforms to the height assumptions and generally implements the design, lighting and other standards of the 2016 Project. However, the aesthetic qualities of the GOP 5 Project have been improved by bringing the design up to current standards and upgrading it to be compatible with the GOP Master Plan project to the west. The expansion of the Project Site to include the site of the former rail spurs, and install pedestrian and bicycle amenities, will further improve th e visual experience and achieve compatibility with the adjacent GOP Master Plan project. Views of the GOP 5 Project site are otherwise anticipated to include only development that was existing or generally contemplated when the 2016 Project was approved, such that the aesthetic compatibility of the 2016 Project with its surrounding areas has not changed. N o significant new information has arisen. Accordingly, no new or more severe significant impacts to aesthetics are anticipated beyond those anticipated under the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. GOP 5 ADDENDUM – PAGE 4 OF 9 148464042.5 Agricultural Resources. The GOP 5 Project site does not include any agricultural resources. There has been no change in agricultural status since 201 6. Thus, no additional review is required for approval of GOP 5 Project. Air Quality. The GOP 5 Project is subject to numerous air quality-related requirements imposed by the City, and by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. These requirements will apply to the rail spur areas that are now proposed to be included in the GOP 5 Project. The GOP 5 Project also will comply with the assumptions and recommendations of the 2015 Health Risk Assessment attached to the Final EIR, or, pursuant to that HRA ,will demonstrate that use of different (i.e., more current) construction practices and disturbance of the rail spur areas will result in at least the same level of environmental protection. The conditions of approval recommended by staff for the GOP 5 Project propose to clarify and confirm this requirement , which requires the developer to provide the City with an HRA prior to any subsequent demolition or construction. There have been no changes or new information since 2016 that would alter the conclusions regarding air quality impacts that were adopted in 2016. In addition, technological and industry advancements have resulted in more efficient engines emitting fewer constituents, and additional dust cont rol measures. Consequently, no new or more severe significant impacts to air quality are anticipated beyond those anticipated under the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. Biological Resources. The GOP 5 Project occupies a site that was developed with R&D/office uses and railroad spurs for decades and does not provide habitat of high biological value. The EIR concludes that the 2016 Project Site has very little to no habitat value, and is not located on ecologically sensitive lands. There is one protected tree on a rail spur parcel, which will be subject to the City’s tree ordinance, ensuring no new impacts. The GOP 5 Project will implement the protections granted by the California Fish and Game Code to nesting birds by implementing standard pre-construction surveys. The GOP 5 Project also includes protections for any bats that might roost in the protected tree by proposing to leave felled limbs (if any) on the ground for at least 24 hours prior to removal. The rail spurs have little to no other habitat value. There has been no substantial change in information or the circumstances regarding the GOP 5 Project Site or the surrounding East of 101 area since the EIR was adopted that would affect biological resources. Construction of the nearby Gateway Master Plan project did not encounter any previously-unknown biological resources. No new or more severe significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated for the GOP 5 Project beyond those anticipated under the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required . GOP 5 ADDENDUM – PAGE 5 OF 9 148464042.5 Cultural Resources. The GOP 5 Project site includes fill imported from unknown locations, and has already been extensively disturbed for development. The EIR concluded that the 2016 Project site contains no cultural or historic resources. Some grading was undertaken to install retaining walls in the rail spurs in connection with the GOP Master Plan project , during which contractors complied with the GOP Master Plan EIR mitigation measures requiring them to look for cultural resources, but none were found. There has been no substantial change to the circumstances surrounding the 2016 Project site since the 2016 Project was approved. Construction of nearby GOP Phases 1, 2 and 3 did not uncover any previously unknown significant cultural resources. In addition, construction in the surrounding East of 101 area has not revealed any significant finds that would affect the EIR’s analysis. No new or more severe significant impacts to cultural impacts are anticipated beyond those anticipated and evaluated in the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. Geology and Soils. The EIR concluded that there are no active faults underlying the 2016 Project site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault, located about 3.4 miles southwest. The GOP 5 Project, including the rail spurs, is subject to requirements requiring preparation of a geotechnical report, which is designed to protect against any remaining risk of seismic shaking, landslide or soil erosion. These measures will help ensure that impacts are less than significant. There has been no substantial change in surrounding circumstances or new i nformation since the EIR was adopted. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those anticipated under the 2016 Project. In addition, the California Supreme Court made clear, in California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369 (2015), that the impacts of existing soil conditions on a project are not within the purview of CEQA. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. The EIR concluded that greenhouse gas emissions of the 2016 Project would be less that significant. The GOP 5 Project proposes the same amount of development as the 2016 Project, with the addition of pedestrian and bicycle connections that are likely to help reduce GHG emissions even further. There has been no substantial change in surrounding circumstances, and no significant new information, that could not have been known then. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those anticipated and analyzed under the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. GOP 5 ADDENDUM – PAGE 6 OF 9 148464042.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Project site formerly hosted many industrial and R&D uses that involved hazardous materials, and rail spurs. The GOP 5 Project will include the hazardous materials remediation measures as set forth in Table 3-2 of the Final EIR. No unexpected hazardous materials were encountered during excavation for the adjacent GOP project. No significant new information or change in circumstances has been revealed since the 2016 Project was approved. No new or more severe significant impacts from hazards and hazardous materials are anticipated beyond those anticipated under the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. Hydrology and Water Quality. The EIR concludes that impacts will be less than sig nificant because the Project is subject to requirements for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, implementation of Low Impact Development measures (LIDs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Project is required to comply with NPDES and SWPPP measu res and mandates to treat all stormwater runoff. The GOP 5 Project remains subject to these requirements. Runoff from the path proposed for the rail spurs will be directed into the landscape areas within that area. There are no unusual circumstances rel evant to stormwater management or water quality at the GOP 5 Project site. No significant new information or substantial change in surrounding circumstances has been discovered since approval of the 2016 Project that would create new or more severe signi ficant impacts related to hydrology or water quality. Accordingly, no new or more severe significant impacts to hydrology or water quality are anticipated beyond those anticipated and analyzed under the 2016 Project and EIR. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. Land Use, Population and Growth Inducement. The 2016 approvals determined that the 2016 Project would not create significant land use, population or growth inducement impacts, as it would implement prior city plans for R&D/office development in the area. The amount and type of R&D development proposed by the GOP 5 Project is the same. There have been no substantial land use changes or significant new information since approval of the 2016 Project. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated to land use, population and growth inducement beyond those anticipated and analyzed under the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. GOP 5 ADDENDUM – PAGE 7 OF 9 148464042.5 Mineral Resources. The 2016 Project site does not include any mineral resources. The EIR for the GOP Master Plan project likewise confirmed that there are no mineral resources in the area. This circumstance has not changed. Some grading undertaken to install retaining walls in the rail spurs in connection with the GOP Master Plan project did not reveal any unknown mineral resources. Thus, no additional review of mineral resources is required for approval of the GOP 5 Project. Noise. The EIR concluded that noise impacts would be less than significant due to the City’s construction noise ordinance, the fact that the site is located in an industrial neighborhood that is not noise-sensitive, and the fact that most operational activities would be conducted indoors. The GOP 5 Project retains these characteristics. There have been no substantial changes to the noise aspects of the surr ounding area, and no significant new information has been developed since approval of the 2016 Project. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those anticipated under the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. Public Services and Recreation. The public service and recreation impacts of the 2016 Project were found to be less than significant as the Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions in the City’s General Plan. That remains the case for the GOP 5 Project. There has been no substantial change in surrounding circumstances, or development of significant new information, relating to public services or recreation since approval of the 2016 Project. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those anticipated under the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. Transportation and Circulation. The GOP 5 Project will not change t he allowed amount of square footage or the type of land uses contemplated under the 2016 Project, except that the GOP 5 Project will add pedestrian and bicycle connections that could reduce traffic . Accordingly, there are no project changes that would necessitate any changes in projected trip generation or the length of trips. The GOP 5 Project also remains subject to the traffic mitigation measures imposed upon the 2016 Project, and is required to have a Transportation Demand Management Program pursuant to the applicable zoning development standards. The number of trips the GOP 5 Project is expected to contribute to surrounding intersections and road segments remains the same. To the extent that additional development has occurred (or been approved or planned) since approval of the 2016 Project, and that additional development has or will generate an increase in projected cumulative impacts, the contribution of the GOP 5 Project is anticipated to GOP 5 ADDENDUM – PAGE 8 OF 9 148464042.5 represent a smaller percentage of the projected traffic at such impacted locations than was anticipated in 2016. There has been no substantial change in surrounding circumstances, or development of significant new information relating to traffic impacts since 2016. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those anticipated under the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. Utilities. The EIR concluded the 2016 Project would have less than significant impacts on utilities and that existing capacity is sufficient to accommodate the 2016 Project. The GOP 5 Project does not propose any greater demand upon public utilities. The only exception is that the GOP 5 Project may include lighting along the pedestrian and bicycle connections that are proposed for the rail spurs, and some irrigation for landscaping, but this demand is expected to be de minimis. There has been no substantial change in surrounding circumstances, or development of significant new information, relating to utilities since approval of the EIR. The City has monitored and kept pace with the expansion of utilities for new development projects. Construction of the GOP 5 Project will be more energy efficient than anticipated in 2016 due to imposition of stricter requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. No new or more severe significant impacts to utilities are anticipated beyond those anticipated under the 2016 Project. Thus, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review is required. CONCLUSION The GOP 5 Project implements the development contemplated under the previously- approved 2016 Project; it does not make any changes to the amount of development allowed by the 2016 Project. It instead adds pedestrian and bicycle connections along the rail spur parcels, and adds precise details to the conceptual development plan outlined in the 2016 Project. The City determined that the EIR is adequate to evaluate and mitigate the impacts of the 2016 Project. The GOP 5 Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than were previously identified for the 2016 Project. There is no substantial evidence of changes in circumstances, or significant new information that could not have been known when the 2016 Project was approved, that would cause any new or more severe environmental impacts. There are no changes or new information that would affect the analysis of alternatives. The 2016 Project is still subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and is still expected to produce the benefits, which override the identified significant and unavoidable impacts. Accordingly, no change in impact conclusions, environmental findings, mitigation measures, or the statement of overriding considerations is warranted and no further environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164. GOP 5 ADDENDUM – PAGE 9 OF 9 148464042.5 Attachments: A 2016 CEQA Findings B 2016 Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) C Project Description (which also includes the adjacent GOP Phase 4 project) Exhibit A 2016 CEQA Findings I. 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 (“EIR”) 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: 1. 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 Cal.App.4th 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 “EIR”. 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 Cal.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 Cal.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 Cal.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.B: 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.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. 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 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-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.D: 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 2035 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.S.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.101 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.B: The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.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.B: 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 EIR 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 Cal.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). 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 of101 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 Project 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. Exhibit B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATIONMITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONSIMPLEMENTATION /MONITORING #IMPACTMITIGATIONPARTY/ AGENCY/TIMING 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. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution 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. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair sharefinancial contribution.Applicant pays the full sharecontribution prior to issuance of theCertificate of Occupancy by the City.Monitored by the City Engineer.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. The applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution to go towards adjusting the signal light timing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair sharefinancial contribution.Applicant pays the full sharecontribution prior to issuance of theCertificate of Occupancy by the City.Monitored by the City Engineer.9.AThe 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. The applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution 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 City Engineer determines the fair sharefinancial contribution.Applicant pays the full sharecontribution prior to issuance of theCertificate of Occupancy by the City.Monitored by the City Engineer.ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-8 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION /MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY/ AGENCY/TIMING lane. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. 11 The Project would increase year 2035 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. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution to provide an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach at the Oyster Point Boulevard /Eccles Avenue intersection. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 12.A The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.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. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution 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.101 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. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. 12.B The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue /U.S.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 The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution 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. City Engineer determines the fair share financial contribution. Applicant pays the full share contribution prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Monitored by the City Engineer. DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-9 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION /MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY/ AGENCY/TIMING 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. Improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. 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. The applicant shall be responsible maintaining landscaping along the Eccles Avenue Project frontage between the central and south driveways that will allow exiting drivers being 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 Applicant shall make the notes on the plans submitted as part of the building permit review process in conformance with mitigation 15. Applicant or designee shall maintain landscaping for the life of the Project as specified. Notes shall be shown on plans that are approved for building permits. Monitored by the Project Planner as part of the permit process. DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-10 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 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. 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 emplace the sign prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Applicant shall make the notes on the plans submitted as part of the building permit review process in conformance with mitigation 16. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy the stop sign shall be in place. Monitored by the Project Planner as part of the permit process. 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.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. 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.C 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-ramp. 13.D 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. DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-11 148900306.2 Exhibit C - Gateway Of Pacific (GOP) GOP 4 and 5 Project Description July 21, 2020 I. OVERVIEW Entities affiliated with BioMed Realty seek the approvals necessary to complete the Gateway Business Park Master Pan project and integrate it with the previously approved 475 Eccles project. The result will be the Gateway of Pacific (GOP) R&D campus with interconnected pedestrian and bicycle paths, reflecting high quality architecture and a design appropriate for this important gateway location. Two projects are currently proposed: GOP 4 and GOP 5. GOP 4. The City approved a revised Master Plan for the Gateway Business Park campus in 2013, and BMR entities have been building out since then. The City has approved Precise Plans for three of the four phases of the Master Plan. GOP 1 is near completion. GOP 2 and 3 have started construction. BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP now seeks approval of a Precise Plan for GOP 4. GOP 5. BMR-Gateway of Pacific V LP seeks to modify the approvals granted for 475 Eccles to update its design to complement GOP 1, 2, 3 and 4, and to include the site of some former rail spurs that currently separate GOP 1, 2, 3 and 4 from 475 Eccles. The rail spurs will be improved with pedestrian and bicycle connections. The modified project that encompasses the former 475 Eccles project plus the rail spurs is now called the GOP 5 Project. Both GOP 4 and GOP 5 are depicted below: - 2 - 148900306.2 II. GOP 4 PROJECT A. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Development To Date. The Gateway Business Park Master Plan encompasses a 22.7 -acre site comprised of 4 parcels located at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. The Master Plan project has been informally known as the Gateway of Pacific (GOP) project. This Master Plan area is within the Gateway Specific Plan zoning district (Area V of the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning Map). The 2013 Master Plan established a conceptual plan for development of a life sciences campus that achieves the allowable 1.25 FAR. As conceptually depicted in the Master Plan, the campus is envisioned to serve multiple science organizations in four major buildings supported by amenity facilities and parking garages. A central, park-like open space connects these structures in a highly sustainable and pedestrian -friendly setting. Phase 1 (GOP 1), located at 1000 Gateway Boulevard, is near completion and has been leased to AbbVie. Phases 2 and 3 (GOP 2 and GOP 3), which will complete the frontage that runs along Gateway Boulevard at 750 and 850 Gateway Boulevard, have started construction. GOP 2 is partially leased to Amgen and GOP 3 is the subject of ongoing negotiations with top -tier biotechnology firms. B. GOP 4 Proposed Development. BMR-Gateway of Pacific IV LP now seeks to complete buildout of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan by pursuing a Precise Plan for phase 4 (GOP 4). The GOP 4 site comprises 6.35 acres located at 850 and 900 Gateway Boulevard. Two five-story buildings will be constructed, each with a roof top mechanical area / penthouse level above. The overall height, as measured pursuant to the applicable zoning code, will be 98 feet above the average level of the highest and lowest point of the portion of the lot covered by the building. The two buildings will have approximately 226,000 square feet of gross floor area. A total of 531 parking spaces for this phase will be accommodated on a five level, raised -deck structure. Access from the Oyster Point Boulevard side of the site will be available via drives along Veterans Boulevard and the current Fed-ex driveway. This will be the primary access route to the site . Secondary access from Gateway Boulevard will be available via a private drive aisle named “Park Street,” to be constructed along the western edges of GOP 2, 3 and 4, and which will provide secondary access to the GOP 2, 3 and 4 garages. The architecture will respond to the site’s location as a gateway to South San Francisco’s biotechnology hub and to the general urbanization of the Gateway District. GOP 4 will enhance and expand the pedestrian experience with an interior plaza area, which will extend the open, park-like landscape of the central GOP Master Plan campus. Building form will reflect the influences of local climate and the culture of science. Open floor plates will be articulated for sculptural quality while maintaining the high efficiency needed for research environments. The building envelope will consist of a high-quality curtain-wall system with energy-efficient glazing and accents of metal panels, wood and concrete. Building and Landscape design and material selection have been selected to support LEED and high - performance energy and environmental standards. As set forth in the Development Agreement, BMR will use good faith efforts to achieve a Silver or better LEED rating for GOP 4. The design will follow the framework established by the Master Plan and the approach to sustainability and commitment to design quality are fully consistent with the other phases of GOP. - 3 - 148900306.2 The GOP 4 Project site will be integrated with the rest of the GOP campus. As noted, vehicular access will be available from both Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. The entir e Master Plan campus, and the new GOP 5 building (see below) will be connected via pedestrian and bicycle paths. This will be a continuous pedestrian pathway that joins all buildings on the GOP campus. A variety of enhanced paving materials and feature plantings, amenities and social spaces will be added to encourage pedestrian use. C. GOP 4 Approvals. The GOP 4 Project requires approval of a Precise Plan. Design review will be included in the processing of the Precise Plan . The GOP 4 approvals include amendments to the GOP Development Agreement to extend its term to December 31, 2030, and to reflect the manner in which provisions of the original Development Agreement regarding in lieu park fees have been implemented. The approvals also may address the fact that conditions at the edge of the Precise Plan for each phase of the Master Plan were modified to accommodate and be compatible with each newer, adjacent Precise Plan as it was approved. Because the Master Plan project is vested into the 2013 South San Francisco Municipal Code pursuant to the Development Agreement, the GOP 4 Project will be subject to the 2013 Zoning Code. The GOP 4 Project will meet current building standards, including CalGreen. D. GOP 4 Existing Setting. The GOP 4 Project site currently hosts two buildings that were constructed in 1988. There is a vacant building at 850 Gateway, which formerly housed Genentech. There is an operating Fed Ex shipping center at 900 Gateway. Both buildings will be demolished. The site currently has access via a driveway to Oyster Point Boulevard. III. GOP 5 PROJECT A. GOP 5 Proposed Development. BMR-Gateway of Pacific V LP seeks approvals for the GOP 5 Project. GOP 5 is planned to be the fifth phase of the GOP campus, connecting to the Master Plan area to the west. GOP 5 is not included in the Gateway Business Park Master Plan, but BMR intends that it look and feel like part of the same campus. BMR seeks modifications to the approvals previously granted for 475 Eccles to implement the GOP 5 Project. The GOP 5 Project site is 8.9 acres. It includes the site of the 475 Eccles project (6.1 acres) that was approved in 2016, plus the area of some former railroad spurs (2.8 acres) that lie between GOP 4 and 475 Eccles. Inclusion of the rail spur property will enable connections between 475 Eccles and the re st of the GOP campus. The result will be a single biotech campus that includes GOP 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which will be integrated with pathways and visually compatible architecture. The GOP 5 site is in the Business Technology Park (BTP) zoning district, which allows up to 1.0 FAR with a Use Permit, based upon a TDM. The 2016 approvals for 475 Eccles allow two - 4 - 148900306.2 buildings that achieve an FAR of approximately 1.0 as measured across the 475 Eccles site,1 based upon a TDM program that was approved in 2016. The GOP 5 Project proposes to redesign the site to bring it up to current aesthetic standards and to integrate the site with the adjacent GOP 1, 2, 3 and 4 sites to the west, all without increasing the square footage approved in 2016. A revised TDM plan will be submitted to ensure compliance with current TDM standards. As is the case for the other GOP phases, the architecture for GOP 5 responds to the site’s location as a gateway to South San Francisco’s biotechnology hub. GOP 5 will connect to the open, park-like landscape of the GOP 1, 2, 3 and 4 campus. The GOP 5 Project will incorporate the LEED Silver measures listed in the EIR prepared for 475 Eccles, will use good faith efforts to achieve LEED Silver or better certification, and will include all environmental measures that were incorporated into the 475 Eccles project as noted in that EIR . Building form will reflect the influences of local climate and the culture of science. Open floor plates have been articulated for sculptural quality while maintaining the high efficiency needed for research environments. The building envelope will consist of a high-quality curtain-wall system with energy-efficient glazing and accents of terra cotta, wood and concrete. Building and Landscape design and material selection have been selected to support LEED and high - performance energy and environmental standards. Installation of pedestrian amenities in the rail spurs wi ll enable completion of the continuous pedestrian pathway described above, which will join all buildings on the GOP campus. As noted, a variety of enhanced paving materials and feature plantings, amenities and social spaces will be added to encourage pede strian use. BMR will grant to the City a shared access easement to allow public use of a multi-use path within the rail spurs. This easement will ensure there are no conflicts with the “rails to trails” plan (also known as “Active South City” plan) the City is currently considering. No other modifications to the Use Permit are requested. As was the case in 2016, development at 475 Eccles will expand the general urbanization of the City’s gateway area to Eccles Boulevard. Vehicles will continue to access the site from Eccles Avenue. Construction will consist of two (2) five (5) story buildings with a roof top mechanical area / penthouse level on each building. There will be 262,287 square feet in these two buildings. The GOP 5 Project will implement the previously approved parking reduction that imposes a minimum parking requirement of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. GOP 5 proposes a 655- space parking structure. GOP 5 also will implement the previously approved alternate landscape plan, which eliminated a requirement for rooftop planters in light of the fact that t he parking garage facades were designed to match the buildings’ architectural facades and therefore reflected the appearance of the campus buildings, and greenscreen panels on lower- level portions of the garage façade will be included to give more screening on the building. The current GOP 5 parking structure landscape design incorporates planting strategies similar to those used in the GOP 2 and 3 parking structures. The design includes native and adapted plantings of various size and scale that will provide screening of the lower level garage façade and provide seasonal interest. The overall height, as measured pursuant to the applicable 1 While BMR is not waiving its right to seek approval of more development in the future, t he GOP 5 Project does not propose any additional square footage that could be achieved by applying the allowed FAR to the acreage of the GOP 5 Project site. - 5 - 148900306.2 zoning code, will be 98 feet above the average level of the highest and lowest point of the portion of the lot covered by the building. B. GOP 5 Approvals. The approvals sought for the GOP 5 Project are modifications of the approvals granted in 2016 for the 475 Eccles project. GOP 5 requires a modification of the Use Permit to expand the scope of the area to which the permit attaches to encompass the rail spurs, and to incorporate the upgraded design for the allowed development. BMR will demonstrate that no new TDM measures are needed to support approval of this modification to the Use Permit. A modification to the design review approval issued in 2016 will be required to reflect the current design. A tree removal permit may be required to address a protected tree in the rail spur parcels. BMR seeks modification to the Development Agreement for 475 Eccles to incorporate the modified approvals and to expand the area of property covered by the DA to include the rail spurs. BMR also seeks an extension of the Developmen t Agreement term to December 31, 2030, and some minor clerical amendments to reflect the City’s in lieu park fee ordinance. C. GOP 5 Existing Setting. 475 Eccles currently hosts a building pad left over from the demolition of the former structure. The site has paved parking and vehicular access to Eccles Avenue. The rail spur areas are currently undeveloped, with the exception of some retaining walls that were installed in connection with GOP 1, 2 and 3 to enable creation of the pedestrian walkways and a private roadway that are now proposed. IV. CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND SCHEDULE GOP 4 and GOP 5 collectively propose four buildings and two associated parking garages. BMR anticipates that GOP 4 and GOP 5 develo pment, from site preparation through certificate of occupancy, will take approximately 7 years, beginning in 2021. Site preparation and buildout will occur in response to market demand. It is anticipated that market demand will lead to one to two buildings plus associated parking being under construction at any given point in time . V. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Gateway Business Park Master Plan project, which includes GOP 1, 2, 3 and 4, was the subject of an EIR initially certified in 2010 in connection w ith the original Master Plan. (SCH #2008062059) The City determined in connection with its 2013 approval of the revised Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the GOP 1 Precise Plan that no supplemental or subsequent EIR was required. The City approved G OP 2 and 3 in 2018 based upon an addendum that likewise determined that no supplemental or subsequent EIR was required. The current GOP 4 Project will comply with all mitigation measures imposed upon the Gateway Business Park Master Plan project. The 475 Eccles project was approved in 2016 based upon an EIR the City certified for that project. (SCH# 2012082101) No subsequent approvals for the 475 Eccles project have been issued since then. The GOP 5 Project proposes to modify the 475 Eccles project by expanding the project site to encompass the rail spur properties. The inclusion of the rail spur properties in the GOP 5 Project will ensure that all mitigation and other environmentally-protective measures incorporated into the 475 Eccles EIR will apply to the rail spurs as well. - 6 - 148900306.2 BMR will implement the requirements of the prior environmental reviews by having a new Health Risk Assessment prepared that addresses the impacts of construction of GOP 4 and GOP 5 on current sensitive receptors. The GOP 4 and GOP 5 Projects include compliance with environmentally protective laws and standard practices, including the applicable tree protection ordinance, and standard surveys and other protections for nesting birds and roosting bats. City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-528 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8b. Ordinance adopting a First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA20-0002)between the City of South San Francisco and BMR Gateway of Pacific V LP for a Research and Development and Office Project at 475 Eccles Avenue. WHEREAS,BMR Gateway of Pacific V LP (formerly known as BMR-475 Eccles Avenue,LLC)(“Owner”or “Applicant”)received entitlements for a Use Permit,Alternative Landscape Plan,Design Review,and a Transportation Demand Management Plan to authorize the construction of two new 2-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 square feet at an FAR of 1.0 on an approximately 6.1-acre site located at 475 Eccles Avenue (“Project”); and, WHEREAS,on July 27,2016,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.1522-2016,approving and adopting a development agreement for the property at 475 Eccles Avenue (“Property”); and, WHEREAS,Applicant submitted an application requesting approval of a Use Permit Modification,Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of the previously entitled project and to expand the area of property covered by the entitlements to include the adjacent rail spurs property,incorporating the previously entitled project into the adjacent Gateway of Pacific (“GOP”) Campus as GOP Phase 5 (“Revised Project”); and, WHEREAS,the City Council certified the 2012 Environmental Impact Report (“2012 EIR”)on July 27,2016 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,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,an addendum to the 2012 EIR was prepared for the Revised Project (“2020 Addendum”)which evaluates whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and WHEREAS,the 2020 Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162,the implementation of the Revised Project will not cause significant impacts,that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2012 EIR,that no substantial changes in the project nor circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous EIR have occurred,and that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2012 EIR was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts nor shows new,different or more feasible mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS,on August 6,2020 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement,and recommended that the City Council consider the First Amended and Restated DevelopmentCity of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-528 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8b. Agreement,and recommended that the City Council consider the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 9,2020 to consider the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement, and take public testimony; and WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the environmental impacts and the 2020 Addendum by separate resolution. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: 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 Environmental Impact Report;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;2012 EIR,and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs;2020 Addendum to the 2012 EIR;the Revised Project applications;the BMR GOP Phase 5 Precise Plan,as prepared by Flad Architects,dated June 8,2020;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed August 6, 2020 meeting;all site plans,reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed public hearing on September 9,2020;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 Exhibit attached to this Ordinance,the proposed First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (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 First Amended and Restated Development Agreement,attached hereto as Exhibit A,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 City Council finds that the Development Agreement,vesting a project for a campus-style development of office and R&D buildings,is consistent with the consistent with the objectives,policies,general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and any applicable zoning regulations because the proposed project is an Office/R&D facility that meets the Business and Technology Park general plan land use provisions and programs. E.The First Amended and Restated 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 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-528 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8b. authorized in,and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located because the project provides an office/R&D facility with a campus-style environment.The subject site is physically 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; F.The First Amended and Restated Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience,general welfare and good land use practice because the amendment enhances the site plan and further improves the pedestrian environment from the public right-of-way. G.The First Amended and Restated Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare because the amendment preserves a campus-like environment and creates pedestrian connections between the broader campus, including a rails-to-trails connection, for employees and visitors. H.The First Amended and Restated Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property valued because the amendment improves the property’s campus-like environment and is consistent with surrounding R&D and office uses. SECTION 2.Approval of Development Agreement A.The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the First Amended and Restated 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 First Amended and Restated 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 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-528 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8b. 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. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ - Development Agreement page 1 of __ - DRAFT 7/21/2020 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 (Space Above This Line Reserved For Recorder’s Use) FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC V LP GATEWAY OF PACIFIC PHASE 5 PROJECT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - Development Agreement page 2 of __ - FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Gateway of Pacific Phase 5 Project This FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE GATEWAY OF PACIFIC PHASE 5 PROJECT is dated _______________, 2020 (“Agreement ”), between BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC V LP, a Delaware limited partnership, formerly known as 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”). Owner and the City are individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively referred to herein as “Parties.” R E C I T A L S 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 Sect ion 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 eight and nine-tenths (8.9) acres of property consisting of (a) 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 (“Approved Property”), and (b) a two and eight-tenths (2.8) acre site formerly occupied by railroad spurs located immediately north of the Approved Property and south of Phases 1 through 4 of the Gateway of Pacific campus, as shown and more particularly described in Exhibit A (“Added Property”). The Approved Property and the Added Property are collectively referred to herein as the “Property”; and D. WHEREAS, Owner has a legal or equitable interest in the Property subject to this Agreement; and E. WHEREAS, on July 27, 2016, the City Council, by Resolution Number 94-2016, 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) on the Approved Property based on an approved “Incentives Program” as provided in Municipal Code Section 20.110.003; and F. WHEREAS, on July 27, 2016, the City Council, by Ordinance Number 1 522-2016, approved and adopted that certain Development Agreement between the City and Owner for the 475 Eccles Avenue Life Science Campus Project (“2016 Agreement”) on the Approved Property; and G. WHEREAS, the 2016 Agreement became effective on or about August 26, 2016 (“2016 Effective Date”); and - Development Agreement page 3 of __ - H. WHEREAS, subsequent to the 2016 Effective Date, Owner acquired the Added Property; and I. WHEREAS, subsequent to the 2016 Effective Date, Owner submitted a modified development proposal to the City to permit development of the Property as depicted in the Project Documents, prepared by Flad Architects, BKF Engineers, and CMG Landscape Architecture and attached hereto as Exhibit B; and J. WHEREAS, the modified development proposal for the Gateway of Pacific Phase 5 project, by including the Added Property, enables development of an integrated Gateway of Pacific campus by providing pedestrian and bicycle connections between the Approved Property and the Gateway of Pacific campus to the north; and K. WHEREAS, the modified development proposal also redesigns the site on the Approved Property to integrate it physically and aesthetically with the adjacent Gateway of Pacific campus to the north; and L. WHEREAS, the modified development proposal is 262,287 square feet, as identified in Resolution Number 94-2016 based on the application of an FAR of approximately 1.0 to the Approved Property, and does not include the density that could be available to Owner based on the application of allowable FAR to the Added Property; and M. WHEREAS, by entering into this Agreement, Owner has not waived any right it may have for future additional development on the Property based on the application of allowable FAR to the Property; and N. WHEREAS, this Agreement does not grant a vested right to develop more than the density of the modified development proposal; and O. WHEREAS, 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 an amendment to the conditional use permit issued under by Resolution No. 94-2016 to enable development of the modified development proposal; and P. WHEREAS, Owner has requested that the City enter into this Agreement to amend and restate the rights and obligations of the Parties relating to the development of the Property, expand the property subject to this Agreement to include the Added Property, and incorporate approvals of the modified development proposal into this Agreement; and Q. 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 R. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission have found that this Agreement is consistent w ith the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs - Development Agreement page 4 of __ - specified in the South San Francisco General Plan as adopted on October 13, 1999 and as amended from time to time; and S. WHEREAS, on _______________, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. ______________ approving and adopting this Agreement , and the Ordinance took effect thirty days later. A G R E E M E N T 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 appro ving 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 (“2020 Effective Date”). 2. Duration This Agreement shall expire December 31, 2030. 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 construction of two new buildings and one parking structure, and exterior landscaping, driveways, pathways, pedestrian amenities, and other related improvements, to be built in one or more phases, to create a connected, pedestrian-friendly, campus-style development, as more particularly described in the Project Documents and as approved by the City Council, provided that the Project also includes any subsequent modifications made by Owner with approval by the Planning Commission or the City Council, so long as such modifications do not increase the maximum amount of square feet permitted to be constructed on the Property (262,287 square feet of gross floor area for the two new buildings). (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, - Development Agreement page 5 of __ - any public improvements, facilities and services, and all environmental impact mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions for the Project , as any such items may be modified under Section 3, above, shall be exclusively those provided in the City Council resolutions required to implement the Project, the 475 Eccles Avenue Environmental Impact Report dated October 26, 2012 (DEIR) and February 2016 (FEIR) (“2016 EIR”), this Agreement, and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the 2016 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 2016 Effective Date (except as modified by this Agreement), as well as the Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit C hereto. (b) Subject to Owner’s fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement, upon the 2020 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 2016 Effective Date. (c) Upon such grant of right, no 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 2016 Effective Date shall apply to the Project, except such 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. (e) Upon completion of Project improvements within the Added Property, Owner shall execute and have recorded, at no cost to the City, a shared access easement substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, on the terms and at the location described therein (“Public Trail Easement Agreement”). 4. Permits for Project All required permits for the Project shall comply with all applicable Uniform Codes, the Municipal Code in effect as of the 2016 Effective Date, CEQA requirements (including any required mitigation measures) and Federal and State Laws. - Development Agreement page 6 of __ - 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 t he 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 o ff-site components of the Project required by the City to be constructed or obtained by Owner in the C ity’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 t he 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. - Development Agreement page 7 of __ - 8. Maintenance Obligations on Property All of the Property subject to this Agreement shall be maintained by Owner or its successors and assigns 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 Mu nicipal 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 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 appro val by the City Attorney not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed (provided, however, that if such transfer arises from a Mortgage Transfer Event (as defined in Section 30 below), then such Association shall be established and CC&Rs shall be submitted as soon as reasonably practicable after such Mortgage Transfer Event). 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 2016 Effective Date and no changes to then-existing fee requirements (except those already subject to periodic adjustments as specified in the adopting or implementing resolutions and ordinances) that occurred or occur on or after the 2016 Effective Date shall apply to the Project. Any application, processing, - Development Agreement page 8 of __ - 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 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 det ermination 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 facilit y. 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 Mo de 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 - Development Agreement page 9 of __ - 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. i. In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, City ma y 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 2016 EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit C). Entitlement review for future Project phases will be limited in scope, so long as consistent with the 2016 EIR and the Project Documents. - Development Agreement page 10 of __ - (d) Climate Action Plan. The Project 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 c harging installations); 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 achie ve 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 CAP’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 varia ble-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 elec ted 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 sha ll have no indemnification obligation - Development Agreement page 11 of __ - 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). 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 2020 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 Proper ty. 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 shal l require the transferee to acknowledge in writing that the 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: (i) to any subsidiary, affiliate, parent or other entity which controls, is controlled by or is under common control with Owner, (ii) to any member or partner of Owner or any subsidiary, parent or affiliate of any such member or partner, (iii) to any successor or successors to Owner by merger, consolidation, non-bankruptcy reorganization or government action, or (iv) as a result of a Mortgage Transfer Event (as defined in Section 30, below). 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. - Development Agreement page 12 of __ - (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, o r assignment or the effective date of 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, certific ations 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 C ity 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 do es not comply with the notice requirements of this Section and Section 14(b) shall not release 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. - Development Agreement page 13 of __ - (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 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 (b). 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 emplo yed 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, agent s, 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 - Development Agreement page 14 of __ - 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. 17. Conflict With State or Federal Law In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the 2020 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 2020 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 from Owner 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 - Development Agreement page 15 of __ - 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. 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 e xhibits 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. - Development Agreement page 16 of __ - (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. (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 - Development Agreement page 17 of __ - 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. 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 constru ed 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. Owner may encumber its interest in the Property to secure a loan made to Owner and collaterally assign its rights under this Agreement in connection with such loan without the consent of the City, subject to the terms and conditions of this Section 30. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to all liens placed upon the Property or any portion thereof aft er 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 as a result of a default under a Mortgage (a “Mortgage Transfer Event ”). Owner shall deliver written notice to the City within fourteen (14) days after recording any Mortgage against the Property, including the address for notices to the Mortgagee. (b) Mortgagee Not Obligated. No 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 Mortgagee - Development Agreement page 18 of __ - upon or after Owner’s default under a Mortgage, 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 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 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 t his 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 - Development Agreement page 19 of __ - 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. No performance by or on behalf of a Mortgagee shall cause it to become a “mortgagee-in-possession” or otherwise cause it to be deemed to be in possession of the Property or bound by or liable under this Agreement unless it becomes an Owner of the Property. In the event a Mortgagee becomes an Owner, such Mortgagee shall not be liable for any obligation hereunder of any previous Owner of the Property that arose prior to the time such Mortgagee became an Owner of the Property, except for (a) continuing non-monetary obligations that are capable of cure by Mortgagee and (b) monetary obligations for which the City provided a notice of default to Owner under Section 24(e) and, if applicable, to Mortgagee under Section 31(c), and neither Owner nor such Mortgagee thereafter cured such default of Owner’s monetary obligation. (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 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 (30) 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 no t 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 eve nts 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 shal l 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 upo n 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. - Development Agreement page 20 of __ - 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, e xcept 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 p ublic enemy, fires, explosions, floods, earthquakes, epidemics, pandemics, 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 unavailabi lity 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 embarg oes, 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 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. - Development Agreement page 21 of __ - 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 Exhibit E — Form of Public Trail Easement Agreement 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 Parties shall be addressed as follows: City: City Clerk P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 With a copy to: Meyers Nave 555 12th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94607 Attn: Sky Woodruff, City Attorney Owner: BMR-Gateway of Pacific V LP 17190 Bernardo Center Drive San Diego, CA 92128 Attn: Vice President, Legal With a copy to: Perkins Coie LLP 505 Howard Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: Cecily Barclay A party may change its address for notice by giving notice in writing to the o ther party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. *************************************************************************** - Development Agreement page 22 of __ - IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the Parties on the day and year fir st above written. CITY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: __________________________ Name: __________________________ Its: City Manager ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Attorney OWNER: BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC V LP By: ___________________________ Name: ___________________________ Its: ___________________________ 147956747.7 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 Exhibit E Form of Public Trail Easement Agreement DRAFT 7/24/2020 EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: The City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attention: City Clerk EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER GOVERNMENT CODE §§6103, 27383 PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Easement Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on ___________, 2020, by and between BMR-Gateway of Pacific V LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Grantor”), and the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (“Grantee”). Grantor and Grantee shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the “Parties” and each individually as a “Party.” RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of that certain real property situated in the City of South San Francisco, State of California, commonly known as Phase 5 of the Biomed Gateway of Pacific Campus, South San Francisco, California, as shown and legally described in the a ttached Exhibit A (Grantor’s Property). B. Grantor has constructed certain improvements on Grantor’s Property, located immediately south of the existing Gateway of Pacific Campus, which improvements include two office/R&D buildings, a parking structure, lan dscaping and interconnected pedestrian and bicycle paths, commonly known as GOP Phase 5 (the “Project”). The Project includes a two and eight-tenths (2.8) acre site formerly occupied by railroad spurs, located along the north edge of the Project and south of the Gateway of Pacific Campus. C. Grantor and Grantee have executed a First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Recorded Document No. _________) (“Development Agreement”), dated __________, which sets forth certain rights and obligations of the Parties with respect to the Project. D. Pursuant to Section 3 of the Development Agreement, Grantor is required to provide an easement for public use of the trail corridor over a portion of Grantor’s Property that will become a part of Grantee’s “Rails to Trails” plan connecting Forbes Avenue (west of the Project) to Oyster Point Boulevard (east of the Project) within the City of South San Francisco, in the approximate location shown in the attached Exhibit B (“Easement Area”), on the terms and conditions described in this Agreement . E. Grantor and Grantee are executing this Agreement to memorialize the grant of easement and set forth the terms and conditions related thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt of whi ch each of the parties hereto does hereby acknowledge, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: DRAFT 7/24/2020 - 2 - EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 AGREEMENT 1. Grant of Easement. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee a nonexclusive shared use easement for public pedestrian and non-vehicular transportation use (“Shared Use Access”) over and across the Easement Area (“Shared Use Trail Easement”). Shared Use Access includes walking, running and other means of non - vehicular transportation such as use of skateboards, scooters, motor assisted bicycles and similar modes of transportation, as well as resting and viewing on benches that will be located within the Easement Area. Shared Use Access does not include use of motorcycles, automobiles, trucks, vans or similar vehicles. The Easement Area shall be free of any obstructions, except for those specific architectural, utility and/or safety features that may be approved by Grantee in writing. 2. Execution and Recording of Easement Agreement . Grantor shall execute this Agreement and grant to the Grantee the Shared Use Trail Easement upon completion of construction of the Project, including construction of the pedestrian and bicycle trail and associated landscaping, lighting, and other improvements to the Easement Area. Grantor agrees that this Agreement shall bind Grantor and Grantor’s successors in interest, heirs and assigns, and shall record this Agreement with the County Recorder’s Office of the County of San Mateo. 3. Limitations on Use. Grantee acknowledges that the easement granted herein is nonexclusive. Grantor, its successors, assigns, grantees, tenants, and licensees shall have the right to use the Easement Area in a manner that will not interfere with Grantee’s use of the Easement Area. Grantor, and its respective successors, assigns, grantees, and licensees shall refrain from any obstruction of, blockage, or construction in the Easement Area that would interfere with Shared Use Access, except as provided herein. 4. Maintenance. Grantor shall maintain the Easemen t Area in a good and safe condition, sufficient for Shared Use Access at all times and repair at Grantor’s sole cost and expense, except as provided herein. Any maintenance or repair activities performed by Grantor may not interfere with the continued use of the Easement Area for the purposes described herein. 5. Grantor’s Reserved Rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor reserves on behalf of itself, its agents, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, consultants, employees, invitees or other authorized persons acting for or on behalf of Grantor (“Grantor’s Agents”), including but not limited to any lessee, the right to use the Easement Area in any way not inconsistent with the above grant of the Shared Use Access Easement, including temporary use of all or a portion of the Easement Area as necessary to : (a) occasionally transport goods or provide services to Grantor’s Property or the Gateway of Pacific Campus to the north, including lightweight trucks and vehicles, provided such transportation is temporary in nature; (b) construct, restore, modify, repair or maintain the Easement Area, Grantor’s Property or the Gateway of Pacific Campus to the north ; and (c) provided that Grantor shall post temporary signs at each end of the Easement Area 48 hours prior to such temporary use (except in the case of an emergency, in which case such notices will be posted by Grantor as soon as feasible) to inform the public about the nature of the transport vehicles, maintenance or repair activities scheduled to take place . DRAFT 7/24/2020 - 3 - EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 6. Transfer of Property. The Shared Use Trail Easement created by this Agreement shall run with the land and any portion thereof, and its terms shall extend to, bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and as signs. Upon the transfer of the Property to a successor party, the successor party shall constitute the “Grantor” hereunder and all predecessors in interest to such successor party shall be fully relieved of all obligations and liability hereunder arising on or after the effective date of such transfer. 7. Indemnification. (a) Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Grantor, its officers, agents, employees and representatives from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities or damages, demands and actions, including payment of reasonable attorneys ’ fees, arising out of or resulting from the use of the Easement Area by Grantee or that are caused by any negligent or willful act or omission of Grantee, its officers, agents, employees, or anyone di rectly or indirectly acting on behalf of Grantee. (b) Grantor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Grantee, its officers, agents, employees and representatives from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities or damages, demands and actions, including payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of Grantor’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement or failure to perform, that are caused by any negligent or willful act or omission of Grantor, its officers, ag ents, employees, or anyone directly or indirectly acting on behalf of Grantor. (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provision in this Agreement, Grantor does not waive any of its rights under California Civil Code section 846. 8. Insurance. Grantor shall provide Grantee with evidence of property and liability insurance in accordance with the City’s standard insurance requirements prior to commencing any maintenance or repair work (except in the case of an emergency, in which case such evidence will be provided to Grantee as soon as feasible). 9. Enforcement. Grantee shall have all rights and remedies at law and in equity in order to enforce the Shared Use Trail Easement and the terms of this Agreement. All rights and remedies available to Grantee under this Agreement or at law or in equity shall be cumulative and not alternative, and invocation of any such right or remedy shall not constitute a waiver or election of remedies with respect to any other available right or remedy. 10. Litigation Expenses. (a) General. If either Party hereto brings an action or proceeding (including any cross-complaint, counterclaim, or third -party claim) against the other Party by reason of a default, or otherwise arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to its costs and expenses of suit, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees, which shall be payable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment. “Prevailing Party” within the meaning of this Section 10 shall include without limitation, a Party who dismisses an action for recovery hereunder in exchange for payment of the sums allegedly due, performance of covenants allegedly breached, or consideration substantially equal to the relief sought in the action. DRAFT 7/24/2020 - 4 - EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 (b) Appeal. Attorneys’ fees under this Section 10 shall include attorneys’ fees on any appeal, and, in addition, a party entitled to attorneys’ fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action . (c) Mediation. Before bringing any litigation under this Agreement, the plaintiff shall be obligated to meet and confer with the other party and mediate the dispute . Such obligation shall not exceed one mediation session. 11. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or otherwise modified only in writing signed and acknowledged by Grantor and Grantee, or the respective successors and assigns of each; such amendment may include modification, relocation or termination of the Share Use Trail Easement. 12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be entitled to be the original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. 14. References; Titles. Wherever in this Agreement the context requires, reference to the singular shall be deemed to include the plural . Titles of sections and paragraphs are for convenience only and neithe r limit nor amplify the provisions of this Agreement. 15. Notice. Any notice given under this Agreement shall be in writing and given by delivering the notice in person, by commercial overnight courier that guarantees next day delivery and provides a receipt, or by sending it by registered or certified mail, or Express Mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, to the mailing address listed below or any other address notice of which is given. Grantor: BMR-Gateway of Pacific V LP 17190 Bernardo Center Drive San Diego, CA 92128 Attn: Vice President, Legal With a copy to: Perkins Coie LLP 505 Howard Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: Cecily Barclay City: City of South San Francisco Public Works Department, Engineering Division 315 Maple Ave South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attn: Matthew Ruble With a copy to: Meyers Nave 1999 Harrison St., 9th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Attn: Sky Woodruff, City Attorney DRAFT 7/24/2020 - 5 - EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 Any mailing address number may be changed at any time by giving written notice of such change in the manner provided above at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of the change. All notices under this Agreement shall be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal receipt actually occurs or, if mailed, on the delivery date or attempted delivery date shown on the return receipt. 16. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement (or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those in respect of which it is invalid or unenforceable) shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Agreement, unless specifically conditioned upon such invalid or unenforceable provision, shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any attachments hereto or inclusions by reference, constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof, and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties hereto with respect to the easement which is the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement has been drafted by a mutual effort of the parties, and each party waives the benefit of any statute, law or judicial decision providing that ambiguities in an agreement shall be interpreted against the “drafting party.” 18. Default. The failure to perform any covenant or obligation of a party hereunder and to cure such non -performance within thirty (30) days of written notice by the party to whom performance is owed shall constitute a default hereunder, provided that if more than thirt y (30) days are reasonably required for such cure, no event of default shall occur if the defaulting party commences such cure within such period and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion . Upon such default, the non-defaulting party shall be entitled to all remedies and means to cure or correct such default, both legal and equitable, allowed by operation of law except termination of the easement herein granted. 19. No Dedication. The Public Access Easement shall not be, or deemed or construed to be, a dedication to the public, and is subject to any pre -existing easements of record. 20. Survival. All waivers given or made hereunder shall survive termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. [signatures on the following page] DRAFT 7/24/2020 - 6 - EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 CITY: GRANTOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, BMR-Gateway of Pacific V LP a municipal corporation a Delaware limited partnership By: _____________________________ By: ____________________________ Name: __________________________ Its: _____________________________ Title: ____________________________ Name: __________________________ Title: ___________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ City Attorney Attest: ________________________________ City Clerk DRAFT 7/24/2020 - 7 - EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 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 ) On _________________________, before me, _____________________________, a Notary Public personally appeared _________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) are/is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ____________________________________ Signature (Seal) DRAFT 7/24/2020 - 8 - EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 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 ) On _________________________, before me, _____________________________, a Notary Public personally appeared _________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) are/is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, e xecuted the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ____________________________________ Signature (Seal) DRAFT 7/24/2020 - 9 - EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by this Shared Use Trail Easement Agreement (Public Access Easement) dated _______ from the Grantor to the City of South San Francisco, is hereby accepted by order of its City Council’s Resolution No. ______ adopted on ________, and the City of South San Francisco consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: __________________________ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: _____________________________ Name: __________________________ Title: City Manager ATTEST: ________________________________ CITY CLERK Approved as to form: Date: __________________ By: ____________________ City Attorney DRAFT 7/24/2020 EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Grantor’s Property DRAFT 7/24/2020 EXHIBIT E TO GOP 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 148425900.7 EXHIBIT B Easement Area 3564123.1 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-529 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8c. Resolution approving a Use Permit Modification (UPM20-0001)and Design Review Modification (DR20- 0012)for the development of GOP Phase 5 /475 Eccles Avenue in the Business Technology Park (BTP)Zone District, subject to the Draft Conditions of Approval. WHEREAS,BMR Gateway of Pacific V LP,a Delaware Limited Partnership (“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,in 2016 the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted (1)Resolution No.93-2016 certifying the 2012 Environmental Impact Report (“2012 EIR”)(State Clearinghouse No.2012082101),(2)Resolution No.94-2016 approving a use permit,alternative landscape plan,design review and transportation demand management (“TDM”)program,and (3)Ordinance No.1522-2016 approving a development agreement with BMR Gateway of Pacific V LP (formerly known as BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC),for the construction of two R&D/Office buildings,a parking structure,and related improvements on an approximately 6.1-acre site located at 475 Eccles Avenue; and WHEREAS,Applicant submitted an application requesting approval of a Use Permit Modification,Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of the previously entitled project and to expand the area of property covered by the entitlements to include the adjacent rail spurs property,incorporating the previously entitled project into the adjacent Gateway of Pacific (“GOP”) Campus as GOP Phase 5 (“Project”); 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 the City Council has considered the environmental impacts by separate resolution; and WHEREAS,Applicant seeks approval of the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA20- 0002), Use Permit Modification (UPM20-0001) and Design Review Modification (DR20-0012); and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 6,2020,at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to consider the Project and the 2020 Addendum,as well as supporting documents,at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council find that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document and to approve the Project; and WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the 2020 Addendum, City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-529 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8c. WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the 2020 Addendum, and by separate resolution approves the 2020 Addendum as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Revised Project’s environmental impacts; and WHEREAS,on September 9,2020 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq. (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the California Subdivision Map Act;the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;2012 EIR,and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs;2020 Addendum to the 2012 EIR;the Project applications;the BMR GOP Phase 5 Precise Plan,as prepared by Flad Architects,dated June 8,2020;all site plans,and all reports,minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed August 6,2020 meeting;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed September 9,2020 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A)and the GOP Phase 5 /475 Eccles Revised Project Plans (Exhibit B),are each incorporated 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. B.Use Permit 1.The Project is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the Business Technology Park (BTP)Zoning District,with the exception of the parking and allowable floor area ratio,for which exceptions were granted by the City Council as part of the previous project entitlements. 2.The Project is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed Research and Development City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-529 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8c. 2.The Project is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed Research and Development buildings and campus are consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan by encouraging the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 Area.Further,the land uses,development standards,densities and intensities,buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations in the General Plan. Specifically,the project site is designated Business and Technology Park.This designation accommodates R&D uses,subject to certain development and FAR restrictions.The proposed Project complies with development restrictions and proposes a FAR of 1.0,which conforms to the maximum allowable FAR in the Business and Technology Park General Plan designation,with an acceptable TDM plan and meeting high design standards. 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 Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance,with the exception of landscaping and parking requirements,for which exceptions were granted by the City Council as part of the previous project entitlements. 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 B.1 above. C.Design Review 1.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code for the reasons stated in Finding C.1 above. 2.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the General Plan for the reasons stated in City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-529 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:8c. Finding C.2 above. 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 projects in the East of 101 Area and remains a campus-style development that provides on-site amenities and is consistent with the Business and Technology Park District Development Standards and Supplemental Regulations included in Section 20.110.003 and 20.110.004. 4.The Project is consistent is consistent with the Use Permit as approved as part of the Entitled Project, which granted a parking reduction to a ratio of 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet,based on the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Plan on an on-going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%.The Revised Project would continue to be subject to the reduced parking ratio and the TDM implementation requirement. 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 against,and found to be consistent with,each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION 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 a Use Permit Modification (UPM20-0001)and Design Review Modification (DR20-0012) for the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approvals stated herein are conditioned upon the City Council’s adoption of the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement and will become effective upon the effective date of the Development Agreement Amendment ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P11-0101: UPM20-0001, DR20-0012 AND DAA20-0002 475 ECCLES AVE / GATEWAY OF PACIFIC – PHASE 5 (As recommended by Planning Commission on August 6, 2020) The Applicant/Project shall conform to all the conditions of approval identified in City Council Resolution 94-2016, as well as the additional conditions contained herein. A.PLANNING DIVISION 1.The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared by Flad Architects dated June 8, 2020, and approved by the City Council in association with DR20-0012 as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner 2.Prior to the issuance of any building or construction permits for the project, the applicant shall revise the development plans to address the Design Review Board comments, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 3.The Applicant/Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2020 Addendum / 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR for the 475 Eccles Ave / Gateway of Pacific Phase 5 Revised Project. 4.The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA20-0002). 5.The applicant is responsible for maintaining site security prior to, and throughout the construction process. This includes installation of appropriate fencing, lighting, remote monitors, or on-site security personnel as needed. 6.The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 7.During construction, the applicant shall provide parking for construction workers within the project parking structure when the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal provide written approval. 8.Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans demonstrating compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO), if applicable. a.Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO. b.Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the performance measures required by the MWELO. c. For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the Cit y, upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system. 9. The applicant shall contact the South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash enclosures and work with staff to locate and design the trash enclosu re in accordance with the SSFMC Section 20.300.014, Trash and Refuse Collection Areas. Applicant shall submit an approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger to the Chief Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. After the building permits are approved, but before beginning construction, the owner/applicant shall hold a preconstruction conference with City Planning, Building, and Engineering staff and other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the construction manager, contractor, and all relevant subcontractors. 11. A Parking and Traffic Control Plan for the construction of the project shall be submitted with the application for Building Permit, for review and approval by the Chief Planner and City Engineer. 12. The Entitled Project included an approved draft Preliminary TDM Plan. In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan that incorporates revisions based on the Revised Project for review and approval by the Chief Planner. 13. Prior to commencement of demolition or construction, the developer shall provide the City with a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) report, acceptable to the City, evaluating the impact of toxic air contaminants resulting from demolition and construction of the Project on nearby sensitive receptors, consistent with the methodologies set forth in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) May 2012 CEQA Guidelines, or such other BAAQMD Guidelines that may be applicable at the time of such demolition or construction. The developer shall implement all mitigation measures determined in the HRA to be necessary to reduce the potential impacts from demolition and construction on such sensitive receptors to less than significant. B. ENGINEERING DIVISION Permits 1. At the time of each permit submittal, the Applicant shall submit a deposit for each of the following permit reviews and processing: a. Building Permit plan check and civil review. Provide cost of on-site improvements for deposit amount calculation. b. Hauling/Grading plan check and permit processing. Provide Cubic Yards for deposit amount calculation. c. Public Improvement plan check and permit processing. Provide cost of ROW improvements for deposit amount calculation. 2. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 3. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to grading. Otherwise, hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering- divisio n. 4. The Applicant shall obtain a Demolition Permit to demolish the existing concrete pad. The demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division and the Applicant shall pay all fees and deposits for the permit. The Applicant shall provide let ters from all public utilities stating all said utilities have been properly disconnected from the existing buildings. 5. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution P revention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 6. The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty- five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. To help meet this goal, a city ordinance requires completion of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects identifying how at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage. The Contractor shall submit a WMP application and fee prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 7. A Public Improvement Permit is required for any work proposed within the public right - of-way. The Applicant shall pay all permit, plan check, and inspection fees, as well as, any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. Applicant shall submit separate ROW improvement plans. An engineer’s cost estimate for only the scope of work within the ROW is required to determine the bond. Plan Submittal 8. Along with the building permit submittals, the Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets: Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Gr ading Plan, Horizontal Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Details, Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applic ant shall submit a grading plan that clearly states the amount of cut and fill required to grade the project. The Grading Plans shall include the following plans: Cover, Notes, Existing Conditions, Grading Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Stormwater Control Plan, and Erosion Control Plan. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a Public Improvement Permit for all proposed work within the City ROW and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary p aperwork needed for the Public Improvement Permit. The Public Improvement Plans shall include only the scope of work within the City ROW (with reference to the on-site plans) consisting of the following plans: Civil Plans, Landscape Plans, and Joint Trench Plans. 11. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 12. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 13. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit, grading permit, or public improvement permit. Mapping 14. Prior to Building Permit issuance, all applicable mapping shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Clerk Recorder’s Office. 15. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of any mapping application. 16. Prior to the approval of any Permits, the Applicant shall enter into an Improvement Agreement and Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These agreements shall be approved by City Council prior to execution. The Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to ensure the faithful performance of the design, construction, installation and inspection of all public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City and shall be secured by good and sufficient payment, performance, and one (1) year warranty bonds or cash deposit adequate to cover all of the costs, inspections and administrative expenses of completing such improvements in the event of a default. The value of the bonds or cash deposit shall include 110% of the cost of construction based on prevailing wage rates. The value of the warranty bond or cash deposit shall be equivalent to 10% of the valu e of the performance security. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property and all landscape within the project frontage at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner. 17. Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees for any mapping application prior to review. 18. The applicant shall clear ly show all existing easements on the improvement plans. Right-of-Way 19. All new public improvements required to accommodate the development shall be installed at no cost to the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City Standards. All new public improvements shall be completed prior to Final Occupancy of the project or prior any Temporary Occupancy as approved by the City Engineer. 20. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These agreements shall be approved by City Council prior to execution. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to install all proposed public improvements as reviewed a nd approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property and all landscape within the project frontage at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. 21. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a video survey of the adjacent streets (perimeter of proposed property location) to determine the pre - construction condition of the streets at no cost to the City. The Applicant will be responsible to ensure that the condition of the streets and striping is in at least existing condition or better after construction is completed. 22. Applicant shall reconstruct all curb, gutter, sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveways, along the Eccles Avenue frontages of the subject property. Unless separated by a planting strip, all sidewalks shall be monolithic to the curb and gutter and shall be constructed to current City and Caltrans standards and specifications to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at no cost to the City. 23. The Applicant shall rehabilitate the pavement on Eccles Avenue along the entire frontage of the project site. Pavement rehabilitation shall include the repair of any failed pavement areas as determined in the field by the City Inspector and a 2 inch grind and overlay of the street from the lip of gutter to lip of gutter and restriping the lane lines and crosswalks. 24. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet City standards current to the time of Encroachment Permit approval. 25. Existing driveway approaches or portions of approaches along the property frontage that will not serve the new development or do not serve any other access shall be removed and replaced with new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Where new work is required, monolithic curbs, gutter, curb ramps, commercial driveway approaches and 4’ wide (minimum) sidewalks are to be constructed to current City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the site, the Applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, at their expense, as required to conform to City Standards, all public improvements including driveways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street pavements along the street frontages of the proposed project along Eccles Avenue t o the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 27. Applicant shall ensure the proposed trees and planting locations do not interfere with underground utilities or the joint trench. The Applicant will be required to install root barrier measures to prevent the sidewalk from uplift at no cost to the City. 28. Prior to public improvement permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide an engineer’s estimate for all work performed with in the public right -of-way and submit a bond equal to 110% of the estimate. 29. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work on Eccles Avenue and/or any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways . 30. For any work within the sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian r outes shall provide pedestrian routing plans along with traffic control plans. Temporary lane or sidewalk closures shall be approved by the City Engineer and by the Construction Coordination Committee (if within the CCC influence area). For any work affect ing the sidewalks or pedestrian routes greater than 2 days in duration, the adjacent parking lane or adjacent travel lane shall be closed and temporary vehicle barriers placed to provide a protected pedestrian corridor. Temporary ramps shall be constructed to connect the pedestrian route from the sidewalk to the street if no ramp or driveway is available to serve that purpose . 31. No foundation or retaining wall support shall extend into the City Right -of-Way without express approval from the Engineering Department. Applicant shall design any bioretention area or flow-through planters adjacent to the property line such that the facility and all foundations do not encroach within the City Right -of-Way or into an adjacent parcel. Stormwater 32. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a storm drainage and hydraulic study for the fully improved development analyzing existing conditions and post -development conditions. The study shall evaluate the capacity of the existing public storm drain along Eccles Avenue south of the project site and recommend any improvements necessary to accommodate runoff from the project and upstream tributary areas. The study shall evaluate the capacity of each storm drain main during a 25-year design storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 10 minutes. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA data for the site. The study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 33. The Applicant shall design and construct, any on-site and off-site storm drainage improvements along said storm drain system as recommended by the approved storm drainage and hydraulic study at no cost to the city. 34. The development shall reduce peak runoff by 15% based on a 25-year design storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 10 minutes. Prec ipitation shall be based on NOAA data for the site. The proposed storm drain system and runoff reduction information shall be included in the hydraulic study. 35. On-site storm drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate runoff from a 10 -year design storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 10 minutes. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA data for the site. On-site storm drain pipes shall be designed for open channel flow conditions and not be surcharged. 36. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across subdivision boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this purpose. 37. The private storm drain lines collecting stormwater from the bioretention areas in the adjacent railroad spur property shall not be allowed without an appropriate recorded easement for this purpose 38. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge into an approved drainage device or facility that meets the C3 stormwater treatment requirements of Municipal Regional Permit. 39. The on-site private storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The private storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Sanitary Sewer 40. The Applicant shall submit a sewer capacity study to determine how the project impacts and capacity of the sanitary sewer system and recommend any improvements necessary to accommodate the flows from the development project. The study shall include an analysis of the sanitary sewer main on Eccles Avenue. Sanitary sewer mains shall not flow more than 2/3 full at peak wet weather flow. Please be sure to include all supporting calculations. 41. The Applicant shall design and construct, any on-site and off-site sanitary sewer improvements as recommended by the approved sewer capacity study at no cost to the city. 42. Applicant shall abandon all existing Sanitary Sewer Laterals serving the property to City Standards. 43. The Applicant shall install the new sewer laterals to City Standards including a cleanout in the sidewalk and a new wye connection or taptite connection at the main. Later al sizes of 8-inch or larger require a manhole connection at the City sewer main. 44. Each on-site sanitary sewer manhole and cleanout shall be accessible to maintenance personnel and equipment via pathway or driveways as appropriate. Each maintenance structure shall be surrounded by a level pad of sufficient size to provide a safe work area. Utilities 45. All electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground within the property being developed and to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility vault. Pull boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed within pedestrian walkway areas. 46. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service for all water -related issues. All water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of the California Water Service. 47. The Applicant shall install fire hydrants at the locations specified by the Fire Marshal. Installation shall be in accordance with City Standar ds as administered by the Fire Marshall. On-site Improvements 48. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 49. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy form the Building Division, the Applicant shall require its Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to certify that it conforms to the approved site plan and that there is po sitive drainage away from the exterior of the building. The Applicant shall make any modifications to the grading, drainage, or other improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans. 50. All common areas are to be landscaped and irrigated and shall meet the requirements of the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Submit landscape, drainage and grading plans for review and approval by the Engineering Division. 51. The Applicant shall submit a proposed workplan and intended methodologies to ensure any existing structures on or along the development’s property line are protected during proposed activities. Grading 52. The Applicant shall provide documentation from a qualified Industrial Hygienist that the project site is clear of all hazardous materials and groundwater to a level that is satisfactory to State and County Regulators prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 53. The recommendations contained within the geotechnical report shall be included in the Site Grading and Drainage Plan. The Site Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by the Applicant’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. 54. The entire project site shall be adequately sprinkled with water to prevent dust or sprayed with an effect dust palliative to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried onto adjacent private and public property. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Should any problems arise from dust, the Applicant shall hire an environmental inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with the grading permit. 55. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco shall be cleaned daily, or more often, as required by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets or private driveways. 56. The Applicant shall submit a winterization plan for all undeveloped areas within the site to control silt and stormwater runoff from entering adjacent public or private property. This plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to September 1 of each year. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to November 1 of each year. 57. Prior to placing any foundation concrete, the Applicant shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks from confirmed property lines as shown on the Plan s. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. 58. The applicant is required by ordinance to provide for public safety and the protection of public and private property in the vicinity of the land to be graded from the impacts of the proposed grading work. 59. All hauling and grading operations are restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for residential areas and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for industrial/commercial areas, Monday through Frid ay, excluding holidays. 60. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no grading in excess of 200 cubic yards shall be accomplished between November 1 and May 1 of each year. C. FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION 1. Install underground piping for water based fire protection systems per NFPA 24 and SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit . 2. Private fire service mains and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 24 as amended in Chapter 80. 3. Install a fire pump per NFPA 20 and SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit. 4. Fire department connections shall be installed in accordance with the NFPA standard applicable to the system design and shall comply with Sections 912.2 through 912.7. 5. Provide fire extinguishers in accordance with CFC Section 906. 6. Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING—FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. 7. Exterior doors and openings required by this California Fire Code or the California Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided when required by the fire code official. 8. All buildings four or more stories in height and all buildings classified as high-rise buildings by the California Building Code and Group I -2 occupancies having occupied floors located more than 75 feet (22,860mm) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, a fire command center for fire department operations shall be provided and shall comply with Sections 508.1.1 through 508.1.7. 9. The location and accessibility of the fire command center sha ll be approved by the fire code official. The fire command center shall be located adjacent to an approved fire apparatus access road and be accessible directly from the exterior of the building. 10. The fire command center shall be not less than 200 square feet (19 m2) in area with a minimum dimension of 10 feet (3048 mm). 11. Provide an independent study or proof that the Emergency Radio Responder coverage in the building is adequate or install an Emergency Responder Radio Coverage system in accordance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code under separate fire plan check and permit. 12. Emergency power systems and standby power systems required by this code or the California Building Code shall comply with Sections 604.1.1 through 604.1.8 . 13. Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix B. 14. Fire hydrants located on a public or private street, or onsite, shall have an unobstructed clearance of not less than 30 feet (15 feet either side of hydrant), in accordance with California vehicle code 22514. Marking shall be per California vehicle code 22500.1. 15. A hydrant is required to be located within 100 feet of the Fire Department Connection (FDC) and on the same side of the street. 16. A blue reflective dot shall be placed in the middle of the roadway directly in front of each fire hydrant. 17. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with CFC Section 505.1 and South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.48.050(h), 15.48.060 (e) and 15.48.070(h). 18. Provide Knox key boxes for each building/area with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, gates and others to be determined. L or H occupancies will generally require a Knox vault instead of box. Provide Knox Key Switch for any electronic gates. 19. Fire prot ection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner. Rooms containing controls for air-conditioning systems, sprinkler risers and valves, or other fire detection, suppression or control elements shall be identified for the use of the fire department . Approved signs required to identify fire protection equipment and equipment location shall be constructed of durable materials, permanently installed and readily visible. D. WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION 1. Storm drains must be protected during construct ion. Discharge of any demolition/construction debris or water to the storm drain system is prohibited. 2. Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street or drive aisles. Drains in street must have inlet and throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to breakage from vehicular traffic. 3. No floatable bark shall be used in landscaping. Only fibrous mulch or pea gravel is allowed. 4. As site falls in a Moderate Trash Generation area per South San Francisco’s Trash Generation Map (http://www.flowstobay.org/content/municipal-trash-generation-maps), determined by the Water Quality Control Division: - Regional Water Quality Control Board-approved full trash capture devices must be installed to treat the stormwater drainage from the site. - At a minimum, a device must be installed before the onsite drainage enters the City’s public stormwater system (i.e. trash capture must take place no farther downstream than the last private stormwater drainage structure on the site). - An Operation & Maintenance Agreement will be required to be recorded with San Mateo County, ensuring the device(s) will be properly maintained. - A full trash capture system is any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub- drainage area or designed to carry at least the same flow as the storm drain connected to the inlet. 5. Roof leaders/gutters must NOT be plumbed directly to storm drains; they shall discharge to stormwater treatment devices or landscaping first. 6. Fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and be clearly shown on plans. 7. Trash enclosure shall be covered, contained and the floor shall slope to a central drain that discharges to a grease trap/interceptor and is connected to the sanitary sewer. Details of trash enclosure shall be clearly provided on plans. 8. Install a condensate drain line connected to the sanitary sewer for rooftop equipment and clearly show on plans. 9. If laboratories will be installed, a segregated non-pressurized lab waste line must collect all laboratory waste. Install a sample port on the lab waste line outside the building, which will be accessible at all times. 10. Submit specs on the sample port. 11. If a food service kitchen/ prep area is to be installed, it shall connect to a gravity grease interceptor at least 750 gallons (liquid capacity) in size. Sizing of the grease removal device must be in accordance with the uniform plumbing code. 12. Grease interceptor shall be connected to all non-domestic wastewater sources in the kitchen (wash sinks, mop sinks, floor drains) and shown on plans. 13. A cut sheet of the Grease Interceptor/Trap must be shown on plans. 14. Garbage Disposals in Industrial/Commercial facilities are prohibited by City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Remove Garbage Disposal(s) from plans. 15. Applicant will be required to pay a Sewer Capacity Fee (connection fee) based on SSF City Council-approved EDU calculation (involving anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations and including credits for previous site use). Based on the information received, the estimated Sewer Capacity Fee will be $372,212.782, payable with the Building Permit. 16. Elevator sump drainage (if applicable) shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to connection to the sanitary sewer. 17. Drains in parking garage (if applicable) must be plumbed through an oil/water separator and then into the sanitary sewer system and clearly shown on plans. 18. Wherever feasible, install landscaping that minimizes irrigation runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes use of pesticides and fertiliz ers and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping programs (such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 19. Site is subject to C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (please see SMCWPPP C.3 Technical Guidance Manual at https://www.flowstobay.org/sites/default/files/C3TG5/SMCWPPP_C3TG%20V.5.0.pdf for guidance). The following items will be required; 20. Completed forms for Low Impact Development (C3-C6 Project Checklist). Forms must be on 8.5in X 11in paper and signed and wet stamped by a professional engineer. Calculations must be submitted with this package. Forms can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment. A completed copy must also be emailed to andrew.wemmer @ssf.net . 21. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development. 22. Submit flow calculations and related math for LID. 23. Complete Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreements. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient . Do not sign agreement, as the city will need to review prior to signature. Prepare packet and submit including a preferred return address for owner signature. Packet should also be mailed or emailed to: Andrew Wemmer City of SSF WQCP 195 Belle Air Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net Exhibit Templates can also be found within Chapter 6 the C.3 Technical Guidance at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment . 24. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 25. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat 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. 26. A SWPPP must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in effect all year long. 27. A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted (if > 1 acre). E. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. The applicant shall install and maintain a system allowing first responders to enter into the building(s) by means of a code to be entered into a keypad or similar input device. A permanent code shall be issued to the Police Department. Physical keys or electronic access cards will not satisfy this requirement. Please note this is separate from the Fire Department’s “Knoxbox” requirement. This access must be provided at two entry points, each on a different sides of the building to allow first responders a tactical advantage when entering. 2. The hardware design of any doorways shall prevent any doors from being secured in a closed position to either another door or a fixed object within four feet of any door by means of a rope, cable, chain, or similar item. This is to prevent malicious prevention of egress and/or ingress by building occupants or first responders. 3. All exterior doorways shall be illuminated during darkness by a white light source that has full cut -off and is of pedestrian scale. 4. All interior common and service areas, such as the garage, bicycle storage area, fire escapes, etc, shall be illuminated at all times with a white light source that is controlled by a tamperproof switch or a switch located in an inaccessible location to passers-by. 5. The landing at the lowest level of service staircases, such as those in the garage area or fire escapes, shall have some mechanism, such as fencing, to prevent access and prevent people from loitering or concealing themselves in that area. 6. Any exterior bicycle racks installed shall be of an inverted “U” design, or other design that allows two different locking points on each bicycle. 7. Any publicly accessible benches shall be of a design that prevents persons from lying on them, such as a center railing. 8. Any publicly accessib le power outlets shall be of a design that prevents their access or use during those hours the business is normally closed. 9. Any publicly accessible raised edge surfaces, such as retaining walls, concrete benches, handrails or railings, shall be of a desig n that prevents or discourages skateboard use on those surfaces. 10. The mature height of all shrubbery shall be no higher than three feet, if so, it shall be maintained at a maximum height of three feet, and tree canopies shall be no lower than six feet above grade. 11. The applicant shall install and maintain a camera surveillance system that conforms to the minimum technical specifications of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.66.050 Minimum technological standards, (Ord. 1515, 2016). The video surveillance cameras will be used as a crime deterrent and assist with the identification and apprehension of criminals if a crime is committed on the property. Enough cameras shall be installed to provide adequate coverage for the intended space. Cameras shall be placed minimally in the following locations: All exterior entrances/exits Garage area (providing coverage to entire parking area) Bicycle storage area Main lobby of building Lobby of sales/leasing office Loading docks 12. Any leasing of sales offices within the building shall be alarmed with a central station monitored silent intruder alarm system. 13. The Police Department requires acknowledgement of these comments to include specific locations in the plans where the applicable change requests have been made. FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P11-0101: UP11-0011, DR11-0039, TDM11-0001, 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 (t he “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 repo rt 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 r eport, 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 SS FMC 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 o f 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) a nd 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 pe nalty 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 (subt racting 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 #1 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 p lants 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 is suance 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 st ation 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. l) Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix I II-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 fo r 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 o f 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 Per mit. 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 thre e (3) inches and a horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of the strike. ii. Glass doors shall be secured with a deadbolt lock1 with minimum throw of one (1) inch. The outside ring should be free moving and case hardened. iii. Employee/pedestrian doors sha ll 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 lock1 with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be ret racted 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 glazing2 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, l/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, ma y 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.2 or 2. Iron bars of at least l/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 l/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 l6 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 l/2" round o r 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 l/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 d iminished 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 su bmitted. 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 Countyw ide 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 sha ll 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 est ablishment. 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 pract icable. 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 condit ions 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/ho od 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 [Bl OYSTER POINT BLVD -��------� GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1�11 �--� ��';;��/ BioMed Realty GOP 5 USE PERMIT MODIFICATION /. _ �:i !'�f1¥t?'Discover here,. Flad Architects 650 California St 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 !:'i BkFtQQ + CMB E"IGINEUS SUR'YE'l'OAS , PLAN,.ERS APN #015-071-330 APN #015-071-220 APN #015-071-340 Description of Package USE PERMIT MODIFICATION I' R O P P + (j lJ I: R I 1\1 / .. /// // <. . . / �/>;'/PS5 .. · //, < / PS3//1/ .· ./ . < ·.. . ;f/,,,-> ....... -·-,.' . �ftp/ Site Key Plan Date 06/08/2020 ITEM #8C CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 — ITEM #8C ERRATA SHEET TO THE DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR AN APPLICATION FOR THE 475 ECCLES AVE / GATEWAY OF PACIFIC- PHASE 5 PROJECT Staff recommends edits to the Draft Conditions of Approval for the proposed project. The proposed edits are shown in strikeout/underline format in Conditions of Approval A.1, A.3, A.7, A.8, A.12, B.13, B.14, B.16, B.20, B.22, B.32, B.34, B.45, B.52, B.53, B.54, B.59, C.5, C.13, C.17, C.18, D.15, E.3 and E.11. The applicant has reviewed and agreed to the modifications. DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P11-0101: UPM20-0001, DR20-0012 AND DAA20-0002 475 ECCLES AVE / GATEWAY OF PACIFIC – PHASE 5 (As recommended by Planning Commission on August 6, 2020) The Applicant/Project shall conform to all the conditions of approval identified in City Council Resolution 94-2016 except as superseded herein, as well as the additional conditions contained herein. A.PLANNING DIVISION 1.The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared by Flad Architects dated June 8, 2020, and approved by the City Council in association with DR20-0012 as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner. (Supersedes COA A.2 attached to Resolution 94-2016) 2.Prior to the issuance of any building or construction permits for the project, the applicant shall revise the development plans to address the Design Review Board comments, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 3.The Applicant/Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by Resolution 93- 2016 and referenced infor the 2020 Addendum / 2012 Partial Recirculated EIR for the 475 Eccles Ave / Gateway of Pacific Phase 5 Revised Project. 4.The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA20-0002). Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: September 9, 2020, Reg CC 5. The applicant is responsible for maintaining site security prior to, and throughout the construction process. This includes installation of appropriate fencing, lighting, remote monitors, or on-site security personnel as needed. 6. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 7. During construction, the applicant shall provide parking for construction workers within a Gateway Business Park Master Planthe project parking structure when the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal provide written approval. 8. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans demonstrating compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO), if applicable. (Supersedes COA A.8 attached to Resolution 94-2016) a. Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO. b. Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the performance measures required by the MWELO. c. For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the Cit y, upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system. 9. The applicant shall contact the South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash enclosures and work with staff to locate and design the trash enclosure in accordance with the SSFMC Section 20.300.014, Trash and Refuse Collection Areas. Applicant shall submit an approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger to the Chief Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. After the building permits are approved, but before beginning construction, the owner/applicant shall hold a preconstruction conference with City Planning, Building, and Engineering staff and other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the construction manager, contractor, and all relevant subcontractors. 11. A Parking and Traffic Control Plan for the construction of the project shall be submitted with the application for Building Permit, for review and approval by the Chief Planner and City Engineer. 12. The Entitled Project included an approved draft Preliminary TDM Plan, which has been revised by Fehr & Peers, dated April 24, 2020. In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan that incorporates revisionsbased on the Revised Preliminary TDM PlanProject for review and approval by the Chief Planner. 13. Prior to commencement of demolition or construction, the developer shall provide the City with a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) report, acceptable to the City, evaluating the impact of toxic air contaminants resulting from demolition and construction of the Project on nearby sensitive receptors, consistent with the methodologies set forth in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) May 2012 CEQA Guidelines, or such other BAAQMD Guidelines that may be applicable at the time of such demolition or construction. The developer shall implement all mitigation measures determined in the HRA to be necessary to reduce the potential impacts from demolition and construction on such sensitive receptors to less than significant. B. ENGINEERING DIVISION Permits 1. At the time of each permit submittal, the Applicant shall submit a deposit for each of the following permit reviews and processing: a. Building Permit plan check and civil review. Provide cost of on-site improvements for deposit amount calculation. b. Hauling/Grading plan check and permit processing. Provide Cubic Yards for deposit amount calculation. c. Public Improvement plan check and permit processing. Provide cost of ROW improvements for deposit amount calculation. 2. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 3. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to grading. Otherwise, hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering- division. 4. The Applicant shall obtain a Demolition Permit to demolish the existing concrete pad. The demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division and the Applicant shall pay all fees and deposits for the permit. The Applicant shall provide let ters from all public utilities stating all said utilities have been properly disconnected from the existing buildings. 5. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 6. The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty- five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. To help meet this goal, a city ordinance requires completion of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects identifying how at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage. The Contractor shall submit a WMP application and fee prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 7. A Public Improvement Permit is required for any work proposed within the public right- of-way. The Applicant shall pay all permit, plan check, and inspection fees, as wel l as, any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. Applicant shall submit separate ROW improvement plans. An engineer’s cost estimate for only the scope of work within the ROW is required to determine the bond. Plan Submittal 8. Along with the building permit submittals, the Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets: Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan, Horizontal Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Details, Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that clearly states the amount of cut and fill required to grade the project. The Grading Plans shall include the following plans: Cover, Notes, Existing Conditions, Grading Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Stormwater Control Plan, and Erosion Control Plan. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a Public Improvement Permit for all proposed work within the City ROW and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the Public Improvement Permit. The Public Improvement Plans shall include only the scope of work within the City ROW (with reference to the on-site plans) consisting of the following plans: Civil Plans, Landscape Plans, and Joint Trench Plans. 11. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 12. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 13. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit, grading permit, or public improvement permit, as needed to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, or other conditions of approval. Mapping 14. Prior to Building Permit issuance, anyall applicable mapping shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Clerk Recorder’s Office. 15. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of any mapping application. 16. Prior to the approval of any Permits, the Applicant shall enter into an Improvement Agreement and Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These agreements shall be approved by City Council prior to execution. The Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to ensure the faithful performance of the design, construction, installation and inspection of all public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City and shall be secured by good and sufficient payment, performance, and one (1) year warranty bonds or cash deposit adequate to cover all of the costs, inspections and administrative expenses of compl eting such improvements in the event of a default. The value of the bonds or cash deposit shall include 110% of the cost of construction based on prevailing wage rates. The value of the warranty bond or cash deposit shall be equivalent to 10% of the value of the performance security. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property and all landscape within the project frontage at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner. This agreement is in addition to the agreement regarding Operation and Maintenance for Stormwater Treatment measures required by COA E.9 attached to Resolution 94-2016. 17. Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees for any mapping application prior to review. 18. The applicant shall clearly show all existing easements on the improvement plans. Right-of-Way 19. All new public improvements required to accommodate the development shall be installed at no cost to the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City Standards. All new public improvements shall be completed prior to Final Occupancy of the project or prior any Temporary Occupancy as approved by the City Engineer. 20. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall enter into an Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These agreements shall be approved by City Council prior to execution. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to install all proposed public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property and all landscape within the project frontage at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. This agreement is in addition to the agreement regarding Operation and Maintenance for Stormwater Treatment measures required by COA E.9 attached to Resolution 94-2016. 21. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a video survey of the adjacent streets (perimeter of proposed property location) to determine the pre- construction condition of the streets at no cost to the City. The Applicant will be responsible to ensure that the condition of the streets and striping is in at least existing condition or better after construction is completed. 22. Applicant shall reconstruct all curb, gutter, sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveways, along the western (project) side of Eccles Avenue for the length of the frontages of the subject property. Unless separated by a planting strip, all sidewalks shall be monolithic to the curb and gutter and shall be constructed to current City and Caltrans standards and specifications to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at no cost to the City. (Supersedes COA C.5 attached to Resolution 94-2016) 23. The Applicant shall rehabilitate the pavement on Eccles Avenue along the entire frontage of the project site. Pavement rehabilitation shall include the repair of any failed pavement areas as determined in the field by the City Inspector and a 2 inch grind and overlay of the street from the lip of gutter to lip of gutter and restriping the lane lines and crosswalks. 24. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet City standards current to the time of Encroachment Permit approval. 25. Existing driveway approaches or portions of approaches along the property frontage that will not serve the new development or do not serve any other access shall be removed and replaced with new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Where new work is required, monolithic curbs, gutter, curb ramps, commercial driveway approaches and 4’ wide (minimum) sidewalks are to be constructed to current City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the site, the Applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, at their expense, as required to conform to City Standards, all public improvements including driveways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street pavements along the street frontages of the proposed project along Eccles Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 27. Applicant shall ensure the proposed trees and planting locations do not interfere with underground utilities or the joint trench. The Applicant will be required to install root barrier measures to prevent the sidewalk from uplift at no cost to the City. 28. Prior to public improvement permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide an engineer’s estimate for all work performed with in the public right-of-way and submit a bond equal to 110% of the estimate. 29. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work on Eccles Avenue and/or any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. 30. For any work within the sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian routes shall provide pedestrian routing plans along with traffic control plans. Temporary lane or sidewalk closures shall be approved by the City Engineer and by the Construction Coordination Committee (if within the CCC influence area). For any work affect ing the sidewalks or pedestrian routes greater than 2 days in duration, the adjacent parking lane or adjacent travel lane shall be closed and temporary vehicle barriers placed to provide a protected pedestrian corridor. Temporary ramps shall be constructed to connect the pedestrian route from the sidewalk to the street if no ramp or driveway is available to serve that purpose. 31. No foundation or retaining wall support shall extend into the City Right -of-Way without express approval from the Engineering Department. Applicant shall design any bioretention area or flow-through planters adjacent to the property line such that the facility and all foundations do not encroach within the City Right-of-Way or into an adjacent parcel. Stormwater 32. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a storm drainage and hydraulic study for the fully improved development analyzing existing conditions and post-development conditions. The study shall evaluate the capacity of the existing public storm drain along Eccles Avenue south of the project site and recommend any improvements necessary to accommodate runoff from the project and upstream tributary areas. The study shall evaluate the capacity of each storm drain main during a 25-year design storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 10 minutes. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA data for the site. The study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 33. The Applicant shall design and construct, any on-site and off-site storm drainage improvements along said storm drain system as recommended by the approved storm drainage and hydraulic study at no cost to the city. 34. The development shall not increase reduce peak runoff by 15% based on a 25-year design storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 10 minutes. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA data for the site. The proposed storm drain system and runoff reduction information shall be included in the hydraulic study. 35. On-site storm drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate runoff from a 10-year design storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 10 minutes. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA data for the site. On-site storm drain pipes shall be designed for open channel flow conditions and not be surcharged. 36. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across subdivision boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this purpose. 37. The private storm drain lines collecting stormwater from the bioretention areas in the adjacent railroad spur property shall not be allowed without an appropriate recorded easement for this purpose 38. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge into an approved drainage device or facility that meets the C3 stormwater treatment requirements of Municipal Regional Permit. 39. The on-site private storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The private storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Sanitary Sewer 40. The Applicant shall submit a sewer capacity study to determine how the project impacts and capacity of the sanitary sewer system and recommend any improvements necessary to accommodate the flows from the development project. The study shall include an analysis of the sanitary sewer main on Eccles Avenue. Sanitary sewer mains shall not flow more than 2/3 full at peak wet weather flow. Please be sure to include all supporting calculations. 41. The Applicant shall design and construct, any on -site and off-site sanitary sewer improvements as recommended by the approved sewer capacity study at no cost to the city. 42. Applicant shall abandon all existing Sanitary Sewer Laterals serving the property to City Standards. 43. The Applicant shall install the new sewer laterals to City Standards including a cleanout in the sidewalk and a new wye connection or taptite connection at the main. Lateral sizes of 8-inch or larger require a manhole connection at the City sewer main. 44. Each on-site sanitary sewer manhole and cleanout shall be accessible to maintenance personnel and equipment via pathway or driveways as appropriate. Each maintenance structure shall be surrounded by a level pad of sufficient size to provide a safe work area. Utilities 45. All electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground within the property being developed and to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility vault. Pull boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed within public pedestrian walkway areas. 46. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service for all water-related issues. All water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of the California Water Service. 47. The Applicant shall install fire hydrants at the locations specified by the Fire Marshal. Installation shall be in accordance with City Standards as administered by the Fire Marshall. On-site Improvements 48. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 49. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy form the Building Division, the Applicant shall require its Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to certify that it conforms to the approved site plan and that there is positive drainage away from the exterior of the building. The Applicant shall make any modifications to the grading, drainage, or other improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans. 50. All common areas are to be landscaped and irrigated and shall meet the requirements of the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Submit landscape, drainage and grading plans for review and approval by the Engineering Division. 51. The Applicant shall submit a proposed workplan and intended methodologies to ensure any existing structures on or along the development’s property line are protected during proposed activities. Grading 52. The Applicant shall provide documentation from a qualified environmental consultant of compliance with all Environmental Measures Incorporated Into the Project regarding Site Remediation for Asbestos, Lead-Based Paints and Recognized Environmental Conditions as stated in the Final EIR for the 475 Eccles project Industrial Hygienist that the project site is clear of all hazardous materials and groundwater to a level that is satisfactory to State and County Regulators prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 53. The recommendations contained within the geotechnical report shall be included in the Site Grading and Drainage Plan. The Site Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by the Applicant’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. (Supersedes COA C.6 attached to Resolution 94-2016) 54. The Applicant shall comply with all dust control measures that are set forth in the Environmental Measures Incorporated Into the Project regarding “Air Quality and Green House Gas – Emission Reduction Measures” as stated in the Final EIR for the 475 Eccles project, or such equally protective dust control measures as are recommended pursuant to the Health Risk Assessment required by condition E.13 aboveentire project site shall be adequately sprinkled with water to prevent dust or sprayed with an effect dust palliative to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried onto adjacent private and public property. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Should any problems arise from dust, the Applicant shall hire an environmental inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with those measuresgrading permit. 55. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco shall be cleaned daily, or more often, as required by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets or private driveways. 56. The Applicant shall submit a winterization plan for all undeveloped areas within the site to control silt and stormwater runoff from entering adjacent public or private property. This plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to September 1 of each year. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to November 1 of each year. 57. Prior to placing any foundation concrete, the Applicant shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks from confirmed property lines as shown on the Plans. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. 58. The applicant is required by ordinance to provide for public safety and the protection of public and private property in the vicinity of the land to be graded from the impacts of the proposed grading work. 59. All hauling and grading operations are restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for residential areas and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for industrial/commercial areas, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, unless approved by the Chief Building Official. 60. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no grading in excess of 200 cubic yards shall be accomplished between November 1 and May 1 of each year. C. FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION 1. Install underground piping for water based fire protection systems per NFPA 24 and SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit. 2. Private fire service mains and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 24 as amended in Chapter 80. 3. Install a fire pump per NFPA 20 and SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit. 4. Fire department connections shall be installed in accordance with the NFPA standard applicable to the system design and shall comply with Sections 912.2 through 912.7. 5. Provide fire extinguishers in accordance with CFC Section 906. (Supersedes COA B.1.h attached to Resolution 94-2016) 6. Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING—FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. 7. Exterior doors and openings required by this California Fire Code or the California Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided when required by the fire code official. 8. All buildings four or more stories in height and all buildings classified as high-rise buildings by the California Building Code and Group I-2 occupancies having occupied floors located more than 75 feet (22,860mm) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, a fire command center for fire department operations shall be provided and shall comply with Sections 508.1.1 through 508.1.7. 9. The location and accessibility of the fire command center shall be approved by the fire code official. The fire command center shall be located adjacent to an approved fire apparatus access road and be accessible directly from the exterior of the building. 10. The fire command center shall be not less than 200 square feet (19 m2) in area with a minimum dimension of 10 feet (3048 mm). 11. Provide an independent study or proof that the Emergency Radio Responder coverage in the building is adequate or install an Emergency Responder Radio Coverage system in accordance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code under separate fire plan check and permit. 12. Emergency power systems and standby power systems required by this code or the California Building Code shall comply with Sections 604.1.1 through 604.1.8. 13. Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix B. (Supersedes COA B.1.l attached to Resolution 94-2016) 14. Fire hydrants located on a public or private street, or onsite, shall have an unobstructed clearance of not less than 30 feet (15 feet either side of hydrant), in accordance with California vehicle code 22514. Marking shall be per California vehicle code 22500.1. 15. A hydrant is required to be located within 100 feet of the Fire Department Connection (FDC) and on the same side of the street. 16. A blue reflective dot shall be placed in the middle of the roadway directly in front of each fire hydrant. 17. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with CFC Section 505.1 and South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.48.050(h), 15.48.060 (e) and 15.48.070(h). (Supersedes COA B.1.n attached to Resolution 94-2016) 18. Provide Knox key boxes for each building/area with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, gates and others to be determined. L or H occupancies will generally require a Knox vault instead of box. Provide Knox Key Switch for any electronic gates. (Supersedes COA B.1.o attached to Resolution 94-2016) 19. Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner. Rooms containing controls for air-conditioning systems, sprinkler risers and valves, or other fire detection, suppression or control elements shall be identified for the use of the fire department. Approved signs required to identify fire protection equipment and equipment location shall be constructed of durable materials, permanently installed and readily visible. D. WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION 1. Storm drains must be protected during construction. Discharge of any demolition/construction debris or water to the storm drain system is prohibited. 2. Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street or drive aisles. Drains in street must have inlet and throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to breakage from vehicular traffic. 3. No floatable bark shall be used in landscaping. Only fibrous mulch or pea gravel is allowed. 4. As site falls in a Moderate Trash Generation area per South San Francisco’s Trash Generation Map (http://www.flowstobay.org/content/municipal-trash-generation-maps), determined by the Water Quality Control Division: - Regional Water Quality Control Board-approved full trash capture devices must be installed to treat the stormwater drainage from the site. - At a minimum, a device must be installed before the onsite drainage enters the City’s public stormwater system (i.e. trash capture must take place no farther downstream than the last private stormwater drainage structure on the site). - An Operation & Maintenance Agreement will be required to be recorded with San Mateo County, ensuring the device(s) will be properly maintained. - A full trash capture system is any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub- drainage area or designed to carry at least the same flow as the storm drain connected to the inlet. 5. Roof leaders/gutters must NOT be plumbed directly to storm drains; they shall discharge to stormwater treatment devices or landscaping first. 6. Fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and be clearly shown on plans. 7. Trash enclosure shall be covered, contained and the floor shall slope to a central drain that discharges to a grease trap/interceptor and is connected to the sanitary sewer. Details of trash enclosure shall be clearly provided on plans. 8. Install a condensate drain line connected to the sanitary sewer for rooftop equipment and clearly show on plans. 9. If laboratories will be installed, a segregated non-pressurized lab waste line must collect all laboratory waste. Install a sample port on the lab waste line outside the building, which will be accessible at all times. 10. Submit specs on the sample port. 11. If a food service kitchen/ prep area is to be installed, it shall connect to a gravity grease interceptor at least 750 gallons (liquid capacity) in size. Sizing of the grease removal device must be in accordance with the uniform plumbing code. 12. Grease interceptor shall be connected to all non-domestic wastewater sources in the kitchen (wash sinks, mop sinks, floor drains) and shown on plans. 13. A cut sheet of the Grease Interceptor/Trap must be shown on plans. 14. Garbage Disposals in Industrial/Commercial facilities are prohibited by City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Remove Garbage Disposal(s) from plans. 15. Applicant will be required to pay a Sewer Capacity Fee (connection fee) based on SSF City Council-approved EDU calculation (involving anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations and including credits for previous site use). Based on the information received, the estimated Sewer Capacity Fee will be $372,212.782, payable with the Building Permit. (Supersedes COA E.16 attached to Resolution 94-2016) 16. Elevator sump drainage (if applicable) shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to connection to the sanitary sewer. 17. Drains in parking garage (if applicable) must be plumbed through an oil/water separator and then into the sanitary sewer system and clearly shown on plans. 18. Wherever feasible, install landscaping that minimizes irrigation runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes use of pesticides and fertiliz ers and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping programs (such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 19. Site is subject to C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (please see SMCWPPP C.3 Technical Guidance Manual at https://www.flowstobay.org/sites/default/files/C3TG5/SMCWPPP_C3TG%20V.5.0.pdf for guidance). The following items will be required; 20. Completed forms for Low Impact Development (C3-C6 Project Checklist). Forms must be on 8.5in X 11in paper and signed and wet stamped by a professional engineer. Calculations must be submitted with this package. Forms can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment. A completed copy must also be emailed to andrew.wemmer @ssf.net. 21. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development. 22. Submit flow calculations and related math for LID. 23. Complete Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreements. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient. Do not sign agreement, as the city will need to review prior to signature. Prepare packet and submit including a preferred return address for owner signature. Packet should also be mailed or emailed to: Andrew Wemmer City of SSF WQCP 195 Belle Air Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net Exhibit Templates can also be found within Chapter 6 the C.3 Technical Guidance at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment. 24. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 25. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat 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. 26. A SWPPP must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in effect all year long. 27. A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted (if > 1 acre). E. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. The applicant shall install and maintain a system allowing first responders to enter into the building(s) by means of a code to be entered into a keypad or similar input device. A permanent code shall be issued to the Police Department. Physical keys or electronic access cards will not satisfy this requirement. Please note this is separate from the Fire Department’s “Knoxbox” requirement. This access must be provided at two entry points, each on a different sides of the building to allow first responders a tactical advantage when entering. 2. The hardware design of any doorways shall prevent any doors from being secured in a closed position to either another door or a fixed object within four feet of any door by means of a rope, cable, chain, or similar item. This is to prevent malicious prevention of egress and/or ingress by building occupants or first responders. 3. All exterior doorways shall be illuminated during darkness by a white light source that has full cut-off and is of pedestrian scale. (Supersedes COA D.2.d.i attached to Resolution 94-2016) 4. All interior common and service areas, such as the garage, bicycle storage area, fire escapes, etc, shall be illuminated at all times with a white light source that is controlled by a tamperproof switch or a switch located in an inaccessible location to passers-by. 5. The landing at the lowest level of service staircases, such as those in the garage area or fire escapes, shall have some mechanism, such as fencing, to prevent access and prevent people from loitering or concealing themselves in that area. 6. Any exterior bicycle racks installed shall be of an inverted “U” design, or other design that allows two different locking points on each bicycle. 7. Any publicly accessible benches shall be of a design that prevents persons from lying on them, such as a center railing. 8. Any publicly accessible power outlets shall be of a design that prevents their access or use during those hours the business is normally closed. 9. Any publicly accessible raised edge surfaces, such as retaining walls, concrete benches, handrails or railings, shall be of a design that prevents or discourages skateboard use on those surfaces. 10. The mature height of all shrubbery shall be no higher than three feet, if so, it shall be maintained at a maximum height of three feet, and tree canopies shall be no lower than six feet above grade. 11. The applicant shall install and maintain a camera surveillance system that conforms to the minimum technical specifications of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.66.050 Minimum technological standards, (Ord. 1515, 2016). The video surveillance cameras will be used as a crime deterrent and assist with the identification and apprehension of criminals if a crime is committed on the property. Enough cameras shall be installed to provide adequate coverage for the intended space. Cameras shall be placed minimally in the following locations: All exterior entrances/exits Garage area (providing coverage to entire parking area) Bicycle storage area Main lobby of building Lobby of sales/leasing office Loading docks (Supersedes COA D.2.i.i attached to Resolution 94-2016) 12. Any leasing of sales offices within the building shall be alarmed with a central station monitored silent intruder alarm system. 13. The Police Department requires acknowledgement of these comments to include specific locations in the plans where the applicable change requests have been made. City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-530 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:9. Report regarding an Ordinance approving the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project between the City of South San Francisco and BMR Gateway of Pacific I LP,BMR Gateway of Pacific II LP,BMR Gateway of Pacific III LP, and BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP to make minor modifications to the previously approved Development Agreement,and determining that the certified 2009 Environmental Impact Report continues to serve as the environmental document and there are no changes in circumstances that would require additional environmental review.(Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and introduce an Ordinance approving the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project between the City and BMR Gateway of Pacific I LP,BMR Gateway of Pacific II LP,BMR Gateway of Pacific III LP,and BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP to make minor modifications to amend provisions relating to the agreement duration,and waive further reading, and determining that the Project continues to comply with and be subject to a previously adopted 2009 EIR and subsequent Addendum,and no subsequent environmental document would be necessary pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines . BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Overview In February 2010,the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment,Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Design Review,Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Plan,Development Agreement (DA)and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)to facilitate construction of an approximately 1.23 million square foot office/R&D campus to incrementally replace single story buildings that were built in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In April 2013,the City Council approved modifications to the Master Plan,Phase 1 Precise Plan,TDM Plan and First Amended and Restated Development Agreement (First Amended DA),to allow for a revised phasing plan and modifications to the interior circulation and building designs.The shell and core of the Phase 1 Precise Plan project has been completed and tenant improvements for both spaces are currently under construction. Previous Development Agreements As part of the 2010 Project approvals,the City and the prior developer negotiated a Development Agreement to clarify and require several Project features and mitigation measures including transportation impact fees,public improvements in the East of 101 Area,Fire Department obligations,phasing,provisions for child care,park in- lieu fees, and TDM reporting and monitoring requirements. The First Amended DA,approved in 2013,extended the expiration date to 2025,incorporated the Public Safety Impact Fee and Park-in-Lieu Fee,and also included a number of non-substantive changes to reflect the current parties,update the applicable municipal code citations,and adjust Project timelines.Subsequent to the First Amended DA,BMR-Gateway/Oyster LLC gave notice to the City of transfers and assignments of the propertyCity of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-530 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:9. Amended DA,BMR-Gateway/Oyster LLC gave notice to the City of transfers and assignments of the property to four affiliate entities that are under common control:BMR Gateway of Pacific I LP (formerly BMR-700 Gateway LP);BMR Gateway of Pacific II LP (formerly BMR-750,800 and 850 Gateway LP);BMR Gateway of Pacific III LP (formerly BMR-900 Gateway LP);and BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP (formerly BMR-1000 Gateway LP). In 2018,the City Council approved a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Second Amended DA),which reflected the substitution of new owners for each of the four separate parcels,referenced previous and potential future lot line adjustments,clarified that DA obligations are to be applied separately to each phase, and clarified the childcare obligation, as that obligation cannot be applied to each phase separately. In February 2020,the City Council approved a First Amendment to the Second Amended DA,which substituted payment of a fee that will enable the City to build a childcare facility in lieu of having the applicants construct or open a replacement childcare facility on or within one mile of the project site.The Second Amended DA and the First Amendment to the Second Amended DA are both attached to this staff report (Attachments 1 and 2). Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement The applicant’s request for a Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Second Amended DA)seeks only minor modifications to the agreement.The modifications include: ·Extend the expiration date from 2025 to 2030.(The Development Agreement for the 475 Eccles /GOP Phase 5 Project is also proposed to be amended to expire in 2030.That proposed amendment is being considered separately by the City Council.) ·Acknowledgement of the Updated Park Fee Requirement,in keeping with the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee that was adopted in 2016, and reference to this updated fee estimate in the exhibits. The proposed Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated DA is included as Attachment 1 to the accompanying draft City Council Ordinance. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The Project site is located in the Gateway Specific Plan District and is part of the “East of 101”Planning Sub- Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan.The site’s General Plan designation is Business Commercial. The Project remains consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan as it has been designed to promote campus-style uses,such as biotechnology,high-technology and research and development uses.The site layout and overall architecture would help shape the urban character of the East of 101 Area.The Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated DA will not result in any substantive changes,and the overall project will remain consistent with the intent and purpose of the Gateway Specific Plan District and comply with all development standards of the District. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Potential environmental impacts for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project were analyzed by the Gateway Business Park Master Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #2008062059).Upon the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission,the City Council certified the EIR on February 10,2010,via City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-530 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:9. recommendation of the Planning Commission,the City Council certified the EIR on February 10,2010,via Resolution No.18-2010.A Mitigation Monitoring Program was included as an appendix to the certified EIR. On February 10,2010,the City Council also approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations that evaluated the benefits of the Project against certain unavoidable impacts related to air quality,noise,and transportation for which no feasible mitigation exists.On May 8,2013,the City Council approved an Addendum to the EIR that made additional findings related to the modifications to the Master Plan,TDM Plan,Precise Plan,and First Amended Development Agreement.The Addendum was accompanied by a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Project continues to be subject to the previously-adopted EIR and Addendum.The project setting has not significantly changed since the adoption of the environmental documents.Surrounding properties have either remained undeveloped or have developed in accordance with the City of South San Francisco General Plan and Gateway Specific Plan consistent with the General Plan and General Plan EIR.No significant new information has arisen since reliance upon the Addendum on May 8,2013.The Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated DA makes minor changes related to the duration of the agreement.These project changes do not involve any physical changes in the environment and therefore will not cause any new or more adverse significant impacts on the environment.Accordingly,no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required, and all mitigation measures,impact findings,environmental conclusions and overriding considerations remain applicable to the Project. PLANNING COMMISSION On August 6,2020,the Planning Commission held a public hearing,reviewed the proposed Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated DA,and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions. The Planning Commission resolution is attached to this staff report. CONCLUSION The proposed Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated DA is consistent with the originally entitled project in 2010 and the revised project in 2013.The amendment extends the duration of the agreement and clarifies fee requirements.There are no new or increased environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated DA. Therefore,staff recommends that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and introduce an Ordinance approving the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated DA (DAA20-0003),and waive further reading,and determine that the Project continues to comply with and be subject to a previously adopted 2009 EIR and subsequent Addendum. ATTACHMENTS 1.Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement 2.First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement 3.Planning Commission Resolution 2857-2020 - Amended DA Resolution (no attachments) ASSOCIATIONS 1.Draft Ordinance approving a DA Amendment (Legistar File 20-531) A.Exhibit A - Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of South San Francisco 400 Grand A venue P. 0. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 2018-070317 CONF 2:44 pm 09/07/18 A3 AG Fee: NO FEE Count of pages 271 Recorded in Official Records County of San Mateo Mark Church Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder I IIIII I I IIIIII Ill lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll 111111111111111111 * $ R O O O Z 6 0 3 9 6 0 $ * Exempt from recording fees per Government Code §§6103, 27383 APNs: 015-023-290; 015-023-300 015-023-200; 015-023-320; 015-023-430;015-023-190; 015-023-310 Space above this line reserved for recorder's use SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND BMR-700 GATEWAY LP, BMR-750, 800,850 GATEWAY LP, BMR-900 GATEWAY LP, AND BMR-1000 GATEWAY LP SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project - 2 - 137967550.11 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project This SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECT is dated August ___, 2018 (“Agreement”). This Agreement is between BMR-700 Gateway LP (“BMR-700 Gateway); BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway LP (“BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway”); BMR-900 Gateway LP (“BMR-900 Gateway”); and BMR-1000 Gateway LP (“BMR-1000 Gateway”); all of which are Delaware limited partnerships (collectively “Owners” and individually “Owner”), on the one hand, 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. Each Owner and the City are individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively referred to herein as “Parties.” R E C I T A L S 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 22.6-acre site located at the corner of Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards (700, 750, 800, 850, 900, and 1000 Gateway Boulevard), in the East of 101 Area Plan, the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area and the Gateway Specific Plan District, which the Parties intend to be developed in phases (Phase 1 through Phrase 4), all as shown and more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached (the “Property”); and D. WHEREAS, each Owner now has a legal or equitable interest in a portion of the Property subject to this Agreement to the extent referenced and depicted in Exhibit A; and E. WHEREAS, on February 24, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1423- 2010, which approved and adopted that certain Development Agreement for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project (“Original Agreement”) between the City and Chamberlin Properties I Limited Partnership, a California limited partnership, the then- owner of the Property; and F. WHEREAS, the Original Agreement became effective on or about March 26, 2010 (“2010 Effective Date”); and - 3 - 137967550.11 G. WHEREAS, on May 8, 2013 City adopted Resolution 44-2013 approving a Modified Master Plan for redevelopment of the Property ( “Master Plan”), and a Precise Plan for redevelopment of Phase 1 of the Project (“Phase 1 Precise Plan”); and H. WHEREAS, on May 22, 2013 City adopted Ordinance Number 1471-2013, which approved and adopted a First Amended And Restated Development Agreement for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project, which ordinance took effect 30 days later on June 21, 2013 (the “2013 Effective Date”); and I. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance Number 1471, effective August 20, 2013, the City and BMR-Gateway/Oyster LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“BMR- Gateway/Oyster”), an affiliate that is under common control with Owners, entered into that certain First Amended And Restated Development Agreement for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project; J. WHEREAS, by letter dated August 26, 2013, BMR-Gateway/Oyster gave notice to the City of the following transfers and assignments to Owners, all of which are affiliates under common control with BMR-Gateway/Oyster and the other Owners, pursuant to Sections 15(c), 15(e) and 15(f) of this Agreement: BMR-Gateway/Oyster transferred its rights to develop the real property known as 700 Gateway Boulevard to BMR-700 Gateway, and retained all compliance burdens, obligations, and responsibilities for this real property; BMR-Gateway/Oyster transferred its rights to develop the real property known as 750, 800 and 850 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, to BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway, and retained all compliance burdens, obligations, and responsibilities for this real property; BMR-Gateway/Oyster transferred its rights to develop the real property known as 900 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco to BMR-900 Gateway, and retained all compliance burdens, obligations, and responsibilities for this real property; BMR-Gateway/Oyster transferred its rights to develop the real property known as 1000 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco to BMR-1000 Gateway and retained all compliance burdens, obligations, and responsibilities for this real property. K. WHEREAS, on February 3, 2017, there was recorded in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo as Document Number 2017-011238, a document entitled LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2016-001 (the “2016 Lot Line Adjustment”), which documents City’s approval of a lot line adjustment adjusting the boundary between Phases 1 and 2 of the Property (i.e. between the parcels owned by BMR-1000 Gateway and BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway located at 1000 Gateway Boulevard and 750, 800 and 850 Gateway Boulevard); - 4 - 137967550.11 L. WHEREAS, BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway subsequently deeded to BMR-1000 Gateway, and BMR-1000 Gateway accepted from BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway, a portion of the Property reflecting such 2016 Lot Line Adjustment, which resulted in the Property ownership reflected in Exhibit A; M. WHEREAS, BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway and BMR-900 Gateway intend in the future to seek additional lot line adjustment(s) and/or a parcel map to further adjust boundaries between their parcels within the Property as conceptually depicted in Exhibit F; N. WHEREAS, Owners have requested that the City enter into this Agreement to amend and restate the rights and obligations of the Parties relating to the development of the Property, confirm that each Owner holds the compliance burdens, obligations, and responsibilities for its parcel of Property under this Agreement, and acknowledge the transfer and assignment related to the 2016 Lot Line Adjustment; and, O. 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 P. 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 Q. WHEREAS, on July 11, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1559-2018 approving and adopting this Agreement, and the Ordinance took effect thirty days later. A G R E E M E N T 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 (“2018 Effective Date”). 2. Duration This Agreement shall expire twelve (12) years from the 2013 Effective Date, but in no event later than December 31, 2025. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if litigation against an 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 such Owner’s parcel of Property of the “Project” (as defined in Section 3 below), the - 5 - 137967550.11 expiration date of this Agreement as applicable to that Owner’s parcel and obligations of such Owner 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 removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6- acre project site and construction of five to six new buildings and two to four parking structures, in multiple phases from 2013 to 2025, and exterior landscaping and driveways, and other related improvements, to create a connected, pedestrian-friendly campus-style development, as more particularly described in the Master Plan and the Phase 1 Precise Plan (attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit C respectively) and as approved by the City Council. (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 Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan, the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report dated January 2010, this Agreement, and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the 2013 Effective Date, except as modified in this Agreement. The Project will be redeveloped in multiple phases. Each new phase of development will adhere to the governing Municipal Code provisions applicable to the Property as of the 2013 Effective Date (except as modified by this Agreement), as well as the development guidelines set forth in the Gateway Master Plan Development Standards, including the implementation of access, service and parking needs to support each new phase of redevelopment. During each particular redevelopment phase, each Owner will maintain existing access, service and parking needs to support existing improvements located on portions of the Property, yet to be redeveloped during subsequent phases. Plan details for subsequent phases will be submitted to the City for appropriate review and approval, in the form of future Precise Plans. (b) Subject to an Owner’s fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement, upon the 2018 Effective Date of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to such Owner a vested right to develop and construct on such Owner’s parcel of the Property the improvements for the Project authorized by, and in accordance with, the terms of this Agreement, the Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan (as approved by the City Council) and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the 2013 Effective Date. - 6 - 137967550.11 (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 2013 Effective Date shall apply to the Project, except such future modifications that are not in conflict with and do not prevent the development proposed in the Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan; 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) An Owner shall cause the Project on its parcel 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. Such Owner shall use good faith efforts to achieve a “Silver” rating, pursuant to the LEED Green Building Rating System. Provided, however, that no Owner shall 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 An Owner shall submit a Precise Plan for any future phase of development of the Project on its parcel, consistent with Chapter 20.220 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, as of the 2013 Effective Date. The future Precise Plan(s) shall address, at a minimum, the building architecture, landscaping, and common improvements required for the applicable phase of the Project. Evaluation of future Precise Plans shall be reviewed for consistency with the Master Plan, and this Agreement as approved by the City Council and vested by this Agreement as of the 2018 Effective Date, and applicable development standards described in Section 3 above in effect as of the 2013 Effective Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, future Precise Plans shall comply with all applicable Uniform Codes, the Municipal Code in effect as of the 2013 Effective Date, CEQA requirements (including any required mitigation measures) and Federal and State Laws. 5. Vesting of Approvals Upon the City’s approval of the Master Plan, the Phase 1 Precise Plan, this Agreement, and future phase Precise Plans, each such approval shall be vested in each Owner and its successors and assigns for the term of this Agreement with respect to such Owner’s parcel of Property, provided that the successors and assigns comply with the terms and conditions of all of the foregoing, 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, Owners and the City shall proceed in a reasonable and timely manner, in compliance with the deadlines mandated - 7 - 137967550.11 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 any 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 Owners that requires acceptance or approval by the City. Owners, 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 Master Plan and the City Council’s approval, the City may assist an Owner, at such Owner’s request and at such 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 Council to be constructed or obtained by an Owner in the Council’s approval of the Project and the Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan, in the event an Owner is unable to acquire such easements or properties or are unable to secure the necessary agreements with the applicable property owners for such easements or properties. Owners expressly acknowledge that the City is under no obligation to use its power of Eminent Domain. 8. Maintenance Obligations on Property All of the Property subject to this Agreement shall be maintained by Owners or their 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 Owners further subdivide the property or otherwise transfer ownership of a parcel or building in the Project to any person or entity that is not an affiliate under common control with the other Owners, such that the Owners, or Owners’ member, partner, parent, or subsidiary, no longer owns a majority interest in a parcel or building in the Project, Owners shall first establish an Owners’ Association and submit Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”) to the City for review and approval by the City Attorney not to be unreasonably - 8 - 137967550.11 withheld, conditioned or delayed (provided, however, that if such transfer arises from a Mortgage Transfer Event (as defined in Section 31 below), then such Association shall be established and CC&Rs shall be submitted as soon as reasonably practicable after such Mortgage Transfer Event). 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. Reserved 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Additional Conditions Owners shall comply with all of the following requirements: (a) Fees. Owners shall not be responsible for any fees imposed by the City in connection with the development and construction of their parcels within the Project, except as outlined in this Agreement and those fees in existence as of the 2013 Effective Date, all of which are identified in Exhibit E hereto. No fee requirements (other than those identified herein) imposed by the City on or after the 2013 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 2013 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 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. 1) Impact Fees. An Owner shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee, the Oyster Point Interchange fee, the Sewer Impact fee, and the Childcare fee, to the extent applicable to the phase of the Project to be developed by such Owner, based on the application of the formulas in effect as of the time the City issues each building permit for each phase of the Project, and shall be - 9 - 137967550.11 payable substantially concurrently with, but not later than, the issuance of each such building permit. All such impact fees shall be based on net new square footage proposed to be developed by such Owner. 2) 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. An Owner shall pay a Park In-Lieu Fee of $4.78 per square foot of development, excluding parking structures, by such Owner. 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 Gateway Business Park Master Plan 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 Owners 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. An Owner shall receive a credit to offset a portion of the Park In-Lieu Fee, for development of private open space created in such Owner’s relevant phase within the Gateway Master Plan. An 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 an Owner receive a credit offsetting less than 25% of such Owner’s required fee, or more than 50% of such 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. An Owner shall pay the Park In-Lieu Fee once per phase, upon issuance of the first tenant improvement permit for each phase to be developed by such Owner, based upon the total square footage approved for development for that phase. (b) Child Care Replacement Facility. 1) So long as the existing childcare facility located at 850 Gateway Boulevard remains in place, and retains its status as a fully licensed and operational childcare facility serving at least 100 children, no additional childcare requirement (other than the City’s Childcare Fee described in Section 12(a)(1) above) will be imposed. However, if the 850 Gateway Boulevard childcare facility is closed, then no later than the date 750,000 square feet of gross floor area within the Project is occupied by tenants, the Owners of Phases 2, 3 and 4 shall either (a) cause the 850 Gateway Boulevard facility to be reopened and fully licensed and operational as needed to serve at least 100 children; or (b) have ready for occupancy a childcare facility of approximately 8,000 square feet designed to accommodate a minimum of 100 children within the Project or within one mile of the Project. If the childcare facility is open to the public, City and the Owner responsible for construction of the childcare facility may mutually agree to allow the City to operate the facility. - 10 - 137967550.11 2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if circumstances prevail that new construction does not exceed 650,000 square feet and the existing childcare facility at 850 Gateway Boulevard is eliminated, in each case as of December 31, 2022, then the Owners of Phases 2, 3 and 4 may alternatively meet this requirement by providing a one dollar ($1) per square foot childcare in-lieu fee for the Net New Construction (defined below) that has occurred as of December 31, 2022. “Net New Construction” means the total square footage of any permitted building constructed to implement the Project, reduced by the square footage of any permitted building that existed on the 2013 Effective Date and has been demolished to implement the Project. Each year after 2013, the one dollar ($1) per square foot fee shall automatically be increased at a rate equal to the Change from Prior Year for the Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area. If Owner elects to satisfy this childcare requirement through payment of this in-lieu fee, the in-lieu fee shall be paid no later than December 31, 2022. If building permits are issued for additional Net New Construction between December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2025, such Net New Construction will be subject to a childcare in-lieu fee no greater than the childcare in- lieu fee set forth in this Section 12(b)(2). 3) If, as of January 31, 2023, the 850 Gateway Boulevard childcare facility is eliminated or not fully licensed and operational as described above, and the Owners of Phases 2, 3 and 4 have failed to either construct a new childcare facility in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(b)(1), or Owners have failed to pay the in-lieu fee in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(b)(2), then Owners shall instead pay a fee equal to the City’s estimated reasonable costs, including all costs associated with site acquisition (including, if necessary, eminent domain), environmental review, permitting, and all other expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, required to construct a childcare facility of equivalent size and quality as that described in Section 12(b)(1). 4) Compliance with this Section 12(b) shall be deemed to be compliance with condition of approval A-16.b. (c) Transportation Demand Management Plan. Owners of any phase(s) of the Project containing any redeveloped building (other than parking facilities) for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued 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, or a graduated scale between 35% and 40% alternative mode usage (“Targeted Alternative Mode Usage”) when the Project is built out between a 1.0 and 1.25 FAR. The Targeted Alternative Mode Usage will be determined as follows: - 11 - 137967550.11 FAR Alternative Mode Usage <1.0 35% 1.01 — 1.12 38% 1.13 — 1.25 40% The TDM report will be prepared by an independent consultant, retained by City with the approval of the applicable Owners (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) and paid for by such Owners, which consultant will work in concert with Owners’ 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 facilities. 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 Owners that were obligated to submit a TDM report fail to submit such a TDM report at the times described above, City may assess such Owners 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. - 12 - 137967550.11 i. In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, City may consider whether Owners have made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals. ii. If City determines that Owners have 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 Owners 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 within each phase of the Project. 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 that phase of the Project; 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. (d) Transit Station or Ferry Terminal Enhancement Contribution. Owners 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 for each Owner shall be in the amount of one dollar per square foot of building area excluding parking structures for each phase of development on such Owner’s parcel 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. - 13 - 137967550.11 (e) Public Safety Impact Fee. As provided in Exhibit E, Owners shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as set forth in Resolution No. 97-2012, adopted on December 10, 2012. (f) EIR. The Parties will adhere to the Conditions of Approval for the Project and the Mitigations which result from the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Entitlement review for future Project phases will be limited in scope, so long as consistent with the EIR and Master Plan book and Design Guidelines. 13. Indemnity Each Owner agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by the City subject to the reasonable approval of such 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 such Owner, or any actions or inactions of such Owner’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Owners 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). 14. Interests of Other Owners Owners have no knowledge of any reason why Owners, and each of them, and any other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property as of the 2018 Effective Date, will not be bound by this Agreement. 15. Assignment (a) Right to Assign. An Owner may at any time or from time to time transfer its right, title or interest in or to all or any portion of its parcel of 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 such Owner. As a condition precedent to any such transfer, an 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 an 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 - 14 - 137967550.11 consider and decide the matter within ten (10) days after an 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 15(b), an Owner may at any time, upon notice to the City but without the necessity of any approval by the City, transfer its parcel of Property or any part thereof and all or any part of such 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 such Owner, (ii) any member or partner of such Owner or any subsidiary, parent or affiliate of any such member or partner, (iii) any successor or successors to such Owner by merger, consolidation, non- bankruptcy reorganization or government action, or (iv) as a result of a Mortgage Transfer Event. 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 an 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 an Owner’s rights, interests and obligations under this Agreement pursuant to Section 15(a), Section 15(b) or Section 15(c) of this Agreement, such Owner shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the parcel of 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 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 such Owner under this Agreement, such 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 15(b), above. (e) Owners’ Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding Section 15(a) and Section 15(c), an Owner may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and/or obligations which such Owner shall retain, provided that such 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. An 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 - 15 - 137967550.11 applicable to such 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, the applicable 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 15(b) shall not release an Owner from its obligations to the City under this Agreement until such time as the City is provided notice in accordance with Section 15(b). 16. Insurance (a) Commercial General Liability Insurance. At all times that an Owner is constructing any portion or phase of the Project, or any improvement related to any portion or phase of the Project, such 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 such Owner. (b) Workers Compensation Insurance. At all times that an Owner is constructing any portion or phase of the Project, or any improvement related to any portion or phase of the Project, such Owner shall maintain Worker’s Compensation insurance for all persons employed by such Owner for work at the Project site. Such Owner shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker’s Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Such Owner agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from such 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, the applicable Owner shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Subsections (a) and (b). 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, Owners 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 Owners, said failure shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. - 16 - 137967550.11 2) In the event of a reduction (below the limits required by this Agreement) or cancellation in coverage, Owners 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 Owners fail to obtain substitute coverage within ten (10) days, the City may obtain, but is not required to obtain, substitute coverage and charge Owners 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. 17. 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. 18. Conflict With State or Federal Law In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the 2013 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 19 set forth below) or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an Owner shall have the right to challenge, at their 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. 19. Procedure for Modification Because of Conflict With State or Federal Laws In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the 2013 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 - 17 - 137967550.11 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 as it was in effect on the 2013 Effective Date. 20. Periodic Review (a) During the term of this Agreement, the City shall conduct “annual” and/or “special” reviews of Owners’ 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 Owners a copy of all staff reports and, to the extent practical, related exhibits. Owners 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 Owners 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 any 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 such Owners. 21. 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. 22. Agreement is Entire Agreement This Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto or incorporated herein contain the sole and entire agreement between the Parties concerning Owners’ entitlements to develop the Property. Each Party acknowledges and agrees that it has not made any representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations inducing the execution and delivery hereof, except representations expressly set forth herein, and each Party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering this Agreement. Each Party further acknowledges that all statements or representations that heretofore may have been made by it to the other Parties are void and of no effect, and that it has not relied on statements or representations of the other Parties in its dealings with the other, except to the extent that such representation area expressly set forth herein. - 18 - 137967550.11 23. Events of Default Failure by a Party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement applicable to such Party shall constitute a default of such Party. An Owner shall also specifically be in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events with respect to such Owner: (a) If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by such 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, such Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement applicable to such Owner; or, (c) Such 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. 24. Procedure Upon Default (a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default by City or an Owner, either such Party may terminate or modify this Agreement with respect to the applicable Owner’s parcel of Property in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65865.1 and of Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code, provided Section 24(e) has been complied with. (b) The City shall not be deemed to have waived any claim of defect in any Owner’s performance if, on annual or special review, the City does not propose to terminate this Agreement. (c) No waiver or failure by the City or any 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 25 (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 - 19 - 137967550.11 defaulting Party shall have such additional time to cure as is reasonably necessary. 25. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (a) Action by Party. If legal action by a Party is brought against another Party 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 from the non-prevailing Party. (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. Each 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. 26. 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 with respect to any parcel of Property, and if the same constitutes a material change in the consideration for this Agreement, then the City or the Owner of any such parcel of Property may elect in writing to invalidate this entire Agreement with respect to such parcel of Property, and thereafter this entire Agreement shall be deemed null and void and of no further force or effect with respect to such parcel of Property following such election. 27. No Third Parties Benefited No person other than the City, Owners, 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. 28. 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. 29. Relationship of Parties It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and Owners and that Owners are not agents 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 Owners hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained - 20 - 137967550.11 herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Owners joint venturers or partners. Neither Owners nor any of Owners’ agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of the City in connection with the performance of Owners’ obligations under this Agreement. 30. Bankruptcy The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 31. Mortgagee Protection: Certain Rights of Cure (a) Mortgagee Protection. Any Owner may encumber its interest in its parcel of Property to secure a loan made to such Owner and collaterally assign its rights under this Agreement in connection with such loan without the consent of any of the other Owners or the City, subject to the terms and conditions of this Section 31. 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 or other purchasers (“Mortgagees”), who acquire title to the Property or any portion thereof by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise as a result of a default under a Mortgage (a “Mortgage Transfer Event”). Any Owner shall deliver written notice to the other Owners and the City within fourteen (14) days after recording any Mortgage against its parcel of Property, including the address for notices to the Mortgagee. (b) Mortgagee Not Obligated. No 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 Mortgagee upon or after an Owner’s default under a Mortgage, shall permit the Mortgagee to succeed to the rights and obligations of such Owner under this Agreement, provided that all defaults by such Owner hereunder that are reasonably susceptible of being cured are cured by the Mortgagee as soon as is reasonably possible. The 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 an Owner hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, the City shall deliver to the Mortgagee concurrently with service thereof to all Owners, all notices given to such Owner describing all claims by the City that such Owner has defaulted hereunder. If the City determines that any Owner is in noncompliance with this Agreement, the - 21 - 137967550.11 City also shall serve notice of noncompliance on the Mortgagee of the Owner’s parcel of Property, concurrently with service thereof on all Owners. Until such time as the lien of the Mortgage has been extinguished, the City shall: 1) Take no action to terminate this Agreement with respect to the applicable parcel of Property or exercise any other remedy under this Agreement against the defaulting Owner, 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 applicable parcel of 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 applicable parcel of 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 the applicable 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 with respect to any parcel of Property, to do any act or thing required of the Owner of such parcel of Property 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 with respect to such parcel of Property. 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 the Owner instead of by the Mortgagee. No action or inaction by a Mortgagee pursuant to this Agreement shall relieve an Owner of its obligations under this Agreement. No performance by or on behalf of a Mortgagee shall cause it to become a “mortgagee-in-possession” or otherwise cause it to be deemed to be in possession of a defaulting Owner’s parcel of Property or bound by or liable under this Agreement unless it becomes an Owner of a parcel of Property. In the event a Mortgagee becomes an Owner, such Mortgagee shall not be liable for any obligation hereunder of any previous Owner of the same parcel of Property that - 22 - 137967550.11 arose prior to the time such Mortgagee became an Owner of such parcel of Property, except for (a) continuing non-monetary obligations that are capable of cure by Mortgagee and (b) monetary obligations for which the City provided a notice of default to Owner under Section 24(e) and, if applicable, to Mortgagee under Section 31(c), and neither Owner nor such Mortgagee thereafter cured such default of Owner’s monetary obligation.. (e) Mortgagee’s Consent to Modifications. Subject to the sentence immediately following, the City shall not consent to any material amendment or modification of this Agreement unless Owners provide 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 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 (30) days from the date written notice of such amendment or modification is given by the City or Owners to the Mortgagee, reasonable evidence of the delivery of which notice shall be provided to the City if given only by Owners. 32. Estoppel Certificate Any Party from time to time may deliver written notice to any 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 an Owner hereunder. The City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by permitted transferees and Mortgagees. At the request of an 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 an Owner shall have the right to record the certificate for the affected portion of the Property at its cost. 33. Force Majeure Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, a 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, - 23 - 137967550.11 fires, explosions, floods, earthquakes, invasions by non-United States armed forces, failure of transportation due to no fault of the Party, 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 such Owner, 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 such Owner to obtain funds for its portion of the Project, due to the financial marketplace, (other than such Owner’s inability to obtain financing related to such Owner’s financial condition) and are beyond the control or without the fault of the party 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. 34. 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. (g) This Agreement shall be interpreted such that its provisions apply separately to each phase of the Project. All references in this Agreement to “Owners” or “Owner” and all references to “Parties” or “Party,” shall be deemed to refer only to the Owner(s) of the relevant phase. BMR-700 Gateway, BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway, BMR-900 Gateway and BMR-1000 Gateway shall be responsible for all compliance burdens, obligations, and responsibilities imposed by, and entitled to benefits granted by, this Agreement only with respect to such Owner’s parcel of property. All conditions of approval and mitigation measures of the Project shall similarly be interpreted and applied to create several obligations of each Owner with respect only to such obligations and benefits. In no event shall one Owner be considered in default due to action or inaction of another Owner with respect to obligations not imposed upon the first Owner. - 24 - 137967550.11 (h) In the event City approves a lot line adjustment or parcel map that affects the boundaries between the Phases of the Property as referenced in Recital M of this Agreement, the City and relevant Owner(s) shall promptly amend this Agreement and any exhibits hereto to the extent necessary to reflect such changes to the Property. 35. 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, showing the phases of the Project and the land currently owned by each Owner. Exhibit B — Gateway Business Park Master Plan Exhibit C — Gateway Business Park Phase 1 Precise Plan Exhibit D — Conditions of Project Approval and Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project EIR Mitigation and Monitoring Program Exhibit E — Applicable City Fees Exhibit F — Conceptual Diagram of Future Anticipated Lot Line Adjustments and/or Parcel Map 36. 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 Owners shall be addressed as follows: BMR-700 Gateway LP 17190 Bernardo Center Drive San Diego, CA 92128 Attn: Vice President, Legal BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway LP 17190 Bernardo Center Drive San Diego, CA 92128 Attn: Vice President, Legal - 25 - 137967550.11 BMR-900 Gateway LP 17190 Bernardo Center Drive San Diego, CA 92128 Attn: Vice President, Legal BMR-1000 Gateway LP 17190 Bernardo Center Drive San Diego, CA 92128 Attn: Vice President, 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. *************************************************************************** IN W ITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the Parties on the day and year first above written. CITY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ATTEST: ~;~e /~4;;}!/1 Its: 'City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney -26 - 137967550.11 OWNERS: BMR-700 GATEWAY LP BMR-750, 800, 850 GATEWAY LP By: ~ A./li_i L ~ Name:'-"' Ma rt e Le~ By: Name: v;~,1.~r=-- Its: Vice Pres l den ~ Legal Its: Vlce President, Legal BMR-900 GATEWAY LP BMR-1000 GATEWAY LP By: <Jµ ~ ~;;e:.. Name: ~ M~s - Its: Vice Presi dent, Legal By: ~~ / f Name: Marie L~ ~ ---',----------- Its: Vfoe President, Legal -27 - 137967550 .11 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CIVIL CODE§ 1189 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 Diego } On August 21 , 2018 before me, _=.:::!...!..!..!"'-....::.~=tl,_,_,1,'--'N--'-o~t,..,,a"-ryL....:..,_P.!:!,u""bl""'ic"--· __ _,, personally appeared _ -*"'"'M=a=r-'-ie=--=L'"""e-'-w'"""i-=-s*_* ______________ . who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity and that by her signature on the instrument the person , or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public (N otary Seal) , ........... . ~ ..... SERINA E. ROTH I • :. .. • . _;, Noliry Public -California z J ~--= ,;-San Diego County ~ ·• , Commission# 2200260 - My Comm. Expires Jun 4, 2021 Exhibit A -Legal Description and Map of Property EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION LANDS OF BMR -1000 GATEWAY LP THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MA TEO , ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Being all of Parcel A, as said parcel is described in "Lot Line Adjustment No. 36" recorded as Instrument No. 2008-71428 on June 19 , 2008, San Mateo County Records and a portion of Parcel B, as said parcel is shown on the Map entitled "Parcel Map No. 89-263 ", filed for record on April 24, 1990, in Book 63 of Parcel Maps at Pages 79 to 80 , inclusive, San Mateo County Records, BEGINNING at the Westerly terminus of the Northerly line of said parcel, also being a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of Oyster Point Boulevard; Thence along said Southerly right-of-way line, North 84° 19' 56" East, 13.68 feet; Thence continuing along said Southerly right-of-way line, North 88 ° 14' 26" East, 378 .24 feet ;. Thence leaving said Southerly right-of-way line, South 02° 38' 04" East, 92.97 feet ; Thence South 46 ° 41 '39" East, 29.02 feet; Thence North 88° 14' 26" East, 19 .82 feet; Thence South 02° 38' 04" East, 317 .09 feet; Thence South 87° 21' 56" West, 27.03 feet to the Northerly line of said Parcel Bas shown on said Map; Thence along _said Northerly line, South 01 ° 42 '01" East, 392.52 feet; Thence leaving said Northerly line, South 88° 14' 26" West, 97.12 feet; Thence North 67° 45 '34" West, 200.97 feet; Thence North 01 ° 45' 34" West, 174.09 feet; Thence South 88° 14' 26" West, 49 .88 feet; Thence North 46° 45' 34" West, 38.18 feet; Thence North 01 ° 45' 34" West, 41.22 feet to said Northerly line ; Thence along said Northerly line, North 84° 15' 28" West, 84.84 feet to the Westerly line of said Parcel A and a point on a non-tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 797.00 feet, to which point a radial line bears South 84° 15' 28" East, said curve being the Easterly right-of-way line of Gateway Boulevard as said Boulevard is shown on said Map; Thence leaving said Northerly line and along said Easterly right-of-way line, Northerly along said curve, through a central angle of 08° 20' 31 ", an arc length of I 16.04 feet; · Thence continuing along said Easterly right-of-way line, North 02 ° 35' 59" West, 278.35 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right, having a radius of 30 .00 feet; Thence along said curve, through a central angle of 86 ° 55' 55", an arc length of 45 .52 feet to said Southerly right-of-way line of Oyster Point Boulevard and the point of beginning. / EXHIBIT A (Continued) Pursuant to Lot Line Adjustment No,. 2016-001, recorded February 3, 2017, as Recording No . 2017-011238, Official Records of San Mateo County . APN(s): 015-023-430; 015-023-190 & 015-023-310 END OF DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION LANDS OF BMR-750,800,850 GATEWAY LP THE LAND REFERRED TO H EREIN BELOW IS SITU A TED IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO IN TH E COUNTY OF SAN MATEO , STA T E OF CALIFORNIA , AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Being a portion of Parcel B, as said parcel is shown on the Map entitled "Parcel Map No. 89-263", filed for record on April 24 , 1990, in Book 63 of Parcel Maps at Pages 79 to 80 , inclusive, San Mateo County Records . Beginning at the Northwesterly comer of said parcel , also being a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Gateway Boulevard; Thence leaving said Easterly right-of-way line along the northerly line of said Parcel B , South 84 ° 15' 28" East, 84 .84 feet; Thence leaving said Northerly line, South 01° 45' 34" East , 41.22 feet; T hence South 46 ° 45' 34" East, 38 .18 feet; Thence North 88 ° 14' 26" E ast, 49 .88 feet; Thence South 01 ° 45' 34" East, 174.09 feet; Thence South 67° 45' 34" East, 200.97 feet; T hence North 88° 14' 26" East , 97.12 feet ; Thence North 01 ° 42' 01" West, 329.52 feet to said Northerly line ; Thence along said Northerly line, North 87 ° 21' 5611 East, 119 .1 5 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right, having a radius of 45.00 feet; Thence along said curve , through a central angle of 86 ° 14' 03", an arc length of 67.73 feet ; Thence South 06° 24' 0 I" East, 30.05 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left, hav ing a radius of 25 .00 feet ; Thence along said curve, through a central angle of86° 19' 14", an arc length of37.66 feet; Thence North 87 ° 16' 45" East, 1.22 feet ; Thence South 02 ° 43 ' 15" East, 102.75 feet ; Thence North 87 ° 02' 51" East, 46.80 feet ; Thence South 38 ° 45' 44" E ast, 45.45 feet; Thence South 51° 14' 16" West. 231.76 feet ; Thence South 44 ° 10' 10" West, 514.78 feet; Thence North 47 ° 18' 04" West, 326.91 feet ; Thence North 51 ° I 7' 19" West. 140.88 feet to the Westerl y line of said Parcel B and the beginning of a non -tan gent curve to the left, having a radius of 797 .00 feet, to w hich point a radial line bears South 51 ° 17' 19" East, said curve being also the Easterly right-of-way line of Gateway Boulevard; Thence along said Easterly right>of-way line, Northerly along said curve, through a central angle of 32 ° 58 '09", an arc length of 458.61 feet to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT A (Continued) Pursuant to Lot Line Adjustment No. 2016-001, recorded February 3, 2017, Recording No. 2017-011238, Official Records of San Mateo County . APN: 015-023-300 END OF DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION LANDS OF BMR -700 GATEWAY LP THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MA TEO, ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL ONE: PARCEL A, PARCEL MAP NO. 89-263, FILED APRIL 24, 1990, BOOK 63 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES 79 & 80, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS. PARCEL TWO: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AS GRANTED TO ROUSE & ASSOCIATES -OYSTER POINT PHASE I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL, RECORDED 4-6-88, SERIES NO. 88040829, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, OVER A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: -A PORTION OF LOT 2 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "FINAL MAP GATEWAY CENTER IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 3 OF THE LANDS OF HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP (PM 81 195) RECORDED IN BOOK 52 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGES 18 AND 19 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON OCTOBER 1, 1982, IN BOOK 107 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 27, 28, 29 AND 30, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 2, SAID CORNER BEING LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF GATEWAY BOULEVARD (94 FEET IN WIDTH); THENCE SOUTH 51° 17' 19" EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2, 106.00 FEET; THENCE LEA YING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 38° 42' 41" WEST, 122.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51° 17' 19" WEST, 106.00 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF GATEWAY BOULEY ARD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 38° 42' 41" EAST, 122.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THREE: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF PARCEL B, PARCEL MAP NO. 89-263, FILED APRIL 24, 1990, BOOK 63 OF PARCEL MAPS , PAGES 79 & 80, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS , DESIGNATED "12.00' PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT APPURTENANT TO PARCEL A" ON SAID PARCEL MAP. APN: 015-023-290 END OF DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION LANDS OF BMR-900 GATEWAY LP THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO , ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL ONE: Parcel D, Parcel Map No. 89-263, filed April 24, 1990, in Book 63 of Parcel Maps, Pages 79 and 80, San Mateo County Records. PARCEL TWO: A non-exclusive easement for private access purposes for private storm drain purposes over and across those portions of Parcels A & B, Parcel Map 89-263, filed April 24, 1990, in Book 63 of Parcel Maps, Pages 79 and 80, San Mateo County Records designated "10.00' Private Storm Drain Easement Appurtenant to Parcel D" on said Map. PARCEL THREE: A non-exclusive easement for private sanitary sewer purposes over, under and across those portions of Parcels B & C, Parcel Map 89-263 , filed April 24 , 1990, in Book 63 of Parcel Maps, Pages 79 and 80 , San Mateo County Records designated as "Private Sanitary Sewer Easement Appurtenant to Parcel D" and" I 0.00' Private Sanitary Sewer Easement Appurtenant to Parcels B and D" on said Map. PARCEL FOUR: A non-exclusive easement for private access purposes over and across those portions of Parcels Band C, Parcel Map No. 89- 263, filed April 24 , 1990, in Book 63 of Parcel Maps, Pages 79 and 80, San Mateo County Records designated "12.50' Private Access Easement Appurtenant to Parcels C and D", "12.50' Private Access Easement Appurtenant to Parcels Band D and "12.50' Private Access Easement Appurtenant to Parcel D" on said Map. APN(s): 015-023-200 & 015-023-320 END OF DESCRIPTION PHASE 1 LANDS OF BMR 1000 GATEWAY LP EXHIBIT A LANDS OF ADJUSTED PARCEL A OF LLANO . 2016-001 BMR 900 GATEWAY LP I I LANDS OF ~"Q BMR 750,800 , 850 GATEWAY LP ~v ~ ADJUSTED PARCEL B / ~"5 / OF LLANO . 2016-00} t?~ PHASE 3 4,,'lf / 0;~< LANDS OF BMR 700 GATEWAY LP PARCEL A (63 PM 79-80) / ', / "/ ILLUSTRATIVE PLAT EXISTING PARCELS / / Exhibit E -Applicable City Fees First Amended and Restated Development Agreement, Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project EXHIBIT E-1 1. FEES, TAXES, EXACTIONS, DEDICATION OBLIGATIONS, AND ASSESSMENTS Owner agrees that Owner shall be responsible for the payment of the following fees, charges, exactions, taxes, and assessments ( collectively, "Assessments") in connection with the development and construction of the Project. 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. 1.1 Administrative/Processing Fees. The Owner 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 ofland 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. 1.2 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. 1.2.1 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. 1.2.2 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. 1.2.3 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 applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development 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 adopted fee is presently $3 .19 per gallon of discharge per day (this fee is adjusted on a yearly basis). It is determined that Office/R&D generates 400 gallons per day per 1000 square feet of development. 1.2.4 Childcare Impact Fee (SSFMC, ch. 20.310; Ordinance 1301-2001). (a) 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. (b) Additionally, if the existing childcare facility located at 850 Gateway Boulevard remains in place, and retains its status as a fully licensed and operational childcare facility serving at least 100 children, no additional childcare requirement ( other than the City's Childcare Fee described in Section 1.2.4(a) of this Exhibit E-1) will be imposed. However, if the 850 Gateway Boulevard facility is eliminated, the Owner shall also comply with the following : (i) Owner shall construct and have ready for occupancy, a childcare facility of approximately 8,000 square feet designed to accommodate a minimum of 100 children within the Project or within one mile of the Project no later than the earlier of:: (1) the date when the stabilized employee population within the Project reaches that required to sustain a facility that accommodates a minimum of 100 children; or (2) occupancy of the final building to be constructed under the Gateway Master Plan; or (3) one year prior to the expiration of this Agreement. Accordingly, Owner shall submit design plans for the childcare facility no later than December 31, 2021, and shall obtain all required permits, including building permits and commence construction of the facility no later than December 31, 2022. If the childcare facility is open to the public, City and Owner may mutually agree to allow the City to operate the facility. -2 - (ii) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if circwnstances prevail such that new construction does not exceed 650 ,000 square feet and the existing childcare facility at 850 Gateway Boulevard is eliminated, Owner may alternatively meet this requirement by providing a one dollar ($1) per square foot childcare in-lieu fee for the Net New Construction ( defined below) that has occurred as of December 31, 2022. "Net New Construction" means the total square footage of any permitted building constructed to implement the Project, reduced by the square footage of any permitted building that existed on the Effective Date and has been demolished to implement the Project. Each year after 2013 , the one dollar ($1) per square foot fee shall automatically be increased at a rate equal to the Change from Prior Year for the Conswner Price Index-All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area. If Owner elects to satisfy this childcare requirement through payment of this in-lieu fee, the in-lieu fee shall be paid no later than December 31, 2022. If building permits are issued for additional Net New Construction between December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2025, such Net New Construction will be subject to a childcare in-lieu fee no greater than the childcare in-lieu fee set forth in this paragraph 1.2.4(b )(ii). (iii) If the 850 Gateway Boulevard childcare facility is eliminated or not fully licensed and operational as described above, and Owner fails to either construct a new childcare facility in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.2.4(b )(i), or pay the in-lieu fee in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.2.4(b )(ii), Owner shall instead pay a fee equal to the City's estimated reasonable costs, including all costs associated with site acquisition (including, if necessary, eminent domain), environmental review, permitting, and all other expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, required to construct a childcare facility of equivalent size and quality as that described in paragraph l .2.4(b )(i). 1.2.5 Public Safety Impact Fee. (Resolution 97-2012) Prior to receiving a building permit for each Phase of the Projects, the Owner shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as set forth in Resolution No. 97-2012, adopted on December 10, 2012 to assist the City's Fire Department and Police Department with funding the acquisition and maintenance of Police and Fire Department vehicles, apparatus, equipment, and similar needs for the provision of public safety services. 1.2.6 Sewer Capacity Charge. (Resolution 39-2010) Prior to receiving a building permit for each Phase of the Projects, the Owner shall pay the Sewer Capacity Charge, as set forth in Resolution No. 39-2010. 1.3 Other Exactions. 1.3.1 Park In-Lieu Fee. 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 Gateway Business Park Master Plan 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 Park In- Lieu Fee applicable to developments in the East of 101 area, rather than the $4.78 per square foot fee. Owner shall receive a credit to offset a portion of the Park In-Lieu Fee, for development of private open space created within the Gateway Master Plan. Owner's credit shall be identical to -3 - the credit, if any, allowed under the Park In-Lieu Fee program, if implemented, except that (i) in no case, shall owner receive a credit offsetting less than 25% or more than 50% of Owner's required fee; and (ii) in no case shall zoning or building code required open areas, including but not limited to the ten-percent landscaping requirement (SSFMC § 20.300.007(F)(l)(a)) and setbacks, be counted towards any offsetting credit. Owner shall pay the Park In-Lieu Fee once per phase, upon issuance of the first tenant improvement permit for each phase, based upon the total square footage approved for development for that phase. 1.3.2 Transit Station or Ferry Terminal Enhancement Contribution. Owner shall pay an in-lieu fee to be used for enhancing, enlarging, repairing, restoring , renovating, remodeling, redecorating, maintaining, and/or refurbishing the Caltrain Station located at 590 Dubuque Avenue, the Oyster Point Ferry terminal and/or their associated facilities. The in-lieu fee shall be in the amount of one dollar ($ 1.00) 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 . 1.4 User Fees. 1.4.1 Sewer Service Charges (assessed as part of property tax bill) 1.4.2 Stormwater Charges (assessed as part of property tax bill) 2. FEE CREDITS The Project includes the demolition of six (6) single story R&D office buildings. The calculation for fee credits cannot be calculated at this time because the areas of those buildings were not provided. Once provided, the City will be able to calculate the fee credits for the Oyster Point Grade Overpa ss Contribution Fee, East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, Sewer Impact Fee, Childcare Impact Fee, childcare in-lieu fee (if applicable), Transit Station Enhancement Fee, and Public Safety Fee . 2078221.2 II -4 - Exhibit E-2 Illustrative Estimated Fee Table Including Fee Credits Gateway Business Park Master Plan Illustrative calcu lations of estimated proposed fees for Master Plan and Phase I-Precise Plan Fee Cate o East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee (Resolution 84-2007) Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution Fee (Resolutions 102-96 & 152-96) East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee (Resolution 97-2002) Sewer Capacity Fee (Resolution 39-2010) General Plan Maintenance Fee (Resolution 74-2005) Child Care Facility (Section 12 of DA) Child Care Impact Fee (SSFMC 20.310) Transit Station Enhancement Fee (Cap) (Section 12 of DA) Park-in-Lieu Fee (Section 12 of DA) Public Safety Impact Fee (Resolution 97-2012) Total of Fees Fees perGSF Rate R&D Amenities Total Existing R&D Demolished Net NewGSF . . . . . . . . . , ____ $_5_.2_2 per NN GSF -R&D (1) ____ $5 .22 _ per NN GSF -Amenity (2)(4) varies by use R&D and Amenity (2) $ 4.25 per NN GSF (any use) varies by use R&D Office $ 0 .0015 of construction value , per GSF (Assume value is $300/sf) 1.00 per NN GSF or construction of new child care facility $ $ $ 0 .57 per NN GSF for R&D 0 .68 per NN GSF for Amenity Bldg . (4) 1.00 per NN GSF $ 4 .78 per GSF or provide 0 .5 acres of open space per 1,000 employees : Credit may be given for development of private open space but in no case shall owner receive a credit offsetting less than 25% of Owner's required fee , or more than 50% of Owner's re uired fee $ 0.44 per NN GSF Area Estimations* All Phases Phase 1 107,500 391 ,923 Phase I Fee $ 1,795,601.70 $ 250,236.36 $ 506 ,416.77 $ 666,269.10 TBD (3) $ 224,740.35 $ 391,923.00 $ 196,071 .45 $ 32,597.84 $ 391,923.00 $ 2,387,241.94 $ 172,446.12 $ 7,015,467.63 $ 14.05 * 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)-NN GSF refers to "Net New Gross Square Footage" and includes credits for demolished existing building areas, typical. (2) -Amenities building viewed as accessory use to R&D use, and therefore charged at the R&D rate structure. (3) -Sewer Capacity Fee calculation will vary by use based on application of Resolution 39-2010. (4) -Fee cred it allocated under R&D Fee. I I PHASE 1 LANDS OF BMR 1000 GATEWAY LP ADJUSTED PARCEL A OF LLANO. 2016-001 LANDS OF ~«:}; BMR 750,800, 850 GATEWAY LP ~v ~ ADJUSTED PARCEL 8 / ~'ft / OF LLANO. 2016-00J_, tt~ PHASE 3 4:,~ / @'fr< LANDS OF BMR 700 GATEWAY LP PARCEL A (63 PM 79-80) / ' / ' V EXHIBIT F LANDS OF BMR 900 GATEWAY LP / / EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE ADJUSTED ILLUSTRATIVE PLAT FUTURE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 1111111 ' RESOLUTION NO. 2857-2020 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DAA20-0003) TO THE GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND BETWEEN BMR GATEWAY OF PACIFIC I LP, BMR GATEWAY OF PACIFIC II LP, BMR GATEWAY OF PACIFIC III LP, AND BMR GATEWAY OF PACIFIC IV LP TO MAKE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO AMEND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE AGREEMENT DURATION. WHEREAS , in 2010 the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted (1) Resolution No. 18-2010 certifying the 2009 Environmental Impact Report (“2009 EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008062059), (2) Resolution No. 19-2010 approving a general plan amendment and transportation demand management (TDM) program, (3) Ordinance No. 1422-2010 amending Chapters 20.57 and 20.120 of the Zoning Ordinance, and (4) Ordinance No. 1423-2010 approving a development agreement with Chamberlin Associates, for the construction of five to six R&D/ Office buildings, two to four parking structures, and related improvements on an approximately 22.6-acre site located at 700-1000 Gateway Boulevard; and WHEREAS, in 2013 the City adopted (1) Resolution No. 43-2013 making findings and relying on the previously certified 2009 EIR, (2) Resolution No. 44-2013 approving modifications to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan, a new Phase 1 Precise Plan, and modifications to the TDM program, and (3) Ordinance No. 1471-2013 adopting a First Amended and Restated Development Agreement with Gateway of Pacific LP (“BioMed Realty”); and WHEREAS, in 2018 the City adopted Ordinance No. 1559-2018 adopting a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement with BMR Gateway of Pacific I LP, BMR Gateway of Pacific II LP, BMR Gateway of Pacific III LP, and BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP to allow for minor modifications to the agreement, including acknowledgement of the transfer and assignment of the separate parcels to the respective affiliates, acknowledgement of lot line adjustment between Phases 1 and 2, and confirmation that each property owner holds the compliance burdens, obligations, and responsibilities for its respective parcel of property under the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, in February 2020 the City adopted Ordinance No. 1595-2020 adopting a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement which substituted payment of a fee that will enable the Cit y to build a childcare facility in lieu of having the applicants construct or open a replacement childcare facility on or within one mile of the project site; and WHEREAS, BioMed Realty (“Owner” or “Applicant”) submitted an application requesting a Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement to allow for a minor modification to the agreement related to the expiration date and the updated park fee requirement; and WHEREAS, the 2009 EIR was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, the modifications contemplated in the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated 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 2009 EIR certified by City Council, nor does the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement constitute a change in the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on August 6, 2020, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the proposed Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement, as well as supporting documents, prior to the Planning Commission making its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW THEREFORE, 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 Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; 2009 EIR, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed August 6, 2020 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 and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Exhibit attached to this Resolution, the proposed Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Exhibit A Attachment 1), is incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. B. Development Agreement Findings 1. The Owner and City have negotiated a Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq. The Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated 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 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, the Gateway Specific Plan, and any applicable zoning regulations. 2. The Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated 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 physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The General Pla n 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 Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice because the modifications are minor in nature. 4. The Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare because the amendment preserves a campus-like environment. 5. The Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property valued because the amendment improves the property’s campus-like environment and is consistent with surrounding R&D and office uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, 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 an ordinance approving the proposed Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA20-0003) for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project 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 regular meeting held on the 6th day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Chair Wong, Vice-Chair Evans, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner Shihadeh, Commissioner Murphy, Commissioner Bernardo, Commissioner Tzang NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: RECUSE: Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-531 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:9a. Ordinance adopting a Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA20-0003)between the City of South San Francisco and between BMR Gateway of Pacific I LP,BMR Gateway of Pacific II LP,BMR Gateway of Pacific III LP,and BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project to make minor modifications. WHEREAS,BMR -Gateway/Oyster LP (“Owner”or “Applicant”)received entitlements for the phased removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6-acre project site and construction of five to six new buildings and two to four parking structures,in five phases,to be located at the corner of Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards (700,750,800,850,900,and 1000 Gateway Boulevard),in the Gateway Specific Plan Area (“Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project” or “Project”); and WHEREAS,on February 10,2010,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.1423-2010,approving and adopting a development agreement for the property at 700-1000 Gateway Boulevard (“Property”); and WHEREAS,on May 8,2013,the City Council adopted Ordinance No.1471-2013 concerning a First Amended and Restated Development Agreement between City and Applicant (“First Amended DA”); and WHEREAS,on June 27,2018,the City Council adopted Ordinance No.1599-2018 concerning a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement between City and BMR Gateway of Pacific I LP,BMR Gateway of Pacific II LP,BMR Gateway of Pacific III LP,and BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP to allow for minor modifications to the agreement,including acknowledgement of the transfer and assignment of the separate parcels to the respective affiliates,acknowledgement of lot line adjustment between Phases 1 and 2, and confirmation that each property owner holds the compliance burdens,obligations,and responsibilities for its respective parcel of property under the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement; and WHEREAS,on February 26,2020 the City adopted Ordinance No.1595-2020 adopting a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement which substituted payment of a fee that will enable the City to build a childcare facility in lieu of having the applicants construct or open a replacement childcare facility on or within one mile of the project site; and WHEREAS,Applicant submitted an application requesting a Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement to allow for a minor modification to the agreement related to the replacement childcare obligations; and, WHEREAS,the City Council certified the 2009 Environmental Impact Report (“2009 EIR”)on February 10, 2010 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, City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-531 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:9a. WHEREAS,the modifications contemplated in the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated 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 2009 EIR certified by City Council,nor does the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement constitute a change in the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and, WHEREAS,on August 6,2020 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement,and recommended that the City Council consider the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 9,2020 to consider the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement, and take public testimony. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: 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 Environmental Impact Report;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;2009 EIR,and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed August 6,2020 meeting;all site plans,reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed public hearing on September 9,2020;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 Exhibit attached to this Ordinance,the proposed Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (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 Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A,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 City Council finds that the Development Agreement,vesting a project for a campus-style development of office and R&D buildings,is consistent with the consistent with the objectives,policies,general land uses and programs City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-531 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:9a. R&D buildings,is consistent with the consistent with the objectives,policies,general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan,the Gateway Specific Plan,and any applicable zoning regulations. E.The Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated 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 physically 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. F.The Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice. G.The Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare because the amendment preserves a campus-like environment. H.The Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property valued because the amendment improves the property’s campus-like environment and is consistent with surrounding R&D and office uses. SECTION 2.Approval of Development Agreement A.The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement with BMR Gateway of Pacific I LP,BMR Gateway of Pacific II LP,BMR Gateway of Pacific III LP,and BMR Gateway of Pacific IV LP,attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. B.The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated 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, City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-531 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:9a. 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. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2020Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ DRAFT July 21, 2020 Page 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Exempt from recording fees per Government Code §§6103, 27383 ______________________________________________________________________________ Space above this line reserved for recorder’s use APNs: 015-023-290; 015-023-300 015-023-200; 015-023-320; 015-023-430; 015-023-190; 015-023-310 SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC I LP, BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC II LP, BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC III LP, AND BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC IV LP SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project DRAFT July 21, 2020 SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project This SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECT is dated __________ ___, 2020 (“Second Amendment”). This Second Amendment is between BMR-Gateway of Pacific I LP, formerly known as BMR-700 Gateway LP (“BMR- Gateway of Pacific I”); BMR-Gateway of Pacific II LP, formerly known as BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway LP (“BMR-Gateway of Pacific II”); BMR-Gateway of Pacific III LP, formerly known as BMR-900 Gateway LP (“BMR-Gateway of Pacific III”); and BMR-Gateway of Pacific IV LP, formerly known as BMR-1000 Gateway LP (“BMR-Gateway of Pacific IV”); all of which are Delaware limited partnerships (collectively “Owners” and individually “Owner”), on the one hand, 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. Each Owner and the Cit y are individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively referred to herein as “Parties.” R E C I T A L S A. WHEREAS, Owners and City are parties to that certain Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project) by and between the Owners and City, dated August 31, 2018, and recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County on September 7, 2018, as Document Number 2018-070317 (“Development Agreement ”); B. WHEREAS, Owners and City entered into a First Amendment to the Development Agreement, dated March 30, 2020, and recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County on April 10, 2020, as Document Number 2020-032850 (“First Amendment”); C. WHEREAS, in connection with the City’s consideration of a Precise Plan for development of Phase 4 of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project, Owners and City again wish to amend the Development Agreement as set forth in this Second Amendment ; D. WHEREAS, all proceedings necessary for the valid adoption and execution of this Second Amendment have taken place in accordance with California Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5, the California Environmental Quality Act, and Chapter 19.60 of the City’s Municipal Code; E. WHEREAS, the City Council and the City Planning Commission have found that the Development Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment and this Second Amendment, is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan; and SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 3 F. WHEREAS, on __________ ___, 2020, the City adopted Ordinance Number ____-2020 approving and adopting this Second Amendment, and such ordinance took effect 30 days later. A G R E E M E N T NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the City’s Municipal Code, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows: 1. Extended Duration. Section 2 of the Development Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: This Agreement shall expire on December 31, 2030. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if litigation against an 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 such Owner’s parcel of Property of the “Project ” (as defined in Section 3 below), the expiration date of this Agreement as applicable to that Owner’s parcel and obligations of such Owner 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. 2. Updated Park Fee Requirement . Section 12(a)(2) of the Development Agreement and Section 1.3.1 of Exhibit E-1 to the Development Agreement are each amended and restated in their entirety to read as follows: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee (SSFMC, Chapter 8.67; Ordinance 1520- 2016). The City has adopted a “Parks and Recreation Impact Fee” to maintain park service levels and provide adequate parks and recreational services and facilities to residents of the city. An Owner shall pay the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee, as described in Chapter 8.67 of Title 8 of the Municipal Code, to the extent applicable to the phase of the Project to be developed by such Owner . 3. Updated Fee Estimate. Exhibit E-2 to the Development Agreement is amended such that the tenth row of the second table counting from the top is amended and restated to state “Parks and Recreation Impact Fee (Section 12(a)(2) of DA)” in the Fee Category column, “$1.12 per GSF” in the Rate column, [“____________”] in the All Phases Fee columns, and [“$528,463.04”] in the Phase 1 Fee column. 4. Effective Date. Pursuant to Section 19.60.140 of the City’s Municipal Code, notwithstanding the fact that the City Council adopted an ordinance approving this Second Amendment, this Second Amendment shall be effective and shall only creat e obligations for the Parties from and after the date that the ordinance approving this Second Amendment takes effect. SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 4 5. Full Force and Effect . As amended by the First Amendment and this Second Amendment, the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Counterparts. This Second Amendment may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed an original, and may be signed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the Parties on the day and year first above written. (Signatures appear on the following pages) SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 5 CITY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: __________________________ Name: __________________________ Its: City Manager ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Attorney OWNERS: BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC I LP By: ___________________________ Name: ___________________________ Its: ___________________________ BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC II LP By: ___________________________ Name: ___________________________ Its: ___________________________ BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC III LP By: ___________________________ Name: ___________________________ Its: ___________________________ BMR-GATEWAY OF PACIFIC IV LP By: ___________________________ Name: ___________________________ Its: ___________________________ DRAFT July 21, 2020 SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 6 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 _______________________ ) ) County of _____________________ ) On ____________________, before me, ______________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the per son(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature______________________________ (Seal) 148459296.4 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-424 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services contract with Traffop Corp of Scottsdale, Arizona to procure an automated traffic signal performance measures (ATSPM) system for the East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) in an amount not to exceed $278,410. (Bianca Liu, Senior Engineer) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services contract with Traffop Corp of Scottsdale,Arizona to procure an automated traffic signal performance measures (ATSPM)system for the East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) in an amount not to exceed $278,410. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In 2017,MTC issued a call for projects for a new regional grant program called Innovative Deployments to Enhance Arterials (IDEA).In September 2017,in response to the call for projects through MTC,staff submitted a Category 1 grant application for the East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No.tr1902), which would include implementation of a Variable Lane Assignment (VLA)and procurement of an Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM)System.In February 2018,staff was notified the City’s application was approved for grant funding. On September 12,2018,the City Council adopted Resolution No.149-2018 and 152-2018,authorizing the City Manager to execute the Funding Agreements for the IDEA Category 1 Project with MTC,as part of the East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902). The IDEA program was designed as a funding opportunity to support agencies to deploy advanced technologies along arterials to enhance mobility,sustainability,and safety across all modes of transportation.The core goals of IDEA are to: 1. Improve travel time and travel time reliability along arterials for autos and transit vehicles; 2. Improve safety of motorists, transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians; 3. Decrease motor vehicle emissions and fuel consumption; and 4. Improve knowledge of and proficiency in the use of advanced technologies for arterial operations. The East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) proposes to improve arterial operations and enhance safety at signalized intersections throughout the City starting with the East of 101 area by deploying an Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM) system. This project will deploy an ATSPM system at 33 signalized intersections along several corridors in South San Francisco that either parallel US 101, or feed into it. These corridors are critical to the City and region considering they serve as de facto bypass routes to the I-380 and US 101 freeways in the event of incidents or major congestion. In addition to this project, the City is implementing other transportation technology enhancements in the project area aimed at moving traffic more efficiently through these corridors. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-424 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. The project intersections are shown in Figure 1. The arterials include: ·Airport Boulevard: Tower Place to S Produce Avenue (7 signals) o Airport Blvd & Tower Place o Airport Blvd & Sister Cities Blvd o Airport Blvd & Butler Avenue o Airport Blvd & Linden Avenue o Airport Blvd & Miller Avenue o Airport Blvd & Grand Avenue o Airport Blvd & Baden Avenue ·Oyster Point Boulevard: Gateway Boulevard to Marina Boulevard (7 signals) o Oyster Point Blvd & Gateway Blvd o Oyster Point Blvd & Veterans Blvd o Oyster Point Blvd & FED Ex o Oyster Point Blvd & Eccles West o Oyster Point Blvd & Eccles East o Oyster Point Blvd & Gull Drive o Oyster Point Blvd & Marina Blvd ·Grand Avenue: Dubuque Avenue to Haskins Way (8 signals) o Gateway Blvd & Grand Ave o Grand Ave & Dubuque Ave o Grand Ave & E Grand Ave o E Grand Ave & Harbor Way o E Grand Ave & Point Grand o E Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave o E Grand Ave & Haskins Way o E Grand Ave & Roebling Road ·Forbes Boulevard: Eccles Avenue to Gull Drive (2 signals) o Forbes Blvd & Gull Drive o Forbes Blvd & Eccles Ave ·Gateway Boulevard: Corporate Drive to 701 (4 signals) o Gateway Blvd & 701 Gateway Blvd o Gateway Blvd & 651 Gateway Blvd o Gateway Blvd & 601 Gateway Blvd o Gateway Blvd & Corporate Drive ·South Airport Boulevard: Mitchell Avenue to United (5 signals) o S Airport Blvd & S Produce Ave o S Airport Blvd & Mitchell Ave City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-424 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. o S Airport Blvd & Utah Ave o S Airport Blvd & Belle Air Road o S Airport Blvd & United/Parking lot The ATSPM system will allow the City to proactively address operational issues by adjusting traffic signals to respond to the needs of the traveling public.The City can monitor and adjust timing plans along intersecting arterials in the East of 101 area during activation of Caltrans incident management flush plans. On March 2,2020,staff began advertising a Request for Proposals (RFP)to provide and implement an ATSPM system as part of the East 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (tr1902).The RFP was advertised on the City’s website and notifications were sent via email to all known vendors of ATSPM systems.The RFP required a system vendor capable of meeting the system requirements included in the Systems Engineering document and furnishing the required software and training.The RFP included language that provided for the basis of the project award to be the best overall value to the City.Due to the recent shelter-in-place order,the City has extended the deadline for the Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM)System RFP.In response to the advertisement, four proposals from the firms listed below were received on May 1, 2020. System Vendor Office Location of Proposer Cubic/Gridsmart Knoxville, TN Econolite Systems Anaheim, CA Iteris Santa Ana, CA Traffop Corp Scottsdale, AZ All of the proposals were evaluated and found to be responsive.Each of the four proposals offered most of the features required by the System Requirements document included in the RFP.A panel of five members was formed,consisting of four City staff and a Principal Transportation Engineer from MTC.The City invited the three top ranked consultants,Econolite,Traffop and Iteris,to vendor interviews held on July 15,2020.The interview panel determined Traffop to be the most suitable vendor to procure the ATSPM System. The RFP required a two-part cost proposal,initial project costs for Years 1 through 3,and project costs for Years 4 through 10. The initial project costs are paid for the MTC through the IDEA grant. The initial project costs include project management;furnish and install ATSPM system;configuration, integration,and deployment;system testing and acceptance;training and training documentation;system documentation;and system license,warranty,and support for Years 1 through 3.The project costs for Years 4 through 10 include only the system license, warranty, and support. FISCAL IMPACT This project is included in the City of South San Francisco’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program (Project No.tr1902)and is funded by the MTA IDEA Grant and East of 101 Traffic Impact Fees. Traffop Corp was selected to provide an ATSPM system for the project with a total cost of $253,100,and a proposed total contract amount of $278,410,which includes a ten percent (10%)contingency to cover any unforeseen conditions or expenses. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-424 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. Bid Item Price Funding Source Initial Deployment and Years 1 - 3 $144,585 MTC IDEA Grant Years 4 - 10 $108,515 Traffic Impact Fees 10% Contingency (Years 1 - 3 Costs)$14,458.50 MTC IDEA Grant 10% Contingency (Years 4-10 Costs)$10,851.50 Traffic Impact Fees RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Approval of this action will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan outcome of improved Quality of Life by deploying advanced technologies along arterials to enhance mobility,sustainability,and safety across all modes of transportation. CONCLUSION Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services contract with Traffop Corp of Scottsdale, Arizona to procure an automated traffic signal performance measures (ATSPM) system for the East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) in an amount not to exceed $278,410. Attachments: 1.Figure 1 Project Locations 2.Powerpoint Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/4/2020Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Attachment 1 EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT (TR1902) SEPTEMBER 09, 2020 1 Attachment 2 WHAT IS AN AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES (ATSPM) SYSTEM •ATSPM system allows for retrieval, storage and visualization of granular signal data •It measures operational performance of signals •Enables better decision making and proactive traffic operation •Essential tool for engineers to enhance traffic operations 2 WHAT ATSPM SYSTEM PROVIDES Continuously available data Data that is comparable across the entire system Automated alerts for maintenance and operational issues Sharable reports that summarize the impact of maintenance and operational activities 3 Location Map 4 SELECTION PROCESS o RFP issued on February 28 o Deadline Extension due to Shelter-in- Place Order o Proposals received April 30 o Interviews held July15 Traffop Corp. Cubic ITS, Inc. Econolite Systems Iteris, Inc. 5 AWARDING GUIDELINES Consultant (professional services) •Consultant is selected through a qualifications based selection Contractor (construction) •Contracts are awarded to the lowest responsive responsible bidder 6 RECOMMENDATION Thorough understanding of the existing system and approach to utilize existing communication and traffic signal system to provide complete ATSPM capabilities. Positive feedback from existing clients/users Integration with Waze/Google, adding origin- destination modules, etc.. 7 FUNDING AND BUDGET East of 101 Impact FeesIdea Grant Funding $144,585 $108,515 TOTAL AMOUNT $278,410 10% Contingency $25,310 8 EXAMPLE: COVID-19 TRENDS 9 EXAMPLE: COVID-19 TRENDS 10 EXAMPLE: COVID-19 TRENDS 11 The Grand Boulevard Initiative QUESTIONS? 12 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-425 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:10a. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services contract with Traffop Corp of Scottsdale, Arizona to procure an automated traffic signal performance measures (ATSPM) system for the East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) in an amount not to exceed $278,410. WHEREAS, The East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) proposes to improve arterial operations and enhance safety at signalized intersections by deploying an Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM) system; and WHEREAS, this project will deploy an ATSPM system at 33 signalized intersections located East of 101; and WHEREAS,the City submitted a grant application in September 2017 to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)under a new regional initiative called the Innovative Deployments to Enhance Arterials (IDEA) to procure an ATSPM system and Variable Lane Assignment (VLA); and WHEREAS,in February 2018,the City was notified that MTC approved the grant application for an amount up to $532,000; and WHEREAS,On March 2,2020,staff began advertising a Request for Proposals (RFP)to provide and implement an ATSPM system as part of the East 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (tr1902); and WHEREAS,the RFP required a system vendor capable of meeting the system requirements included in the Systems Engineering document and furnishing the required software and training; and WHEREAS,the RFP required a two-part cost proposal,initial project costs for Years 1 through 3,and project costs for Years 4 through 10. The initial project are paid for the MTC through the IDEA grant; and WHEREAS,in response to the advertisement,four proposals from the firms listed below were received on May 1, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City invited the three top ranked consultants, Econolite, Traffop and Iteris, to vendor interviews held on July 15, 2020; and WHEREAS, the interview panel determined Traffop to be the most suitable vendor to procure the ATSPM System; and WHEREAS, this project is included in the City of South San Francisco’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program (Project No. tr1902) and is funded by the MTA IDEA Grant and East of 101 Traffic Impact Fees. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/17/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-425 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:10a. WHEREAS, Traffop Corp was selected to provide an ATSPM system for the project with a total cost of $253,100, and a proposed total contract amount of $278,410, which includes a ten percent (10%) contingency to cover any unforeseen conditions or expenses; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves a professional services agreement with Traffop Corp of Scottsdale, Arizona to procure an automated traffic signal performance measures (ATSPM) system for the East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) in an amount not to exceed $278,410. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the agreement and any other related documents on behalf of the City upon timely submission by Traffopp Corp. of the signed contract and all other documents, subject to approval by the City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to take any other related actions consistent with the intention of the resolution. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/17/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-524 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. Report regarding an ordinance amending Section 4.04.040 of Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to permit utilization of cooperative purchasing processes between public agencies for public works projects (Eunejune Kim, Public Works Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 4.04.040 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to Cooperative and Inter-Governmental Agency Procurement Processes,and waive further reading. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City of South San Francisco (“City”)Municipal Code Chapter 4.04 governs the City’s purchasing processes and sets forth various procedures with which the City must comply to perform public works projects and to acquire goods and services. In particular,Section 4.04.040 authorizes the City to “piggyback”on other governmental contracts,provided the agency uses a quote or bid process that substantially conforms to state law-mandated procedures and provisions of Chapter 4.04.This provision is derived from California Government Code section 6500 et.seq., which permits California and out-of-state public agencies to jointly exercise any power common to them, including their purchasing powers.However,Section 4.04.040 of the Municipal Code excludes “public projects”as defined by the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (Public Contract Code section 22000 et seq.) (“Act”) from being able to piggyback on such contracts. The Act provides an alternative means for municipalities to streamline public works contract procurements if they choose to adopt the accounting procedures set forth under the Act.The City has adopted these procedures and utilizes the Act’s alternative bidding procedures to perform public works projects under the most current applicable dollar thresholds set by the Act and as may be adjusted by inflation from time to time.The current Municipal Code has only two options of procuring ‘public project” contracts: 1.Projects under the current dollar threshold set by the Act,which is $200,000,can utilize the alternative informal bidding procedure, which requires posting of public notice and bid solicitation. 2.Projects exceeding the current $200,000 threshold are formally bid in compliance with the Public Contract Code,which generally requires public works projects to contain plans and specifications prepared by an engineer,be advertised,follow a formal bid process outlined in the Public Contract Code; with project awarded by Council to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Staff recommends amending Section 4.04.040 to allow public projects to utilize a third option:“piggybacking” on a governmental contract that has been competitively bid utilizing the same or substantially same procedures as those required by the Public Contract Code and the South San Francisco Municipal Code. In addition,amending the Municipal Code to allow piggybacking in public projects would allow the City to City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/3/2020Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-524 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. In addition,amending the Municipal Code to allow piggybacking in public projects would allow the City to utilize Job Order Contracts (“JOC”)for routine and recurring public projects,increasing efficiency and reducing project costs. The JOC process is a cooperative purchasing process that the City can utilize,if it is consistent with the requirements of both state and local competitive bidding law. Sometimes referred to as indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ)purchases,the JOC process is a contract for a fixed term or maximum dollar value,whichever occurs first,in which a contractor is selected based on a competitive bid to perform various separate job orders in the future,during the life of the contract.JOCs are utilized for well-defined or repetitive work where streamlined execution is necessary and beneficial.JOC is not typically used for single-occurrence,large-scale projects.Like other public works project procurement,the JOC process must comply with the California Public Contract Code in order for the City to utilize. Sourcewell (formerly known as the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA))is a Minnesota public entity with authority to serve as a contracting agency for municipalities.Specifically,Sourcewell was created to provide cooperative services and programs to its members,which are public agencies located in Minnesota,California and numerous other states.Sourcewell is governed by a board of directors comprised of eight local elected officials including county commissioners, city council members, and school board members. The City is a member agency of Sourcewell,and consistent with California Government Code section 6500 and pursuant to Minnesota law (Minn.Stat.§471.59),public agencies that are members of Sourcewell are authorized to jointly exercise cooperative purchasing powers and piggyback on purchasing contracts utilized by each other.The City has previously utilized Sourcewell to purchase materials and equipment pursuant to state law authority permitting such exercise of joint purchasing powers. Amending the Purchasing Procedures under the Municipal Code would permit the City to utilize the Sourcewell JOC process for public works projects.This would be efficient and economical for the City if it takes advantage of this national cooperative contract-purchasing program.Sourcewell contracts are formally, competitively bid by using pricing and construction data tailored to the local regions where the contracts would ultimately be awarded.This entity competitively bids construction tasks with pre-set unit prices and specifications for the underlying public work,including material,equipment,and labor costs.The bid submissions are then reviewed according to the specifications for Sourcewell to compile a list of competitive and qualified bidders. In working with Sourcewell,the City would select from a list of prequalified bidders selected pursuant to the competitive bidding process for the type of project it intends to carry out.With Sourcewell’s assistance,the City would be able to piggyback on the competitively bid contracts plus additional local conditions.The City thus benefits from the reduced pricing and other competitive terms made possible by large volume regional contracts.Staff understands this competitive bid process is consistent with the noticing and bidding procedures required by the Public Contract Code.Even for projects that would otherwise qualify for the less stringent alternative,informal bidding process under the Act,or for projects that would not require bidding at all,the JOC process through Sourcewell would still formally bid such projects out to compile a list of qualified bidders.Thus,as the JOC prequalification process is more stringent than what the City would otherwise be required to carry out under informal bidding processes,the City would be permitted to utilize the cooperative purchasing process while still be able to comply with adopted rules and procedures for purchasing. Examples of recurring,repetitive projects that would benefit from utilizing the JOC process include City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/3/2020Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-524 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. Examples of recurring,repetitive projects that would benefit from utilizing the JOC process include construction, installations, maintenance, repair and other work related to the following: ·Alarm / Security / Fire Alarm ·Air Conditioning and Heating ·Appliance, fence, windows, doors, and glass repair ·Concrete and paving ·Mechanical, plumbing and roofing ·Landscape maintenance and pest control ·Custodial work, floor care, cleaning and restoration work Amending section 4.04.040 would allow the City to utilize the governmental cooperative purchasing process for public works projects if they comply with state and local competitive bidding requirements,and in particular would be able to utilize the JOC process for recurring and repetitive public projects to provide efficiency and cost savings in performing such work. FISCAL IMPACT Amending the Municipal Code and allowing the City to utilize “piggybacking”for Public Projects will streamline the procurement process;resulting in greater efficiencies and overall project savings resulting from reductions in staff time and administrative costs currently associated with the informal bid process. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Amending section 4.04.040 of the Municipal Code supports Strategic Plan to improve Quality of Life by allowing staff to provide services to the community in an efficient, cost-effective manner. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to Job-Order-Contract Procurement Process and waive reading. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/3/2020Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-525 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:11a. Ordinance amending Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to Purchasing Procedures to permit utilization of cooperative purchasing processes between public agencies for public works projects. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)Municipal Code Chapter 4.04 governs the City’s purchasing processes; and WHEREAS,Government Code section 6500 et.seq.permits California public agencies and other public entities nationwide to jointly exercise any power common to them, including their purchasing powers; and WHEREAS,Section 4.04.040 of Chapter 4.04 authorizes the City to “piggyback”on governmental contracts by utilizing contracts and terms that have been negotiated by another governmental agency as long as that agency has used a quote or bid process that substantially conforms to state law-mandated procedures and provisions of Chapter 4.04;however,it excludes “public projects”as defined by the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (Public Contract Code section 22000 et seq.)(“the Act”)from being able to piggyback on such contracts; and WHEREAS,the Act provides for alternative informal bidding procedures for qualifying public works projects under applicable dollar thresholds set by the Act and as may be adjusted by inflation from time to time,and the City currently utilizes such alternative bidding procedures; and WHEREAS,staff recommends that Section 4.04.040 be amended to allow public projects to also utilize piggybacking if the other governmental contract has been competitively bid out in accordance with Public Contract Code and Municipal Code requirements; and WHEREAS,amendment to Section 4.04.040 would permit the City to utilize cooperative purchasing mechanisms between public agencies,such as the Job Order Contract (JOC)process for repetitive,recurring public works projects,as long as such process is just as or more competitive than the procedures required by the Public Contract Code, including all noticing and bidding requirements; and WHEREAS,to illustrate,staff has currently identified a Sourcewell,a public joint powers authority (formerly known as the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA)),that utilizes a formal competitive bidding process, consistent with the noticing and bidding procedures required by the Public Contract Code,to prequalify bidders City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-525 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:11a. for recurring and repetitive public works projects; and WHEREAS,the City is currently a member of Sourcewell and presently utilizes the Sourcewell JOC process to purchase materials and equipment pursuant to state law authority permitting such exercise of joint purchasing powers,and would further benefit from reduced pricing and other competitive terms made possible by large volume regional contracts; and WHEREAS,amending Section 4.04.040 would permit the City to utilize cooperative purchasing mechanisms between public agencies,including the Sourcewell JOC process,for recurring,repetitive public projects while still remaining within the City's adopted rules and procedures for purchasing; and WHEREAS,based on all of the information presented at the September 9,2020 City Council meeting,both written and oral,including without limitation the public comment,staff reports,minutes,and other relevant materials (hereafter the “Record”),the City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2)of the CEQA Guidelines because the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment,and Section 15060(c)(3)of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed ordinance amendment is not a “project”as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines,because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. 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 1.Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council of South San Francisco,finds that all Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2.Amendments Section 4.04.040,“Agreements With Other Governmental Agencies”,of Chapter 4.04,“Purchasing System”,is hereby amended as follows,with strikethrough 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. Chapter 4.04 Purchasing System . . . 4.04.040 Agreements with other governmental agencies. (a)The department head may authorize in writing any other governmental agency to purchase or contract for specified supplies,services and equipment.He or she shall ensure that such purchases or contracts by otherCity of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-525 Agenda Date:9/9/2020 Version:1 Item #:11a. for specified supplies,services and equipment.He or she shall ensure that such purchases or contracts by other governmental agencies be made in conformance with the procedures established by state law.This authority includes the authority to act as lead agency when appropriate. (b)Except for public projects as defined by the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act,Section 22000 et seq.,of the Public Contract Code,Except for public projects that are subject to formal bid procedures pursuant to this chapter,city purchases may be made by taking advantage of valid contract terms that have been negotiated by another governmental agency,if that agency had used a quote or bid process that substantially conforms with the procedures established by state law and this chapter.In these cases,city staff shall verify and document such conformance. . . . SECTION 3.Severability If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. 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. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/23/2020Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™