Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07.13.22@600 Regular CC
Wednesday, July 13, 2022 6:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA City Council Regular Meeting Agenda TELECONFERENCE MEETING Zoom Link: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/85616625110 1 July 13, 2022City Council Regular Meeting Agenda TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE 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 Coleman, Flores and Addiego, Vice Mayor Nicolas and Mayor Nagales 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. The City Council will meet by teleconference, consistent with the Brown Act as amended by AB 361 (2021). Under the amended rules, the City will not provide a physical location for members of the public to participate in the teleconference meeting. American Disability Act: The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at all-cc@ssf.net. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 72-hours before the meeting. Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability -related modification or accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the City Clerk by email at all-cc@ssf.net, 72-hours before the meeting. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of South San Francisco to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022 2 July 13, 2022City Council Regular Meeting Agenda ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED Join Zoom meeting https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/85616625110 (Enter your email and name) Join by One Tap Mobile : US: +16694449171,,85616625110# or +16699006833,,85616625110# Join by Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 856 1662 5110 How to observe the Meeting (no public comment): 1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26, Comcast, Channel 27, or AT&T, Channel 99 2) https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council Meeting: Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via the eComment tab by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link : https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff. How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting: 1) By Phone: (669) 900-6833. Webinar ID is 856 1662 5110. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to unmute when called. By One tap mobile: US: +16694449171,,85616625110# or +16699006833,,85616625110# 2) Online at: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/85616625110 a. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. b. When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. c. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022 3 July 13, 2022City Council Regular Meeting Agenda PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The City Council's regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. MARK NAGALES, Mayor (District 2) BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Vice Mayor (At-Large) JAMES COLEMAN, Councilmember (District 4) EDDIE FLORES, Councilmember (At-Large) MARK ADDIEGO, Councilmember (At-Large) 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 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022 4 July 13, 2022City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PRESENTATIONS Presentation of a proclamation designating July as Parks and Recreation Month in South San Francisco. (Mark Nagales, Mayor) 1. Presentation on Stage Two of Water Shortage Contingency Plans (Christina Fernandez, Chief Sustainability Officer; Mike Utz, California Water District Assistant District Manager; and Anthony Meyer, California Water District Conservation Coordinator) 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Comments received by the deadline will be included as part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud during the meeting. The Public Comment portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter NOT on the agenda. Comments on agenda items will be taken when that item is called. If joining the conference by phone you may raise your hand by dialing *9 and *6 to unmute. State law prevents Council from responding to public comments or taking action on matters not on the agenda . The Council may refer comments to staff for follow -up. Speakers are limited to three minutes. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce speaking time to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).). Speakers that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum will be muted. COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of June 22, 2022.3. Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022 5 July 13, 2022City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $4,520 in funding from San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division to support a 30-Day Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and approving Budget Amendment 23.004. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director) 4. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $4,520 in funding from San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division to support a 30-Day Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and approving Budget Amendment 23.004. 4a. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $5,985 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 23.007. (Adam Elsholz, Assistant Library Director) 5. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $5,985 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 23.007. 5a. Report regarding a resolution to continue conducting City Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and making related findings (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 6. Resolution of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco declaring the continuing need for the City legislative bodies to meet remotely to ensure the health and safety of the public and making related findings. 6a. Report regarding approval of a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $25,000 in grant funding from Genentech and $10,000 from the South San Francisco Rotary Club to support the Every Kid Deserves a Bike program (EKDAB) and approving Budget Amendment 22.072. (Tamiko Huey, Management Analyst II) 7. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $25,000 in grant funding from Genentech and $10,000 from the South San Francisco Rotary Club to support the Every Kid Deserves a Bike program (EKDAB) and approving Budget Amendment #22.072. 7a. Report regarding a resolution amending the City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule to correct the Film Permit Application Fees for Fiscal Year 2022-23. (Karen Chang, Director of Finance) 8. Resolution amending the City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule to correct the Film Permit Application Fees for Fiscal Year 2022-23. 8a. Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022 6 July 13, 2022City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, the City of San Bruno, and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), for the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase of the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project (Project No. st1004) (Angel Torres, Senior Engineer) 9. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, the City of San Bruno, and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), for the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase of the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project (Project No. st1004). 9a. Report regarding adoption of a resolution approving the sale of 109 Longford Drive (APN 010-071-050) to Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzales in the sum of $850,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement (Ashley Crociani, Acting Management Analyst). 10. Resolution approving the sale of 109 Longford Drive (APN 010-071-050), a City of South San Francisco owned property, to Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzalez for the sum of $850,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement. 10a. PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Repeal, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Master Plan Modification, Precise Plan Modification and Development Agreement Amendment, to allow for the transfer of development capacity from adjacent rail spur properties to Phase 4 of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project, including an additional 120,221 square feet to the Gateway of Pacific Phase 4 North building, increasing the building from five-stories to nine-stories, and associated California Environmental Quality Act consideration. (Billy Gross, Principal Planner) 11. Resolution making findings and certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Gateway of Pacific Phase 4 Density Transfer Project. 11a. Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022 7 July 13, 2022City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution making findings and conditionally approving a Specific Plan Repeal, Master Plan Modification and Precise Plan Modification, subject to future approval of a General Plan Amendment, all to allow for the transfer of development capacity from adjacent rail spur properties to Phase 4 of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project, including an additional 120,221 square feet to the Gateway of Pacific Phase 4 North building, increasing the building from five-stories to nine-stories. 11b. Ordinance amending Chapter 20.220 (“Gateway Specific Plan District”) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code 11c. Ordinance adopting a Third Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA21-0003) 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 for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project to make minor modifications. 11d.. Report regarding consideration of applications for a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendments, Precise Plan, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, and Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Southline Project, to redevelop a 28.5-acre industrial site in the Lindenville sub-area with up to 2.8 million square feet of transit-oriented office / R&D and associated amenity uses. (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) 12. Resolution making findings and certifying the Environmental Impact Report, including adoption of CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the Southline Project. 12a. Ordinance adding Chapter 20.290 (“Southline Campus Specific Plan District”) to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map to add the Southline Campus Specific Plan (S-C) Zoning District 12b. Resolution making findings and conditionally approving the Southline Specific Plan, and approving entitlements for Phase 1 of the Southline Specific Plan including a Vesting Tentative Map, Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, Precise Plan, and Design Review for the construction of two office / Research & Development (R&D) buildings totaling 615,000 square feet (sq. ft.), one amenities building totaling 69,710 sq. ft., a parking garage containing approximately 970 parking stalls, open space improvements, and on- and off-site transportation and infrastructure improvements, subject to future approval of a General Plan Amendment 12c. Page 8 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022 8 July 13, 2022City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Ordinance adopting a Development Agreement with LPGS (Tanforan) LLC for the redevelopment of a 28.5 acre industrial site with up to 2.8 million square feet of office / research & development (R&D) uses. 12d. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding adoption of a resolution accepting a Certificate of Sufficiency of Signatures on a Petition for an Initiative Ordinance of an Annual Parcel Tax on Some Commercial Office Properties for Early Care and Education and Childcare and Development Programs and adopting a Resolution Calling for the submission to South San Francisco voters of an Initiative Ordinance to Enact an Annual Parcel Tax on Some Commercial Office Properties for Early Care and Education and Childcare and Development Programs at the General Municipal Election of November 8, 2022, establishing the schedule for submission of Ballot Arguments, and Authorizing the County of San Mateo Elections Division to Conduct the election. (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney and Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) 13. Resolution Accepting a Certificate of Sufficiency of Signatures on a Petition for an Initiative Ordinance of an Annual Parcel Tax on some Commercial Office Properties for Early Care and Education and Childcare and Development Programs 13a. Resolution Calling for the submission to South San Francisco voters of an Initiative Ordinance to Enact an Annual Parcel Tax on Some Commercial Office Properties for Early Care and Education and Childcare and Development Programs at the General Municipal Election of November 8, 2022, establishing the schedule for submission of Ballot Arguments, and Authorizing the County of San Mateo Elections Division to Conduct the election 13b. Study Session regarding a ballot measure to adopt an ordinance authorizing the City of South San Francisco to develop, construct, or acquire affordable, low-rent housing units pursuant to Article XXXIV of the California Constitution, subject to the approval of the voters. (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney and Mike Futrell, City Manager) 14. Report regarding a resolution to approve Letters of Agreement with the Police Association, International Union of Firefighters Local 1507 and Public Safety Managers regarding a one-time payment of additional compensation and a resolution to approve a one-time payment of additional compensation for hourly part-time City employees (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) 15. Page 9 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022 9 July 13, 2022City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution approving Letters of Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and the Police Association, International Association of Firefighters Local 1507, and Public Safety Managers for a one-time payment of additional compensation in the amount of $4,800 per employee and approving budget amendment number 23.006 to appropriate $1,247,000 in funds for fiscal year 2022-2023. 15a. Resolution to approve and authorize payment of additional one-time payment of additional compensation in the amount of $2,000-$4,000 to City of South San Francisco part-time hourly employees. 15b. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Page 10 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022 10 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-512 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:1. Presentation of a proclamation designating July as Parks and Recreation Month in South San Francisco. (Mark Nagales, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™11 July 13, 2022 DESIGNATION OF JULY AS PARK AND RECREATION MONTH WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs are an integral part of communities throughout this country, including South San Francisco; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs are vitally important to establishing and maintaining the quality of life in our communities, ensuring the health of all citizens, and contributing to the economic and environmental well-being of a community and region; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs build healthy, active communities that aid in the prevention of chronic disease, provide therapeutic services for disabled persons, and improve the mental and emotional health of all citizens; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation supports human development and endless learning opportunities that foster social, intellectual, physical and emotional growth in people of all ages and abilities; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation fosters social cohesiveness in communities by celebrating diversity, providing spaces to come together, modeling compassion, promoting social equity, connecting social networks, and ensuring all people have access to its benefits; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation remains versatile and innovative in providing vital services to communities through local, national, or global emergencies including COVID-19, all while adhering to guidelines set forth by governing agencies; and WHEREAS, parks and natural recreation areas improve water quality, protect groundwater, prevent flooding, improve the quality of the air we breathe, provide vegetative buffers to development, and produce habitat for wildlife; and South San Francisco recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources; and WHEREAS, our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors; and U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that July is recognized as Park and Recreation Month in South San Francisco. ________________________________ Mark Nagales, Mayor ________________________________ Buenaflor Nicolas, Vice Mayor ________________________________ Mark Addiego, Councilmember ________________________________ James Coleman, Councilmember ________________________________ Eddie Flores, Councilmember 12 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-540 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:2. Presentation on Stage Two of Water Shortage Contingency Plans (Christina Fernandez, Chief Sustainability Officer; Mike Utz, California Water District Assistant District Manager; and Anthony Meyer, California Water District Conservation Coordinator) City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™13 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-557 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:3. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of June 22, 2022. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™14 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Nagales called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilmember Addiego, present Councilmember Coleman, present Councilmember Flores, present Vice Mayor Nicolas, present Mayor Nagales, present AGENDA REVIEW No changes. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 1. Report regarding the Zoning Ordinance Update (Billy Gross, Principal Planner and Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) Principal Planner Gross presented an overview of the Zoning Ordinance update. The general plan is the long-term roadmap that the local government uses to determine how the community will grow. According to California law, every city must establish a general plan that will serve as a roadmap for future land use choices. The last extensive General Plan update for South San Francisco took place in 1999, while the most recent thorough Zoning Ordinance update took place in 2010. The General Plan Community Advisory Committee (GPCAC) was established by the City Council in early 2019 to oversee the General Plan update process for South San Francisco. The consultant company Raimi & Associates was also chosen to lead the initiative. The update procedure entails the creation of an extensive Environmental Impact Report, a full updating of the General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Zoning Code (EIR). Meetings with the public, GPCAC, Planning Commission, and City Council have been held as part of the process thus far. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2022 5:00 p.m. TELECONFERENCE MEETING via Zoom The City Council may meet by teleconference, consistent with the Brown Act as amended by AB 361 (2021. Under the amended rules, the City will not provide a physical location for members of the public to participate in the teleconference meeting. 15 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 22, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 2 Beginning in March 2022, the Draft General Plan and Draft Climate Action Plan were made available for public review. Study sessions and community involvement on both documents continued through the end of May 2022. The publishing of the Draft Zoning Ordinance is a crucial next step in this procedure. The General Plan must be implemented in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes the land use and development laws. The Zoning Ordinance defines the types of buildings or structures, their permitted, conditionally permitted, or forbidden uses, as well as the desired character of the community (size, height, configuration, and lot coverage). The Draft EIR is projected to be made available for public study and discussion the week of June 13, 2022, with a public comment meeting anticipated to be set before the Planning Commission on July 7, 2022. The General Plan adoption hearings are expected to take place in September or October of 2022. Councilmember Addiego requested clarification on the number of public hearings/meetings and suggested increasing neighborhood meetings to ensure community concerns are heard. Principal Planner Gross provided an overview of the current and recommended SB330 process. City Manager Futrell provided an overview of the current SB330 process and noted the limitations that the council may face under state law due to authority limitations. Mayor Nagales expressed concern with the review process recommended by SB330 and reiterated his desire for the council to be the final body for approval. He stressed the importance of building more childcare facilities throughout the city for working families. Vice Mayor Nicolas supported the proposed changes and noted the community's benefits. Councilmember Flores requested clarification on community benefits priority and requested clarification. Principal Planner Gross provided an overview of the community benefits and approval processes. Councilmember Coleman thanked the staff for the presentation and expressed his support. Mayor Nagales requested that staff provide the council with additional information about the east of 101 housing development, including height limitations. Principal Planner Gross provided an overview of the process, noting the development of the El Camino Real Corridor Plan. Chief Planner Rozzi indicated that staff would provide additional information in the housing element report, including Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the council's consideration. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business Mayor Nagales adjourned the meeting at 5:54 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: Rosa Govea Acosta, MMC, CPMC Mark Nagales City Clerk Mayor Approved by the City Council: / / 16 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-525 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $4,520 in funding from San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division to support a 30-Day Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and approving Budget Amendment 23.004.(Valerie Sommer,Library Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $4,520 in funding from San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division (SMCo Elections)to support a 30- Day Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 8,2022 Statewide General Election and approving Budget Amendment 23.004. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION From October 10,2022 through November 8,2022,South San Francisco Main Library will serve as a Vote Center for the upcoming November 8,2022 Statewide General Election.Although San Mateo County has gone to an all-mailed ballot election,Vote Centers are still needed for residents with ballot issues or who need assistance 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 assistive voting options for residents with disabilities.This will be the ninth election for which the Library,partnering with the City Clerk,provides Vote Center services. Establishment of accessible Vote Centers is an important factor in securing successful voter turnout.Funding will support library staff scheduled on site around regular library hours and Peninsula Library System Network setup costs. FISCAL IMPACT Funds received from SMCo Elections will be used to amend the Library Department’s current FY 2022-2023 Operating Budget per Budget Amendment 23.004.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 a convenient alternative 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 8,2022 Statewide General Election.It is recommended that the City Council accept $4,520 in funding from SMCo for this purpose. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™17 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-526 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:4a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $4,520 in funding from San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division to support a 30-Day Vote Center at the Main Library for the November 8,2022 Statewide General Election and approving Budget Amendment 23.004. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)Strategic Plan includes a goal of creating community connections under Priority #6; and WHEREAS,the South San Francisco Main Library will serve as a 30-Day Vote Center for the upcoming November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election; and WHEREAS,the San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division has awarded the City $4,520 in funding to support the 30-Day 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 access to voting options for residents with disabilities; and WHEREAS,this will be the ninth election for which the Library,partnering with the City Clerk,provides voter services to help encourage a successful voter turnout; and WHEREAS,Library staff recommends to accept funding in the amount of $4,520 from the San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division to support a 30-Day Vote Center; and WHEREAS,funds will be used to amend Fiscal Year (FY)2022-2023 Operating Budget of the Library Department via Budget Amendment 23.004. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby accept $4,520 in funding from the San Mateo County Registration and Elections Division and approve Budget Amendment 23.004 to amend the Library Department’s FY 2022-2023 Operating Budget in order to reflect an increase of $4,520. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™18 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-544 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $5,985 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 23.007. (Adam Elsholz, Assistant Library Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $5,985 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 23.007. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Library Department has been awarded $5,985 in funding from the County of San Mateo to support COVID -19 outreach in South San Francisco in July and August 2022.This funding is in addition to the $19,950 grant accepted by City Council at the October 28,2020 City Council meeting,the $10,000 accepted by City Council at the January 13,2021 City Council meeting,the $19,950 accepted by City Council at the June 9,2021 meeting,and the $19,950 accepted by City Council at the December 8,2021 meeting.Funds will be used to continue providing accurate information about the prevention of COVID-19 and the importance and availability of vaccinations in a variety of languages,including Chinese,English,Spanish and Tagalog,with special emphasis on promoting booster shots,reaching the families of children under five years old,who are now eligible for the vaccine,and providing accurate information on emerging variants and other developments. Library staff will conduct outreach in a variety of formats,including online,by phone,and in-person. Partnering with the Promotores team and utilizing information provided by the County,in-person outreach will once again focus on under-vaccinated neighborhoods in South San Francisco. FISCAL IMPACT Grant funds will be used to amend the Library Department’s FY 2022-2023 Operating Budget per Budget Amendment 23.007. 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 #1:Quality of Life,by providing accurate and important information about preventing the spread of COVID-19 and promoting health and safety measures such as vaccination in our community. CONCLUSION Receipt of these funds will enable the Library to distribute critical information regarding COVID-19 prevention and vaccination.It is recommended that the City Council accept $5,985 in grant funding and approve Budget Amendment 23.007. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™19 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-545 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:5a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $5,985 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 23.007. WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco approved $19,950 in grant funding to support COVID-19 outreach at the October 28, 2020 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco approved $10,000 in grant funding to support COVID-19 outreach at the January 13, 2021 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco approved $19,950 in grant funding to support COVID-19 outreach at the June 9, 2021 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco approved $19,950 in grant funding to support COVID-19 outreach at the December 8, 2021 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS,the County of San Mateo has awarded the City an additional $5,985 in grant funding to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco; and WHEREAS,according to Centers Disease Control and Prevention,COVID-19 is a virus in humans causing respiratory illness which can be spread from person-to-person; and WHEREAS,grant funding provided by the County of San Mateo will be used for outreach activities including tabling,canvassing,flyering,1:1 engagement,phone banking,distribution of masks and promotion in our social media channels; and WHEREAS,Library staff will partner with the Promotores team to focus on under-vaccinated neighborhoods in South San Francisco, utilizing information provided by the County; and WHEREAS,information about the prevention of COVID-19 will be available in a variety of languages, including Chinese,English,Spanish and Tagalog,with special emphasis on promoting vaccination and booster shots,reaching families with children under five years old,and providing accurate information on emerging variants and other developments; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco desires to accept grant funding in the amount of $5,985 from the County of San Mateo to support outreach and distribution of critical information to help the prevention of COVID-19; and WHEREAS,the grant funds will be used to amend Fiscal Year (FY)2022-2023 Operating Budget of the City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™20 File #:22-545 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:5a. Library Department via Budget Amendment 23.007. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby accept $5,985 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council amends the Library Department’s FY 2022-2023 Operating Budget in order to reflect an increase of $5,985, pursuant to budget amendment 23.007. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council hereby authorizes the City to execute the documents necessary to accept the grant funding and take any other actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution on behalf of the City Council, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™21 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-549 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:6. ..Title Report regarding a resolution to continue conducting City Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and making related findings (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to continue allowing the City Council and advisory bodies to conduct meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and making related findings in compliance with AB 361 (2021). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Adopted and signed into law on September 16,2021,Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361)permits local legislative bodies to meet remotely during a declared state of emergency by complying with certain statutory requirements and making certain findings relating to the ability to meet safely in person.After an initial remote meeting utilizing the provisions of AB 361,to continue teleconference meetings the City Council will be required to reconsider the circumstances of the emergency every 30 days that the City’s legislative bodies need to be able to continue to meet remotely to ensure the health and safety of the public. On September 21,2021,the City Council adopted an initial Resolution No.166-2021 making findings and declaring the need for the Council and advisory bodies to continue meeting remotely to ensure the health and safety of the public and authorizing remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e).Since the adoption of those resolutions,the City Council has utilized a hybrid in- person/teleconference meeting model.During this time,the Delta and Omicron variants have surged to be a significant risk and caused case spikes throughout the state.The City has continued to review and has adopted subsequent resolutions to reconsider the public health emergency circumstances and made additional findings required by AB 361.State and local governments have continued to monitor and respond to the trends impacting public health circumstances. The San Mateo County Health Department and the State continues to recommend indoor masking,especially for gatherings that include the elderly,immunocompromised,or people who are not vaccinated.The State of California continues to require masks in certain areas such as public transit,stations,terminals,and airports; healthcare facilities;emergency and homeless shelters;correctional facilities;and long-term care facilities,and continues to recommend masks in indoor public settings,K-12 schools,and childcare facilities.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”)continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six feet (6’) from others outside of the household. The Council is being asked to review the prior AB 361 findings to continue teleconference meetings under AB 361 for the City’s legislative bodies.Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to declare these findings remain true so that these bodies can continue to meet remotely. RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN Continued use of teleconference meetings will promote community participation,contributing to the City’sCity of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™22 File #:22-549 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:6. Continued use of teleconference meetings will promote community participation,contributing to the City’s Strategic Plan Priority No. 6 - Community Connections. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to continue conducting the City’s legislative body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and making related findings in compliance with AB 361 (2021). City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™23 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-550 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:6a. Resolution of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco declaring the continuing need for the City legislative bodies to meet remotely to ensure the health and safety of the public and making related findings. WHEREAS,on March 4,2020,Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available,formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments,and help the State prepare for a broader spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS,on March 11,2020,the City Council adopted Resolution No.35-2020 declaring a local emergency due to COVID-19; and WHEREAS,on May 13,2020,the City Council adopted Resolution No.57-2020 amending and updating a local emergency due to COVID-19; and WHEREAS,on March 17,2020,in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M.Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means; and WHEREAS,as a result of Executive Order N-29-20,staff set up virtual meetings for all City Council and legislative body meetings; and WHEREAS,on June 11,2021,Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21,which placed an end date of September 30, 2021, for agencies to meet remotely; and WHEREAS,since issuing Executive Order N-08-21,the Delta variant has emerged,causing a spike in COVID- 19 cases throughout the state; and WHEREAS,on August 3,2021,in response to the Delta variant,the San Mateo County Health Department ordered all individuals to wear masks when inside public spaces and maintain social distancing; and WHEREAS,on September 16,2021,the Governor signed Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361)(2021)which allows for local legislative bodies to continue to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified conditions, including that the City Council makes specified findings; and WHEREAS,since the passage of AB 361,the Omicron variant has spread across the Bay Area,the state and nationwide,causing an additional spike in COVID-19 cases and creating significantly higher risks of infection and hospitalization; and WHEREAS,in response to the fast-spreading Omicron variant,the California Department of Public Health issued an order on December 15,2021,requiring everyone in the state to wear masks in indoor public spacesCity of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™24 File #:22-550 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:6a. issued an order on December 15,2021,requiring everyone in the state to wear masks in indoor public spaces and workplaces,which order and the County Health Department’s order are effective through February 15, 2022; and WHEREAS,the County Health Department continues to recommend indoor masking,especially for gatherings that include the elderly, immunocompromised, or people who are not vaccinated; and WHEREAS,the State of California continues to require masks in certain areas such as public transit,stations, terminals,and airports;healthcare facilities;emergency and homeless shelters;correctional facilities;and long- term care facilities,and also continues to recommend masks in indoor public settings,K-12 schools,and childcare facilities; and WHEREAS,the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”)continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six feet (6’) from others outside of the household; and WHEREAS,the City cannot maintain social distancing requirements for the public,staff,Councilmembers,and advisory body members in their respective meeting locations; and WHEREAS,because of the rise in cases due to the Delta and Omicron variants,the City is concerned about the health and safety of all individuals who intend to attend Council and advisory body meetings; and WHEREAS,on September 21,2021,the City Council adopted an initial Resolution No.166-2021 making findings and declaring the need for the Council and advisory bodies to continue meeting remotely in order to ensure the health and safety of the public and authorizing remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e),and thereafter has both utilized a hybrid in-person/teleconference meeting model as well as reviewed and adopted additional resolutions reconsidering the circumstances of the public health emergency and making findings and declaring the need for the Council and advisory bodies to continue meeting remotely in order to ensure the health and safety of the public and authorizing remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e); and WHEREAS,the City Council has again reconsidered the circumstances of the Governor’s state of emergency proclamation pursuant to Government Code section 8625, which remains active; and WHEREAS,the circumstances described under Resolutions No.166-2021 and subsequent resolutions continue to exist and the City continues to be concerned about the health and safety of all individuals who intend to attend Council and advisory body meetings; and WHEREAS,the City shall ensure that its meetings comply with the provisions required by AB 361 (2021)for holding teleconferenced meetings. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1.The above recitals are true and correct, and incorporated into this Resolution. 2.In compliance with AB 361 (2021),and to continue to conduct teleconference meetings without complying with the usual teleconference meeting requirements of the Brown Act,the City Council City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™25 File #:22-550 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:6a. makes the following findings: a)The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency; and b)The state of emergency,as declared by the Governor and City Council,continues to directly impact the ability of the City Council and the City’s advisory bodies,as well as staff and members of the public, from meeting safely in person; and c)The CDC continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six feet (6’)from others outside of the household;however,the City cannot maintain social distancing requirements for the Councilmembers, advisory bodies, staff and public in the meeting spaces; and d)The City Council and advisory bodies continue to need to be able to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. 3.City Council and City’s legislative body meetings may continue to be conducted remotely in compliance with AB 361, to better ensure the health and safety of the public. 4.The City Council will revisit the need to conduct meetings remotely within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™26 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-551 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:7. Report regarding approval of a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $25,000 in grant funding from Genentech and $10,000 from the South San Francisco Rotary Club to support the Every Kid Deserves a Bike program (EKDAB) and approving Budget Amendment 22.072. (Tamiko Huey, Management Analyst II) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $35,000 in grant funding from Genentech and the South San Francisco Rotary Club to support the Every Kid Deserves a Bike Program (EKDAB) through the City Manager’s Department and approving Budget Amendment 22.072. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City has been awarded $25,000 from Genentech and $10,000 from the South San Francisco Rotary Club to support the Every Kid Deserves a Bike Program.EKDAB equips 150 children from South San Francisco with a bicycle,helmet,bicycle lock,and safety training.Initially,two Title I schools were selected for this pilot, Spruce Elementary and Martin Elementary.To date,44 bicycles,helmets,and locks were distributed to the 4th graders of Spruce Elementary and 42 bicycles,helmets,and locks were given to the 5th graders of Martin Elementary.The remaining bikes were distributed in the City Hall parking lot on Saturday June 25,2022,to children who had families enrolled in either the Guaranteed Income program or the Promotores program.Funds will be used to cover the cost of the bicycles purchased for this program. FISCAL IMPACT Grant funds will be used to amend the City Manager’s Department’s current FY 2021-22 Operating Budget per Budget Amendment 22.072. 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 #2:Quality of Life -build and maintain a sustainable city,grounded in racial and social equity anchored by strengthening programs that support active recreation,safe and accessible transportation options,and healthy lifestyles,including wellness and exercise. CONCLUSION Receipt of these funds will enable the City to provide 150 children with the equipment,skills,and knowledge to safely ride a bicycle to and from school and around the city of South San Francisco.It is recommended that the City Council accept $35,000 in grant funding and approve Budget Amendment 22.072. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™27 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-552 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:7a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $25,000 in grant funding from Genentech and $10,000 from the South San Francisco Rotary Club to support the Every Kid Deserves a Bike program (EKDAB)and approving Budget Amendment #22.072. WHEREAS,the City of South San has been awarded $25,000 in grant funding from Genentech and $10,000 from the South San Francisco Rotary Club to support EKDAB,a program committed to increasing bicycle access for children in South San Francisco; and WHEREAS,EKDAB selected two Title 1 elementary schools,Martin Elementary School and Spruce Elementary School to be recipients;forty-four bicycles,helmets,and locks were distributed to the 4th graders of Spruce Elementary;forty-two bicycles,helmets,and locks were given to the 5th graders of Martin Elementary.Remaining bikes were distributed to children who had families enrolled in either the Guaranteed Income program or the Promotores program.In summary,EKDAB equipped 150 children from South San Francisco with a bicycle, helmet, bicycle lock, and safety training; and WHEREAS,funds will be used to cover the cost of the bicycles purchased for this program.The helmets and safety training were covered by the San Mateo County Office of Education through the Safe Routes to School Fellowship. The bike locks were purchased by the City Manager’s Office; and WHEREAS,acceptance of these grants will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2 Quality of Life,by strengthening programs that support active recreation,safe and accessible transportation options,and healthy lifestyles, including wellness and exercise; and WHEREAS,grant funds will be used to amend the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Operating Budget per Budget Amendment #27.072. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts $35,000 in grant funding from Genentech and the South San Francisco Rotary Club to help fund the Every Kid Deserves a Bike program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council approves Budget Amendment #27.02 to amend the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Operating Budget. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the documents necessary to accept the grant funding and take any other actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution on behalf of the City Council, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™28 File #:22-552 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:7a. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™29 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-555 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:8. Report regarding a resolution amending the City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule to correct the Film Permit Application Fees for Fiscal Year 2022-23.(Karen Chang, Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution amending the City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule to correct the Film Permit Application Fees for Fiscal Year 2022-23. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION At the regular City Council meeting of May 11,2022,the City Council adopted updates to the City of South San Francisco Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule.Subsequently staff discovered that there was an omission of the Film Permit Fee from the schedule. The fiscal year 2021-22 Film Permit Fee was $584.Adjusted to reflect an across the board 5%increase in City fees,reflective of the 5.2%change in Consumer Price Index (CPI)for All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco -Oakland-Hayward area between February 2021 and February 2022,the fiscal year 2022-23 fee was calculated to be $613. The Film Permit application process is handled by the City Manager’s Office.Approximately two to three applications have been received per year,with very few permits issued,particularly during Covid.However, several inquiries have been received from students attending San Francisco State University or a local community college,who are producing a film or a video for a film class or a class project.None have been able to afford the fee,and staff does not have the authority to selectively waive or discount fees.As such,staff proposed a 50%discounted Film Permit fee ($306)to be established for film students,which was included in the MFS approved by Council on May 11. The omission of the regular fee was discovered by staff processing the first application in the 2022/23 fiscal year.The applicant was charged $306 since it is only fee posted in the MFS.The purpose of this resolution is to correct the MFS to include both the regular fee of $613 and a 50%Student Film Permit Application fee of $306. It should be noted that in addition to the application fee,permit holders are also assessed the direct costs of any additional City services required,such as placing barricades,traffic control,or assigning staff needed to open a building and supervise filming inside a City facility. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City of South San Francisco adopt a resolution to amend the Film Permit Application fee in the approved City of South San Francisco Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule.The proposed regular fee for Film Permit Application fee is $613, and the Student Film Permit Application fee is $306. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™30 File #:22-555 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:8. FISCAL IMPACT The Film Permit Application fee correction proposed in the Master Fee schedule will generate a small increase in revenue for the City depending on the number of applications received, estimated to be less than $1,000 per year. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This effort supports the City’s strategic initiative (Priority Area 3) of ensuring fiscal stability. CONCLUSION The new Master Fee Schedule went into effect on July 10, 2022. If approved, the updated Film Permit Fees will be implemented effective July 14, 2022. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™31 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-556 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:8a. Resolution amending the City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule to correct the Film Permit Application Fees for Fiscal Year 2022-23. WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco adopted an updated Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23 on May 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, after adoption of the revised Master Fee Schedule an omission was found for the Film Permit Application fee; and WHEREAS,a 5%increase in the previous Film Permit Application fee from $584 to $613 is recommended by staff,reflecting the 5.2%change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)for All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward areas between February 2021 and February 2022,which is consistent with the 5% increase that was applied to most other user fees in the Master Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS,a 50%discounted rate for students in the amount of $306 is recommended,since students are sometimes assigned to produce short films as school projects; and WHEREAS,in addition to the application fee,permit holders are also assessed the actual costs of any additional City services required,such as placing barricades,traffic control,or assigning staff needed to open a building and supervise filming inside a city facility. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby amends the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule to specify the Film Permit Application fee of $613,and a discounted Student Film Permit Application fee of $306, effective on July 14, 2022. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™32 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-484 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:9. Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority,the City of San Bruno,and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB),for the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase of the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project (Project No. st1004) (Angel Torres, Senior Engineer) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority,the City of San Bruno,and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB)to fund the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase of the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project (Project No. st1004). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project (“Project”)is proposed to improve safety and decrease expected future traffic delays due to growth in vehicle traffic,greater frequency of Caltrain service,and the eventual addition of high-speed rail.South Linden Avenue is located in South San Francisco; Scott Street is in San Bruno.Although located in different cities,the two grade separations are proposed to be undertaken as a combined effort because of the close proximity (approximately one-third of a mile)to one another.This joint project is in the City of South San Francisco’s and the City of San Bruno’s current Capital Improvement Programs (CIP). On April 20,2016,the City of South San Francisco signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority,the City of San Bruno,and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to complete a Planning Study for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project. The Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno were identified as the local sponsors for the Project,with SSF being the lead sponsor.All of the parties recognized the importance of exploring grade separations as a means of reducing the impacts of increased train service on traffic and safety at the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street railroad crossings. Since January 2018,City staff has been participating on the Project Development Team (PDT)which was formed to prepare the Planning Study.The team is primarily comprised of representatives from Caltrain,the City of San Bruno,and the City of South San Francisco,along with consultants AECOM and Apex Strategies which were hired by JPB.Currently,the planning phase of the project is funded.However,subsequent phases (environmental, design and construction) have not been funded yet. Six alternatives were originally developed for evaluation to achieve grade separations at South Linden Avenue and Scott Street.Two alternatives for creating the grade separation project were eliminated during the preliminary design analysis because they were infeasible given the project’s geometric constraints.One of the eliminated alternatives was for the train tracks to be raised while South Linden Avenue and Scott Street remain at their existing elevations.The other eliminated alternative was for the train tracks to be lowered while South Linden Avenue and Scott Street remained at their existing elevations. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™33 File #:22-484 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:9. This left four alternatives for further investigation.The PDT evaluated the four remaining alternatives that appeared to be viable options for achieving grade separation at both South Linden Avenue and Scott Street while at a minimum maintaining pedestrian and bicycle crossings.The four alternatives are summarized as follows: ·Alternative 1 - Hybrid Track Raised and Road Lowered. The clearance between the track and the road is created by raising the track and lowering the road. The road is lowered to pass under the tracks at South Linden Avenue. Scott Street would be closed to vehicles and a pedestrian/ bicycle overcrossing or undercrossing would be provided. ·Alternative 2 - Hybrid Road Raised and Track Lowered. The clearance between the track and the road is created by raising the road and lowering the track. The road is raised to pass over the tracks at South Linden Avenue. Scott Street would be closed to vehicles and a pedestrian/ bicycle overcrossing or undercrossing would be provided. ·Alternative 3 -Track At-Grade and Road Lowered.The tracks remain at their current elevation and the road is lowered to pass under the tracks at South Linden Avenue.Scott Street would be closed to vehicles and a pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing or undercrossing would be provided. ·Alternative 4 - Track At-Grade and Road Raised. The tracks remain at their current elevation and the road is raised to pass over the tracks at South Linden Avenue. Scott Street would be closed to vehicles and a pedestrian/ bicycle overcrossing or undercrossing would be provided. The parties selected an alternative where South Linden Avenue will be partially lowered and reconstructed with pedestrian and bicycle access and safety improvements. At the Scott Street crossing, motor vehicle access will be closed and a pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing will be constructed. The Project aims to improve safety and decrease expected future traffic delays due to growth in vehicle traffic, greater frequency of Caltrain service, and the eventual addition of high-speed rail. Although located in different cities, the two grade separations are proposed to be undertaken as a combined effort. Since the two crossing locations are located only 1,850 feet apart, the grade separation of one crossing could affect the other. The City, San Bruno, JPB, and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) desire to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to fund the preliminary engineering/environmental phase of the Project. The funding arrangement will involve the TA providing funds from Measure A funds for a majority portion of the estimated cost of the Project phase, and the remainder will be locally matched by funding from the City and San Bruno. The TA will be responsible for at most 90% pro-rata share of the scope of work costs contingent upon the two cities securing local match funds and providing at least 10% of the total scope of work costs. JPB will serve as the lead implementing agency for the scope of work of this Project phase. The City’s amount of contribution would be $386,650 in SSF local match funds pursuant to the proposed MOU. FISCAL IMPACT The estimated cost for the Preliminary Environmental/Engineering phase of the Project is $5,500,000.The TA will provide $4,950,000 in Measure A funds.The remainder amount of $550,000 will be split between the City and San Bruno in local match funds,where the City would be responsible for $386,650 and San Bruno would City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™34 File #:22-484 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:9. be responsible for $163,350. The City and San Bruno,as project sponsors,will also provide at least 10%of the total future Construction Phase Costs.The 10%total Construction Phase Costs is not included as a part of this proposed MOU but will be included in a future agreement or funding arrangement,as the dollar amounts for construction costs are not yet determined. Table 1 - Local Match Contribution amounts from each sponsor per task Task South San Francisco Funding Amount San Bruno Funding Amount Staff Participation and Project Oversight $80,000 $34,000 Contribution to JPB Consultants $306,650 $129,350 Total Current Contributions $386,650 $163,350 Total Sponsor Combined Contributions $550,000 In FY 2021-22,$400,000 in funds were appropriated from Road Maintenance and Rehab (SB 1)which is sufficient to cover the City’s local match funding amount expenditures for the Environmental/Engineering phase of the project. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Providing a grade separation at South Linden Avenue would contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan outcome of improved quality of life by improving traffic circulation and increasing public safety. CONCLUSION Approval of the MOU will authorize the City Manager to execute it with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA),the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB)and the City of San Bruno on behalf of the City of South San Francisco for the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase of the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project (Project No.st1004)and authorize a budget in an amount not to exceed $386,650 in SSF local match funds of the total Sponsors local match funds of $550,000. Attachments: 1.Location Map (1 page) City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™35 PROJECT LOCATION MAP 19 Attachment 2 36 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-485 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:9a. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority,the City of San Bruno,and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB),for the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase of the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project (Project No. st1004). WHEREAS on June 7,1988,the voters of San Mateo County approved a ballot measure to allow the collection and distribution by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA)of a half-cent transactions and use tax in San Mateo County for 20 years with the tax revenues to be used for highway and transit improvements pursuant to the Transportation Expenditure Plan presented to the voters (Original Measure A); and WHEREAS,on November 2,2004,the voters of San Mateo County approved the continuation of the collection and distribution by the TA of the Measure A half-cent transaction and use tax for an additional 25 years to implement the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan, beginning January 1, 2009 (New Measure A); and WHEREAS,on November 7,2013,the TA programmed and allocated up to $650,000 from the Measure A Grade Separation Program Category for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project (“Project”) Study Report (PSR) through Resolution 2013-24; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)and the City of San Bruno (collectively,“Sponsors”), collaborated with the JPB to complete the PSR in April 2021; and WHEREAS,the Sponsors selected a preferred alternative for the Project and requested the TA provide $4,950,000 in funds to support the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase of the Project of the estimated $5,500,000 in costs for this phase; and WHEREAS,the Project meets the intent of the 1988 Transportation Expenditure Plan and the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan designates 15 percent of the New Measure A revenue to fund grade separation projects; and WHEREAS,the TA,City,the City of San Bruno,and JPB is undertaking the next phase of the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project in that of the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase with JPB leading the request for proposals (RFP) efforts and administration of the consultant contract; and WHEREAS,on March 3,2022,the TA programmed and allocated up to $4,950,000 in Measure A funds for the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase (“Scope of Work”)of the Project through Resolution 2022-09, City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™37 File #:22-485 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:9a. Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase (“Scope of Work”)of the Project through Resolution 2022-09, contingent upon the Sponsors securing $550,000 in local matching funds; and WHEREAS,the Sponsors and the JPB have agreed that the JPB will be the lead implementing agency for the Scope of Work; and WHEREAS,the TA,Sponsors and the JPB desire to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)in accordance with guidelines established by the TA to establish the process,terms and conditions governing the allocation and Expenditure of Measure A Funds on the Scope of Work and Project,where the City’s amount of contribution would be $386,650 in SSF local match funds pursuant to this proposed MOU. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council of South San Francisco hereby takes the following actions: 1.Approves the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A between the City of South San Francisco,City of San Bruno,Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA). 2.Authorizes the City Manager to execute the MOU on behalf of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco and San Bruno,in substantially the same form as Exhibit A,subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. 3.Authorizes the City Manager to take any other related actions consistent with the intention of the Resolution. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™38 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 1 18605505.2 (Grade Separation Category) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the San Mateo County Transportation Authority and the Cities of South Francisco and San Bruno and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project This memorandum of understanding (MOU) is entered into as of the _____ day of ______________, 2022 (Execution Date), by and between the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA), the cities of South San Francisco (Lead Sponsor) and San Bruno (collectively, the "Sponsors") and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), each of which is referred to herein individually as "Party" and jointly as "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, on June 7, 1988, the voters of San Mateo County approved a ballot measure to allow the collection and distribution by the TA of a half-cent transactions and use tax in San Mateo County for 20 years with the tax revenues to be used for highway and transit improvements pursuant to the Transportation Expenditure Plan presented to the voters (Original Measure A); and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004, the voters of San Mateo County approved the continuation of the collection and distribution by the TA of the Measure A half-cent transaction and use tax for an additional 25 years to implement the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan, beginning January 1, 2009 (New Measure A); and WHEREAS, the Project meets the intent of the 1988 Transportation Expenditure Plan and the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan designates 15 percent of the New Measure A revenue to fund grade separation projects; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2013, the TA programmed and allocated up to $650,000 from the Measure A Grade Separation Program Category for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project (Project) Project Study Report (PSR) through Resolution 2013-24; and WHEREAS, the Sponsors collaborated with the JPB to complete the PSR in April 2021; and WHEREAS, the Sponsors selected a preferred alternative for the Project and requested the TA provide $4,950,000 funds to support the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the Project; and EXHIBIT A 39 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 2 18605505.2 WHEREAS, on March 3, 2022, the TA programmed and allocated up to $4,950,000 million in Measure A funds (Measure A Funds) for the Preliminary Engineering/ Environmental phase (Scope of Work) of the Project through Resolution 2022-09, contingent upon the Sponsors securing $550,000 in local matching funds; and WHEREAS, the Sponsors and the JPB have agreed that the JPB will be the lead implementing agency for the Scope of Work as described in Section A.2, below; and WHEREAS, the TA, Sponsors and the JPB desire to enter into this memorandum of understanding (MOU) in accordance with guidelines established by the TA to establish the process, terms and conditions governing the allocation and Expenditure of Measure A Funds on the Scope of Work and Project. Now, THEREFORE, the Parties to this MOU agree as follows: A. Project Description and Scope 1. Project Description. This Project is the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation in South San Francisco and San Bruno, California. 2. Scope of Work. The Scope of Work is the Preliminary Engineering/ Environmental Phase as described in Exhibit A, "Scope of Work Information," which is attached to this MOU and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. Limited to Scope of Work. This MOU is intended to cover only the Scope of Work. B. Funding and Payment 1. Funding Commitment. The TA will provide up to $4,950,000 of Measure A Funds contingent upon the Sponsors securing and providing $550,000 in local matching funds and providing at least 10% of the total Scope of Work Costs (Scope of Work Costs). In no event will the TA pay out more than its 90% pro-rata share of the Scope Work Costs. 2. Unused Funds. Any unused Measure A Funds allocated hereunder but not required to complete the Scope of Work will revert to the New Measure A Grade Separation Program for the TA to reallocate to any eligible project through its usual funding allocation and programming activities. 3. Insufficient Funding. In the event that additional funding is needed to complete the Scope of Work, the JPB will identify the additional amounts needed and review those estimates with the Sponsors. While the Parties will work together to identify potential sources of funding, it is the responsibility of the Sponsors to obtain the necessary funds to complete the Scope of Work. The TA may consider requests for additional funding but is under no obligation to grant such requests. 4. Funding Commitment. The Sponsors and the JPB will assess and confirm their ability to implement the Scope of Work within budget as part of the reporting requirements 40 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 3 18605505.2 established in Section F.2, below. The Sponsors must further notify the TA between reporting cycles if the budget will not be sufficient to implement the Scope of Work. The TA reserves the right to suspend its funding obligation upon such notice, and the suspension will continue until the Sponsors develop a credible funding plan acceptable to the TA to fund and implement the Scope of Work. 5. Use of Funds. The Sponsors and the JPB will use Measure A Funds only for the Scope of Work. The Sponsors and the JPB will not use Measure A Funds provided pursuant to this MOU to replace other local taxes or revenues already programmed and available for use for the same purpose. If the TA determines that any of the Sponsors or the JPB have used Measure A Funds other than for the approved Scope of Work, the TA will notify Sponsors and the JPB of its determination. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification, the Party that misused Measure A Funds (the “Responsible Party”) will either (a) repay such funds to the TA, or (b) explain in writing how the funds in question were spent for the approved Scope of Work. The TA will respond to the Responsible Party's written explanation within thirty (30) days of receipt. Unless otherwise stated in the response, the TA's response will be final, and the Responsible Party will repay any funds used other than for the approved Scope of Work within thirty (30) days. 6. Reimbursement Basis. The JPB may seek reimbursement from the TA and the Sponsors for Scope of Work Costs incurred on or after the Execution Date. Scope of Work Costs must be incurred and paid by the JPB prior to requesting reimbursement. Sufficient documentation must accompany all requests for reimbursement, including the submittal of all due operations and progress reports. 7. Accounting and Reimbursement Procedures. The JPB, in coordination with and to the satisfaction of the TA, will establish procedures for Scope of Work accounting and requests for reimbursement, which shall be submitted in a form consistent with the “Reimbursement Claim Form” attached to this MOU as Exhibit C. The JPB and the Sponsors will maintain all necessary books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 8. Invoices; Payments. No more than once a month and no less than once every three months, the JPB must prepare and submit billing statements consistent with the Reimbursement Claim Form with all required supporting documentation. Supporting documentation may include, but is not limited to, copies of associated vendor invoices, backup documentation, checks and payment advice. Claims for reimbursement and supporting documentation must be submitted: a. To the TA: by email to accountspayable@samtrans.com or otherwise delivered to: 41 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 4 18605505.2 Accounts Payable San Mateo County Transportation Authority 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 b. To the Sponsors: CITY OF SSF: City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attn: City Manager CITY OF SAN BRUNO: City of San Bruno 567 El Camino Real San Bruno, CA 94066 Attn: City Manager The TA and the Sponsors will endeavor to disburse reimbursements for approved Scope of Work Costs within thirty (30) days after the TA's approval of each claim, subject to the limits on the TA's maximum contribution as established in Section B.1. C. Term 1. Term of MOU. This MOU is effective upon the Execution Date, and will terminate upon the earliest of: (a) six months after the written acceptance/endorsement of the Sponsor of the completion of the Scope of Work, (b) termination by Sponsor, the JPB or the TA pursuant to section C.3, C.4, C.5, or C.6, or (c) three years and six months from the date of the execution of this MOU. 2. Time of Performance. The Project Scope of Work must be completed no later than three years from the date of the execution of this MOU. 3. Termination by Sponsor. The Sponsors may at any time terminate this MOU by giving ten (10) days’ written notice to the TA and the JPB. A termination by one Sponsor will be considered by the TA as a termination by both Sponsors. If the Sponsors terminate because of the JPB's default, the TA will submit to the JPB a detailed statement of payments and costs paid or reimbursed by the TA and the Sponsors in connection with the Scope of Work and termination. The JPB will reimburse the TA and the Sponsors for all such funds within ninety (90) days of the TA’s submission to the JPB of said statement. If the Sponsors terminate for convenience, the TA will submit to the Sponsors a detailed statement of payments and costs it paid or reimbursed in connection with the Scope of Work and termination. The Sponsors will reimburse the TA for all such funds within ninety (90) days of the TA’s submission to Sponsor of said statement. If the Sponsors terminate for the TA’s default, neither the Sponsors nor the JPB will have any obligation to make any payments or reimbursements to the TA. 42 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 5 18605505.2 4. Termination by the JPB. The JPB may at any time terminate this MOU by giving ten (10) days’ written notice to the Sponsors and the TA. If the JPB terminates due to the Sponsors' default, the TA will submit to Sponsors a detailed statement of payments and costs paid or reimbursed in connection with the Scope of Work and termination. The Sponsors will reimburse the TA for all such Funds within ninety (90) days of the TA’s submission to Sponsors of said statement. If the JPB terminates for convenience, the TA will submit to the JPB a detailed statement of payments and costs paid or reimbursed by the TA and the Sponsors in connection with the Scope of Work and termination. The JPB will reimburse the TA and the Sponsors for all such funds within ninety (90) days of the TA’s submission to the JPB of said statement. If the JPB terminates for the TA’s default, neither the JPB nor the Sponsors will have any obligation to make any payments or reimbursements to the TA. 5. Termination by the TA. The TA may at any time terminate this MOU, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days' written notice of such termination. If the TA terminates the Scope of Work for Sponsors' default, Sponsors will reimburse the TA for all funds paid or reimbursed by the TA in connection with performance of this MOU. Default by one Sponsor will be considered by the TA as a default by both Sponsors. If the TA terminates the Scope of Work for JPB’s default, the TA will submit to the JPB a detailed statement of payments and costs paid or reimbursed by the TA and the Sponsors in connection with the Scope of Work and termination. The JPB will reimburse the TA and the Sponsors for all such funds within ninety (90) days of the TA’s submission to the JPB of said statement. If the TA terminates the MOU for convenience, the TA will pay to Sponsors and the JPB all costs and expenses incurred by Sponsors and the JPB as a result of such termination. 6. Termination by the Parties. If it is mutually agreed by the Parties that it would be in their mutual best interest to terminate or suspend work under this MOU, none of the Parties may seek, and none of the Parties will be entitled, to receive further reimbursement for any costs or expenses incurred in connection with the Scope of Work nor termination of this MOU. 7. Expiration of TA Financial Obligations. Any and all financial obligations of the TA pursuant to this MOU will expire upon the expenditure of the TA’s maximum contribution to the Project as established in Section B.1, above, or upon termination of this MOU under Section C.1, above. D. TA Responsibilities 1. The TA will make available up to $4,950,000 of Measure A Funds for the Scope of Work in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section B above. 2. The TA will review, process, and audit (at its discretion) invoices and other documentation of expenditures for work performed under this MOU. The TA will also track the accumulation and expenditure of Measure A Funds allocated for the Scope of Work, and process other documentation of expenditures in compliance with TA accounting and budgeting requirements. 43 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 6 18605505.2 E. JPB Responsibilities 1. The JPB is the lead implementing agency responsible for delivering the Scope of Work and agrees to: a. Manage performance of the Scope of Work, including developing and carrying out the Scope of Work on schedule and within budget; b. Provide technical oversight for performance of the Scope of Work; c. Lead coordination with any permitting agencies as necessary for performance of the Scope of Work; d. Obtain the necessary permits and approvals required for performance of the Scope of Work; e. Procure and administer the consultant/contractor services to complete the Scope of Work. f. Maintain ongoing coordination with the Sponsors and keep the Sponsors apprised of developments, such as award of contracts or potential changes that may affect the scope, schedule, or budget of the Project or Scope of Work, including outreach efforts pertaining to Caltrain patrons, Caltrain operations, the Caltrain Modernization (CalMod) and California High Speed Rail (HSR) programs; g. Consult with Sponsors where necessary/appropriate; h. Prepare and provide to Sponsors status reports including anticipated and expended costs and Scope of Work delivery milestones and schedule forecasts as required for the Sponsor to complete and submit Progress reports and the Final Report as described in Sections F.2 and F.4, below; and i. Prepare and submit invoices to the TA in accordance with Section B.8 above. F. Sponsor Responsibilities 1. The Sponsors are responsible for political and public endorsement of the Project and agree to: a. Be the public face of the Project for purposes of leading outreach efforts, pertaining to the grade separation of South Linden Avenue and Scott Street, to local stakeholders and community members, including coordination of public meetings and solicitation of public comment. b. Provide input and oversight based on local policies and desires regarding the outcome of and deliverables of the Project. 44 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 7 18605505.2 c. Actively participate in meetings related to the Scope of Work. 2. The Lead Sponsor will prepare and submit to the TA quarterly progress reports during the entire term of the MOU covering all Scope of Work activities during the previous quarter using the Progress Reporting Template in Exhibit B. The reports shall describe: the current status of, and any changes in, scope, schedule, budget, and funding plans of the Scope of Work and the Project; any risk factors; the work performed during the previous quarter and projected for the next quarter; Scope of Work Costs projected to be expended during the next quarter; and any other information requested by the TA. 3. The Lead Sponsor will review progress reports prepared and provided by the JPB and submit them to the TA. 4. Within ninety (90) days of the JPB and Sponsors’ completion and acceptance of work performed under this MOU, the Lead Sponsor will prepare and submit to the TA a final report detailing the following and any other relevant information: a. A description of the Project, including a statement detailing any overall progress and success of the Scope of Work and the Project, a compilation of any data collected during the active phase(s) of the Project, and changes/additions to the scope of the Project. b. Total costs for the Scope of Work, including an accounting of all Measure A Funds expended in connection with the Scope of Work, and reflecting any unexpended Measure A Funds that may remain. c. An explanation and the status of any outstanding obligations or potential obligations related to the Scope of Work. d. A discussion of any pertinent issues or problems that arose during the implementation of the Scope of Work. e. Any copies of press articles, press releases, newsletter articles and any other publicity materials regarding the Project. f. Written confirmation that no further reimbursements associated with the Scope of Work are anticipated and that all draw-down requests have been made. 5. The Sponsors may, at their discretion: a. Review any professional services agreements, change orders and any other agreements that the JPB has entered into for the performance of Scope of Work; however, the JPB retains ultimate authority over contracting and related decisions. b. Review the work products and deliverables produced by the JPB and/or its contractors/consultants for performance of the Scope of Work, including reports, 45 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 8 18605505.2 designs, drawings, plans, specifications, schedules and other materials; however, the JPB retains authority to accept or reject contractor/consultant work. c. Review and audit invoices and other documentation of the expenditure of Measure A Funds allocated for the Scope of Work; however, the JPB retains ultimate authority for expenditure of Measure A Funds on the Project. 6. The Sponsors will approve or endorse, in writing, the final deliverables or work products produced by the JPB and/or its contractors/consultants for the Scope of Work. G. Indemnification 1. Each Party shall indemnify, keep and save harmless the other Parties as well as the San Mateo County Transit District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the City and County of San Francisco, TransitAmerica Services, Inc. or any successor Operator of the Service, and the Union Pacific Railroad Company and each of their directors/ councilmembers, officers, agents and employees (collectively, “Indemnitees”) against any and all suits, claims or actions arising out of any act or omission by the indemnifying Party, its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors in connection with the Scope of Work, including the following: a. Any injury to persons or property that may occur, or that may be alleged to have occurred, arising from that Party’s performance of the Project or implementation of this MOU; or b. Any allegation that materials or services developed, provided or used by that Party for the Project infringe or violate any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, or any other intellectual-property or proprietary right of any third party. In case of any and all suits, claims or actions arising out of any act or omission by the indemnifying Party, its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors, each indemnifying Party further agrees to defend any and all such actions, suits or claims and pay all charges of attorneys and all other costs and expenses of defenses of the other Parties and other Indemnitees as they are incurred. If any judgment is rendered, or settlement reached, against any Indemnitees in any such action, the indemnifying Party will, at its expense, satisfy and discharge the same. This indemnification shall survive termination or expiration of the MOU. H. Miscellaneous 1. Ownership of Work. All reports, designs, drawings, plans, specifications, schedules, studies, memoranda, and other documents assembled for or prepared by or for; in the process of being assembled or prepared by or for; or furnished to the TA, the JPB or the Sponsors under this MOU, are the joint property of the TA, the JPB and the Sponsors. Each Party is entitled to copies and access to these materials during the progress of the Project and upon completion of the Scope of Work or termination of this MOU. All 46 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 9 18605505.2 Parties may retain a copy of all material produced under this MOU for use in their general activities. 2. Attribution to the TA. Sponsors and JPB must include attribution that indicates work on the Project was funded by Measure A Funds from the TA. This provision applies to any project or publication that was funded in part or in whole by Measure A Funds. Acceptable forms of attribution include TA branding on Project-related documents, construction signs, public information materials, and any other applicable documents. 3. No Waiver. No waiver of any default or breach of any covenant of this MOU by any Party to this MOU can be implied from any omission by any other Party to take action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated. Express waivers are limited in scope and duration to their express provisions. Consent to an action or actions does not imply consent to any future action(s). 4. Assignment. No Party can assign, transfer or otherwise substitute its interests or obligations under this MOU without the written consent of all other Parties. 5. Governing Law. This MOU is governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts that are made and performed entirely in California. 6. Modifications. This MOU may only be modified in a writing executed by all Parties. 7. Disputes. If a question arises regarding interpretation of this MOU or its performance, or the alleged failure of a Party to perform, the Party raising the question or making the allegation must give written notice thereof to the other Party. The Parties will promptly meet in an effort to resolve the issues raised. If the Parties fail to resolve the issues raised, alternative forms of dispute resolution, including mediation, may be pursued by mutual agreement. It is the intent of the Parties to the extent possible that litigation be avoided as a method of dispute resolution. 8. Attorneys' Fees. In the event legal proceedings are instituted to enforce any provision of this MOU, the prevailing Party in said proceedings is entitled to its costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in addition to such other remedies to which it may be entitled. Reasonable attorney’s fees includes fees determined using reasonable market rates for attorneys even if the attorneys involved are a Party’s salaried staff attorneys. 9. Relationship of the Parties. It is understood that this is an MOU by and between independent contractors and does not create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, or any other relationship other than that of independent contractors. 10. Accessibility of Services to Persons with Disabilities. The Project implementation must comply with, and not subject the Parties to liability under, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, or any other state or federal laws protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. 47 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 10 18605505.2 11. Warranty of Authority to Execute MOU. Each Party to this MOU represents and warrants that each person whose signature appears hereon is authorized and has the full authority to execute this MOU on behalf of the entity that is a Party to this MOU. 12. Severability. If any portion of this MOU, or the application thereof, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining portions of this MOU, or the application thereof, will remain in full force and effect. 13. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in counterparts. 14. Entire MOU. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties pertaining to its subject matter and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous written or oral agreement between the Parties on the same subject. 15. Compliance with Laws. In performance of this MOU, the Parties must comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, regulations and ordinances. 16. Notices. All notices affecting any of the clauses of this MOU must be in writing and mailed postage prepaid by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by personal delivery or overnight courier to the appropriate address indicated below or at such other place(s) that any Party may designate in written notice to the others. Notices are received upon delivery if personally served, one (1) day after mailing if delivered via overnight courier, or two (2) days after mailing if mailed as provided above. To TA: San Mateo County Transportation Authority 1250 San Carlos Avenue P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 Attn: Authority Secretary To JPB: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Avenue P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 Attn: JPB Secretary To City of South San Francisco: City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attn: City Manager To City of San Bruno: City of San Bruno 567 El Camino Real San Bruno, CA 94066 Attn: City Manager 48 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 11 18605505.2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have hereunder subscribed their names the day and year indicated below. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: Name: Mike Futrell Its: City Manager Approved as to Form: City At torney for the City of South San Francisco CITY OF SAN BRUNO By: Name: Jovan Grogan Its: City Manager Approved as to Form: City Attorney for the City of San Bruno PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD By: Name: Michelle Bouchard Its: Acting Executive Director Approved as to Form: _________________________________________ Attorney for the JPB SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY By: Name: Carter Mau Its: Acting Executive Director Approved as to Form: _________________________________________ Attorney for the TA 49 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 12 18605505.2 EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF WORK INFORMATION South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project Sponsoring Agencies: City of South San Francisco (SSF) City of San Bruno SSF Contact (Lead Sponsor): Angel Torres, Senior Engineer (650) 829-6660, angel.torres@ssf.net 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 San Bruno Contact: Hae Won Ritchie, Deputy Director of Public Works (650) 616-7065, hritchie@sanbruno.ca.gov 567 El Camino Real San Bruno, CA 94066 Lead/Implementing Agency: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) JPB Contact: Alex Acenas, Senior Project Manager (650) 730-0502, acenasa@samtrans.com 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 Project Description and Scope of Work: This South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project (Project) will raise the railroad between Colma Creek Bridge in South San Francisco, CA and the I-380 overcrossing in San Bruno, CA, with grade separation structures at South Linden Avenue in South San Francisco and Scott Street in San Bruno. South Linden Avenue will be partially lowered and reconstructed with pedestrian and bicycle access and safety improvements. At the Scott Street crossing, motor vehicle access will be closed and a pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing will be constructed. The Project aims to improve safety and decrease expected future traffic delays due to growth in vehicle traffic, greater frequency of Caltrain service, and the eventual addition of high-speed rail. Although located in different cities, the two grade separations are proposed to be undertaken as a combined effort. Since the two crossing locations are located only 1,850 feet apart, the grade separation of one crossing could affect the other. Project Schedule: Begin End _ Preliminary Engineering 06/22 10/24 Environmental Scoping and Clearance 08/22 10/24 50 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 13 18605505.2 Scope of Work Budget/ Source of Funding: Include funding plan for scope of work defined above, including requested portion of budget for sponsors and JPB. Task/Activity Measure A Funding Amount City of SSF Funding Amount City of San Bruno Funding Amount Total Preliminary Engineering $3,712,500 $289,987 $122,513 $4,125,000 Environmental Scoping and Clearance $1,237,500 $96,663 $40,837 $1,375,000 Total $4,950,000 $386,650 $163,350 $5,500,000 *Total costs listed b y each task/activity are best estimates a nd ma y be subject to change within the overall total amount for the awarded phase of the project work scope during the course of the project upon mutual agreement by the Parties’ authorized representatives. City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno Project Contributions: The City of South San Francisco (SSF) is contributing a total of $386,650 to pay for City of SSF staff time and JPB’s consultant costs as follows: Task Funding Amount SSF staff participation and project oversight $80,000 Contribution to JPB consultants $306,650 The City of San Bruno (SB) is contributing a total of $163,350 to pay for City of SB staff time and JPB’s consultant costs as follows: Task Funding Amount SB staff participation and project oversight $34,000 Contribution to JPB consultants $129,350 Note: Total costs listed by each task are best estimates and may be subject to change within the overall total amount for the awarded phase of the Project work scope during the course of the Project upon mutual agreement by the Parties’ authorized representatives. 51 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 14 18605505.2 Measure A Project Cash Flow Projection The cash flow projection is provided for informational purposes only. 1st Quarter (Jul 1-Sept 30) 2nd Quarter (Oct 1-Dec 31) 3rd Quarter (Jan 1-Mar 31) 4th Quarter (Apr 1-Jun 30) 1st Quarter (Jul 1-Sept 30) 2nd Quarter (Oct 1-Dec 31) 3rd Quarter (Jan 1-Mar 31) 4th Quarter (Apr 1-Jun 30) $412,500 $412,500 $412,500 $412,500 $1,650,000 $412,500 $412,500 $412,500 $412,500 $1,650,000 $137,500 $137,500 $137,500 $137,500 $550,000 $137,500 $137,500 $137,500 $137,500 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $2,200,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $2,200,000 $550,000 $1,100,000 $1,650,000 $2,200,000 $2,750,000 $3,300,000 $3,850,000 $4,400,000 1st Quarter (Jul 1-Sept 30) 2nd Quarter (Oct 1-Dec 31) 3rd Quarter (Jan 1-Mar 31) 4th Quarter (Apr 1-Jun 30) $412,500 $0 $0 $0 $412,500 $1,650,000 $1,650,000 $412,500 $3,712,500 $3,712,500 $137,500 $0 $0 $0 $137,500 $550,000 $550,000 $137,500 $1,237,500 $1,237,500 $550,000 $0 $0 $0 $550,000 $2,200,000 $2,200,000 $550,000 $4,950,000 $4,950,000 $4,950,000 $4,950,000 $4,950,000 $4,950,000Cumulative to Date Total FY25 FY24 FY25 Environmental Preliminary Engineering Subtotal for FY23-FY25 Project Total Subtotal FY25 FY23 Environmental Total Cumulative to Date Phase/Activity (e.g. Planning, PSE, Construction) Subtotal FY24 Preliminary Engineering Phase/Activity (e.g. Planning, PSE, Construction) FY23 Subtotal FY23 FY24 Operating Responsibility: JPB Maintenance Responsibility: JPB Project Implementation Responsibility: JPB Project Oversight Responsibility: SSF, San Bruno, JPB 52 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 15 18605505.2 EXHIBIT B: PROGRESS REPORTING TEMPLATE REPORTING PERIOD: FROM mm/dd/yyyy TO mm/dd/yyyy SMCTA Project # 00XXX – [Project Title/Phases] [Carryover to additional pages as necessary] Contact: [Name, Title, Phone, email, address] 1) Scope: [Describe scope of work, specify project limits, phases of project. Identify the Measure A funded components] Status Summary: [Provide Status] Issues: [List any issues, i.e. potential scope changes] _____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ 2) Schedule: Original Baseline Current Baseline Current Forecast Major Milestones: Start Finish Start Finish Start Finish [Activity] MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY [Activity] MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY [Activity] MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY [Activity] MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY Progress This Period: [Describe progress and activities] 53 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 16 18605505.2 Measure A Funds Expended This Period: $ Future Activities, Next Period: [Describe planned future activities] Projected Measure A Funds Expenditure Next Period: $ Issues: [List any issues, such as impacts to schedule] _____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ 3) Scope of Work Total Budget: A B C D E F Phase/Activity Original Budget (per Funding Agreement) Updated Cost Estimate Total Change from Approved (B-A) Total Expended to Date % of Revised Budget Expended (D/B) % of Work Completed - 0.00% 0.00% - 0.00% 0.00% - 0.00% 0.00% Total Project - - - - #DIV/0! 54 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 17 18605505.2 4) Scope of Work Measure A Budget: Phase/Activity A B C D E F Original Measure A allocation (per Funding Agreement) Current Measure A allocation Change in Measure A allocation from Approved/Funding Agmt (B-A) Total Measure A Expended to date % of current Measure A allocation expended (D/B) % of Work Completed #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Total Scope of Work $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Issues: [List any issues, i.e. potential cost increases] _____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ 5) Funding: [List additional sources as needed, Fill out the following matrix for each phase for the Scope of Work. i.e. environmental, design, etc.] Issues: [List any issues such as changes in non-Measure A funding] Submit Progress Reports To: xxxxx@samtrans.com (address to be provided) or SMCTA Programming & Monitoring 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 Original Original %Current Current % Estimated at Completion EAC % SMCTA #DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0! Others: Federal (specify)#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0! State (specify)#DIV/0! Other (specify) Total - #DIV/0!- #DIV/0!- #DIV/0! Contribution Contribution Contribution 55 San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of South San Francisco/City of San Bruno Preliminary Engineering/Environmental phase for the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project 18 18605505.2 SMCTA Project ID: SMCTA Project Allocation: Claim Date: Claim Number: Claim Period: Claim Amount: Measure A Consultant/Contractor/% of % of % of Prior Total Life to Date Budget Vendor Invoice #Invoice Total Fund Source1 Ttl Fund Source2 Ttl Measure A Ttl Measure A $ Measure A $Balance ############ ############ ############ ############ Total - - ####- ####- ####-$ - - Quarterly Progress Report included?Y/N Please issue check payable to: Agency Contact person Address Exhibit C $0.00 Funding Source REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM San Mateo County Measure A Funds 56 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-558 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:10. Report regarding adoption of a resolution approving the sale of 109 Longford Drive (APN 010-071-050)to Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzales in the sum of $850,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement (Ashley Crociani, Acting Management Analyst). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution approving the sale of 109 Longford Drive (APN 010- 071-050)to Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzalez in the sum of $850,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The single-family home (3 bedrooms/1 bath)at 109 Longford Drive was purchased by the City of South San Francisco in 1998 for $207,000 for the purpose of removing a blighted unit.The City rehabilitated the property in 2009 using a wide array of green building techniques,such as solar panels,tankless water heaters,and recyclable insulation.Since then,it has been used as a model “green”home to educate contractors,students, and homeowners.While this home has served as an educational tool for the City,the home’s technology is no longer cutting-edge and remains vacant. The property was purchased with funds from the City’s General Fund and rehabilitated with the City’s Housing Trust Fund.In 2014,the City Council adopted a Housing Investment Plan (HIP),which outlines the City plans for successor agency housing assets..The HIP specifies selling 109 Longford Drive at market rate.Its value is estimated at approximately $995,000, if in good repair. Disposition Process to Date As part of the disposition process,the City had to declare the property as surplus and comply with requirements under the California Surplus Land Act.The disposal process under the Surplus Land Act requires the City to notify Preferred Buyers including school districts and housing agencies of its designation as surplus property and requires the City provide Preferred Buyers 60 days to notify the City of interest in a surplus property. During the 60 day waiting period,the City received one letter of interest from Habitat for Humanity (Habitat). Once notified by Habitat for Humanity of its interest to negotiate,the City began negotiating the terms of the sale for the required 90-day period.While negotiating a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA),Habitat conducted due diligence inspections of the property and identified an easement along the rear of the property for a public storm drain and foundation settlement issues that require major structural repairs.Due to the potential substantial costs,and Habitat for Humanity’s mission to resell the unit at below market price,Habitat for Humanity withdrew from negotiations. In December of 2020,the City Council directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP)for rehabilitation or redevelopment of the property with a regulatory restriction that the property must be sold or rented to lower income households.Staff released the RFP on June 21,2021,and the deadline for submittal was August 30, 2021.The RFP was advertised on the City’s website and sent to the California Housing and Community Development list of developers and housing sponsors.No submittals proceeded to a point where the property City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™57 File #:22-558 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:10. could be sold to a developer. The City has satisfied requirements of the Surplus Land Act by offering to sell it for affordable housing purposes,therefore the City is no longer restricted on the future uses of the property.Staff recommended selling the property as-is, at fair market value utilizing a real estate broker, which the City Council authorized. Property Listing and Marketing The City went through a solicitation process and received three broker responses.After staff evaluation of all responses,Michael Soon with Compass Realty was selected to market the property.Compass Realty set the sale price at $995,000. A website was set up for the sale of the property and went live on April 21,2022.The home was listed on the San Mateo County Multiple Listing Service (MLS).The website was linked to both systems.These systems disseminate the listing to several hundred additional websites including Trulia,Zillow,Yahoo!,AOL,and many others. Collectively, there were over 4,750 online views of the property. Five open houses were held with Compass Realty on April 23,April 24,April 30,May 1,May 7,and May 8. The broker relayed that each event had between 10 and 15 groups visiting. Further Due Diligence Conducted by City Staff has recently worked with a geotechnical engineer to conduct a full report of the property to evaluate the previous concerns from Habitat for Humanity.The report by Ninyo and Moore Geotechnical Engineers identified that the damage to the residence included approximately five inches of interior elevation differential, hairline and 1/32-inch cracking along the stucco in the eastern and southern portions of the residence,as well as 1/32-inch cracking in the drywall in the western portion of the interior of the home.They concluded that this was a result of the home and portions of the adjacent subdivision being constructed on unknown landfill.The existing storm drain line at the rear of the property was in good repair and not the driver for the foundation settlement. Offer Price and Negotiations Three different offers were submitted ranging from $850,000 to $950,000.Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzalez initially submitted the highest offer of $950,000 and were selected as the preferred buyer by the City Council.Upon further inspections during their contingency period,the potential buyers have readjusted their offer to $850,000 to reflect necessary repairs to the foundation as detailed above.Given inflationary costs and an increase in interest rates for loans,the City’s broker recommends that it would be in the City’s best interest to approve the sale of the property to Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzalez at the adjusted price of $850,000. FISCAL IMPACT The City spent a total of $332,500 of General Fund monies in acquisition, legal fees, and building improvements in 1998. In 2009, the City spent approximately $85,000 in RDA funds and $17,000 in CDBG funds for additional renovations.A total of $434,500 of City funds were spent on the acquisition and rehabilitation of the property.The sale of the property should result in a net positive receipt of funds back to the General Fund, inclusive of real estate transaction fees. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Approving the sale of 109 Longford Drive meets the City’s strategic goal of quality of life. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™58 File #:22-558 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:10. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the sale of 109 Longford Drive to Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzalez to the sum of $850,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Attachments: 1.Offer by Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzalez 2.Addendum 1 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™59 ! "# $$ $ %"& ' ()*)(# !"#$%& ' ' # ( ) ) ' ) ) ) ) ) # + * + , ) + + # * + , ) - + - * . ) ) ) ' ' + # /) + - 0 , ) # * ) # * ) ) ' ' # * ) # , + * /) , ' /) , ' /) # )' + , ' ' ) + # * /) - /) - * ) ) ) ' ' /) # /) + - 0 , ) # * ) # * ) ) ' ' # * ) # , , * ' ) ' + /) ' ) + /) # ) )' + /) - * ) ) ) ' ' + /) # 1 ) + /) # + /) ' ) ' ) ' ' ) ' ) ' /) , + , ' ' ' ' ) + , /) , # , , 2 ) ) ) ) ) ) # 3 ) ) ) ) ) , # ) + /) # 4) ) ) ) 5) ) ) # * 5) ) # ' ) # ) /) ' ) ) ) ' ) ) ) ) # / + /) ) ) 5) )& # )) ) ) ) ' ) ) # 5) ) ) ) ) # 4) ) )' ) ) # -!" ."& /-! 0" "/ ". - "/ )123$(4 " )123$)5' /-! ' ". ! " ." "/ 067 )$ 6 -6.!! $ *8 9 8 % % % : $ /) + 6 0 /) + 6 0 * 072 6# 8 7 2 / . / 072 6# 8 0 + / 9* ' : $' * 72*6 17+;' # : ()*)( ( % )# ( % )# 3 - . - 3 ) 6 ( <. 2 !$! = > +' +) ' 0' ? !@ $ ## X Rick Arenas X Alejandra Gonzalez Compass 01527235 Alexander Lam 01953858 Compass - Burlingame, 988 Howard Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 4158605092 109 Longford Alexander Lam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ongford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ompass - Burlingame, 988 Howard Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 4158605092 109 Longford Alexander Lam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ick Arenas Alejandra Gonzalez City of South San Francisco 109 Longford 63 , % B , M $$ $ %"& ,' ()*)(# * / ' ' ' ) # ) ) ) ) ) ) , ) / , # ) # B! 0! , D / ) ) ) # ) ' ' # + / # / ) ) ) / ) # B! 0! !!D / ) ) # * )' / ) # + ) # + ) # + ) / # / ) / ) # 6! 7/- D + / ' + ) + , / ) ) # /) / ' ) / /) 5) / ) ) # ) ' ) - ) ' ) ' ' ) ' ) ' ) , , ' ' ' ' ) , ) , H ' ) ) 3 # .. /" /-6! -"/./ 6!D /) ' ' ) , ) # ( ) ) ' ) ) ' ) ' , ) # /) ) / ) ) ) # !! 6/*" , 6->/"E!7 6/7 6/ / 6//7 " ! 0/ 6 "/ ". B" 6/ / , " !! M -!" 6/ "// 6/ 67 " 67/- 0" ! -!"$ + 0 + 0 /) 0 /) 0 /) , / . 072 6 8 0 / 072 6 8 0 + , / . 072 6 8 0 / 072 6 8 0 : $' *72*6 17+;'#I + $!I#+# ))< )' )' ' ' ) ) < # >+ .17F >*+ /22= *3371J20 /4 >2 *6.17=* *++1 * 1= 1. 72*6 17+;# =1 72372+2= * 1= + F*02 *+ 1 >2 62K*6 J*60 4 17 * I7* 4 1. *=4 371J+1= = *=4 +32 . 7*=+* 1=# * 72*6 2+ * 2 /71L27 + >2 327+1= MI*6.20 1 *0J+2 1= 72*6 2+ * 2 7*=+* 1=+# . 41I 02+72 62K*6 17 *? *0J 2' 1=+I6 *= *337137* 2 371.2++1=*6# ) ) * 72*6 17+;# ) 72*6 17;# 72*6 17; ) =* 1=*6 *++1 * 1= 1. 72*6 17+; ) 2# 3) 0) - 72*6 2+ * 2 /I+=2++ +27J 2+' 66 # @ @ +) J * ) ' 6 * ' " , : ()*)( ( % (# , % B , , ( % (# 3 - . - 3 ) 6 ( <. 2 !$! = > +' +) ' 0' ? !@ $ ## City of South San Francisco Rick Arenas Alejandra Gonzalez Compass 01527235 01953858 Alexander Lam Compass 01527235 01734281 Michael Soon Compass - Burlingame, 988 Howard Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 4158605092 109 Longford Alexander Lam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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 Rick Arenas Alejandra Gonzalez City of South San Francisco Compass - Burlingame, 988 Howard Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 4158605092 109 Longford Alexander Lam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une 2, 2022 Rick Arenas, Alejandra Gonzalez 109 Longford Drive South San Francisco San Mateo 94080 010-071-050 Compass 01527235 X Michael Soon 01734281 X Compass 01527235 X Alexander Lam 01953858 X X 950,000.00 X 30 June 9, 2022 5:00 X 28,500.00 3.0 1 855,000.00 90.0 66,500.00 950,000.00 Compass - Burlingame, 988 Howard Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 4158605092 109 Longford Alexander Lam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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 X 14 X 10 X 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 X X X X JCP-LGS Disclosures X X X X Stewart Title Company X Stewart Title Company X X 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 X X X X 109 Longford 69 3 * -0 - $ , % D + /) , ) ' ) ' ' ' ) ' 9 # + ' ) ' /) /) , # /) )) * ' /) )) # + /) , * ) ) 12 066760 4, ) #/) , ) /) ) 3 * # 2$ D $ D /) ) 3 066760 4 4##1) # ,$ % D $ I 1 * -# 3 PMQ 372+2= * H # 3 ' ) ' ' ) ' ) * H # ) 1 2 /) ' # /) ' # /) ' 0 + 4 6 ' ) ' * ' + # , "/7! 6 " -"/- / 76 "/ ". / "0 / " " &/ 0/ -"/ "/$ !! 6/ 7/ &6 /" 6E6 ". 6!! .- 6..- /7 "0 " " .6- " 6 , -"/ &0" 6/ $ "0 &0" &/ &6 /" ! 6--"/7 " -"' / -"&0!6/- E -/ 6E' " 6 6 6!! 0& 6/*" ./6!R$ $ B % % 8D + 1 2 )) 066760 4B)# 1 * '# 3 ) ) ) &) H #/) ) /) , ) + , ) /) , H #) 5) 3 /) + ' ) ' ) ) 3 # $ !" . -"ED #+ /) ) H #+ 0 /) ) # * # $+ ' 1 2 ) 1 * + ' ' ' P ' ' ) ' ' ) ' 9 ) ) ' ' ) 066760 4 066760 3# 3 ) ' + ) ) * ' ' # /) 5) > , * B>1*C >1* # @$ B : % D $ #D $ * '/! " E 0-. / 066760 4(# " 6/ 6 6- ."&' ) /) # ' /) #. /" 60066! -"/ /7/- " 60066! -"/ /7/- 6 / E6 " &" ' / .6! ". "0 " 6006 6 0- 6 0- " /" / ! , " L- -6/-!!6 "/ 7 06/ " !"6/ -"/ /7/- . , " E 6!. ." 0-. !"6/ 6/ , 6 ! " 6 . !/+ /"/M60066! -"/ "/ ." -!"/7 !"6/$ /) ) 3 ' 5) # /) , ) 3 ' ) ) ' /) , 3 # .) /) ) &) ) # % /) , ) ' 6 /" -"/ /7/- * ' ) 1 * # A ' # @ =1 61*= 1= =K2= 4- S= S 066760 4(#' =1 * # /) ' ) ) ) 3 ' + /) , # ,$ D $ * '/! " E 0-. / 066760 4)# " 6/ 6 6- ."&' ) 3 ) 066760 4)#' ) 5) 3 # * ) 5) )& 3 # > ' ) 3 # ) # . ) ' /) 0 + ' ) 5) + # D S= S 066760 4)#' /) ) 066760 4(# * ) /) , ) ) 066760 4)## /) ) ' + /) , # $ : % D * ' 066760 44#' ) /) , ' ' 3 # + 066760 ()$ $72J2( 1. +26627 01 IF2= +- * ' 066760 45#' ) /) , + , ) 5) 066760 (5# ()*)( ? % (<#/) , P + , P % B J 8 ? % (<# 3 ) 6 ( <. 2 !$! = > +' +) ' 0' ? !@ $## 109 Longford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 109 Longford 71 3 * -0 - $ B I % B D I 1 * ' ) -#* 066760 4)#S #) ) J' ) 3 ' 3 H #)) ) 3 5) ) # /! " E 0-. / 066760 4(#' 6-> 6 6- " E6!!' .!"" " -!/7 ." 6/ - -"&0"// ' ./ " & E!! &" 6/ "! " " 6&67 6!! 06' /" 06/ $ (1$ % D $ ' % D 34C(#' )#' 4#' 6/ ?# ' ' B7 C H " /" &/ E " " 06 ." 6/ E"> -"&&/ " / . / 0" $ 7&/ ." 06 &/ ". E"> "! 0-. !E / 066760 4C' " 4 ' " / 6 066 67&/ - 6 $$ $ %"& ' ' B " #$ ,$ : B C B : B D $ C B : B D * 5) ) 066760 45# 3 066760 4C5## /) ' /) ' ) 2 > ' ) # 3 1 2' + 0 /) 6' ) + # + ) + , ' /) ) 5) ' + /) , # % C B D #3 ' ) 5) 1 2 5) ) 6 3 066760 4C?# 6/ 4C<## I 3 1 * ' ) ' 3 # /) ) ' /) ' # # 2 > ' ) ) /) , ) 5) 2 > # ,#/) ' 066760 4(#' ) 3 1 * ' 5) 9 ) 99 )) * 3 # % % D 066760 (1,(# 5) ' + # /) ) 5) ' + # A % B : C B D /) + ) + 5) 5) # * 5) # $ B 8 D $ /) ' ' /) ' /) ' ) + 066760 4C(@##/) ' ) ) ' * 3P+# /) ) /) # . , E6 0- 6 ". 6 "& E66/ 0!6/ / 066760 4C(@#' , &6 !! 0- 6 6 "& E66/ 0!6/' 6 , + L0/' 0" " !" . -"E$ (($ M, G # D $ ' ' B D $ + ' 066760 4(#' 0 /) - ) ' ) ) 5) NN $$ # 5# $$ % # 5# B+) 0) C # +) 0) ) ' ) ' 7 2 0) + #*#7# . 0+ ' =) >< 0) + S=>0S ' ) ) ' P ' ' ) 5) F 97 ) . * $"D / * $"$@ ' + ) ' ) ) #*#7# . +3M 2+0 ' ' 3 < ' ' ' ) ' 5) NN $$ #E $$ #$" #*#7# . .>0+ # 7 2 0) + 5) ) + 1 0) . + ' + 5) + + , + + , * ' ' + + , * , + ' ' ' * J) 0) #*#7# . *J0 # + J 0+ + ) ' ' # = /) , * ' ' # ) ) 3 ' + J 0+' *J0' ) 3 ) ) # ) 5) /) , * # % + ' 066760 4(#' B+) 0) C -#) 0+' + 3 M) #*#7# . +3M 5) + 0 /) H # 0+' 2 + 0) #*#7# . 2+0 5) + 0 /) # A + + , * ' 1 2' 3 ' ) ) ' ) /) ) ' + ' ' ) 5) 0+' + 3 M) ) ' ' # * ) ) 0+ +3M# "E ' 6 / " 6&/ -!" 6!! /" ." -"/ "/ 6/ &6 6! /6--6- ". E - , " E 6E6' " E - 6 -" , " -!" / 0" " "-&/ 0" " " " 6/ 06 ." , $ ()*)( 2 % (<#/) , P + , P % B J 8 2 % (<# 3 ) 6 ( <. 2 !$! = > +' +) ' 0' ? !@ $## 109 Longford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 109 Longford 79 3 * -0 - 4)$ , + %% $ I % %% D ' ' ) /) ) 066760 4' + + + 0 /) /) , *)< * #!! 6 /" " !76 "/ " 0"/ " 6/ ".. &6$ ,$ , D " D . 066760 -"&0! ' 6 0/ 6 606- 7/6 -!" $$ $ %"& # /" ." 76!! "R 7/ 7/6 !"E$# $ 1 /) )' ' 66 ' ' ' # * + 6 *)< + ) # + 066760 )@ # % 6 *)< + P - ' # A )' /) ) ) ) # V 0 ' 9) ' V 0 ' 9) 0 7 . ) # ) ) ' ) ) ' ) 8- # $ 73* $E # /) ' ) ' ) * # $ , #D +) / '6 D 3 /I427- 3 = 6 *)< + - ' ' +) / '6 D 3 /I427- 3 6 *)< + - ' ' . F172 >*= (1 +K=27+' I+2 * +) * ) #*#7# . *+* # 44$ $ % %% D + + 3 ) ) * # + 3 # + * )< * 0 + /) # !!+ 6--0 6/- =- " 6 6- "/ .. " ,6->M 0 .. /&' " " ' - -> !"E$ + ) ) # !! "/ .. #*#7# . + 1 +F 1 ,6->M 0 .. /& #*#7# . /I1 ,$ / !!D " D . 066760 -"&0! ' 6 0/ 6 606- 7/6 -!" ."& $$ $ %"& # /" ." 76!! "R 7/ 7/6 !"E$# $ 1 + )' ' 66 ' ' ' # * + 6 *)< + ) # + 066760 )@ # % 6 *)< + P - ' # A )' + ) ) ) # V 0 ' 9) ' V 0 ' 9) 0 7 . ) # ) ) ' ) ) ' ) 8- # $ 73* $E # + ' ) ' ) * # $ #D +) / '6 D 3 +26627- 3 = 6 *)< + - ' ' +) / '6 D 3 +26627- 3 = 6 *)< + - ' ' . F172 >*= (1 +K=27+' I+2 * +) * ) #*#7# . *+* # %% D *= ) 1 # + + , ()*)( (? % (<#/) , P + , P % B J 8 (? % (<# 3 ) 6 ( <. 2 !$! = > +' +) ' 0' ? !@ $ ## 109 Longford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 Rick Arenas Alejandra Gonzalez City of South San Francisco 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 June 2, 2022 Compass 01527235 Alexander Lam 01953858 X AlexLamRealtor@gmail.com (415)860-5092 988 Howard Avenue, Suite 300 Burlingame CA 94010 Compass 01527235 Michael Soon 01734281 Michael@MichaelSoon.com (415)867-7869 2099 Market Street San Francisco CA 94114 Stewart Title Company 109 Longford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ongford Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080 Compass - Burlingame, 988 Howard Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 4158605092 109 Longford Alexander Lam 82 $ , ' ' ,: S % D = ' ) ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 5) ' ' ) )) ' ' ) ' ' ' ' ) ' ' ) ' < ' ) ' ' ' ' ' ' ) ' ) > , * 5) ' ) )) P ' ' 5) /) # , 7//7 !"E' , 6->/"E!7 6 6 6' / 6/' 6--0 6/ 6 - 6 "0 ". " $ , 6 /-"67 " 6 -6.!! $ /) 0 /) 0 : $' * 72*6 17+;' # I + $! I#+# ))< )' ) ' ' ' ) ) < # >+ .17F >*+ /22= *3371J20 /4 >2 *6.17=* *++1 * 1= 1. 72*6 17+;# =1 72372+2= * 1= + F*02 *+ 1 >2 62K*6 J*60 4 17 * I7* 4 1. *=4 371J+1= = *=4 +32 . 7*=+* 1=# * 72*6 2+ * 2 /71L27 + >2 327+1= MI*6.20 1 *0J+2 1= 72*6 2+ * 2 7*=+* 1=+# . 41I 02+72 62K*6 17 *? *0J 2' 1=+I6 *= *337137* 2 371.2++1=*6# ) ) * 72*6 17+;# ) 72*6 17;# 72*6 17; ) =* 1=*6 *++1 * 1= 1. 72*6 17+; ) 2# 3) 0) - 72*6 2+ * 2 /I+=2++ +27J 2+' 66 # @ @ +) J * ) ' 6 * ' " , : ()*)( ) % )# , + : : , ) % )# 3 ) 6 ( <. 2 !$! = > +' +) ' 0' ? !@ $ ## Rick Arenas Alejandra Gonzalez 109 Longford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ick Arenas Alejandra Gonzalez Compass - Burlingame, 988 Howard Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 4158605092 109 Longford Alexander Lam 84 ADDENDUM No. (C.A.R. Form ADM, Revised 12/21) The following terms and conditions are hereby incorporated in and made a part of the Purchase Agreement, OR Residential Lease or Month-to-Month Rental Agreement, Transfer Disclosure Statement (Note: An amendment to the TDS may give the Buyer a right to rescind), Other , dated , on property known as (“Property/Premises”), in which is referred to as ("Buyer/Tenant") and is referred to as ("Seller/Landlord"). Buyer/Tenant and Seller/Landlord are referred to as the “Parties.” The foregoing terms and conditions are hereby agreed to, and the undersigned acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Addendum. Buyer/Tenant Date Buyer/Tenant Date Seller/Landlord Date Seller/Landlord Date © 2021, California Association of REALTORS®, Inc. United States copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code) forbids the unauthorized distribution, display and reproduction of this form, or any portion thereof, by photocopy machine or any other means, including facsimile or computerized formats. THIS FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.). NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE LEGAL VALIDITY OR ACCURACY OF ANY PROVISION IN ANY SPECIFIC TRANSACTION. A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS THE PERSON QUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE, CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL. This form is made available to real estate professionals through an agreement with or purchase from the California Association of REALTORS®. It is not intended to identify the user as a REALTOR®. REALTOR® is a registered collective membership mark which may be used only by members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® who subscribe to its Code of Ethics. Published and Distributed by: REAL ESTATE BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC. a subsidiary of the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® 525 South Virgil Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90020 ADM REVISED 12/21 (PAGE 1 OF 1) ADDENDUM (ADM PAGE 1 OF 1) Phone: Fax: Produced with Lone Wolf Transactions (zipForm Edition) 717 N Harwood St, Suite 2200, Dallas, TX 75201 www.lwolf.com 1 June 2, 2022 109 Longford Drive South San Francisco, CA 94080 Rick Arenas, Alejandra Gonzalez City of South San Francisco Purchase Price to be $850,000. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Rick Arenas Alejandra Gonzalez City of South San Francisco Compass - Burlingame, 988 Howard Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 4158605092 109 Longford Alexander Lam DocuSign Envelope ID: 71DD9229-59AC-451F-B37F-3871EE46C0EA 06/24/2022 06/24/2022 85 Agenda Item 10. 22-558 Report regarding adoption of a resolution approving the sale of 109 Longford Drive (APN 010- 071-050) to Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzales in the sum of $850,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement (Ashley Crociani, Acting Management Analyst). Legislation Text Gonzalez and Arenas Offer Addendum 1 3 Public Comments Guest User at July 13, 2022 at 1:56pm PDT Oppose I think the city needs to be more transparent in the sale of this home. Who was living in the home before? Why did the city decide to sell? What offers were made on the property? Did the city consider other uses of the property? Guest User at July 13, 2022 at 1:04pm PDT Oppose Hon Mayor and Councilmembers: Is it possible to convert house into a children's day care center? It is very much needed in this area. Or a senior center or for transitional housing? Was there a lottery system to provide other So San Fran residents to purchase at below market rate? There wasn't a p[ublic advertisement or community involvement in sale/purchase for this house. This home could serve public interest if maintained for public use or sold at market rate and use of profits for best public interest for So San Fran residents and community at large. Thank you Hon Mayor and Councilmembers and hope best interest for all taken into consideration and in your thoughts during decision making. Guest User at July 12, 2022 at 4:38pm PDT Oppose With housing crisis Bay Area residents are facing not being able to afford, plus high cost of living, there needs to be transparency and a lottery system for sale of this property to individuals. Are they high earners, have pension plans? Are they able to afford the high cost of living in Bay Area without struggling to raise a family, struggling to pay for food, utilities, education, etc? This home should be on a lottery to a deserving family with children in the mid range income who wish to live the American dream. This is a sweet deal of a purchase price and it appears individuals are single and high earners, able to afford a market rate home. There is much information that the public is not aware of about individuals and the sale of city owned house. Fairness to all ssf residents I think would be in form of a lottery system. 86 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-564 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:10a. Resolution approving the sale of 109 Longford Drive (APN 010-071-050), a City of South San Francisco owned property, to Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzalez for the sum of $850,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement. WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) owns certain real property located in the City of South San Francisco, at 109 Longford Drive, referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number 010-071-050 (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of real property if it is no longer required for the purposes of the City; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Property is unnecessary for any use by the City; and WHEREAS, the City desires to dispose of the Property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Surplus Lands Act, Government Code sections 54220 et seq., prior to the disposing of the Property, the City sent a written offer to sell or lease the property for certain specific uses to local public entities and certain private parties; and WHEREAS, the City received a letter of interest from one interested affordable housing developer, but that that party ultimately withdrew its offer to purchase the Property; and WHEREAS, because no other party that received the notice of availability of the Property expressed an interest in acquiring the Property, the City has satisfied all requirements of the Surplus Land Act, and the City may dispose of the Property outside of the Surplus Land Act. The City Council authorized staff to offer the Property for sale through the open market; and WHEREAS, the City went through a solicitation process and retained Michael Soon with Compass Realty to market the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to enter into a contract with the highest offer, Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzalez (“Buyers”); and WHEREAS, Buyers have made an offer to purchase the Property, and the City agrees to sell the Property to Buyers, subject to the terms and conditions of the attached Purchase and Sale Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco as follows: City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2022Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™87 File #:22-564 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:10a. 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The sale of the Property to the Buyers for $850,000 is hereby approved. 3.The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement on behalf of the City, a draft of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein, subject to minor amendments that do not materially increase the City’s obligations, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. 4.The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute any other necessary documents related to the sale of the Property. 5.The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized take any and all other actions necessary to implement the intent of this Resolution, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. 6.This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2022Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™88 DRAFT 7-5-22 1 5131563.1 PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS (“this Agreement”) is entered into as of ______________, 2019 (the “Effective Date”) by and between the City of South San Francisco, a California charter city (“City”) and [Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzalez, individuals] as the buyers (together, the “Buyer”). City and Buyer are each referred to as a “Party” and collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.” RECITALS A. City is the owner of certain property located at 109 Longford Drive, City of South San Francisco known as County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 010-071-050 (the “Property”), as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto. B. The City purchased the Property in 1998. C. City hired a broker to assist with the sale of the Property. D. Buyer provided an offer to the City to purchase the property on June 2, 2022. E. Following discussion with the Buyer, City desires to sell the Property to Buyer and Buyer desires to purchase the Property in its “as-is” condition for the purchase price of Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000) (the “Purchase Price”), subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement . NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, City and Buyer hereby agree as follows: 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND EXHIBITS. The Recitals set forth above and the Exhibits attached to this Agreement are each incorporated into the body of this Agreement as if set forth in full. 2. PURCHASE AND SALE. 2.1 Agreement to Buy and Sell. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, City agrees to sell the Property to Buyer, and Buyer hereby agrees to acquire the Property from City. 89 DRAFT 7-5-22 2 5131563.1 2.2 Purchase Price. The purchase price to be paid by Buyer to City for the Property is Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No/100 Cents ($850,000) (the “Purchase Price”). 2.3 Payment of Purchase Price. The Purchase Price will be paid in immediately available funds to Buyer at Closing (defined in Section 5 below). 3. ESCROW . 3.1 Escrow Account. City has opened an escrow account (the “Escrow”) maintained by _____________ Title Company as Escrow No. __________, located at _________________, Attn: _________ (the “Escrow Holder”), with interest, if any accruing to the benefit of Buyer. Escrow Holder shall perform all escrow and title services in connection with this Agreement. 3.2 Opening of Escrow. Within five (5) business days after the Effective Date, the Parties will deposit into Escrow the fully executed Agreement, or executed counterparts thereto. The date such fully executed Agreement is received by Escrow Holder will be deemed the “Opening of Escrow.” 3.3 Buyer’s Deposit. Upon Opening of Escrow, the Buyer shall deposit Twenty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No/100 Cents ($25,500.00) into Escrow (the “Deposit”). The Deposit is non-refundable after the Due Diligence Contingency Period has expired but applicable to the Purchase Price at Closing. In the event Buyer does not approve Due Diligence on or before the expiration of the Due Diligence Contingency Period, or does not approve the Financing Contingency (defined below) Buyer’s deposit shall be immediately returned to Buyer. 4. DUE DILIGENCE AND PROPERTY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. 4.1 Condition of Title/Preliminary Title Report. Within fourteen days of Opening of Escrow, Escrow Holder will deliver a Preliminary Title Report for the Property (the “Preliminary Report”) to Buyer and City. Buyer will review the Preliminary Report and approve all of the following exceptions to title (the “Permitted Exceptions”): (a) standard printed exceptions in the Preliminary Report; (b) general and special real property taxes and assessments constituting a lien not yet due and payable ; (c) any exceptions approved in writing by Buyer. 4.2 Due Diligence Contingency Period. Buyer will have ten (10) days from the Effective Date (the “Due Diligence Contingency Period”) to complete physical inspections of the Property and due diligence related to the purchase of the Property. Buyer may extend the Due Diligence Contingency Period by twenty (20) days upon written notice to City not less than two (2) days prior to the end of the Due Diligence Contingency Period. City shall provide to Buyer copies of all reasonably available and known documents relating to the ownership and operation of the Property, including but not limited to agreements, plans, permits and reports (environmental, structural, mechanical, engineering and land surveys) that City has in its possession not 90 DRAFT 7-5-22 3 5131563.1 later than five (5) days following the Effective Date. Buyer hereby acknowledges that it has received that certain Geotechnical Evaluation dated June 24, 2022 from the City prepared by Ninyo and Moore. All physical inspections must be coordinated with City’s representative. Buyer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless for any damage to the Property caused (but not merely revealed) by Buyer’s inspections. 4.3 Satisfaction of Due Diligence Contingency. Buyer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement for any reason prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Contingency Period and receive a refund of Buyer’s Deposit. Buyer hereby agrees to provide written notice to City prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Contingency Period if Buyer disapproves any due diligence items. Upon provision of such notice to City, this Agreement will terminate, and all amounts deposited by Buyer into escrow, together with interest thereon, if any, will be returned to Buyer, and neither Party will have any further rights or obligations hereunder except those which expressly survive the termination of this Agreement. If Buyer fails to notify City in writing of its approval of its due diligence on or before the expiration of the Due Diligence Contingency Period, it will be conclusively presumed that Buyer has approved due diligence and will Close on the Property. 4.4 Financing Contingency. Buyer will have fourteen (14) days from the Effective Date (the “Financing Contingency Period”) to obtain financing for the purchase of the Property. 4.5 Satisfaction of Financing Contingency. Buyer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement for any reason prior to the expiration of the Financing Contingency Period and receive a refund of Buyer’s Deposit. Buyer hereby agrees to provide written notice to City prior to the expiration of the Financing Contingency Period if Buyer is unable to obtain financing for the purchase of the Property. Upon provision of such notice to City, this Agreement will terminate, and all amounts deposited by Buyer into escrow, together with interest thereon, if any, will be returned to Buyer, and neither Party will have any further rights or obligations hereunder except those which expressly survive the termination of this Agreement. If Buyer fails to notify City in writing removal of the Financing Contingency, it will be conclusively presumed that Buyer has received financing. 5. CLOSING AND PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE. 5.1 Closing. The closing (the “Closing” or “Close of Escrow”) will occur no later than thirty (30) days from the expiration of the Due Diligence Contingency Period and any extended periods (“Closing Date”) and the satisfaction of all of City’s Conditions to Closing and Buyers Conditions to Closing, or such other date that the Parties agree in writing. 5.2 Buyer’s Conditions to Closing. Buyer's obligation to purchase the Property is subject to the satisfaction of all of the following conditions or Buyer's written waiver thereof (in Buyer’s sole discretion) on or before the Closing Date: 91 DRAFT 7-5-22 4 5131563.1 (a) Buyer has approved the condition of the Property. (b) City has performed all obligations to be performed by City pursuant to this Agreement. (c) City's representations and warranties herein are true and correct in all material respects as of the Closing Date. (d) The Title Company is irrevocably committed to issue a CLTA Title Policy to Buyer, effective as of the Closing Date, insuring title to Buyer in the full amount of the Purchase Price. 5.3 City’s Conditions to Closing. The Close of Escrow and City's obligation to sell and convey the Property to Buyer are subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions or City's written waiver (in City’s sole discretion) of such conditions on or before the Closing Date: (a) Buyer has performed all obligations to be performed by Buyer pursuant to this Agreement before the Closing Date. (b) Buyer's representations and warranties set forth herein are true and correct in all material respects as of the Closing Date. 5.4 Conveyance of Title. City will deliver marketable fee simple title to Buyer at the Closing, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions. The Property will be conveyed by City to Buyer in an “as is” condition, with no warranty, express or implied, by City as to the physical condition including, but not limited to, the soil, its geology, or the presence of known or unknown faults or hazardous materials or hazardous waste (as defined by state and federal law); provided, however, that the foregoing shall not relieve City from disclosure of any such conditions of which City has actual knowledge. 5.5 Deposits into Escrow. (a) Deliveries by City. City shall deposit into the Escrow for delivery to Buyer at Closing: (i) a grant deed; (ii) an affidavit or qualifying statement which satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, any regulations thereunder (the “Non-Foreign Affidavit”); and (iii) a California Franchise Tax Board form 590 to satisfy the requirements of California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 18805(b) and 26131. (b) Deliveries by Buyer. No less than one (1) business day prior to the Close of Escrow, Buyer shall deposit into escrow immediately available funds in the amount, which together with the Deposit plus interest thereon, if any, is equal to: (i) the Purchase Price as adjusted by any prorations between the Parties; (ii) all escrow fees and recording fees and Closing Costs (defined below); and (iii) the cost of the Title Policy. 92 DRAFT 7-5-22 5 5131563.1 (c) Closing. Upon Closing, Escrow Holder shall: (i) record the grant deed; (ii) disburse to City the Purchase Price; (iii) deliver to Buyer the Non-Foreign Affidavit, the California Certificate and the original recorded grant deed; (iv) deliver to Buyer and City signed counterparts of the assignment of Lease; (v) pay any commissions and other expenses payable through escrow; (vi) distribute to itself the payment of escrow fees and expenses required hereunder; and deliver the title policy to the Buyer. (d) Closing Costs. Each party will pay one-half of escrow fees and recording fees. Buyer will pay title insurance and title report costs and City will pay all governmental conveyance fees and all transfer taxes (collectively, the “Closing Costs”). Buyer and City will pay all Broker Fees, if any. (e) Pro-Rations. At the Close of Escrow, the Escrow Holder shall make the following prorations: (i) property taxes will be pro rated as of the close of escrow, including any property taxes which may be assessed after the close of escrow but which pertain to the period prior to the transfer of tit le to the Property to Buyer, regardless of when or to whom notice thereof is delivered; (ii) any bond or assessment that constitutes a lien on the Property at the close of escrow will be assumed by Buyer. City does not pay ad valorem property taxes. 6. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS. 6.1 City’s Representations, Warranties and Covenants. In addition to the representations, warranties and covenants of City contained in other sections of this Agreement, City hereby represents, warrants and covenants to Buyer that the statements below in this Section 6.1 are each true and correct as of the Closing Date provided however, if to City’s actual knowledge any such statement becomes untrue prior to Closing, City will notify Buyer in writing and Buyer will have three (3) business days thereafter to determine if Buyer wishes to proceed with Closing. If Buyer determines it does not wish to proceed. a. Authority. City is a municipal corporation, lawfully formed, in existence and in good standing under the laws of the State of California. City has the full right, capacity, power and authority to enter into and carry out the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement has been duly executed by City, and upon delivery to and execution by Buyer is a valid and binding agreement of City. b. Encumbrances. City has not alienated, encumbered, transferred, mortgaged, assigned, pledged, or otherwise conveyed its interest in the Property or any portion thereof, nor entered into any Agreement to do so, and there are no liens, encumbrances, mortgages, covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, easements or other matters affecting the Property, except as disclosed in the Preliminary Report. City will not, directly or indirectly, alienate, encumber, transfer, mortgage, assign, pledge, or otherwise convey its interest prior to the Close of Escrow, as long as this Agreement is in force. 93 DRAFT 7-5-22 6 5131563.1 c. There are no agreements affecting the Property except those which have been disclosed by City. There are no agreements which will be binding on the Buyer or the Property after the Close of Escrow. The truth and accuracy of each of the representations and warranties, and the performance of all covenants of City contained in this Agreement are conditions precedent to Buyer’s obligation to proceed with the Closing hereunder. The foregoing representations and warranties shall survive Close of Escrow or the expiration or termination of this Agreement and shall not be deemed merged into the deed upon closing. 6.2 Buyer’s Representations and Warranties. In addition to the representations, warranties and covenants of Buyer contained in other sections of this Agreement, Buyer hereby represents, warrants and covenants to City that the statements below in this Section 6.2 are each true as of the Effective Date, and, if to Buyer’s actual knowledge any such statement becomes untrue prior to Closing, Buyer shall so notify City in writing and City shall have at least three (3) business days thereafter to determine if City wishes to proceed with Closing. (a) Buyer has the full right, capacity, power and authority to enter into and carry out the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement has been duly executed by Buyer, and upon delivery to and execution by City shall be a valid and binding agreement of Buyer. (b) Buyer is not bankrupt or insolvent under any applicable federal or state standard, has not filed for protection or relief under any applicable bankruptcy or creditor protection statute, and has not been threatened by creditors with an involuntary application of any applicable bankruptcy or creditor protection statute. The truth and accuracy of each of the representations and warranties, and the performance of all covenants of Buyer contained in this Agreement are conditions precedent to City’s obligation to proceed with the Closing hereunder. 7. REMEDIES In the event of a breach or default under this Agreement by City, if such breach or default occurs prior to Close of Escrow, Buyer reserves the right to either (a) seek specific performance from City or (b) to do any of the following: (i) to waive the breach or default and proceed to close as provided herein; (ii) to extend the time for performance and the Closing Date until City is able to perform; or (iii) to terminate this Agreement upon written not ice to City, whereupon City shall cause Escrow Holder to send Deposit to City and return to Buyer any other sums placed into the Escrow by Buyer, and except for the rights and obligations expressly provided to survive termination of this Agreement, neither Party shall have any further obligations or liabilities hereunder. IN THE EVENT OF A BREACH OR DEFAULT HEREUNDER BY BUYER AND THE CLOSING DOES NOT OCCUR DUE TO SUCH DEFAULT, SELLER’S SOLE REMEDY 94 DRAFT 7-5-22 7 5131563.1 SHALL BE TO RETAIN THE DEPOSITS AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. THE PARTIES AGREE THAT IN SUCH INSTANCE, THE DEPOSITS REPRESENT A REASONABLE APPROXIMATION OF SELLER’S DAMAGES AND ARE NOT INTENDED AS A FORFEITURE OR PENALTY BUT RATHER AN ENFORCEABLE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1671, ET SEQ. IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE ENTITLED TO LOST PROFITS OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF THE OTHER PARTY’S BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT. __________ _________ Buyer’s Initials Seller’s Initials 8. BROKERS. Buyer represents that it has hired Alexander Lam from Compass Realty to represent Buyer in the purchase of the Property and City represents that it has hired Michael Soon from Compass Realty to represent City in the sale of the Property. Buyer acknowledges that it is solely responsible for payment of brokerage fees for the purchase and sale of the Property. Buyer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City from any and all claims, actions and liability for any breach of the preceding sentence, and any commission, finder’s fee, or similar charges arising out of Buyers conduct. 9. ASSIGNMENT. Absent an express signed written agreement between the Parties to the contrary, neither City nor Buyer may assign its rights or delegate its duties under this Agreement without the exp ress written consent of the other, which consent may be withheld for any reason. No permitted assignment of any of the rights or obligations under this Agreement shall result in a novation or in any other way release the assignor from its obligations under this Agreement. 10. MISCELLANEOUS. 10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If any Party employs counsel to enforce or interpret this Agreement, including the commencement of any legal proceeding whatsoever (including insolvency, bankruptcy, arbitration, mediation, declaratory relief or other litigation), the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs (including the service of process, filing fees, court and court reporter costs, investigative fees, expert witness fees, and the costs of any bonds, whether taxable or not) and shall include the right to recover such fees and costs incurred in any appeal or efforts to collect or otherwise enforce any judgment in its favor in addition to any other remedy it may obtain or be awa rded. Any judgment or final order issued in any legal proceeding shall include reimbursement for all such attorneys’ fees and costs. In any legal proceeding, the “prevailing party” shall mean the party determined by the court to most nearly prevail and n ot necessarily the party in whose favor a judgment is rendered. 10.2 Interpretation. This Agreement has been negotiated at arm’s length and each Party has been represented by independent legal counsel in this transaction and this Agreement has been reviewed and revised by counsel to each of 95 DRAFT 7-5-22 8 5131563.1 the Parties. Accordingly, each Party hereby waives any benefit under any rule of law (including Section 1654 of the California Civil Code) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against the Party drafting it. 10.3 Survival. All indemnities, covenants, representations and warranties contained in this Agreement shall survive Close of Escrow. 10.4 Successors. Except as provided to the contrary in this Agreement, this Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. 10.5 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10.6 Integrated Agreement; Modifications. This Agreement contains all the agreements of the Parties concerning the subject hereof any cannot be amended or modified except by a written instrument executed and delivered by the parties. There are no representations, agreements, arran gements or understandings, either oral or written, between or among the parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not fully expressed herein. In addition there are no representations, agreements, arrangements or understandin gs, either oral or written, between or among the Parties upon which any party is relying upon in entering this Agreement that are not fully expressed herein. 10.7 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid in whole or in part for any reason, such illegal, unenforceable, or invalid provisions or part thereof shall be stricken from this Agreement, any such provision shall not be affected by the legality, enforceability, or validity of the remainder of this Agreement. If any provision or part thereof of this Agreement is stricken in accordance with the provisions of this Section, then the stricken provision shall be replaced, to the extent possible, with a legal, enforceable and valid provision this is in keeping with the intent of the Parties as expressed herein. 10.8 Notices. Any delivery of this Agreement, notice, modification of this Agreement, collateral or additional agreement, demand, disclosure, request, consent, approval, waiver, declaration or other communication that either Party desires or is required to give to the other Party or any other person shall be in writing. Any such communication may be served personally, or by nationally recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., Federal Express) which provides a receipt of delivery, or sent by prepaid, first class mail, return receipt requested to the Party’s address as set forth below: To Buyer: _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ 96 DRAFT 7-5-22 9 5131563.1 To City: City of South San Francisco _______________ ________________ ________________ Attn: City Manager If to Escrow Holder: ___________________ ____________________ ____________________ Attn: ______________ Any such communication shall be deemed effective upon personal deliver or on the date of first refusal to accept delivery as reflected on the receipt of delivery or return receipt, as applicable. Any Party may change its address by notice to the other Party. Each Party shall make an ordinary, good faith effort to ensure that it will accept or receive notices that are given in accordance with this section and that any person to be given notice actually receives such notice. 10.9 Time. Time is of the essence to the performance of each and every obligation under this Agreement. 10.10 Days of Week. If any date for exercise of any right, giving of any notice, or performance of any provision of this Agreement falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the time for performance will be extended to 5:00 p.m. on the ne xt business day. 10.11 Reasonable Consent and Approval. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, whenever a party is required or permitted to give its consent or approval under this Agreement, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If a party is required or permitted to give its consent or approval in its sole and absolute discretion or if such consent or approval may be unreasonably withheld, such consent or approval may be unreasonably withheld but shall not be unreasonably delayed. 10.12 Further Assurances. The Parties shall at their own cost and expense execute and deliver such further documents and instruments and shall take such other actions as may be reasonably required or appropriate to carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement. 10.13 Waivers. Any waiver by any party shall be in writing and shall not be construed as a continuing waiver. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure to take action on account of any default by any party. Consent by any party to any act or omission by another party shall not be construed to be a consent to any other subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for consent to be obtained in any future or other instance. 97 DRAFT 7-5-22 10 5131563.1 10.14 Signatures/Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Any one of such completely executed counterparts shall be sufficient proof of this Agreement. 10.15 Date and Delivery of Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the Parties intend that this Agreement shall be deemed effective, and delivered for all purposes under this Agreement, and for the calculation of any statutory time periods based on the date an agreement between parties is effective, executed, or delivered, as of the Effective Date. 10.16 Representation on Authority of Parties. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement. Each Party represents and warrants to the other that the execution and delivery of the Agreeme nt and the performance of such Party’s obligations hereunder have been duly authorized and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement binding on such Party and enforceable in accordance with its terms. 10.17 Confidentiality. The Parties hereto shall not disclose any of the terms of this Agreement (except to the extent as may be required by law or as required by the Title Company or to the officers, directors, partners and employees of the Parties hereto in the ordinary course of business) without the prio r written consent of the other Party. The Parties shall request that the documentary transfers taxes be affixed to the Deed after recordation of the Deed as provided in Section 11932 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE 98 DRAFT 7-5-22 11 5131563.1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed t o be effective as of the date first set forth above. City: City of South San Francisco By: ____________________________ City Manager Attest: ___________________________________ City Clerk Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ City Attorney Buyer: Rick Arenas and Alejandra Gonzalez, husband and wife By: Its: 99 DRAFT 7-5-22 12 5131563.1 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Legal Description 5131563.1 100 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. Report regarding consideration of a General Plan Amendment,Specific Plan Repeal,Zoning Ordinance Amendment,Master Plan Modification,Precise Plan Modification and Development Agreement Amendment, to allow for the transfer of development capacity from adjacent rail spur properties to Phase 4 of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project,including an additional 120,221 square feet to the Gateway of Pacific Phase 4 North building,increasing the building from five-stories to nine-stories,and associated California Environmental Quality Act consideration.(Billy Gross, Principal 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 certifying the Supplemental EIR,including adoption of a supplement to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC); and 2.Adopt a resolution making findings and conditionally approving the Specific Plan Repeal (SP21-0001), Master Plan Modification (MPM21-0001)and Precise Plan Modification (PPM21-0001,subject to the draft Conditions of Approval and future approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA21-0003); and 3.Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 20.220 (“Gateway Specific Plan District”) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and 4.Waive reading and introduce an ordinance approving the Third Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA22-0002). BACKGROUND Gateway Business Park Master Plan Overview In 2010,the South San Francisco 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)for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan to facilitate construction of an approximately 1.23 million square foot office/R&D campus.The Gateway Business Park Master Plan area is now commonly referred to as the Gateway of Pacific (GOP) Campus. In 2013,the City Council approved a Master Plan Modification and Phase 1 Precise Plan to allow for a revised phasing plan and modifications to the building designs.The following is a short description of each of the GOP Campus phases. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 1 of 11 powered by Legistar™101 File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. ·GOP Phase 1 (GOP 1)was entitled in 2013 and has been constructed.GOP 1 includes an approximately 450,000 square foot office/R&D building and a separate approximately 48,000 square foot amenity building. ·GOP Phases 2-3 (GOP 2-3)were granted Precise Plan approvals in 2018 and comprise approximately 704,000 square feet of office/R&D space,structured and surface parking,and other general improvements.The core and shell of both Phases have been completed,and tenant improvements are being constructed. ·GOP Phase 4 (GOP 4)was granted Precise Plan approvals in 2020 and was entitled as two five-story buildings totaling approximately 226,000 square feet of office/R&D space.GOP 4 is proposed to be amended as part of this Density Transfer project. ·475 Eccles /GOP Phase 5 (GOP 5)was originally entitled in 2016 as a stand-alone project,as this site is not included in the Gateway Business Park Master Plan but is rather in the Business and Technology Park (BTP)zoning district.It was approved to allow two office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 262,000 square feet.The 475 Eccles project is located to the southeast of the GOP Campus,separated by a former rail parcel located between the two project sites.Subsequent to the 2016 entitlements,the project applicant acquired the rail spurs,which are also in the BTP zoning district,allowing the 475 Eccles site to be directly connected to the GOP Campus.In 2020,the City approved Use Permit and Design Review Modifications to effectively make the 475 Eccles project part of the GOP Campus,and the project is now commonly referred to as GOP 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION / DISCUSSION GOP 4 Density Transfer Project Overview BioMed Realty,the project applicant,has submitted an application to allow the square footage applicable to the two rail spur parcels adjacent to the GOP Campus to be transferred to the GOP 4 site.The rail spurs are located within the BTP zoning district,which has a maximum allowable FAR of 1.0.The project applicant is requesting that the rail spur development potential of 120,221 square feet be transferred to the GOP 4 North building, resulting in an increase from approximately 110,000 square feet to 232,000 square feet.The only visual changes to the GOP 4 project would be the resultant increase in the building height of the GOP 4 North building from five-stories to nine-stories.The resulting building would provide a step-down transition between the GOP 1 North building,which was built at 12 stories,and GOP 4 South,which will remain at five floors as approved.The remainder of the GOP 4 project will remain as previously entitled.The rail spurs would be deed- restricted to eliminate the development potential on the rail spurs. Entitlements Request The GOP 4 Density Transfer Project is seeking the following entitlements in order to support the density transfer project: 1.General Plan Amendment for revisions to the Land Use Chapter to allow for the transfer of density intoCity of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 2 of 11 powered by Legistar™102 File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. 1.General Plan Amendment for revisions to the Land Use Chapter to allow for the transfer of density into the Gateway Business Park Master Plan area.This request will be considered by the City Council at a subsequent meeting with a batch of similar General Plan amendment requests from other projects. The following entitlements are being considered and potentially being conditionally approved by the Council at this meeting, subject to future approval of the General Plan Amendment request: 2.Specific Plan Repeal to repeal the Gateway Specific Plan (to allow the density transfer); 3.Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District regulations to allow a transfer of density from an adjacent zoning district; 4.Master Plan Modification to allow for the transfer of density from an adjacent property; 5.Precise Plan Modification to increase the GOP 4 North building by 120,221 square feet,increasing the building height from five-stories to nine-stories; The following entitlements require adoption of an ordinance in order to be implemented.The ordinances are being presented for introduction at this meeting;if introduced,adoption of the ordinances would occur only after the Council has approved the General Plan Amendment request at a future meeting. 6.Development Agreement Amendment for minor modifications to the agreement; and 7.Certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental EIR),including adoption of a supplement to the MMRP and SOC. The GOP 4 Density Transfer Project would continue to be in keeping with the previous approvals,and the original conditions of approval related to these items would continue to apply to the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS General Plan Amendments The City Council will be considering the proposed General Plan Amendment at a future meeting.For background purposes,the current General Plan Land Use Designation for both the GOP 4 site and the rail spurs properties is Business Commercial (BC),and the site is located in the Gateway Specific Plan District.The General Plan is required to provide specific maximum limits for building intensity;Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 “Standards for Density and Development Intensity”indicate the maximum permitted FARs for all general plan land use designations.Within Table 2.2-1,the BC land use designation includes footnote 6,which states “See Table 2.2-2.The Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan are permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 with a TDM.”Table 2.2-2 includes the same basic language under footnote 2; “The Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan are permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 with a TDM.” The GOP 4 site is located within the Gateway Business Park Master Plan,but the rail spurs properties are not. Therefore,to allow for the transfer of density from the rail spurs to the GOP 4 site,the footnote text needs to be amended.In the following sections,all text changes are highlighted using underscore [proposed text]format to City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 3 of 11 powered by Legistar™103 File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. amended.In the following sections,all text changes are highlighted using underscore [proposed text]format to illustrate the proposed changes. The Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan are permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 with a TDM,and the Gateway Business Park Master Plan is allowed to develop additional density to the extent such density would otherwise be available on immediately adjacent property that is (a)subject to an FAR limitation of 1.25 or less;(b)part of the same research and development campus; and (c) deed-restricted to preclude development of the transferred FAR . The existing text on pages 2-21 to 2-22 of the General Plan is also proposed to be amended to reflect the revised language in the footnotes: The Gateway Business Park Master Plan area,comprising several parcels on 22.6 acres at the southeast corner of Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard,is permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 and is allowed to develop additional density in limited circumstances as provided in Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2. Currently,GOP Phases 1-4 are entitled to be developed at a FAR of 1.25.Allowing the transfer of the development capacity from the rail spur properties would result in an increased FAR of 1.37 within the Gateway Business Park Master Plan boundaries.However,including the deed-restricted rail spur property area in the FAR calculations results in an overall FAR of 1.22,which is in compliance with the Gateway Business Park Master Plan maximum FAR allowances. Specific Plan Repeal The GOP 4 site is located within the Gateway Specific Plan,originally adopted in 1981.The Gateway Specific Plan has not been updated in subsequent years and has been superseded by the detailed regulations that are applicable in the Zoning Ordinance’s Gateway Specific Plan District.Based on this,it is being recommended that the Gateway Specific Plan be repealed. Zoning Text Amendments (Chapter 20.220) As stated earlier in the report,the rail spurs properties are located with the BTP Zoning District,which allows a maximum FAR of 1.0,and the GOP 4 site is located within the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District,which allows a maximum FAR of 1.25.To allow the development capacity of the rail spurs property to be transferred to the GOP 4 site,the following amendment is proposed to Zoning Ordinance Table 20.220.004 “Development Standards - Gateway Specific Plan District”: Standard GSP Additional Regulations Lot and Density Standards Maximum Floor Area Ration (FAR) 1.25*See Chapter 20.040 Rules of Measurement *The Gateway Specific Plan District is allowed to develop additional density to the extent such density would otherwise be available on immediately adjacent property that is (a)subject to an FAR City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 4 of 11 powered by Legistar™104 File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. would otherwise be available on immediately adjacent property that is (a)subject to an FAR limitation of 1.25 or less;(b)part of the same research &development campus;and (c)deed- restricted to preclude development of the transferred FAR. In addition,based on the proposed repeal of the Gateway Specific Plan,the following additional amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are proposed: 1.Amend all references in Chapter 20.220 of the Municipal Code to the “Gateway Specific Plan”to instead refer to the “Gateway Specific Plan District.”This is to effectuate the repeal of the Specific Plan. 2.Delete the outdated phrase “and the owner participation agreement”in subdivisions C.3,and C.8 of section 20.220.12. 3.Delete subdivision C.8.c in section 20.220.12,which states “the project proposed in the master plan or precise plan is consistent with the owner participation agreement.” 4.Delete subdivision E of section 20.220.012,which refers to amendments to the Gateway Specific Plan which is to be repealed and such references are no longer necessary. As discussed above under the General Plan Amendments analysis,allowing the transfer of FAR from the rail spur properties to the GOP 4 site is consistent with the General Plan and the Gateway Business Park Master Plan,as the total FAR across all properties will not exceed 1.25.The proposed amendments would be consistent with the General Plan Amendments proposed for the project.The adoption of the ordinance will occur after the Council considers and approves the General Plan Amendments at a subsequent meeting. Master Plan Modifications In keeping with the amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,the Gateway Business Park Master Plan document requires modifications to allow for the transfer of density from the adjacent rail spurs property. The following underlined text is added to the Master Plan Goals and Objectives: Utilize the site’s existing zoning potential by increasing use from the existing 284,000 square feet (approx .29 FAR)to up to the site’s permitted 1.25 FAR capacity,and develop additional density in limited circumstances as provided in section 2.2. The following underlined text is added to Section 2.2 of the Master Plan: The Master Plan proposes to densify the development site to achieve up to the permitted 1.25 FAR capacity by the phased incremental redevelopment of the existing buildings with new buildings and associated parking structures.Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Master Plan,the development of density exceeding 1.25 FAR is allowed to the extent such density would otherwise be available on immediately adjacent property that is (a)subject to an FAR limitation of 1.25 or less;(b) part of the same research &development campus;and (c)deed-restricted to preclude development of City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 5 of 11 powered by Legistar™105 File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. the transferred FAR. The final modification to the Master Plan will include the following underlined text added to the Development Standards in Section 2.3: A.Building coverage and gross floor area ratio limitations shall apply only to aggregate calculations for the site’s permitted 1.25 FAR within the total 22.6 acres.Individual building developments within the Gateway Business Park shall be allowed to exceed these limitations during the phased incremental redevelopment.Additional density is allowed as set forth in Section 2.2. Subject to the amendments to the General Plan,Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance discussed above,GOP 4 will continue to conform to the development standards stated in the modified Master Plan,which limit lot coverage to 50-percent of the site,height to 250 feet,require setbacks of at least 40 feet from any street- fronting property line,and limit floor area ratio to 1.25 total across the entire Master Plan area.Parking over the entire Gateway Business Park site will not exceed the maximum allowable limit of 2.73 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The Public Draft General Plan Update envisions this area and the nearby vicinity as Business and Technology Park -High land use designation,which is described as “High-density corporate headquarters,research and development facilities,and offices”.The Project as designed would conform to the vision of the General Plan Update. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant’s request for a Third Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Third Amendment to the DA) seeks only minor modifications to the agreement. The modifications include: ·Update to the Project Description to reflect the Density Transfer Project. ·Update to the project fees to apply the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee,Commercial Linkage Fee and the Library Impact Fee for only the 120,221 square feet of additional building area proposed. ·Agreement by the developer to participate in a Community Facilities District,if formed,at an annual tax rate equivalent to no more than $1.00 per gross project square foot on the GOP Campus or such annual tax rate that applies to similarly situated Life Sciences projects in the East of 10.1 The proposed Third Amendment to the DA is included as Attachment 1 to the draft City Council Ordinance, which is attached to the Draft Entitlements Resolution as Exhibit C.The adoption of the ordinance will occur after the Council considers and approves the General Plan Amendments at a subsequent meeting. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD On October 19,2021 the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed Precise Plan Modification.The Board City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 6 of 11 powered by Legistar™106 File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. liked the overall design concept and recommended relatively minor revisions to the landscape plan, as follows: 1.Provide a mixture of tall coniferous trees (approximately five stories in height)within the interior of the campus to scale with the height of the buildings.Example species include Monterey Cypress,Canary Island Pine,Allepo Pine,Deodar Cedar,and Norfolk Island Pine (this species works well in areas where a wider canopy does not fit, and is tolerant to the SSF wind elements). 2.Provide clusters of taller trees between the site entrance off of Oyster Point Blvd and the northern end of the parking: 3.All trees should have a minimum planting area of 12’x12’x3’deep with an engineered soil and drainage to obtain the best growth in this area. 4.In areas where soil space is an issue and there are potential impacts around hardscape,consider using silva cells to increase root accessible soil volume. Draft condition of approval A-2 requires that the applicant incorporate the DRB’s recommendations prior to the issuance of building permits. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION On April 28,2022,the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC)in a duly noticed public meeting.During that meeting,the ALUC recommended the Project for approval and found that the Project was consistent with the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).On May 12,2022,the Project was approved with conditions by the Board of Directors of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG).The ALUC resolutions conditionally approving the Project are documented in Attachment 5 and the related conditions of approval are included in the project’s Conditions of Approval (Associated Entitlements Resolution Exhibit D). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Previous Environmental Documents In 2010,the City Council certified an EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2008062059)and approved the Gateway Business Park Master Plan project,Precise Plan for Phase 1,General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments,and a Development Agreement.The EIR included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) along with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (2009 EIR). In 2013,the City approved modifications to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Phase 1 Precise Plan.The City found that the modifications were within the scope of the 2009 EIR and re-certified that EIR,re- adopted the CEQA findings, the MMRP and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. In 2018,the City approved Precise Plans for Phases 2 and 3.The City determined that Phases 2 and 3 were within the scope of the 2009 EIR and adopted an Addendum (2018 Addendum). City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 7 of 11 powered by Legistar™107 File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. In 2020,the City approved the GOP Phase 4 Precise Plan,and determined that the Phase 4 project was within the scope of the 2009 EIR and 2018 Addendum,and adopted another Addendum (2020 Addendum)to the previous analysis. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report The City prepare,with assistance from Environmental Science Associates (ESA),a Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)for the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project.The SEIR is a supplemental analysis to the certified 2009 EIR and subsequently-prepared Addenda discussed above.As required by the state CEQA Guidelines,the scope of the DSEIR includes all environmental issues to be resolved and all areas of controversy relevant to the physical environment,including those issues and concerns identified by the City,and by other agencies,organizations and individuals in response to the City’s Notice of Preparation (NOP)published on November 16,2021.Areas of potential controversy or interest regarding the Project that were identified include vehicle miles traveled (VMT)per capita associated with the proposed project,and compatibility of the proposed project with the San Francisco International Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.Based on these comments,the only environmental resource topic fully evaluated in the Draft SEIR is transportation, and all other topics are discussed to the extent warranted. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts A significant and unavoidable impact is an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level if the project is implemented,because no feasible mitigation has been identified.The project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts relating to VMT in the Transportation categories. Impact 3.1-2:The proposed project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision b) related to VMT. Impact 3.1-5:Implementation of the proposed project,in combination with other development,could contribute to cumulative conditions where VMT per capita or VMT per employee could exceed 85 percent of the 2040 cumulative Bay Area-wide regional average daily VMT per employee. The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 attempts to reduce this impact by requiring first-and last-mile transit connections and active transportation improvements through the development of the rail spurs into a publicly accessible multi-use path that includes pedestrian amenities,connecting to class II bicycle lanes on Oyster Point Blvd with Forbes Blvd.However,even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1,the significant impact with respect to VMT would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level,as the effectiveness of the actions are unknown and may not reduce the project’s VMT below the existing and cumulative thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s effect on VMT would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. Response to Comments Document / Final SEIR The Draft SEIR was circulated for 45 days to state and other reviewing agencies/jurisdictions,and interested parties,from January 26,2022 to February 24,2022.The City received two comment letters:San Francisco International Airport (dated March 14,2022);and the California Department of Transportation (dated March City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 8 of 11 powered by Legistar™108 File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. International Airport (dated March 14,2022);and the California Department of Transportation (dated March 14, 2022). None of the comment letters raised significant environmental issues. Following the close of the public comment period,ESA prepared the Response to Comments document.The Final SEIR/Response to Comments is attached to the CEQA Resolution and was made available for public review on May 26,2022.The Final SEIR must be certified by the City’s project approving body (the City Council in this case) along with consideration of the project entitlement applications. MMRP and Statement of Overriding Considerations A supplement to the MMRP and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC)have been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 and 21081,respectively.The MMRP is organized to correspond to environmental issues and significant impacts discussed in the SEIR and will be used by the City to track or identify:the mitigation measures,timing for implementation,responsible party,the action,and ongoing monitoring responsibility.The supplement to the MMRP is attached to the Associated CEQA Resolution as Exhibit C. The SOC is included with the required CEQA Findings.The City Council must adopt the SOC for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No.2008062059)and the project cannot be approved unless a SOC is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable transportation impacts. Staff supports adoption of the SOC because the GOP 4 Density Transfer project will provide economic,social, technological,and other benefits that balance the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project related to transportation.Project benefits that balance the impacts include the promotion of flexibility in planning, efficient use of infill development sites in relatively close proximity to transit,and comprehensive,coordinated development planning, all without increasing the overall amount of square footage allowed in the area. FISCAL IMPACT The developer of the project has funded the preparation of all applicable studies for the proposed 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 the revised office/R&D building. In addition,the project would be subject to development impact fees,as determined through the revised Development Agreement.As noted above,the additional 120,221 square feet of additional building area proposed would be subject to new City impact fees,including the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee and the Library Impact Fee. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The proposed project helps achieve the following goal/objective of the City’s Strategic Plan: ·Priority #5 Economic Vitality -Full range of employment options and a continued focus on City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 9 of 11 powered by Legistar™109 File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. biotechnology retention, recruitment, and industry support. CONCLUSION The proposed GOP 4 Density Transfer Project is in keeping with the previously approved Gateway Business Park Master Plan and GOP 4 Precise Plan,and will continue 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 Gateway Specific Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1.Adopt a resolution making findings and certifying the Supplemental EIR,including adoption of a supplement to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC); and 2.Adopt a resolution making findings and conditionally approving the Specific Plan Repeal (SP21-0001), Master Plan Modification (MPM21-0001)and Precise Plan Modification (PPM21-0001,subject to the draft Conditions of Approval and future approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA21-0003); and 3.Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 20.220 (“Gateway Specific Plan District”) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and 4.Waive reading and introduce an ordinance approving the Third Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA22-0002),based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1.Gateway Business Park Master Plan, adopted 2013 2.Gateway of Pacific Phase 4 Precise Plan Approved Drawings, approved 2020 3.Previously Adopted 2013 and 2020 Conditions of Approval 4.Design Review Board Letters -October 19,2021 (for GOP 4 Density Transfer Project)and May 11, 2020 (for original Phase 4 Precise Plan) 5.San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission Resolution 22-30 6.Planning Commission Resolutions a.2887-2022 CEQA b.2888-2022 Entitlements 7.Staff Presentation ASSOCIATED FILES AND EXHIBITS 1.Draft CEQA Resolution (22-368) City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 10 of 11 powered by Legistar™110 File #:22-367 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11. A.Original CEQA Findings adopted by Resolutions 18-2010 and 43-2013 B.2022 Supplemental EIR C.Supplemental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2.Draft Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance (22-369) 3.Draft Development Agreement Ordinance (22-370) A.Third Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement 4.Draft Entitlements Resolution (20-371) A.General Plan Amendment B.Gateway Business Park Master Plan Modification (revised pages only) C.GOP 4 Precise Plan Modification Plans D.GOP Phase 4 Density Transfer Project Draft Conditions of Approval City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/8/2022Page 11 of 11 powered by Legistar™111 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK Master Plan South San Francis c o, CA May 20 13 Prepared for: (81 B10Med Realty Prepared by: KEH KAY ASSOCIATES Master Planning, Urban Design, & land:icape Architectu1 e 1045 San <,,o me Slreet -S1ud 1o :t2 1 San Francisco, CA. 9411 1 1415)%6-4472 'l..i nkaysfcom Collaborators: City of South San Francisco Fehr & Peers Traffic Consultants BKF Engineers Surveyors Planners FLAD Architects GNU Group Signage Consultants Treadwell & Rollo Geotechnical Engineers 112 GATEWAY BUSIN ESS PARK MASTER PLAN 113 Table of Contents Introduction Master Plan Vision Statement Master Plan Goals and Objectives Key Master Plan Principles Purpose and Relationship of Documents I. Project Setting 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Regional Context Local -Context Existing and Future Roadway System Existing and Future Transit Geotechnical Setting Existing Utility Services II. Development Program & Development Sta ndards 2.1 2 .2 2 .3 Existing Development Program and Use Proposed Development Program Development Standards iv V vi xiii 2 2 4 6 7 7 10 10 11 Table of Contents Ill. Urban Design & Site Planning 3 .1 3 .2 3 .3 3.4 3 .5 3 .6 IV. 4 .1 4 .2 Site Planning and Organization Bui lding Framework Open Space Network Pedestrian Circulation and Amenities Vehicular Circulation a nd Parking Employee Amenities Plan Implementation Gateway Business Park Master Plan Regulatory & Review Process Phasing Appendix A : Des i gn Guidelines Appendix B : Master Plant List Appendix C : Mast r Sign Program 15 17 19 21 22 24 26 27 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 114 GATEWAY BUSINESS PA RK MASTER P LA N 115 Introdu ction Master Plan Vision Statement Master Plan Goals and Objectives Key Master Plan Principles Purpose and Relationship of Documents ii iii iv xi GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 116 Introduction Master Plan Vision St atement The Gateway Business Park is a 22.6 acre site in South San Francisco, California that is ready to make a transformation. Over the last two decades this successful business park has been shaped into its current form which consists of an organized , architecturally consistent group of low scale buildings that are surrounded by surface parking and perim- eter landscape . Although it has served its tenants well over the years, it is time for a new vision to take the Gateway Business Park into the decades to come . This new vision entails a plan to more closely achieve the property's highest and best use by the creation of a higher density, contemporary, high quality, life sciences oriented campus. This will be accomplished by a phased and incremental replacement of the existing low scale build- 200 Oyster Point Boulevard 180 Oyster Point Boulevard ings with a community of new buildings that are modern, more energy efficient and better support the ongoing evolution of the life sciences industry. This community of new buildings , organized by a campus style site planning approc1ch , changes the paradigm of how the outdoor envi- ronment is currently experienced by the prevalence of surface parking to one where the pede istrian is prioritized in a landscape filled with a variety of useable spaces that are attractive and well connected _ J This rendering is a vision of the future Gateway Business Park with all new buildings, a large cent ral common open space and parking structures. Bird's Eye View Looking Southeast over the Proposed Vision for the Redevelopment of the Gateway Business Park GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MAST ER PLAN 117 The creation of this new working campus has many benefits for a wide array of stake holders . • The City of South San Francisco will experience the benefits of eco- nomic development, maximize potential redevelopment revenues and strengthen the City's employment-base. The City will also further cement its reputation as a world leader in the conce ntration of life sci- ence I biotechnology research and development. • Corporations that will occupy the campus will benefit from mode rn, efficient and flexible facilities within a high quality environment that will significantly contribute to their potential for long term success and their ability to recruit and retain talented employees in an increasingly competitive local and global market. .l!llo. Bird's Eye View over Existing Site Looking Northeast Introduction • Employees will benefit from an enjoyable and attractive workplace that provides an environment in which both the internal building and external open space systems foster connectivity and community to enable more opportunity to share ideas and collaborate. • The owner and developer of this property will benefit from its long term investment, beginning with the creation of the original business park to its transformation into an asset capable of keeping pace with opportu- nities and demands of the current and future markets. Master Plan Goals and Objectiv s The following is a summary of the primary goals and objectives that shape the intent of this site's redevelopment: • Utilize the site's existing zoning potential by increasing use from the existi ng 284,000 square feet (approx .29 FAR) to up to the site's per- mitted 1 .25 FAR capacity. • Form a cohesive working campus environment that is capable of accommodating one or multiple tenants with a meaningful and clear organization of buildings, structured parking and network of high qual- ity pedestrian circulation and open spaces. • Emphasize the pedestrian environment with well designed and useful landscape spaces that respond to the unique challenges of the South San Francisco micro-climate. • Encourage high quality architecture , landscape architecture and sus- tainable desig n elements. • Connect to and foster the use of various modes of transit such as Caltrain, BART and future Ferry service . • All ow for the incremental and phased redevelopment of the existing buildings while maintaining a functioning working environment for those areas of the site not yet being redeveloped . GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 111 118 1\1 Introduction Key Master Plan Principles The following key principles will assist the master plan 's goals and objec- tives in shaping the execution of the campus's vision: C reati ng Meaningf ul O p n Space Minimizing the dedication of site area to surface parking is the primary plann ing strategy to enable the creation of useable pedestrian oriented environments . To accomplish this , it is envisioned that the site 's park - ing needs will be primarily consolidated into parking structures, supple- mented with sub surface garages at buildings where necessary with limited surface parking. This approach enables the creation of a pri - mary central open space network called the "C entral Commons " where employees and visitors can logically and safely move from place to place , stop to share ideas , gather for events or simply spend time in the sun protected from the wind . O r ganization o f Vehicular E n try and Arrival Points Clear organization and prominent identifi cation of vehicular entries , arrival areas , access points to parking structures and intended paths of travel are critical to safe and logical vehicula r movement through the campus . These important points shou ld be re inforced by design tech- niques to terminate important views and to shape arrival spaces . The incorporation of legible high quality signage , wayfinding and other spe- cial site elements will also be used . Building entry points will be clea rly identified and pronounced through architectural and landscape design to co mplete the "arrival sequence ," especially for those buildings that may not have a direct veh icular arrival/drop off area. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER P LAN Central Commons Concept Clear Building Entl'y Points 119 / Gateway Business Par k Master Plan Area Boundary G) Buildings @ Central Commons @ Parking Structures @ Arrival Areas Introduction This plan represents a concept frame- work for the campus and is intended only to convey a vision for relationships and elements . Conceptual Illustrative Master Plan GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN I/ 120 vi Introduction Existing Intersection of Oyster Point & Gateway Boulevards Capitalizi ng 1,n and Fitting int o Context The prominent position at the intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards not only provides valuable corporate visibly for the occu- pants of Gateway Business Park , but also serves as a platform to cre - ate a landmark entry into this employment community known for being the birthplace of biotechnology. It is env isioned that iconic architecture and identity forming landscape elements such as walls, natural planting forms, natural materials and special sculptural features will be combined to signify this gatew.ay experience . r 1 Concept of Iconic Gateway at Intersection of Oyster Point & Gateway Boulevards GATE:WAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 121 180 & 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Buildings Although not technically part of Gateway Business Park Master Plan area, the recently developed buildings at 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard are intrinsically linked with the organization and development of this campus through their proximity, access , street orientation, opera- tional needs and architectural style. Hedgerow at Gateway Boulevard Along Gateway Boulevard, the existing hedgerow of Poplar trees pro- vides a very strong identifying element for the western edge of the site and is a valuable contribution to the campus's street frontage. A sig- nificant portion of this hedgerow is intended to be retained as part of the new development and it will be reestablished in areas where its removal is necessary for future construction . This hedgerow provides an addi- tional benefit by acting as an effective windbreak to help reduce the impact of the site's typically windy conditions . • Int roduction 180 & 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Buildings VII GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER Pl AN 122 viii I ntrod uct1on Arch"tectural Distinction and Variety The over arching architectural vocabulary of the campus should reflect a general cohesiveness while allowing variety through the creation of individual building groups. These groups are : the buildings that front Gateway Boulevard, the internal site buirdings, and the parking struc- tures. The recently developed buildings at 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard can be considered a fourth building type of the ultimate cam- pus although they are not technically part of the Master Plan area . The combination of these four building groups provide an important variety that will help distinguish this campus from others in the area that have employed a more homogenous building approach. GATF::.W AY BU SINESS PARK MASTER PLAN Landscape Character The landscape fabric ultimately defines the feel of the campus from the pedestrian perspective and acts as the overall unifier tying all aspects of the campus together. The vision for the landscape character is one of a natural , informal and employee friendly appearance built around free flowing forms rathe1-than geometric patterns . This is accomplished by the use of a simple· yet effective palette of plant materials with varied seasonal interest , form , color and texture and the incorporatio n of other natural elements such as rock and stone work . These elements will be combined with variations in landform and circulation routes to cre- ate a series of wind protected spaces that are experienced individually throughout the circulation network rather than being large expanses of flat open space . 123 .. Greening Concepts Creating a "green" campus has a dual meaning for the Gateway Business Park. By employing a LEED equivalent standard for the desig n of the new buildings , this campus will incorporate and benefit from the advancement in techniques and technologies of resource consciousness that relate to today 's popular definition of "green." In addition, the campus will utilize a lite ral "greening " approach where a commitment to landscape as part of an overall site and architectural design vocabulary is employed. Along with thoughtful approaches to materials, energy and water consump- tion , water quality, and a host of other resource conscious concepts , this project recognizes the importance of the symbolism and connection to Introduction life that plant materials provide in the context of a life sciences oriented campus . To that end, the in cl usion of plant material in aspects of design in c luding terraces on some buildings and faces to the parking structures are envisioned to help give life to what could otherwise be cohsidered the cold hard necess ities of buildings . GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER Pl AN IX 124 )f Introduction :~. '• 1.-"'"' ,,.· Sn~r;J.f rr,, -~o,. '• , . p,,m, . r ~ ..... : .... -~·- ,.,,,, .. ;t . i, -.... :"" .• · :•. ' 'N rv: \ • 'l,. ?•;_ • • ~ % I Sp eci fic Pla n Area I I East oflOl Are a Pla n ~:§1 Redevelopment Area ---Gateway Specific Plan District Gateway Business Park Master Plan Area .. ~.--,, Master Plan Area and Redevelopment Area GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN .. 'm . ,. ... . <S'4N //cii!JNd :MrlPf\'1'AfN. "f<«t;~r~_f;\f K ·\ .. i \ ) . J,,-,,,,c,sco --- Source: South San Francisco General Plan 125 Introdu c tion Purpos e an d Relationship of Documents This Master Plan and associated new documents are intended to re-entitle and set forth a framework of performance criteria for the redevelopment of the Gateway Business Park. The followin g list is a compilation of the existing regulatory documents that currently govern the site's development and the new supplemental documents that are being proposed to provide a greater level of specificity to implement the redevelopment vision. Existing Documents Ge neral Plan (adopted 1999) The South San Francisco General Plan sets forth goals and poli- cies to guide the intent in density and the City's future growth and development. Eas t of 101 Area Plan (adopted 1994) The East of 101 Area Plan was created to guide more specific aspects related to the intent of development for this area that were not addressed in the General Plan or other regulatory documents. Zoning Ordinance -Gateway Spe cific Plan District The South San Francisco Municipal Code specifies the application of the goals and policies of the General Plan through land use zoning and establishes permitted uses, building limitations, spatial standards, park- ing standards and regulates development of parcels within the City. The Gateway Specific Plan District is a redevelopment district created to refine and implement the City's General Plan for a specific area within the East of 101 Area Plan. The regulations for this district have been incorporated into the municipal code as Chapter 20.57. The proposed Gateway Business Park Master Plan area is located within the Gateway Specific Plan District boundary and is represented by Zone 5 in Exhibit A in Ordinance 868-61. All regulations in the municipal code relating to the Gateway Specific Plan Di strict shall govern the development of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan area unless otherwise indicated in the Master Plan. Propose d Gatew ay Business Park Documents Gateway Business Park Master Plan This Master Plan establishes the intent, framework, and development program of the Master Plan area. Amendments to the municipal code section 20.57 that govern the Master Plan area are identified in the Development Standards in Chapter II to this document. Ga teway Business Park D esig n Guidelines The Design Guidelines are included as Appendix A to the Master Plan to provide additional guidance for future designers and planning staff as the campus is redeveloped. Environm ental Impact Report A project specific EIR will be prepared concurrently with the Master Plan review process to study and identify mitigation measures necessary to implement the proposed development program. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PL.AN xi 126 I. Project Setting 1.1 Regional Context 2 1.2 Local Context 2 XII 1.3 Existing and F uture Roadway System 4 1 .4 Existing and F uture Transit 6 1.5 Geotechnic al Setting 7 1.6 Existing Utility Services 7 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 127 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 128 I. Project Setting Pacific Ocean 2 Legend 11111111111111 Caltrain CD BART Bay Trail Ex. Ferry Route Prop. Ferry Route -1 Airport •••• Biotech ••• Hubs C) NTS i-~------ Regional Context GATE WAY BUSINESS PAR!< MASTER PL A N . S.F.Ba~ San Fraricisco lnt'I . ~.. ·. ··, .. . ------···' 1.1 Regional Context The City of South San Francisco is well situated for continued expan- sion of business opportunities because of its location between major population centers, convenient access to international airports, major highways and multiple modes of public transit and trai l systems. It is the birthpla ce of the biotechnology industry and is home to several of the world's largest biotechnology companies making it a world leader in the global marketplace . Much of the growth for this industry in South San Francisco has occurred through the redevelopment of existing industrial base uses in the East of 101 Area. It is critical to continue to support and promote this approa1ch as competition for locating biotechnology compa- nies and the talented scientists and other employees they need grows both locally and globally. 1.2 Local C o ntex t The Gateway Business Park Master Plan area is located at the intersec- tion of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards in South San Francisco's East of 101 Area. US-101 (Bayshore Freeway) is in very close proximity to the site and provides direct access from the Oyster Point Boulevard exits from both north and south bound directions. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station is approximately% of a mile from the site. The site's climatic conditions are generally consistent with other Bay Area cities that are characterized by mild winters, cool summers and moderate intermittent rainfall in the winter months. Other factors shap- ing the local climate are the proximity to the bay edge and the rela- tionship to the San Bruno Gap that divides the San Bruno Mountains and the Coast Ran~Je. This dynamic has a particular influence 011 wind patterns especially during the spring and summer months resulti ng in strong afternoon easterly moving winds of up to 25 mph. 129 Legend (!ill Gateway Business Park Master Plan Area ' 180 & 200 Oyster Point Blvd Vehicular Access Points Shuttle Service to Transit to S. San Francisco BART ptalion I. Project Setting • ., .:i!: 0 3 Local Context GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 130 4 I Project Settirg 1.3 Existing and Future Road w ay System xisting Roadways and Bicycle Facilities Two north-south freeways , US-101 and 1-280. form the backbone of the roadway system in South San Francisco and carry regional traffic between San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties . 1-380 , an east-west connector between US-101 and 1-280 , lies just south of the City. On an average weekday , the section of US-101 in South San Francisco carries approximately 200 ,000 vehicles . The 2007 Congestion Management Program (CMP) for San Mateo County reports US-101 ope rates with minimal to moderate levels of congestion (Level of Service D) in South San Francisco during peak commute hours. In addition to the freeway system, a network of arterial , collector, and local streets provides access and mobility within South San Francisco. Major arterial roadways near the Gateway Business Park Master Plan area include Airport Boulevard , Bayshore Boulevard , Oyster Point Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard , and East Grand Avenue. Bicycle facilities include bike paths (Class I), bike lanes ·(Class II), and bike routes (Class Ill). Bike paths are paved trails that are separated from roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles by striping , pavement legends, and signs . Bike routes are road- ways that are designated for bicycle use by signs only and may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists. In the vicinity of the project site, bike lanes are provided on East Grand Avenue , Sister Cities Boulevard, and portions of Oyster Point Boulevard. Gateway Boulevard and Airport Boulevard are designated as bicycle routes . The San Francisco Bay Trail , part of a planned 400-mile system of trails encircl- ing the Bay, is located close to the project site and provides access to the Oyster Point Marina . GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN F u t u re Roadways Several roadway improvements are planned in the East of 1 O 1 A rea . The South San Francisco General Plan proposes the extension of Railroad Avenue from South Linden Avenue to Gateway Bouleva rd (East Grand Avenue). This new street connection would provide an additional con- nection to the Oys ter Point area across US-101 and Cal train tracks , and it would likely be a four-lane roadway. These improvements would enhance access from the south via the Airport Boulevard exit and Gateway Boulevard . Several intersectio traffic improvements are also planned for the East of 101 Area and included in the City 's Traffic Impact Fee Program . They include improvements to the Oyster Point interchange and to intersec- tions along East Grand Avenue. -~ 131 / r£}1."J" C1w1 Legend Gateway Business Park Master Plan Area BART I I I I I I I Caltrain SamTrans Bus Route • Existing Caltrain Station ---Bay Trail ••••• • 0 Shuttle Service to Transit Existing Bicycle Facility Proposed Bicycle Path Ferry Terminal Existing Shuttle Stop NTS I I I. Project Setting S an Bruno Canfll S,1,1 Francisco Bay Existing Transit Route Diagram G ATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 5 132 6 I. Project Setting 1.4 Existing and Future Transit Existing Transit The Gateway Business Park Master Plan area is not directly served by rail or bus transit services ; however, three transit agencies (Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans) provide commuter rail and bus service in the vicinity. The East of 101 Area relies on supplementary shuttle services to connect employees with the BART and Caltrain stations. Shuttle ser- vices are operated by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance and include the Utah-Grand and Oyster Point shuttles . The Gateway Express shuttle is operated by Compass Transportation under the guid- ance of Genentech in conjunction with the Gateway Association, and is open to non-Genentech employees. While the site is approximately three-quarters of a mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, pedestrian access is inconvenient due to the lack of direct pedestrian connections and lengthy pedestrian wait times at signalized intersections. In addition to rail transit opportunities, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) began ferry service between Alameda and South San Francisco in mid-2012 at the new ferry terminal at the Oyster Point Marina. F utu re Transit Several transit changes are also planned in the vicinity of the site. The proposed relocation of the South San Francisco Caltrain station will include a bicycle/pedestrian under-or over-crossing of the railroad tracks to allow for better pedestrian accessibility to and from the East of 101 Area. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MA STER P LAN Ferry Terminal 133 1.5 Geotechnical Setting The 22.6 acre site is geotechnically characterized by the subsurface conditions consisting of the following general profiles : • Bedrock exposed at the ground surface • Native dense sa nd ove r bedrock • Compacted fill over native dense sand over bedrock • Compacted fill over bedrock The fill is characterized as compacted in the site-specific geotechnical report prepared for the adjacent development of 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard. The fill consists of sand, clayey sand and sandy clay. The native soil is predominantly silty and clayey sand. Bedrock is of the Franciscan Formation and consists of shale and sandstone . Groundwater was found perched on top of the bedrock in fractures, seams of the bedrock, or seeping out of exposed bedrock faces . Based on information in the available reports and the documented sub- surface conditions , it is assumed that there are no geotechnical issues that would preclude an intensified development of the site. Additional site exploration shall be performed as necessary to identify any changes in the soil and bedrock conditions to determine the soil/rock profile as specific bui lding sites are identified for development. Due to the varia- tions in the subsurface profile across the site , the acceptable foundation performance may differ between structures and various foundation types may be needed . Shallow foundations such as footings , mats or slabs will likely be acceptable for some buildings while others may require deep foundations such as drilled in-place piles . All of these foundation types are common and feasible and the decision of their appropriate use will be made by the development team during individual building design. 1.6 Existing Utility Services D omesti c Wate r I. Project Setting Water service for the site is provided by California Water Service Company (CWSC). The CWSC obtai ns its water from a purchasing agreement with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which is supplied by water from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System and groundwater. According to the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR , dated May 23, 2006, CWSC 's contract with SFPUC, dated August 8, 1984, entitles CWSC to 42 .3 million gallons per day (mgd) annual average. In 2005, the request from CWSC was 38.25 mgd with an additional 1.4 mgd supply pumped from groundwater. According to pre- liminary conversations with CWSC staff, water supply is available for the project and capacity of the existing off-site water distribution is not anticipated to be affected. Existing water distribution mains within the site include a 12-inch main along Gateway Boulevard and 16-inch main along Oyster Point Boulevard. There is no existing on-site public dis- tribution system . Private on-site services for the existing six buildings include typical domestic water, fire and irrigation service . W ast ewater Wastewater capacity for the site is not a constraint to the deve lopment. Collection of wastewater is provided by the City of South San Francisco. Treatment of wastewater is provided by the City of South San Francisco/ San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP). Existing facilities serv- ing the site and the Ea st 101 Area are described as follows : • Oyster Po int Bouleva rd has a 10 and 12-inch pipe installed circa 1982 as part of the Gateway Assessment District improvements discharg- ing to Pump Stat ion 2. This pipe collects all flows from the Oyster Point basin and existing Buildings 800 , 850 , 900 , and 1000 Gateway Boulevard. • Pump Station 2 is located southwest of the Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard intersection. Water flows through a 10-inch force main to the existing 15-inch pipe located in Gateway Boulevard. The current final Sewer System Master Plan (SS M P) prepared by Carollo G AT F:WAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PL.AN 7 134 8 I . Project Setting Engineers , dated September 2002 recommends that the pump station capacity be increased by replacing the existing pumps to handle future peak wet weather flows , increasing the firm capacity to 1,400 gpm . • Gateway Boulevard has a 15-inch pipe installed circa 1982 as part of the Gateway Assessment District improvements wh ich discharges sout h to Pump Station 4 . This pipe collects flows from existing Buildings 700 and 750 Gateway Boulevard . • Pump Station 4 is located northeast of the i ntersection of Mitchell Avenue and Harbor Way . This station collects and pumps almost all flows from the East of 101 Area sub-basins to the WQCP throug h an existing 21-inch force main. The current SSMP recommends that the pump station capacity be increased by replacing the existing pumps to increase future firm capacity of 9,000 gpm . Sto rmwater Drainage Stormwater drainage is not a constraint to development. The site is within the East of 101 Area , which is served by storm drainage collection that discharges either to Colma Creek or the Sa n Francisco Bay . The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development. The s ite is divided into three separate sub -drainage areas: North (Portion of Building 1000), Centra l (Portion of Buildings 800 and 1000) and South (Buildings 700 , 750, 850 , 900 and a portion of Building 800). The on-site sto rm drainage system va ries in size from 12-inch to 30 -inch in diam - eter. The three sub-drainage areas discharge to the City 's public storm drainage system as follows: North Sub-rainage Area The North sub-drainage area discharges to the existing 18-inch to 24-inch public sto rm drainage system on Oyster Point Boulevard . The Oyster Point Boulevard storm drainage system outfalls to the San Francisco Bay at the Oyster Cove Marina (north of the Master Plan Area) via a 24 by 30-inch box storm drain line. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN Central Sub-·D rainage Area The Central sub -dra inage area discharges to the existing 18-inch pub- lic storm drainage line on Gateway Boulevard . The ex isting 18-inch Gateway Boulevard line connects to the Oyster Point Boulevard public storm drainage sy stem at the intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevard . South Sub-Drainage Area The South sub-drainage area discharges to the existing 30-inch pub lic storm drain line on Gateway Boulevard . The Gateway Boulevard public storm drainage system collects and conveys storm runoff from the site and outfalls south of the site to Colma Creek. The outfall is located east of the intersection of Harbor Way and Mitchell Avenue. The Gateway Boulevard public sir stem varies in size from 30-inch to 72-in c h. Preliminary conversations with City Maintenance Department staff do not indicate that thme is an off-site capacity issue within the Master Plan Area . Natu ral Gas & El e ctricity Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) serves the site . Since se rvice to all six existing buildin!J S already exists, there should be no constraints to providing gas and electrical services . Site Commu1r1ications AT&T (Telephone) and Comcast (Cable) serve the site. Since service to all six existing buildings already exists , there should be no constraints to providing telephone and cable serve . 135 II. Development Program & Development Standards 2.1 Existing Development P rogram and Use 10 2,2 Proposed Development Program 2,3 Development Standards 10 11 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 9 136 10 11. Develo p ment P rogram & Development Standards 2.1 Existing Developm en t P rog ram and Us e 2.2 P r opos,ed Deve l opment Program The 22.6 acre site is comprised of 4 legal parcels . The existing develop- ment model consists of 6 single-story buildings (Build ings 700 through 1,000 Gateway Boulevard) associated surface parking and landscape comprising an aggregate of approximately 284,000 square feet of use operating for various purposes including Research and Development , Office, Light Distribution and Day Care . Aerial View of Existing Development With Parcel Lines -Looking South GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN The Master Plan proposes to density the development site to achieve up to the permitted 1.25 FAR capacity by t l1 e phased incremental rede- velopment of the ex isting buildings with new buildings and associated parking structures . Aerial View of Proposed Redevelopment -Looking South 137 11. Devel opmen t P r o gram & Development Standards 2.3 Development St a nd ards This development standards table outlines the allowable uses, building limitations, setbacks and off street parking requirements proposed for this Master Plan area and their relationship to the existing governing municipal code. D eve opment s d d tan ar s Existing Municipal Code Proposed Gateway Specific Plan District Gateway Business Park Master Plan Permitted Uses Per Section 20.57.200 Per Section 20.57.200 ~g lirni_tatio ns ber Section 20.57.210 The Gateway Business Park Master Plan retains building limitations per municipal Building Coverage (1) ::: or < than 50% of site area code with the following conditions: Building Height 1= or< than 250' Gross Floor Area Ratio (1) = or< than 1.25 ~-Building coverage and gross floor area ratio limitations shall apply only to iaggregate calculations for the site's permitted 1.25 FAR within the total 22.6 acres. Individual ouilding developments within the Gateway Business Park shall be allowed to exceed these limitations during the phased incremental redevelopment. Setbacks Per Section 20.57.220 The Gateway Business Park Master Plan retains setbacks per municipal Buildings K;ode with the following conditions: 40' from any property line on any street ~-O' from all property lines not adjacent to a street. Off Str eet Parkino ber Section 20.57.240 The current anticipated range of total parking provided for the Master Plan at ultimate buildout is between a parking ratio of 2.0 to 2.83 per 1,000 SF. Parking ratios will vary for new development projects within the 22.6 acre site during its phased incremental redevelopment. Total parking counts for the campus during phased redevelopment shall be an aggregate of new structured parking , below grade parking , new interim surface parking (if necessary), and existing surface parking . Notes : (1) Per 20.57.210 Building Limitations, parking garages are excluded from building coverage and gross floor area ratio site calculations. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTE R PLAN 11 138 12 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK M ASTER P L.AN 139 Ill. Urban Design & Site Planning 3.1 Site Planning and Organization 15 3.2 Building Framework 17 13 3.3 Open Space Network 19 3.4 Pedestrian Circulation and A menities 21 3 .5 Vehicular Circulation and Park ing 22 3.6 Employee Amenities 24 GATEWAY BUS INES S PARK MASTER PLAN 140 14 I ll. Urba n Desi g n & Site Pla n ni ng Legen d rri'n Gateway Frontage ~ Buildings [!TI Internal Site Buildings [@] Parking Structures ~ Oyster Point Buildings ® Central Commons @] Street Frontage [@J Arrival Areas [@] G) Parking Structure Frontage NTS Site Organizational Diagram -Looking South GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 141 3.1 Site Pl a nn i ng and Organization The arrangement and organization of all component systems that make up the Gateway Business Park is the foundation to allowing the cam- pus to function, adapt and succeed over time. As this campus will be designed and constructed in a phased sequence, it will be critically importa nt to un derstand and maintain the basic structure of the master plan vision. To achieve the goals and objectives of the vision, the following site plan- ning and organizational principles will be followed: ® @ ® ® ® ® ® ® Design new buildings that engage the public street frontage and the Central Commons open space. Design new buildi ngs internal to the campus that receive employees and visitors as part of an organized arrival sequence. Concentrate parking into parking structures situated along the southeasterly boundary of the site. Relate to the recently developed buildings of 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard. Develop a pedestrian friendly Central Commons open space in the area created by the parking structure and building place- ment strategy. Enhance public street frontage and foster transit orientation by providing multiple pedestrian connections to and from the inter- nal campus and shuttle system stops. Create an inviting and enriched arrival experience to the Internal Site Buildings, the plaza at Central Commons and to other possible arrival areas within the campus. Provide an appropriate landscape edge to the parking structure frontage as it relates to the Central Commons. 200 Oyster Point Boulevard I l l. Urban Design & S1te Planning ....... 180 Oyster Polnt Boulevard ./ ... Aerial View Looking South East GAT EWAY BUSINE S S PARK MASTER PLAN 15 142 16 Ill. Urban Design & Site P lann in g Legend ~ Gateway Frontage ~ Buildings @ Internal Site Buildings © Parking Structures © Oyster Point Buildings C=1 Central Commons C=1 Street Frontage [=::J Arrival Areas Parking Structure Frontage NTS Building Types Diagram • Looking South GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PL A N 143 3.2 Build ing F r amewo rk There are 4 building types associated with the campus. It is intended that architectural variation between these types be created to develop visual interest and diversity to prevent a homo genous campus. The building types are the Internal Site Buildin g s , the Gateway Boulevard Frontage Buildings, the Parking Structures and the Oyster Point Frontage Buildings. @ Gateway Boulevard Frontage Buildings The Gateway Boulevard Frontage Buildings are those adjacent to the street frontage zone along the exist ing hedgerow of Poplar trees and the building that occupies the primary corner position at the intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevard. Together these buildings cre- ate the western boundary of the Central Commons open space. The primary corner building is a special case in this building type as it will be the most visible of all new buildings within the campus. This building will provide the iconic gateway experience into the larger biotechnology community. @ Int ernal Site Buildings The Internal Site Buildings are those that do not front onto a public street. The building immediately south of Building 180 Oyster Point, toget her with the Gateway Frontage Buildings, will complete the campus' primary workplace opportunities . The second building in this group will contrib- ute to the overall campus' workplace environment by providing a cen- tralized amenities facility along the Central Commons . These buildings should have an architectural relation with the primary corner building of the Gateway Frontage Building group as they share an important rela- tionship in framing a large component of the Central Commons open space . Il l. Urban Design & Site Planning @ Pa r king Struct ures The parking structures have been located and consolidated along the southeasterly boundary of the site. As they are anticipated to be of size- able proportion to contain the site 's parking needs, their internal fayade is envisioned to incorporate a planting component as well as ground level screening to soften their presence. Additionally , enhanced archi - tectural treatment of entries and strategic building corners that termi- nates views are envisioned. @ Oys ter Point Frontage Buildings The recently constructed 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Buildings are not technically part of the Master Plan area; however, their context plays an important role in the perception of the broader campus . Their architectural expression utilizes metal and glass to create simple and clean forms. Buildings Relating to Open Space GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PL.AN 17 144 18 Ill. Urban D esign & Site Planning egend C:=J Gateway Frontage Buildings c=J Internal Site Buildings CJ Parking Structures CJ Oyster Point Buildings IT!] Central Commons @ Street Frontage © Arrival Areas [@] Q Parking Structure Frontage NTS Open Space Diagram -Looking South GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 145 3.3 Op e n Sp a ce Netwo rk The parking structure and building placement strategy allows the cam- pus to benefit from the creation of a series of meaningful outdoor spaces varying in size and scale that are well connected , useful , comfortable and that respond to the micro-climate of South San Francisco . The open space and landscape zones that unify the campus through a con- sistent body of site elements is comprised of the Central Commons, Street Frontage, Arrival Areas and the Parking Structure Frontage . @ Cen t ral Co m mons The Central Commons is the nucleus of the open space network sup- porting the main circulation routes and contains the most important out- door amenities, gathering spaces and passive use areas. ® S treet F ront age The Street Frontage is the area between the campus 's primary building face and Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards and the public realm . It serves as the cr itical link between the site and the public environment as it supports the flow of pedestrian traffic and connections to public transit. This zone plays an important role in establishing campus identity as it holds a rich palette of landscape, terra ces , walls , spec ial elements and signage/wayfinding. The current hedgerows along Gateway Boulevard are not only a strong identifier but also an important windbreak . The Master Plan intends to preserve this element where possible and rees - tablish it where removal is necessary for future construction . @ A rrival Areas There are multiple arrival areas in the campus. The primary arrival area is centrally located between the Internal Site Buildings and the primary corner building at Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevard and is accessi- ble from mult iple routes through the campus and the Central Commons circulation system. Other arrival areas will be determined through the ultimate campus design and tenant need , but special attention will be paid to establishing clear and defined arrivals for each building whether they be vehicular or pedestrian in nature . Ill Urban D esign & Site Planning @ Parking St r u cture F ro ntage The Parking Structure Frontage is primarily the area associated w ith the western edge of the parking structures . This zone will serve as an important landscape screen for the interior faces of the parking struc- tures as they interface w ith the Central Commons. Central Commons GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 146 20 Il l. U rb an Design & Site P lan ni ng Legend @ Cent ral Spine &Amenity Spaces [=:J Gateway Frontage Parking Structure Connectio Buildings CJ Internal Site Buildings CJ Parking Structures C=:J Oyster Point Buildings [=:J Central Commons [=:J Street Frontage [=:J Arrival Areas Parking Structure Frontage NTS Pedestrian Circulation Diagram -Looking South GAT EWAY BUSINESS PARK MA STE R PLAN 147 3.4 Pedestrian Circul aUo n a nd Amenities Central to the campus concept is the creation of a pedestrian oriented environment where employees and visitors are able to connect to the entire system of buildings and outdoor spaces with a comfortable and easy to navigate circulation network after arriving via transit , car or bicycle. This network includes connections between buildings, parki ng structures , open spaces, shuttle stops and public sidewalks. G) Central Spine and Amenity Spaces The central pedestrian spine is the primary conduit for pedestrian move- ment through the campus and is the backbone for the Central Commons. It will be the widest pedestrian walk in the system capable of comfortably accommodating higher volumes of pedestrian movement a nd, as neces- sary , will also serve as an emergency vehicle route . Primary pedestrian amenity spaces are to be connected to this spine including a central gathering space at the Internal Site Buildings and other useable outdoor spaces for smaller group gatherings and informal meetings . A second- ary network of walkways is to be connected to the Central Spine provid - ing indirect and leisurely routes within the Central Commons. These walks are smaller in scale than the Central Spine and are the connec- tions to more informal passive spaces that are created for smaller scale meetings and simple passive enjoyment. ® Parking Structure Connections Direct connections from parking structures to the central spine and building entries will help direct visitors and create easy connections for employees. @)connections to the Street These walkways provide a vital link between the interior of the campus and the public sidewalk and shuttle stops. 111 . Urban Design & Site Planning @ Public Realm a t Street F rontage The street frontage circulation will consist of two walkways that serve separate functions . A new public sidewalk will be created as an exten- sion of the existing sidewalk that terminates near the end of the cam- pus on Gateway Boulevard. This new sidewalk will be associated with the street edge , connect all shuttle stops and provide public pedestrian movement along the campus 's frontage . A second walkway called the perimeter walk is an existin g walkway that occurs approximately 30' from the street edge and runs between the hedgerows of Poplar trees . The perimeter walk is intended primarily for employee use and when combined with the Oyster Point Boulevard frontage and central spine creates an approximate 1 mile loop for walking and jogging. Building Zone ' ) ' • \ Perimeter Walk ' J ~I t· ii I New Pub\i c Sidewalk Gateway Boulevard Section at Gateway Blvd. Street Frontage G ATEWAY BUSINESS PA RK MASTER PLAN 21 148 22 Ill. Urb an D e s ign & S it e Plannin g 3.5 Vehicular Circulation and Pa rki ng Simple , efficient and well marked vehicular access and circulation is an in tegral component to a properly functioning campus . Necessities of automobiles , service and emergency vehicles must be accommodated and must be carefully integrated into the pedestrian oriented campus environment. Parking facilities that are located in parking structures at the southeasterly boundary of the site and below grade at the primary corner Gateway Frontage Building will be logically connected to this sys- tem and very clearly identified and marked through signage and way- finding. Other incidental surface parking that may be necessary shall also be easily accessed and clearly labled. Basic Syste m Circulation through the campus is achieved primarily by creating an access lane along the exterior face of the parking structures . This access lane is served by two primary entrances: at the intersection of Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards between buildings 180 and 200 and the signalized intersection of Gateway Boulevard approximately 850 feet south of the intersection of Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards . The access lane is additionally served by secondary entrances that link to signalized intersections at the far ends of the site on Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards . An internal access lane will also be provided linking the primary arrival area and amenities building to the circula- tion network. Supplemental access points will also exist along Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards to provide limited access to buildings not directly adjacent to the access lane . Employee/Visitor Vehicular 'Virculatio n The employee/visitor system is served by the primary entrances and the access lane that leads to the parking structures and the arrival to the Internal Site Buildings . Employees may also use the supplemental access points from Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard to reach subsurface parking associated with the 180 Oyster Point building and the corner Gateway Frontage Building. GATEWAY BUS I NESS PA R K MASTER PLAN Service / Delivery Circulation Service/delivery vehicles have the ability to use all entries but are intended to primarily utilize the secondary entrances and the supple- mental access points . Emergency Vehicle Circulation The emergency vehicles will utilize all entries and supplemental access points as necessary to reach the access lane and central pedestrian spine . Shuttle Stop!» An existing shuttle stop is located on Gateway Boulevard at the south- western end of the campus. Additional future stops are proposed for Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards to help strengthen the campus 's transit orientation . Legend -Access Lane ..... Internal Ac,cess Lane -Primary Enttrances ...... Secondary Entrances , -Supplemenl!al Access Basic Vehicular Cil'culation System • Looking South 149 Parking Supply and Demand Given the regional location of the Master Plan site , automobiles will likely remain a prima ry form of access in the near future. Availability of parking for employees and visitors is vital to Gateway· Business Pa rk operations. However, the Gateway Business Park will balance park- ing availability with the promotion of alternative transportation modes by employees . Working in combination with an effective parking strat- egy , the Master Plan's Transportation Demand Management (TOM) will encourage employees to use alternative modes of access . This can reduce overall parking demand and thus decrease the amount of park- ing necessary. City of South San Francisco parking requirements range from 3.3 to 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet for office/research & development uses , though some flex ibility in these requirements is allowed . The City may accept revised parking standards as long as the amount of park- ing generated by the standards is supportive of the recommendations and requirements of the Transportation Demand Mana gement plan pre- pared for the project. T he Institute of Transportation Eng ineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual recommends 2.73 spaces per 1,000 square feet for office uses in suburban locations with minimal transit ac cess and no TO M progra m. Projects in the immed iate area of the Gateway Business Park have been able to demonstrate reduced parking demand rates by implementing TOM programs. Typical ranges for office I research & development uses in South San Francisco and elsewhere in San Mateo County typically range from 1.25 to 2 .5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Ill. U rb an Design & Site Plannin g Using the City's parking rates based on the office/research & develop- ment land-use category, approximately 4 ,060 parking stalls would be required at Master Plan bu ild-out. Using the demand rate suggested by the Institute of Transportation Engineers , peak project-generated demand can be accommodated with approximately 700 fewer spaces . Because parking demand characteristics within the East of 101 Area tend to be lower than City -required rates , lower parking supply fo r the Master Plan area is appropriate . Using a lower rate than recommend by the City Code provides flexibility in accommodating variations in parking demand and changes in future land use while maintaining a more appro- priate relationship with current and expected demand characteristics . GATEWAY B U SINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 23 150 111. Urban Design & S it e Planni ng 3.6 Employee Ameni ti es Upon completion of the redevelopment of Gateway Business Park the employee population is anticipated to be 3 ,300 to 3,700 . Services and amenities such as those offered by cafes, restaurants, and fitness cen- ters will be incorporated as the employee population reaches the critical mass necessary to support such services. To the extent that Gateway Business park is occupied by large cam- pus users, these amenities will most likely be provided by the employer for the exclusive use of employees and guests of the employer. In the life-science sector there is considerable concern about security and confidentiality making a more public format unfeasible. If the park is occupied by multiple smaller organizations, these amenities will be pro- vided by the Gateway Business Park Association through third parties for the benefit of all tenants and employees of the business park and their guests. ?4 The association and employers of Gateway Business Park will addition- ally create programs to maximize the efficiency, convenience and quality of life for employees during the business day. Representative examples of such programs include group fitnes s, childcare and car-pool ing refer- ral services, employee and B28 networking events, dry cleaning pick-up & delivery, fund raising for non-profit community and well-being organi- zations as well as energy and resource conservation programs. Due to the incremental implementation of the redevelopment and the need for adequate employee population to support and participate in these programs , implementation will weighted toward the future when over 60% to 75% percent of redevelopment has occurred. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 151 . IV. Plan Implementation 4.1 4.2 Gateway Business Park Master Plan Regulatory & Review Process Phasing 26 27 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 25 152 26 IV. Pla n Impl eme nta tion 4 .1 Gateway Business Park Master Plan R egulatory & Revi1ew Process MASTER PLAN Master Plan -+ Design Guidelines EIR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING DEVELOPMENTS Precise Plan Documents J Planning & Design Review GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN Approval South San Francisco q Planning Department Review Project Construction Documents South San Francisco City Council ~ Approval Building Department Review ~ App,oval Building Permit Issued 153 IV. Plan Implementation 4.2 Phasing As Gateway Business Park is and will continue to be a working campus during its evolution, the redevelopment model shall be a phased incremental removal and redevelopment of individual or groups of buildings. Emphasis will be placed upon the appropriate access, service and parking needs of remaining existing buildings as the redevelopment unfolds. Phase 1 is envisioned to begin the transformation with the removal Buildings 1000 and 800 Gateway Boulevard. The ultimate phasing strategy beyond Phase 1 shall be based on the property owner's discretion, and park tenant and market needs . To Caltrain To/From 101 .. r--,--· \ t ./ / / / / / Oyster Point Boulevard / /' / '/~ Veterans Blvd. /./ ..,./ ./ // / 475 Eccles Ave. .. / -7 / 7· To Ferry Terminal /,,,, .. / / /. / Master Plan Area Boundary Legend D Exis ting Buildings on Oyster Point Boulevard -Existing Buildings !:. :, Approximate Phase I Boundary 0 '"" -'"" ""' ~ -+ Access to Phase I GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 27 154 2 8 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MA STE f~ PLAN 155 Appendix A: Design Guidelines A.1 Open Space A-2 Purpose and Relationship of Design Guidelines to Master Plan A .2 Circulation A-7 The Gateway Business Park Design Guidelines have been created to A .3 Buildings A-11 supplement the campus development intent and general organization framework that has been communicated in the Gateway Business Park A.4 Service and Loading A-16 Master Plan. The purpose of these Design Guidelines is to provide guidance to designers engaged in the project over various phases of A-1 A.5 Commercial Use Integration A-16 redevelopment to achieve an end result consistent with the design intent of the campus. These Design Guidelines will also provide City of South Interi m Improvements A-17 San Francisco planning staff with a benchmark for evaluating how future A .6 precise plans remain consistent with the campus vision. A .7 Landscape A-18 A .8 Lig hting A-20 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTE R PLAN 156 A -2 Append ix A : Design G uidelines A.1 Ope n Space The open space system for this campus will benefit greatly from the consolidation of a predom inate amount of the site 's parking into structures . This consolidation will allow for the site area necessary to create a network of linked and useable pedestrian oriented environments that will form the core of the campus experience. As this is an incremental redevelopment of an operating campus to be completed in phases over time , it will not be feasible for each precise plan to incorporate every component of the design system . Collect ively , the precise plans will effect ively complete the open space program. For example, a particular open space area may span two precise plans being developed sequentially rather than concurrently. Each precise plan will include a portion of the open space that will function independently in the initial phase but will be fully reali z ed upon the completion of t he subsequent phase . GATE WAY B U S I NESS PARK MASTER PLAN Design Considerations: • Provide a variety of outdoor spaces appropria te for differing levels of active and passive use . Provide a circulation system that expresses hierarchy and is logically eonnected to all buildings and the exterior public environment . · Avoid expanses of flat and open outdoor space by breaking down large areas or long spaces into a sequence of smaller scaled experiences where appropriate. Enhance the open space experience by creating spaces that protect from the wind, open up to th e sun and provide comfort within a cons istent landscape character. • Create an outdoor setting for employees that fosters individual and collective creativity and provides opportunity to interact . hold informal meetings , or eat lunch . Reinforce pedestrian scale through site elements and planting. Extend the use of buildings to create indoor/outdoor experiences such as inte9rating courtyards with building entries. Create recreational opportunities by incorporating systems for walking, jogging, bicycling , and active recreation where appropriate. 157 Central Commons Appendix A : Desig n Guidelines Outdo or Gathering Space A -3 Passive Spac e GAT WAY BU S I NESS PARK MASTER PLAN 158 A-4 Appen di x A : Design Guideline s Central Commons The Central Commons is .the nucleus of the open space network . This area holds the most important outdoor amenities, gathering spaces , and passive use areas while supporting the majority of the pedestrian circulation system . This is the place where users of the campus will be able to come together, share ideas, build community or simply be able to enjoy a moment outside . The components of this area are: Central Plaza • Provide a large, organized space that is suitable for events and employee gatherings. Incorporate a focal element into the space such as sculpture, overhead structure or other special feature to help signify this space's importance . Ensure simple and direct circulation around and/or t hrough this space. Protect this space from the wind , to the greatest degree practical , by use of elements such as plant material hedgerows , landform berming and topography. Active Amenity Areas • Provide active gathering spaces that are appropriately sized for smaller gatherings and uses other than those intended for the Central Plaza. • Incorporate elements such as amphitheaters, multi-use hard surface play courts or other active uses where appropriate . GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN Secondary Amenity Areas Create spaces appropriate for small scale gatherings , meetings and break areas . • Integrate these spaces into the landscape elements that provide a wind protecting framework; i.e . walls , rocks, earthforms , planting , etc . Separate these spaces from the main pedestrian flow, but link them to the central spine with secondary patl,ways . Interior Building Entry Courtyards Strengthen the indoor/outdoor experience of building entries by creating courtyards that provide seating areas and convenient places to muet a colleague or greet a visitor. I--------I \ B11ilding tnvct~:~J . J Legend , • • • Central Spine ) @ Ceniral Plaza Central Commons 159 Street Frontage The Street Frontage is the area along the public face of the site that supports the flow of public pedestrian traffic and provides the interface to public transit connections . This area also plays an important role in establishing campus identity. The components of this area are: Iconic Elements • Reinforce the iconic architectural expression at the intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards with a sculptural element or special feature that is enhanced by a series of site elements such as walls , lighting , and landscape that express a high level of quality and provide campus identity. Primary Entry • Provide continuity and repetition of elements used at the intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards (forms, walls, lighting etc.) to signify this location as a primary entry and help strengthen the frontage's overall unity. Provide clear and attractive wayfind ing si gnage that orients vis itors into t he site . Supplemental Access Points • Provide clear wayfinding signage elements that are incorporated into the landscape. These points should be developed at a lower inte nsity than the intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards and the Primary Entry. Shuttle Stops • New shuttle stop locations on Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard should be designed to be consistent with the vocabulary of the existing stop at Gateway Boulevard subject to approval by The Gateway Association . Appendix A : Design Guidelines Legend l IJ@ Iconic Corner ~ Wind Break · /<lJ',. Primary Entry 0 Supplemental Entr 0 Shuttle Stop (Exi sting f Shuttle Stop (Proposed)J Street Frontage GATEWAY B U SINESS PARK MASTER PLAN A-5 160 161 Appendix A : Design Gu ideli n es Parking Structure Frontage The Parking Structure Frontage is the area between the parking structures and the internal access lane that creates the eastern edge of the Central Commons . Create a landscape screen for t he parking structures . This sc reen may include trees , shrubs and ground covers in addition to vines tha t are incorporated into the face of the pa rking structures. Accentuate pedestrian outlets of parking structures with well designed connections , enhanced planting and clear wayfinding elements . Arrival Areas There will be multiple arrival areas that are developed as the campus is incrementally redeveloped over time . Some of these areas are likely to be more pedestrian in nature as some buildings within the campus will not have direct vehicular access. Regardless of their mode of access , all arrival areas will be emphasized and clearly identified to help orient A 6 employees and visitors. A primary arrival area will be located along the Central Commons, the Internal Site Buildings and the corner building at Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevard . An arrival area will be located at the east end of the Internal Site Building directly south of Building 180 Oyster Point. • Shape architectural forms to define a welcoming space that is protected from wind . • Incorporate special site elements such as sculpture or wind- proof water feature. • Utilize enhanced hardscape materials and rich landscape planting . Create clear and simple connection and relationship to parking structures. GAT EWAY BUSINES S PARK MASTER PLAN Landscape Screeni : Buffering Trees and Vines on Structure Face 162 A.2 Circulation Simple, efficient and well marked circulation is an integral component to a properly functioning campus. Automobiles, service and delivery trucks and emergency vehicles must have clear and direct routes, but their accommodation should avoid compromising the pedestrian focused environment. The pede strian experience will be one where employees and visitors are connected to the entire system of buildings, parking structures, outdoor spaces and links to transit, with a comfortable and easy to navigate circulation network. Design Cons id e rations: • Develop a hierarchical pedestrian system that identifies major and minor connections with changes in dimension, material combinations and wayfinding. • Minimize conflicts with pedestrian and vehicular systems and maximize safety by prioritizing the pedestrian route in design, materials and signage. Identify primary vehicular entries with landscape and wayfinding site elements that pronounce the entry's importance, give identity and clearly mark destinations. Separate primary employee and visitor entries from those serving service and delivery vehicles to the greatest extent possible. Combine both automobile and service vehicle paths of travel once internal to campus to minimize site area dedicated to roadway. • Prioritize connections to transit to express the value of this system to the campus and its importance to help minimize traffic impacts. Appendix A Design Guidelin es Pedestrian Focused Environment Maximize Pedestrian Safety GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN A7 163 A-8 Appendix A · D esign Gu i delines Pedestrian Circulation Framework The following elements make up the comprehensive pedestrian circulation system: Central Pedestrian Spine Create a primary conduit for pedestrian movement through the campus that is generous in scale to comfortably allow the highest volumes of pedestrian traffic and also accommodate bicycle movement. Link major outdoor amenity/ use spaces with this spine. Incorporate shared emergency vehicle access where necessary. This will be achieved by combining an additional width of reinforced turf that is load bearing and drivable to create an overall 20 foot clear dimension with a 13 foot vertical height clearance. Route spine through the landscape w ith sweeping curves rather that straight lines and right angles to bette r compliment an informal landscape approach . • Utilize hard surface pavement materials such as concrete and/or modula r pavers and consider incorporation of permeable paving systems . Parking Structure Connec tions • Create direct connections from the major pedestrian outlets of parking structures to the central spine and bu ilding entries to help direct visitors and make simple connections for employees . • Incorporate material and grade distinction into vehicula r drives where these connections cross to signify the pedestrians' presence and priority. Consider applying overhead cover or trellis system for portions of this system if practical. • Utilize hard surface pavement materials such as concrete and/or modular pavers. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLA N .-------------. ! J;., ! ' < ' ! &,?,~ , ...... --.} \.~ !,/ r---1 '------' :e"'9 1 1{;nve-1 :ll)f)O : ·---J Central Pedestrian Spine 164 Secondary Central Commons Walkways • Provide a secondary walkway system within the Central Commons that connects to the smaller intimate spaces that are not associated with the central spine. • Reduce scale of walkway widths to clearly differentiate this system from the central spine. • Utilize hard surface pavement materials such as concrete and/or modular pavers . Connections to Public Realm Create private sidewalk and pathway connections into and out of the campus core from the central spine. • Associate these connections with the primary vehicular entries and supplemental access points but maintain adequate separation for pedestrian safety. • Utilize hard surface pavement materials such as concrete and/or modular pavers. Perimeter Wal k • Reuse existin g walkway between existing Poplar tree hedgerow. • Extend walkway concept in areas where existing walk and hedgerow are removed and reestablished due to new building development. Public Sidewalk • Extend a public sidewalk associated with the street edge along the entire length of Gateway Boulevard. This new sidewalk will link to an existing sidewalk that terminates at the southern end of the campus's frontage and will be incrementally implemented with the phased redevelopment of the Gateway Frontage Buildings. • Match existing sidewalk materials and dimension s. A ppendix A : Design Guidelines A -9 Connections to Public Realm GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PL AN 165 A-10 Appendix A : D esign Guidelines Ve hicular Circulation Framework Safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic is essential to the working campus. Automobiles and service vehicles will need to coexist with the pedestrian environment in an organized manner that gives many visual clues to ensure their safe integration . Design Considerations Design circulation routes to encourage slower traffic speeds. In particular, the internal access lane in between the Central Commons amenities building , parking access and Building 180 Oyster Point is to be viewed as a slow speed driveway rather t han a higher speed roadway. • Interrupt drive paving with contrasting materials at intersections with pedestrian crossings to highlight pedestrian priority. Consider the use of raised speed tables to provide an uninterrupted path of travel for pedestrians across drive lanes at major pedestrian crossings. These elements create an at- grade crossing with the sidewalk level and help to further slow vehicular traffic . • Pave the internal access lane with enhanced materials and/or texture and color distinction from typical gray asphalt , particularly at intersections with pedestrian circulation. • Design two lane drives to be a minimum 25' overall curb to curb dimension except at the internal access lane where narrower dimensions are allowed . • Incorporate clear and consistent way finding into c irculation network and destination identification . GATEWAY BUSINESS PAR K MASTER PLAN Access Lane Internal Access Lane Primary Entry Boulevard Supplemental Access Po ints 8/A atCeri1raS~ne Garage Access ' ' . ·-_JD ----~ Basic Elements for Vehicular Circulation Framework 166 A .3 Buildings Quality architectural design and expression is a crucial component to the campus's day-to-day experience for employees, visitors, neighbors, and the South San Francisco community. The over arching architectural vocabulary of the campus should reflect a general cohesiveness while allowing variety through individual building groups . This distinction by group or "variety by type" approach is intended to produce a campus where the buildings are not homogenous . The newly constructed buildings at 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard (not part of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan area) provide a benchmark for quality and a point of beginning for future designers in developing the campus 's intended architectural variety. Design Considerations: • Design buildings to provide an appropriate public face and provide spatial definition to internal open space. Ensure that buildings are appropriately scaled and articulated. Employ high quality materials that are durable, lasting, and aesthetically pleasing . • Implement resource conscious practices by designing architectural building components to a LEED equivalent standard . • Incorporate plant material into architectural vocabulary where practical. • Articulate and pronounce building entries and provide continuity between indoor and outdoor environments . • Conceal mechanical systems, especially at the ground level. Screen service areas from public view. Appendix A Design Guidelines 180 & 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Buildings A -11 ' Buildings and Parking Structures at Central Commons G ATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 167 A-1 :?. Ap pendix A De s ign Guidelines Building Types and Envelopes There are four building types that make up the new building program within the campus : the Gateway Frontage Buildings, the Internal Site Buildings, and the Parking Structures. The diagram on t his page represents approximate building envelopes related to setbacks identified in the Gateway Business Park Master Plan. Actual envelopes will be determined as part of subsequent individual development project precise plans through the campus's incremental redevelopment. Gateway Frontage Buildings There are three envelopes for this group : Corner Envelope: This envelope will contain up to two new buildings . • Central Envelope : This envelope will contain up to two new buildings . Southern Envelope: This envelope will contain up to two new buildings. Internal Site Buildings There is one envelope for this group that will contain two new buildings. Parking Structures T here are multiple envelopes for this group . Two to four indivdual parking structures are possible and will be determined during precise plan process. Oyster Point Frontage Buildings The 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Buildings that have been recently constructed are not technically part of the Master Plan area; however, their context plays an important role in the perception of the broader campus . Their architectural express ion utilizes metal and glass to create simple and clean forms. GATEWAY RUSJNESS PARK MASTER PL AN Oyst er Poi nt Bou ll!VMd ,:, ,---------·---.... ', : ~ 11) : '1' I -I \.!.J ..... --J .§ I / ..... I. r. 1 J .. _____ . r,·: / -_.rT\ --\.J Building Types and Envelopes 168 Gateway Frontage Buildings The Gateway Boulevard Frontage Buildings include the building at the intersection of Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards and those that occur along the public edge of Gateway Boulevard facing the existing hedgerow of Poplar trees. Common Design Considerations: • Differentiate external and internal building faces. Create external building elevations (facing public streets) that are simple in execution but articulated in a manner which adds visual definition and reduces the impression of large expanses of "flatness". Relate internal building elevations (facing the Central Commons) to the pedestrian experience and incorporate human scale references, such as terracing, balconies, overhangs and handrails where appropriate. Employ variation in building heights and/or within particular building rooflines to avoid monotonous building massing. • Provide clear and accentuated primary entry points on internal and external building faces by incorporating appropriately scaled canopies, projections or recesses from the primary building face. Design should emphasize the internal face as the true primary entry, as this will serve as the main employee entrance. • Soften exposure of access to sub-surface parking and full screen service bays adjacent to public streets. Corner Building Design Considerations : • Differentiate this building through distinctive design as it will be the most visible of all new bu ildings within the campus and will symbolize a "gateway experience". Appendix A · Design Guidelines Address the corner with a building form that engages both Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards equally and incorporates an iconic architectural form or building element at th e center transition. Incorporate sub surface parking into building design as this building will likely require parking provisions other than the parking structures. Other Frontage Buildings Design Considerations: Accentuate building corners that present themselves to primary entries. I Q Special Feature • Primary Entrance • Secondary Entrance -Service Access l-Employee/Visitor ~ Public Street Facade ~ Central Camons Facade -"-. ,...tt .....--,(!) Gateway Frontage Buildings GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN A-13 169 App e n d i x A : Desig n Gu idelines Interna l S i te Build !ngs These buildings will help define an important component of the Central Commons and frame a primary arrival area accessed via the campus entrance from Oyster Point Boulevard between Buildings 180 and 200. Internal Buildings Design Considerations Shape architectural forms to create we lcoming spaces that clearly defines arrival and orientation to building entries . Relate amenities building elevations facing the Central Commons to the pedestrian experience . Emphasize quality materials and composition and clearly pronounce building entries for building elevations facing the arrival area . Consider common transitional indoor/outdoor elements such as plazas , focal points, and enhanced landscape between the new A-14 buildings to link the campus 's pedestrian experience across the internal access lane. Feasibility of incremental installation with phased building development should also be considered . Screen service and mechanical areas by providing screening or enclosures and integrate into the arch itectural composition whenever possible. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN Internal Site Buildings Legend ~ Primary Entry -+ Service Vehicle -EmployeeMsitor Vehicle f.Zl Cenlral Commons Facade 170 Parki n g Structures The parking structures have been located and consolidated along the rear southeasterly boundary of the site. These structures play a major role in the definition of the campus's Central Commons open space as they define much of its eastern edge. Employ parking structure siting and setba c k variation to help break up long linear facades . Architectural expression such as stair towers projecting from the primary building line to be included where practical to further assist breakdown of linear fa 9ade . • Allow for generous separation between garages where possible . Locate primary vehicular entrances to parking structures as close as practical to the primary entry drives to encourage traffic flow directly into the structures and discourage traffic along the internal access lane. Emphasize corners and other locations where these structures act as a terminus to views into the campus . Accentuate pedestrian entrance/exit points (likely elevator and stair towers locations) to prioritize pedest rian access. Incorporate a practical planting component to the face of the structures to help "soften" their presence. Consider incorporation of solar panel and/or automobile shade or trellis structures into the long axis perimeter edge of the top floor of the parking structure. Structures are to be designed as pronounced features rather than utilitarian attachments to provide visual interest when viewed from the pedestrian level below and when viewed from upper floors of adjacent structures or up-gradient properties . Appendix A · Design Guidelines Parking Structure Buildings GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN A-15 171 A-16 Appen d ix A · Des ign Guide li nes A.4 Service and Loading Service and loading facilities play a critical role in the operation of a life sciences oriented research and development facility. It is anticipated that each individual building within the campus will require a dedicated area for these functions . Design Considerations: Screen loading and service areas fully from public view if adjacen t to a public street. Avoid locating these areas near primary building entries and open spaces amenities. Incorporate contextua l architectural vocabu lary into screen walls and fence systems . Comb ine architect ural and landscape elements where possible to soften screen elements. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN A.5 Co mm eff cial Use Integratio n The Gateway Business Park redevelopment will incorporate commercial space and amenitieis that are appropriate to the campus environment and its locational context. Design C ons i derat i ons: • Locate amenities and commercial use in portions of buildings that are easily accessible to patrons both from a vehicular and pedestrian perspective. ( . Provide clearly delineated parking facilities and pedestrian connections associated with commercial uses . Incorporate clear directional signage to lead patrons to these destinations and emphasize their entries through architectural expression or effective signage . Implement commercial uses when the appropriate employee/ customer population base has been established with the phased redevelopment of the campus . 172 A.6 Inte rim Improv e ments As the campus is incrementally redeveloped through individually phased development projects, it is likely that certain interim imp rovements may be necessary to maintain the funct ionality of the remaining existing campus . Design Considerations: Design and construct interim parking areas , pedestrian access and internal drives to City standards for permanent construction regardless of the intended lifespan or retain use of existing improvement. • Screen areas under construction for individual phases from publ ic and internal campus view. Standards for internal screening shall be consistent with those applicable to public view . Screening materia ls will be typical mate rials used at commercial construction sites . · Appen d ix A : Desig n Guidelines A 17 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 173 A-18 Appendix A : Desig n Guidelines A. 7 Landscape The landscape 's role in creating a pedestrian oriented campus environment is paramount as it provides the unifying fabric that shapes the pedestrian's experience. The character intent within the campus is to create a natural and informal landscape that is built upon the use of a simple palette of plant materials and an elegant combination of form , color and texture. Taking advantage of existing landscape elements , shaping spaces to respond to climate conditions and creating an informal character will provide a level of quality and usability that will ensure the landscape's success. The guidelines take into consideration the dynamic quality of plant materials and the related need for maintenance to accomplish proper design intent and durability. Desig n Considerati o ns: Utilize earth forms and plant materials in conjunction with circulation to create a sequence of successive spaces that foster a sense of discovery throughout the landscape. Avoid flat, exposed, featureless space. Develop forms characterized by sweeping masses of plant material that interplay with walls and topography rather than geometric patterns. Reinforce the definition of outdoor spaces and create protected environments with the use of plant materials for windbreaks . Utilize a variety of plant materials that provide seasonal interest throughout the year. Vary planting approach to correspond to the level of pedestrian interaction. More intensity of texture and color is appropriate where people will stop and experience rather than simply pass through the space. Incorporate natural materials such as stone and rock work into the landscape to help ground the campus in a natural experience. • Incorporate plant materials that can display the dynamic express ion of the movement of wind . GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN Natural Forms andl Materials Plant Material as Windbreaks 174 Prioritize water efficiency in landscape design. • Utilize plant materials that are best suited for the site's specific soil and climate conditions and apply their use in design to best match their horticultural needs for water and solar exposure. Special emphasis should be given to the selection of wind tolerate species. • Enhance building entries by using appropriate scaled planting that emphasizes fragrance and/or color. • Incorporate plant materials into architectural design where practical. Design the landscape treatments at primary and secondary vehicular access points along Gateway Boulevard to accentuate and differentiate these points from the remainder of the landscaped frontage. See Appendix B for a master list of plant materials that are suitable for use on thi s site. The list has been created with careful consideration to plants that have a history of growing successfully in the South San Francisco East of 101 or comparable climate. The master list is not meant to exclude or limit other suitable plant selections but rather to serve as a baseline for future designers. /· Appendix A · Design Guidelines Hierarchy of Tree Variety GATfWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN A 19 175 A-20 Appendix A . Design G ui delines A.8 Lighting Site and architectural lighting systems provide the safe illumination of pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, add emphasis to important architectural features , outdoor spaces and elements and help to reinforce the campus's overall character. Design Considerations: Achieve illumination levels recommended for safety as outlined by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America for all pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems. • Utilize a consistent vocabulary of site lighting elements throughout the campus to provide continuity to the site lighting system. A contemporary design aesthetic that relates to the campus's architectural expression and the natural landscape character should be employed rather than traditional or historic forms and fixtures . Special architectural lighting should be employed to add distinction and emphasis to important building features such as the iconic building form or element at the intersection of Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards. Vary the height and scale of site lighting components to relate to the pedestrian environment. Pole and fixture heig hts should be tallest (20 ' plus) in areas associated with vehicular travel and should become progressively shorter in pedestrian focused areas. Typical pedestrian scaled poles/fixtures should be approximately 12' to 14 ' in height with bollard lighting approximately 3' in height. Emphasize building entries , primary pedestrian circulation routes and intersections and crossings with vehicular travel. • Appropriately illuminate signage and wayfinding system components to make information clearly legible at night. Avoid unnecessary light pollution by use of "cut-off' fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light where appropriate. Consider use of solar powered fixtures where appropriate to utilize natural resources efficiently. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN Consider ambient light generated by buildings in the design of site lighting systems to help prevent over lighting. Consider color rendition , energy consumption and long term maintenanc1:!! when selecting light lamps . Differentiate pedestrian and vehicular circulation with different light lamp types such as mercury vapor and sodium vapor when practical as an effective way to further delineate these two modes of travel. Incorporate accent lighting to highlight special site features and create points of emphasis. @ Hierarchy of Fixtures 176 Appendix B : Master Plant List 8-1 GATE W AY BUS I NESS PARK DESIGN GU I DELINES 177 Appendix B Master Plant List 8.1 Master Plant List TREES SHRUBS: Botanical Name: Common Name : Botanical Name: Common Name: Acer p a/matum 'Blood aood' Japanese Maple Acacia longifo/ia SY.ndey Golden Wattle Bambusa SJJJJ. Timber Bamboo Baccharis oilularis Prostrate Co vote Brush Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Berberis thunberaii 'Atropururea' Redleaf Japanese Cuo ressus macroca ro a Monterev Cv oress Buxus microohvl/a iaponica Japanese Boxwood Fraxinus uhdei Everareen Ash Ceanothus 'Jovce Coulter' NCN Ginkao biloba var. Fairmount Ginkao Ceanothus 'Ray Hartman' NCN Liaustrum /ucidum Glossv Privet Cistus spp. Rockrose Maanolia solan aiana Saucer Maanolia Cotoneaster horizontalis Rock Cotoneaster Ma gnolia stel/ata Star Ma a nolia Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira Melaleuca auin a uenetvia Caie out Tree Escallonia spp Escallonia Metrosideros excelsus New Zealand Christmas Tree Liaustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Waxleaf Privet Pinus eldarica Afo han Pine Mahonia aauifolium Oregon Grape Pinus muricata Bisho p Pine Phormium tenax New Zealand Flax B-2 Pinus niqra Austrian Black Pine Pittosoorum cr,3ssifolium Pittosporum Pinus oinea Stone Pine Pittosporum tobira Tobira Pistacia chinense Pistache Raohiolepis inclica India Hawthorn Pittoso orum euaenioides Tarata Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary Pittoso orum tenufo/ium Pittos oorum Salvia leucantha Mexican Bush Saae Pittoso orum undulatum Victorian Box Teucrium fruticans Bush Germander Platanus acerfolia London Plane Tree Westrin a ia rosmariniformis Coast Rosemarv Pqdocam us aracilior Fern Pine Po o ufus niara 'ltalica' Lombardv Poolar Prunus cerasifera 'Krater Vesuvius' Flowerin a Plum Prunus lusitanica Portu aal Laurel Prunus serrulata Ja oanese Flowerina Cherrv Pvrus callervana 'Aristocrat' Reds oi re Pear Quercus aarifolia Coast Live Oak Quercus lobata Vallev Oak Seauoia semo etvirens Coast Redwood Tristania confer/a B risbane Box Ulmus o arvifolia Eve ro reeri Elm GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 178 Appendix B . Master Plant List GROUNDCOVERS & VINES PERENNIALS & GRASSES: Botanical Name: Common Name: Botanical Na me: Common Name : Bergenta crassifolta Winter-Bloominq Berqenia Eriaeron sp p . Fleaba ne Clytostoma callistegoides vi_olet trumeet vine H emerocallis spp. Eve rween Daylili es Cerasti um tomentosum Snow-in-Summer Lantana spp. Lantana Dis/ictus buccinatoria Blood Red Trumpet Vine Lavandula dentata Fre nc h Lave nde r Ficuspumila Creeping Fi g Limonium perizii Sea Laven der Fraqaria chiloensis Wild Strawberry Pennisetum setaceum Fou ntain Grass Gazania 'Mitsuwa Yellow' Gazania Salvia spp. Sage Hedera helix English Ivy Seslaria autumnalis A ut um Moor Grass s Junio erus confer/a Shore Junioer Stina tenuissima Mex ica n Fea t her Grass Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' Halls Honeysuckle 2phiopog on iaponicus Mondo Grass Parthenocissus quinquefo/ia Vi rQ inia Creeper Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston Ivy Plumbago auriculata Cape Leadwort B3 Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geran ium --Rosa banksias Lady Banks' Rose Tecomaria caoensis Cape honeysuckle Trachelospermum jasminoides Sta r Jasmine GATEWA Y BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 179 B-4 GAT EWAY BUSINESS PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES 180 Appendix C: Master S ign Program c1 Exteri o r Site Sign System Hierarc hy and Tenant Sign Guidelines GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASffR PLAN 181 C-2 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 182 Table o f Contents Exterior Site S i gn System He irarchy Overview Site Plan Exterior Site Sign System Hierarchy Site Branding Entry Identification and Regulatory Si g nage Wayfinding Signage Exterior Site Sign System Hierarchy Matrix Primary Project Branding Design Primary Entry Identification Secondary Entry Identification Design Vehicular Directional Design Pedestrian Directional/Directory Typography/ Material/Color Specifications Design Influences Sign Types R.01 -R.09 -Regulatory C-4 C-5 C-6 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 C-12 C-14 C-15 C-16 C-17 C-18 C-19 C-20 Appendix C . Master Sign Program Tenant S ig nage Guidelines Tenant ID Freestanding @ Pedestrian Entry Occupant Branding Identification Tenant Signage Guidelines Tenant ID@ Building Skyline Tenant ID @ Building Skyline Tenant ID@ Building Skyline C-21 C-22 C-23 C-24 C-25 C-26 GATEW AY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN C3 183 C-4 Appendix C Master Sign Program OVERVIEW The Master Sign Program for the Gateway Business Park comprised of the Exterior Site Sign System and the Tenant Signage Guidelines has been developed to : • Provide a consistent framework and design vocabulary to the overall signage system to assist day to day users and visitors to navigate safely and efficiently within the campus and provide a consistent, high quality visual thread of Campus Brand Identity. • Provide general design intent of all signage system components and specific design direction and location intent for certain portions of the system. • Allow for simplified review and approval of future signage applications for sign elements consistent with these guidelines , especially those that have been designed at a higher level of detail. It should be noted, while not a governed part of the Gateway Business Park, the 180 and 200 Oyster Park buildings adjacent to Gateway Business Park will be carefully considered as to their approximation, impact and integration into the Gateway Business Park Master Sign Program . Every effort will be made for a seamless integration of both properties as it relates to Site Branding , Wayfinding, Facility identification and regulatory signage. Design Considerations: • Incorporate the character of the campus and observe consistency with the vision of The Gateway Master Plan. • Create a unique identity for Gateway Business Park and provide a unified appearance throughout the Campus. • Utilize a cohesive materials palette , color palette and typography. Materials chosen will be inspired from those provided within the Landscape plan and surrounding the project architecture. Color palette and typography will be selected based upon the project's Brand Identity. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN • Optimize sign pla cement and design for legibility during the day and night. Lighting will play a roll in ensuring nighttime visibility for some of the major project identification sign types within the hierarchy. • Design so massing will be appropriate in scale to the surroundings and will integrate with other elements of the landscape design when applicable . Regulatory c:onsiderations: • Standard Department of Transportation and California Building Code requirements will be met in the development of control and informational signage throughout the campus . • Fire safety and emergency codes are taken into account within the program. This will ensure a controlled, accessible and safe campus environment for all visitors , day-to-day users and emergency personnel. • The Gateway Specific Plan District and South San Francisco Municipal Code shall regulate a building tenant's implementation of building mounted signage . There are a wide variety of signs required within the Gateway Business Park . The following Site Plan diagram illustrates the proposed locations of the sign program and is to be viewed in tandem with the text and graphics in this document. The proceeding paqes outline the entire Program Sign Hierarchy and provide information regarding each sign type 's function, general location and description. 184 Appendix C Master Sign Program B.01 DIR.01 B.02 B.03 B.04 B.05 DIR.02 Primary Project Branding Device Primary Wayfinding Device Primary Entry Identification Secondary Entry Identification Tertiary Entry Identification Occupant Branding Identification Vehicular Directional DIR.03 Pedestrian Directional / Directory R.09 Emergency Access Signage Building ID, Single/ Multi-Tenant ID Building Mounted, Skyline ID Building Mounted, Eyebrow ID Primary Sign Locations Site Plan GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN C-5 185 C-R Appendix C : Master Sign Program EXTERIOR H IERARCHY SITE BRANDING The primary function of Site Branding signage is to identify the Gateway Business Park from the street. It shall also serve to direct day-to-day users and visitors into the Gateway Business Park property. There are four types of Site Branding signage: A Primary Project Branding Device, located at the corner of Oyster Point and Gateway Blvd., shall identify the Gateway Business Park and integrate into a landscaped corner wall at this location. Any illumination shall be internally halo illuminated, or by direct illumination via ground level spots. Primary Entry Identification signs identify main points of entry into the Gateway Business Park. These elements will display the GGBP Brand, building address ranges, and possibly carry directional information and major tenant names. This sign type may integrate into a landscaped wall system . Any illumination shall be internally halo illuminated, or by direct illumination via ground level spots. Secondary Entry Identification signs identify secondary points of entry into the Gateway Business Park. These elements will display the GGBP Brand and any directional / informational copy. Any illumination shall be internally halo illuminated , or by direct illumination via ground level spots. Tertiary Entry Identification signs identify tertiary points of entry into the Gateway Business Park . These elements will display the GGBP Brand and directional / informational copy and are smaller in massing when compared to the Secondary Entry ID . Any illumination shall be internally halo illuminated, or by direct illumination via ground level spots. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN Example of Site Branding Signage 186 IDENTIFICATION The function of signage in the Identification category is to provide identification of a building's address, occupant (including their brand), or use. There are six types of Identification signage: Address numbers are building mounted elements that are mounted in high visibility locations and provide information to day-to-day users, visitors, and safety personnel. There shall be building address numbers located on at least two sides of the building and shall be visible from the street or property entrance. Address numbers may be illuminated through the number's face or back (halo). Garage Identification signage may be freestanding and/or building mounted. This sign identifies the parking structures and their use. The sign elements shall be located in a high visibility location interior to the property. Any illumination shall be internally halo illuminated, or by direct illumination via ground level spots. Service Bay Identification are relatively small identification signs to note service areas of the property and its buildings. This signtype shall not require any illumination other than ambient. The Tenant Sign Design Guidelines (page C-20) discuss requirements of individual building identification signage in detail. REGULA TORY All regulatory signage consists of varying types of sign messages that meet government requirements. These signtypes control vehicular traffic, emergency procedures, regulate parking, and inform sta ff and visitors. Because of the vast array of sign messages, every effort shall be made to limit the sizes, shapes and colors of the sign forms. Si g n posts and panels should meet the same design characteristics as all other sign categories. This signtype shall not require any illumination other than ambient. Some signs may be required to have reflectorized graphics by law. Appendix C · Master Sign Program C-7 Example of Identification Signage Example of Regulatory Signage GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 187 C-8 Appendix C Master Sign Program WAYFIND/NG The function of Wayfinding Signage is to direct day-to-day users, visitors, and safety personnel to destinations within the Gateway Business Park. There are three types of Wayfinding signage: Primary Wayfinding Devices shall provide initial vehicular direction information at the Oyster Point and Gateway corner approach to the site by flanking both sides of the Primary Project Branding Device. The information carried shall be address ranges with appropriate direction arrows . Any illumination shall be internally halo illuminated, or by direct illumination via ground level spots. Vehicular Directionals may be freestanding or integrated wall systems that provide vehicular wayfinding information. The letterform heights shall be of a scale that is readable from a moving vehicle . These signs shall be placed at vehicle decision points throughout the interior of the property. This signtype shall not require any illumination other than ambient. A Pedestrian Directional/Directory may be a freestanding element that contains pedestrian wayfinding information. The letterform heights shall be of a scale that is readable from a pedestrian's viewing distance and speed , or from standing directly in front. These signs shall be placed at pedestrian path decision points throughout the interior of the property. A map graphic may be included to provide a reader with an orientation plan. This signtype shall not require any illumination other than ambient. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN Example of Wayfinding Signage 188 Exterior Site S isn S~stem HierarchX • Gatewax Business Park Sign Nam e What do we call it? Branding 1. Primary Project Branding Device 8.01 2. Primary Entry Identification 8.02 3 . Secondary Entry Identification 8 .03 4. Tertiary Entry Identification 8.04 way.finding 5. Primary Wayfinding Device DIR.0 1 6 . Vehicular Directional DIR.02 7 . Pedestrian Directional / Direc tory DIR .03 Functio n What does it do? Identifies Gateway Business Park Identifies Gateway Business Park. Displays the GBP Brand, bu ilding addresses , directional information and major tenants Identifies Gateway Business Park . Secondary Entries Identifies Gateway Business Park. Tertiary Entries Provides initial vehicular directional and wayfinding information at approach to site Provides vehic ular directional and wayfinding information Provides pedestrian directional and wayfinding in formation Lo cation Where is it placed? Located at the Corner of Oyster Point and Gateway Blvd. Located at Primary site entries Located at Secondary site entries Located at Tertiary site entries Flanking the sides of B.02 Placed at appropriate locations within property Placed at appropriate locations within property Appendix C Master Sign Program Form/Massini Elevations Quantity Remarks What is its form? How Any special notations? many? -Integrated into landscaped corner wall at Oyster Pt. and Gateway Boulevards 2 Integrated into landscaped -wall at primary site entries EJ 3 EJ 2 C-9 Integrated into corner wall or landscape at Oyster Pt. and Gateway Boulevards 5 4 GATE W AY clUSlNESS PARK MAS TER PLAN 189 C-10 Appendix C Master Sign Program Exterior Site Sign System H ierarchy -Gateway Business Park Sign Name Function Location What do we call it? identification 8 . Building Address Numbers ID .01 9 . Garage Identification ID.02 10 . Building ID (Single I Multi - Tenant) ID.03 11 . Building Mounted ID ID .04 12. Service Bay ID ID.OS INhat does it do? Provides Building Address Information Identifies parking structures Building ldentifical ion entry marker for Gateway Business Park bu ildi ngs that displays the building address and major tenant information Tenanl Identification for Gateway Business Park buildings Identifies Building Service Bays GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN INhere is it placed? Wall mounted elements on appropriate high visibility building locations , on both sides of bu ilding Wa ll mounted elements on appropriate high visibiltty parking garage locations Located perpend icular near pedestrian walkway near entrance area to building Wall mounled elements on appropriate high visibility building locations Localed at all Service Bay entries Form/Massin_g Elevations INhat is its form? 180 PARKING EJ =~ E] Quantity Remarks How many? Min 2 I Bidg Min 11 Bldg Any spec/al notations? Will be clearly visible lo fire safely and emergency personnel Will conform lo S. SF and Gateway Specific Plan District codes Will conform to S. SF and Gateway Specific Plan District codes 190 Appendix C Master Sign Program Exterior Site Sign System Hierarchy -Gateway Business Park Sign Name Function Location Form/Massing Elevations Quantity Remarks What do we call it? What does it do? Where is it placed? What is its form? How Any special notations? many? regulatory 13. Visitor Parking Identifies the specific parking At each Visitor parking stall in ' Identification stall as Visitor parking vertical placement location R.01 14. Accessible Parking Identifies the specific parking At each accessible parking stall ' Identification stall as accessible in vertical placement location R.02 15 . Van Accessible Identifies the specific parking At each van accessible park!ng ~ R.02(A) stall as accessible or van stall in vertical placement accessible location 16. eve Parking Displays eve required Located at vehicular entries to ' Regulation Sign regulations parking areas R.03 C-11 17. Garage Entry Code Displays Code required Located at vehicular entries to EJ Slgnage information parking garages R.04 18. Stop Sign Identifies a vehicular stop sign Located at main parking area ' 5 R.05 wrth a DOT compliant sign entrances and throughout parking lot 19. Speed Limit Sign Provides Speed Limrt Located throughout parking ' 2 R.06 information areas 20. Pedestrian Crossing lden@es Pedestrian crossing Located near all pedestrian ' 4 Sign R.07 zones crossing zones 21. Traffic info Provides vehicular exit Located al restricted property ' 4 R.08 information exit points 22. Emergency Access Identification marker for Located at all Emergency vehicle ' 4 Will be clearly visible to fire Signage Emergency vehicle access only access only entry points safety and emergency R.09 roadways personnel GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 191 C-12 Appendix C . M aster Sign Program • B.01 : Primary Project Branding Oevice This sign type is located at thA corner of Gateway Boulevard & Oy ster Point Boul evard. The pllrpose of this sign is to ident ify the proposed site de ve lopment as one, cohesive develo pme nt and shall be rnlegraterl mto the proposed landscape deve lop ment at th e co rner This srg n type rs . white sign panel : 176 square feet concrete wall & white sign panel: 209 square feet '. and shotJ!d he taken into co nsideration as · an Allowable Mod,trcation to the mast er pro gram as an iconic mark er for the ca mpus . QTY: 1 ELEVAT!ON Scal t'l· 3/16" = 1· o· G ATEWAY B USINES S PARK MA STER PLAN (r·i'; .r Omwmg 1s sc;almi as nored for 12 ,y 18 pnn rcd shf'r.t s11e. if ?.4 ~· 36 pm 1U.1d sh1wt size 1s usc:irJ scale is 3/8'' ~-7 · tr Custom a!Lm1tnum fahricilted --\ scu!pl.r.d panel wilh paint tinish, \ G::ilJ!Wi:IV !etlrrs Me rootod ou t ol the pnnel to cast shar1ovv on to \ the hase dunng dav. nig ht 11!vmiriation is concealed behind th r. pn11e l to prov1rie genttr. wa rm wh1tP ligh t spi ll be hind t!ui op(!n leHers. option is tn use ground up lights concealed m landscapP ,, -Fabncoted aluminum panel with --...... pain t finish, leiters are ind ividua!lv ',.._'" cut with pnintfin ish and stud mounted tlush to onne! ---Custom formed conc(P.tr. b8sr. with integral color, bas e wi ll lrn integrated into ,he iandscape (z\ SID_E ___ _ \____~,,.,r Sr.alr. 3/l~" -1' O" 192 • B.01 : Primary Project Brandin g Device This sign type is located at the corner al Gateway Boulevard & Oyster Point Boulevard. flie purpose of this sign ,s to identily t he proposed site develop111e11t as one cohesive development and sha ll be integraied into the proposed landscape development at the corner This sign type 1s · white sign panel: 176 square feet concrete wall & white sign panel : 209 square feet and should IJe taken into consideration as an Allowable Modification to the ,naster program as an iconic marker ior the campus. O.TV I l,Q loh1t,~11 J1<.'CI l':1>;u,;tA,tt1olr<:1~,; t:t1,,t.•~•r t ,gili.li<er Ur:iwmg rs su1/et1 as nowa tor 12 x 18 µ11nreri she1u sua, d 2-1 x 3fi prrnwd slwvt silo 1s ust1d, scalu 1s 3 8' -I O'' Appendix C Custom aluminum h1bril:iJted scu!prnd panel with pa int tin1 sh, Gateway letters are wuted out of tlH-J panel to ~ast shadow unto the base du1ing day, Master Sign Program night il lumination 1s concealecl behind the 1,1an2 I ta provide gentle wdrm white light spill behind tne open lene rs, option 1s l'o use grot1nd tJ!) li Qhts concea led 1n landscapn Fabri cated aluminum pane l with pamt lmlsh; letle rs are 1ndiv1clua ll y cut with pa int fi nish and stu d mo 1mtec! flush to pane! Custom torrned concrnte base with integral color, base w1ll l.Jt! integrated rnto the landscape GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN C 13 193 (-14 Appendix C Master Sign Program "' .. 1 f-.;-'\_ELEV ~T ION _________ _ \.:_) Sc;il e 1;r-: 1· Ok GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN W' (rj l ',l:• :c tl.~,r.~ f?r(I a,;,i~n Artlelc~•,1,~ (:,01r .. ,,,. ~'l'l~S~:.~ (l •~N.,1Ar ",1•c r··- 1 1 • B.02 : Primary Ent,y Identificatio n Th is sign 1:y pe 1s loca ted a1 ma in ca mpus ent rie s , from Gatew ay Boulev ard & Oyster Po int Boulevard.: The purpose oi this sign is to iden tify the inain ca mpu s ent ry points by des igna ting add re ss nu mbers/ran ges or 1·e 11 ant names. Th:s sign ty pe is approximately qo square feet . an d should he taken into cons ider ation as --Routed arna 111 mn,n cabine t hnhind tfrn sculp ted panel an Allo wa ble Modification t o the m,ster progrnm as a unifying wayfind111g sign for the c,ampus during subsequent phases . ·--.._ __ Main cnhinet 1::. routed out behi nd tht! scup !terl prrnel ;rnd fa r,ed wi·th trnnsl11 c~n! ar:rv!ic to allow tor hght spill onto the c&hi nP.t, an d t£1 illumma te the 1000 Gateway hHtH forms Day/night acrylic allows l.lrn let/er fo 'm!i tn be dMker durin9 the da y and illum inat~ w hite At night Cus tnm fo hricr1ted scu lpted pairn ! -~.._ with pai nted aluminum pla tP l'Jar.king an d fa ced wi th an opaqtie ;::icrylic skin, nun1 bf!rs and letters are ro uted out and till ed with acrylic let.tfH forms , le11er form s are gentJv 1!1urninc1ted bv thr. Hght exp o.t:ur8 from the cu t-ou t beh ind in th e cabi1H!t .-----Fah ric!lted alum inum sign cabinet ------ wi th naint fi nis h; numbers ani mute ct nut r1 nci l"i l!ed w ith fl ush push -thrnuqh day/night ar.rylic fo rms r1n<1 intcm all v mu mmatnd with warm wh ite LEDs _;...---·--lntegr.i l colorer! conr.ret1-~ hllSP. ------ witJ11101111:ed ah1minum la se r cu1 dim ension! log o s1ud mo unted to the lace O.TY O for Phas e 1 Llrawmy 1s ,;:r.;;1Jcd as noted /or 12 ;,; lR prmtad shv1 1t sflc it 14 x 36 p11ntnd sheer slm 1s 11.sed, scafe 1s r ::c 1'-0" (2\._§IDE ___ ..... --··--J Sc;itr, 1/r-t',O' (~ PERSPECTIVE ~r Scnlc 1/r -I' O" 194 w~,i,, ~,n,,, !lµ;:4~u A~, 1l1t nmwmg 1s scaled as noted lot J 2 x I tJ prmted sht:f1t sue tf 24 x 3fJ pnm&d snecN sue 1s used, scale ,s 1' --l O" 1 J 1000 at!lwa· - PttrKin!) Appendix C . Master Sign Program Mam cabinet ts roL!t!:Hl out behmd the sculpted µanel Hlll1 faced with translucent acrylic\o allow tor l1gl1t sp1!1 unto the cabmet, and to illuminate the 1000 Gateway letter forms lsoe Gll02,DO for uetoilsi Custom tabricatecl sculpted µanel -------- with pa tr1rn[i t1lumin1.1111 plate backmy and faced with an opaque acry!1r. skm, numbers am1 letters are 1outed om and filled with acrylic letter forms, letter forms are gtrntly il!ummated by the light exposure from the cut-out behmtl m the cabinnt ---------·-Falmcated a!um mum sign cabmet ----------- w itl1 pamt lm1sh, 9raµh1cs are routeu out and hl!ect with flt1sh pusll-tt1rough day/night acrylic fon11s a11 d Hiternally i!lummsted with warm white LEDs -------·-----· lntegtal colored cuncn:!te base w1tl1 pamted aluminum laser cut dmrnnsionl logo stut1 rnoumect to tlie tac!-1 • B.03: Secondary Entry Identificatio n This sign type rs located at secondary campus entries tram Gateway Boulevard & Oyster Point Boulevard. The purpose o1 this sign 1s to identify secondary entries 11110 specific destinations such as parking facilities and may 1dent1fy address specific parking information Directional arrows or "P" symbols may be 111corpora1ed. This sign type rs approximately 21 square feet, anti should be taken into conside1 ation as an Allow able Modifrcation to the master program as a unr fying wayfindrng sign for the campus during Phase 1 ancl subsequent phases QTY. 2 ... GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN C 15 195 C-16 Appendix C Master Sig n Program f i\ f ,) f}) {1) <·v Ti .T [ __ I '. I [ w;,~~ Wh,;~ ~~n~ n1.1~· ~!" ._,,,~1:r r ,·1 ~,m ~r·vOr /Jra wmg 1., scaled as nnted for 12 :x 1R orm tAd .c;hee t ~·,ze, 1! 24 x 36 pm1 1ed s/1eel s11e ;s 11sed .l'Cale ,., ! -! ·.w lp l J-1 I k GATEWAY BU SINESS PARK MASTE:R PLAN "-'80 2 4 100 00 _._. 90 -- Ma m cabi net 1s muted out behmd the scu lpted panel and far.ed wrth trnns!ucen t acrylic to All ow '"or light spi ll onto the cnb1ne1, anct to illurnmate the 1000 Gat ew ay lette1 rorm~ lse.e GD02.00 lor details\ --··---Custom fabnciltBd sr.u lpted 1,110 P.I ---,. __ with painted alumin um pl~tu back111g anri fac ed witll an oparprn a ~ryJ ir, skin , numbe rs and lc:itte rs are ro1rr.rl out ;rnd filled with ac1y!ic letter ~orms. letter forms are gently illum1 iatec! by the light exposure from ti· r. r:ut -out he hmd in th e cabi net _....-----·-Fabricatnd aluininum sign cab inet ------ .-with paint finish; graphics are 1ou ted -- out anrl filled with flush pust•-through day/night acryli c forms anri ir.1ern:,l!v illuminated with warm wl 1t e i..EDs ---------lntegrnl coloreri co ncret e btse -----------....:.._ with pr1:int ed a!nmi nurn laser cu t rl1me ns1on ! logo stu d mounte-d to the face r-.. D!R.02: Vehicular Oitectional This sig n ty pe 1s lo ca tnd with m the inte rior campus along ihe main interr ot roadways and provides v ehicu lar directiona l information to all camp us addresses at main roadwav decision points. Di rec tional ar rows are included. This sign type is approximately 21 square feet, an d sh ould be taken into c ons1de ratio n as an Allowable Mod ifi cation to !h e maste r program as a unifyin g wayfind mg sig n for the campus during Pha se 1 ani1 su bseque nt pl1ases . QT Y· 3 - 196 1,:,fol,o~ir.h H10 r·~1~~1 t,rth.\l,c: .. • C-;,1~,~.~ \1-J fj) i I I I I l __ _ Dra t11mg rs seated as noreri wr 12 x 18 p1 mun! sheer sue, ,t 24 x 36 pnmed s/Jeet size 1s used, scale 1s /" -I' O" !o .:.1 ELEVATION Scale : 1/r -r-u·· i .... - ' ,_ -- Appendix C Master Sign Program Mnm call mot 1s routed nut !rn lm1d the sculp te d pane! and faced with t ranslucent ac ryhc to allow fo r hght sp ill on to the cabme l {see G002.00 tor detai ls ! Cu stom f abri ca ted sc ulpted panel ·-------- with painted alununllm µlate backing and raced with an opaq ue acryl ic sk in, all graph ics a<e ap µhe d ex.tenor grade vinyl or masked and pa inted, grap hi cs are not illummated DIR.03: Pedestrain Directional/Directory lt11s sign ty pe 1s located within the interior campu s along the main pedestrian pathways and µ1ovides pedestrian d1rect1onal information to all campus addresses at main path way decision points . Direct io nal arrows , maps , and tenant name s or ad dresses ca n be in cl ud ed. Oth er cam pus security or pertinen t 111rormat1on can also be included . This sign type 1s approximately 15 square feet, and should be taken into consideration as an Allowab le Modification to the master program as a unifying wayfind1ny sign for th e campus dunnq Pl1ase 1 and subsequent phases QTY 3 -- ;..------Fabnc ated alumi nu m sign cabinet -1 ----- with pai nt fin,sh • ----Integr al r;olorod conc rete base with pa inted a!wrnnum lase r cut d1mens1onl log o s'tud mounted to the fac e (:;\_~D_E _______ _ \.:.J-Scale . 1/2" .= I ·O" GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN C-17 197 C-18 Appendix C Master Sign Program Colors & Materials Paint Colors <!v fi) ~;V r~[_ ____ T ' 0 I I [~-~-I Whr!c r11nTo M~1c11 fk!l Pro1r.ctArr.111ttlct11rr. Concretr. Vinyl Colors ;-0 (v.9 \V-2 ( 81ur. Grny Rcrl Reflective vinyls will be used w he n required for code Specialty Materials Acrvlic IA) Glass (GI ; Me1ol (Ml Stone ISi · Tile ITI Woo d (WI NOTE: (0 T Di!v/N1gh1 Acrylir. (0 ~--1 I I I l11111tGrt:v All PAINT COLORS ARE TO HAVE SATIN FI NISH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN ~o 0 1000 GATE WA Y TB 11 a 11t Compa ny Typo graphy & Symbols N&u!ra Display Bold Aa B bCcDd ~& i=fGgl-l h I iJj Kk L!Mm N n O oPpQqRrSs Tl:UuVvWwXx YyZz 123456789 0 Futura Medium AaBbCcDd EeFfGg H h liJj KkLIMm Nn OoPpOq RrSs TtU uVvWwXxYy Zz 1234567890 Helvetica Neue 67 Medium Condensed Aa BbCcDd Ee Ff GgH hliJjKkll Mm N n OoPpQqR rSsTtU uVvWwXxYyZz 1234567890 • (!:,, [Bl BioMed Realty ~"1'71~ 198 Design & Color Influence s Appendix C Master Sign Program Sign design provides an opportunity to elaborate on the architectural design elements while providing a cohesive and integrated campus wide, easy to use wayfinding sign system. GATE WAY BUSINES S PARK MASTER PLAN C 19 199 C-20 Appendix C Master Sign Program T,.~f· .... ,11• P,..,. . .61"~1m('.~ r.""'"' Drawmg 1s sen/eel as nnted for J 2 x 18 pnnted sheet Sile, rf 24 K Jfi winted sh e.o t size rs us ed, scale ,,~· 1" f '-0" GA TEWAY BUSIN ESS PARK MASTER PLAN T ~I I I l REG Sign Types REG.01 . Vis itor Parking REG.02 · Accussible Parking REG.03 eve P&rking Hegulation REG ,04 : GaragP entry Code REG.05. STOP REG.06 · Speed Lirnit REG.07 · Pedestrian Crossing REG.OS: Traffic Ex ,t Info REG.09: Emergency Access Lanes • REG.01 · .09 · Regulatory This s1g 11 type is located along the main roadways within the campus pro ~er to provide vehicular regulatory 111formation such as STOP, Speed Limit. Pedestrain Crossing, Parking Sparn designations, Acce,ssi!Jility and Emergency Access code signs, etc This sign type is not considered in square footage calculations. OTY: 12-15 +· l .... ···········-··········--·-·······--·······--·i ___ ····-·----· __ .,...,. •• --... Aluminum sign pane! 1ri.11th paint .--finish on oil exposed surfaces, concealed mounting to post. rnf!e1.:fae vinyls ai-e used when reqmrerl for code, n!! other graphics are app ied vinyl or masked & painted :rx 3" aluminum tube with ·--······-·-···-- 2 col ,)r 1rnmt finish on all sides, top 1~: r.ut anrl capped <1l45'\ earth bt rv mlo landscapn or sleeve f-t into lrnrdsc3pe .... 2 SIDE Scale 1/2" I' O" 200 WI«:'=:-.,,;"' l!tl ,Q,,~ Acryi,c Dra wmu 1s scaled as ,wied for 12 x 18 pnnwd slieei sue, d 24 ,'< 36 pnn1 e1i sheel sue rs u::.-ed, scale ,s !" = J '-0" 00 ,f. The M le u! ... onipany Single Temmt I } I ~1 ... flcmo·;ah!t! I i I I I 21 -l J___ Mulup/e le11a111 Appendix C Master Sign Program Main cab met 1s rouled out behmd tlle scu!µted panel and faced w h!1 translucent acrylic to allow for light spill onlu rhe c<1bme1, and to illuminate the 1000 Gateway & tenant letter torms (se,e G002 00 /or detarls) B.G4 : Tenant ID Freestanding@ Pedestnan Entry This sign type 1s located within the interior campus at the rnain entry pornts into the building Tllis sign type will list either the single renant or multiple tenants as well as the building address. TlllS is intended for pedestrian use along the inetrior campus pathways as opposed to veh1cula1 use. This sign type is approximately 14 square feet, and should be ,aken into consicleratio11 as an Allowable Modification to the 1naste1 program as a unifying wayf1ncliny sign for the campus dunno Phase ·1 and subsequent phases. QTY: Custom tabm:ated sculpteLi panel ----....._ with µamted a/ummum plate back1ng -------•••... ....._ c1nd fa cell w1tl1 an opaque acrylic skin and 1nd1vitiua! removable tenant stnps, numbt~rs and letters me muted out and fillefl with acrylic lette1 forms, letter forms am gently illum1natel1 by the l1gl1t exposure from the cut-oui he1rn1d in the cabinet -----·---Fabricated alumu1urn sign cabmet ----... ___ w ith parnt finish ~ lnteyrn! Clllmecl concrete base ------- with pamted aluminum laser cut d1mens1onl logo stud mounted to the fi:1co .. (0 SIDE ~hc11!:)1/2'.,.J'O GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN C-21 201 C-22 Appendix C . Master Sign Program 8.05 : Occupant Branding Ide ntific ation e Cu stnm logo;nam n mfurs rmi ~)lfowoil for srn qlt: rr;nant occurant This sign type is located at building fronts typically along th e main road front age s. The purpose of thi s sign is to ide ntify a single /ma jor buildi ng occup ant from t he veh i cul ar vanta ge point Tenant logo us e 1s acceptable and building address numbers may be 111 cl uded . If t here is no t a si ngle or major occ up ant and mul tiple ten ants occup y the build ing, it is acc eptable to list the 3 main 1enants '"'':!!hi·~ ~·a.~r: /\:· -.,....,.,,~ c,~,..,~ w~•~ s~1•n 0~2,11~At=~1~ nrawmy 1s staled as noU.'d for 12 r 18 µnn!Ocf shna! Sile, d ?4 ,\ 36 pnntnci sheet size 1!; 11Sf!d. sr:a!a i<; 1" -7' O" 0 C1,mpany Nawe. enant Corpora ~,on Mu ltiple 1i!oan t ELEVATION Sc 11 1c:-1/7'' =-1'-0" GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTE:R PLAN I i,. ~1 r The Molecular Company .... Smyla Tenant Main cahin1H Is I outed mil br!h111t1 the sr.ul l}tr.d p1rn PI and l ncr.d with transl uc ent ac ·y!ic to allow for light spill onto th e cshinet. and 10 illuminat e the ten ant lett er fo rms & grap hics (see G002.00 for de ta,\sl __.-----Custom fabr;ec ted sculpterl o.inr.l -- --wi th painte il alum inum plate backin g :t nd faced w1 lh an opaque ncrylic sk in, lr~tters ;ire rnut ec:i out and fill ed with oc rvlic letter f1.1ms, lettP.r form s are gently ill umi nated by the ligh t !?XC os ur e from lh e r.ut-ou1 behin d m the C!Jb inet Fabricated ul uminum sign cabmet -·-----~- with paint fini s 1; numbers ar e routed out and fil !ect with flus h push ·lhrough day/rn gh l acry lir. form s tt nd inlr.rn a\l y ill u;nin AtP.d 11\fit , warm white LEDs Thi s sig n type is ap proxim otely 28 square feet, and sho uld he ta ken into consid era tio n as an Allowable Moditirat,on to the master program as ll unifying wayfindinu sign forth e campus dur ing Phas e I and su b,;e qu ent phases. QTY·, --- - _..----· lnleg nil colnre:l conc re te base ------. ··-- w ith pai nbrn al un inum laser cu1 dimensi on! loon stml moun tnd to the face 202 Dayl ight lette1 visib ili ty, wh ite on dark background Appendix C · Master Sign Program Letter Visibility For Building Mountel1 Tenant Identification Many factors such as design compos 1non, contrast, lighting, site lines, etc . contribute to optimal legibility for building mounted tenant ientificat1on using logos and type . The main requirement for optimal legibility is determining the correct lett er/logo size that w ill properly communicate the identity message to t he probabl e viewing locations. 1000 ft viewing distance= min imum required 43" lette r height 500 tt viewi ng distance= minimum required 22" letter height Major tenants will size and display their logo/ name after considering the viewing distance, the allowable square footage, and the visual impact on the surrounding environment. Letter Visibility For Building Mounted Tenant Identification ABC Cotnpany Day light letter visibility, dark on li ght background with day/nigh t vinyl faces Night letter vis ibi li ty will show internally illuminated White faces. GATf:WAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN C-23 203 C-24 Appendix C · Master Sign Program Fabricated aluminum ind1111 dual channpl letters/logos with face ht or halo lit warm white il!uininat.1011, letters/logos are concealed mounte d tu building facade without exposed rails or attachments 31(1~. ------------------- , ~q. ft . per lincM h, nf b1J1ldinq front1,qc ;i lhw.1,,1.1 per ':l~F ~1c,n o rdlr1onc e Tilb!£' t.0.1 60.008 NORTH ELEVATION -BUILDING A Scr1lr. 1" = 40' GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 31') t um,11q ti Nom1 l:.l1v:n1a,, A No rth -TEN.01 : Tenant ID @ Building Skyline This sign ty~rn 1s lncnted flt the !mild mg rooflin e but not above the rooflme. The purpo se of this sign is to identify the ma1or building occupant from a greater viewing distance. TP.nant logo use 1s ac ceptahle. Exact locatio n a Ion~ bldg. top to be determined with selected tenant. This sign type is approx imate and should be taken into co 11s 1deratmn as ~n Allowable Modification trJ t!H! master program as a unify111g wnytinding sign tor the csmpus rlurn,g P!iase 1 a111J sub seq ue nt phases. OTY 2/ 3 I dependent on tmal t enant ocr.uµancy} ,,.--Lette rs/logo s not allowed above this roof lin e "''~------ Side View 204 Fabricated aluminum 111d1v1l1ual cha nn el lette rs/logos with face lit or halo lit warm wliite illumination, letters/logos are concealed mounted to build111g facade without exposed ,a ils or attachments ---·--· 30lH -- l sq ft. per lineur ti. ot building frontage allo wed pei SSf Sl!J ll ord,nn nt:t"' labl? 20 360.008 A 300-t total sq ft South E!evatmn B ----lLI.!.!.L...!.!.1.i 1 West d.;~=-:l[..LIIJI.-~~ I r.'\_ SOUTH ELEVATION -BUILDING A ~Sc:a te·l"-40' Appendix C . Master Sign Program -TEN.01 : Tenant ID@ Building Skyline Tli is sign tyµe 1s located at the building 1ooflin e but not above the roofline The purpose of this sign is to identify the maior bu1ld1ng occupant lrorn a weater vi ewing distance . Tenant logo use 1s acceptable. This sign type 1s app roximat ely 300 StJUare feet, and sho uld be taken into conside1 at,on as an Allo wable Modifrcat1on to the maste1 prog ram as a un1fy,ng wayf1nd1ng sign for the camp us during Phase 1 and subsequent phas es · 2 / 3 (dependent on final tenant occupancy) l,ATEWAY BU S INESS PARK MASTER PLAN C -25 205 (' 26 Appendix C . Maste r Sig n Program :.AP.~.T.~n~nt.f;~mP.~ri.Y.~ Fabricated aluminum individual channel letters/logos with face 111 or halo lit warm white illur111nation, lettars/logos are conce aled mounted to building facade witho ut exposed rails or attachmen ts A OPTION If entire 1000 Gateway buf!ding (A,iB) 1s occupied bl/ one ma1or tfmant, tenant 1s allowed signsge options on North & South eleavnons. or North & We st e!avatmns ; -TF.N.01 : Tenant Hl@ Building Skyline This sign type 1r. located at the burldrng rootline bnt not above the rooflrne . The purpose of t!J1s sign is to rd en ti ty t he ma1or building occupant from a greater viewin11 distance Tenant logo rtse rs acceptabl e Thi s sign type 1s approximately 270 square feet, and sho ul d be taken into co rr sideratron as an Allowable Modi!tcation to the master program HS a unifyi ng wayfindin11 sig n for the cam pus durrnq Phase 1 and subsequ ent phases. OTY. 2 / 3 (depen cte n1 on final tenant occupancy} If 1000 Gateway :s occupied by 2 P1a 1or tenants, tenant A 1s allo wed s1qnage on North & South e!evan n,. and tenant B 1s allowed s1gnage on West elevation 270i ------·----------- 1 sq. ft. pe1 linea1 ft. of building frontaqe <1llowed per S5F s1911 01d1nr.1nct:> hbk 20.360.008 270 +-total sq ft West ElevRtion B West 1000 GatRway (A & B) (co mmon t1tr1um /entry) WEST ELEVATION -BUILDING B (building A RI o show n but not for tenantsignage pla<:_ernent nn wr.st ol£,va tio n) Sen le 1" -40 ' GATEWAY B USINESS PARK MASTER PLAN 206 Appendix C Master Sign Program C 27 GATEWAY BUSINE:SS PAR K MASTER P LAN 207 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST SHEET NUMBER(S) C4-201 A4-100 N/A A4-301 & A4-302 N/A A4-200 TO A-206 N/A L4-100 TO L4-102 C4-401 TO C4-402 C4-601 TO C4-602 W4-100 TO W4-104 A4-300 TO A4-302 G4-002 C4-101 L4-404 SITE PLAN EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING ELEVATION DRAWINGS FLOOR PLANS LANDSCAPE PLAN PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN SIGNAGE & LIGHTING PROGRAM EXISTING PHOTOS (SITE & SURROUNDING PROPERTIES) ANY APPLICABLE TENTATIVE, FINAL OR PARCEL MAPS COLOR RENDERINGS OF ALL ELEVATIONS PROJECT INFORMATION GOP 4 (B4) 900 GATEWAY BLVD. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94080 APN 015-023-200 (PARCEL D) APN 015-023-320 (PARCEL D) GSPD - GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT approx. 6.35 ACRES HOTEL, MULTI-STORY OFFICE, R&D FLEX, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, WAREHOUSE PROJECT ADDRESS: ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: ZONING DESIGNATION LOT SIZE: ADJACENT USES: PARKING STRUCTURE 4 (PS4) TBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION GOP4 (B4) THIS 6.35 ACRE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF SITE AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) NEW BUILDINGS AND ONE (1) NEW PARKING STRUCTURE. THE BUILDINGS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHELL AND CORE - BUILDING B4 NORTH (5 STORY) AND B4 SOUTH (5 STORY). A LIMITED AMOUNT OF INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE INITIAL SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING: FINISHED LOBBY INTERIORS, (3) PASSENGER ELEVATORS, (1) SERVICE ELEVATOR, BUILDING OCCUPANT RESTROOMS AND BICYCLE SHOWERS/LOCKERS. PARKING STRUCTURE (PS4) SHALL BE SIX (6) STORIES AND PROVIDE PARKING FOR THE B4 OCCUPANTS, INCLUDING, SECURE BICYCLE PARKING. ACCESS SHALL BE FROM BOTH PARK ST (PRIVATE ROAD) AND OYSTER POINT BLVD. Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/26/2020 11:32:27 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 PROJECT DATA G4-001 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC SHEET INDEX - PRECISE PLAN C4-602 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN C4-601 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN C4-502 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C4-501 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C4-402 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN C4-401 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN C4-302 PROPOSED SITE PLAN C4-301 PROPOSED SITE PLAN C4-202 EXISTING CONDITIONS C4-201 EXISTING CONDITIONS C4-101 RECORD BOUNDARY L4-104 VIEW OF CENTRAL SQUARE L4-103 VIEW OF DINING DECK & GARDEN L4-102 PROPOSED SITE PLAN L4-101 PROPOSED SITE PLAN L4-100 SITE CONTEXT PLAN G4-004 PROPOSED PRECISE PLAN EXTENTS G4-003 GOP 1,2,3,4 & 5 INTEGRATED CAMPUS G4-002 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS G4-001 PROJECT DATA G4-000 COVER SHEET Rev Date Description B4N: 900 GATEWAY BLVD B4S: 850 GATEWAY BLVD 910* GATEWAY BLVD. (PROPOSED) 850/ 900 GATEWAY BLVD. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 910* GATEWAY BLVD. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (PROPOSED) GOP 4 A4-400 SITE CROSS SECTION A4-321 PARKING STRUCTURE 4 EXTERIOR WALL SECTIONS A4-320 PARKING STRUCTURE 4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4-307 LOADING/SERVICE A4-306 B4 EXTERIOR WALL SECTION A4-305 B4 EXTERIOR WALL SECTION A4-304 B4 EXTERIOR WALL SECTION A4-303 B4 EXTERIOR WALL SECTION A4-302 B4 SOUTH - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4-301 B4 NORTH - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4-300C GOP 4 RENDERING A4-300A GOP 4&5 RENDERING A4-300 OVERALL ELEVATION A4-226 PS4 - SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A4-225 PS4 - FIFTH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A4-224 PS4 - FOURTH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A4-223 PS4 - THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A4-222 PS4 - SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A4-221 PS4 - GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A4-206 B4 - ROOF PLAN A4-205 B4 - PENTHOUSE FLOOR PLAN A4-204 B4 - LEVEL 05 FLOOR PLAN A4-203 B4 - LEVEL 04 FLOOR PLAN A4-202 B4 - LEVEL 03 FLOOR PLAN A4-201 B4 - LEVEL 02 FLOOR PLAN A4-200 B4 - LEVEL 01 FLOOR PLAN A4-100 SITE PLAN L4-502 SITE SECTION ENLARGEMENT L4-501 SITE SECTIONS L4-404 SITE FURNISHING PALETTE L4-402 SITE FURNISHING PALETTE L4-401 SITE FURNISHINGS L4-303 PLANTING PALETTE L4-302 PLANTING ZONES L4-301 PLANTING ZONES L4-203 PAVING PALETTE L4-202 PAVING PLAN L4-201 PAVING PLAN W4-106 PHASE 4 SIGN ELEVATION (PRELIMINARY) W4-105 PHASE 4 SIGN ELEVATION (PRELIMINARY) W4-104 PHASE 4 SIGN ELEVATION (PRELIMINARY) W4-103 PHASE 4 SIGN ELEVATION (PRELIMINARY) W4-102 PHASE 4 SIGN VISIBILITY (PRELIMINARY) W4-101 PHASE 4 SQUARE FOOTAGE (PRELIMINARY) W4-100 PHASE 4 SIGN LOCATION PLAN (PRELIMINARY) 06/08/20 209 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/17/2020 4:30:52 PM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS G4-002 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC VICINITY MAP ENGLARGED VICINITY MAP WITH VIEW LOCATIONS VIEW 1 VIEW 5 VIEW 9 VIEW 2 VIEW 6 VIEW 10 VIEW 3 VIEW 7 VIEW 11 VIEW 4 VIEW 8 VIEW 12 Rev Date Description 1 2 43 5 8 7 9 6 12 10 11 06/08/2006/08/20 210 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/17/2020 1:21:29 PM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 GOP 1,2,3,4 & 5 INTEGRATED CAMPUS G4-003 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description GOP 5E APN 015-071-330 PS 4 APN 015-023-200 RAIL SPUR-1 APN 015-071-220 RAIL SPUR-2 APN 015-071-999 GOP 4N APN 015-023-200 GOP 4S APN 015-023-200 GOP 5W APN 015-071-330 PS 5 APN 015-071-330 AMENITY APN 015-023-470 GOP 1 APN 015-023-470 GOP 2 APN 015-023-450 PS 2 APN 015-023-450 GOP 3 APN 015-023-290 PS 3 APN 015-023-290 OYSTER POINT BLVD GATEWAY BLVDECCLES AVENUEVETERANS BLVD N 0’55’110’220’ 1”=110’ @ 24x36 1”=220’ @ 12x18 06/08/2006/08/20 211 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/25/2020 2:11:33 PM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 PROPOSED PRECISE PLAN EXTENTS G4-004 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description PRECISE PLAN AREASCREENED SERVICE UTILITY YARD SCREENED SERVICE UTILITY YARD GOP 5E APN 015-071-330 PS 4 APN 015-023-200 RAIL SPUR-1 APN 015-071-220 RAIL SPUR-2 APN 015-071-999 GOP 4N APN 015-023-200 GOP 4S APN 015-023-200 GOP 5W APN 015-071-330 PS 5 APN 015-071-330 AMENITY APN 015-023-470 GOP 1 APN 015-023-470 GOP 2 APN 015-023-450 PS 2 APN 015-023-450 GOP 3 APN 015-023-290 PS 3 APN 015-023-290 OYSTER POINT BLVD GATEWAY BLVDECCLES AVENUEVETERANS BLVD N 0’55’110’220’ 1”=110’ @ 24x36 1”=220’ @ 12x18 06/08/20 212 213 216 220 221 222 223 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description CMG CMG GOP 1 BLDG 180 BLDG 200 OYSTER POINT BLVD SITE CONTEXT PLANGATEWAY BOULEVARDGOP 4 - N GOP 4 - S AMNTY. BLDG. GOP 4 - PS PARK STREETGOP 3GOP 2GOP 2-PSGOP 3-PSL4-100 GOP 4 - PRECISE PLAN BOUNDARY GOP 5 - E GOP 5 - W GOP 5 - PS OYSTER POINT ACCESS AREA CENTRAL SQUARE 50,134 SQ FT.1.15 ACRES ENTRY PLAZA DROP-OFF 12,278 SQ FT..28 ACRES PERIPHERAL LANDSCAPE 87,860 SQ FT.2 ACRES 1608040200 06/08/20 224 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description CMG CMG GOP 4 - N BLDG 180 BLDG 200 GOP 4 - S PARK STREET (PRIVATE DRIVE)AMENITY BUILDING GOP-1 GOP 2 - PS GOP 4 - PS L4-101 PROPOSED SITE PLANSEE SHEET L4.102GOP 5 - E L4-501/502 4 2 1 10 9 8 7 13 14 12 11 6 3 5 1 3 4 5 5 6 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 14 13 12 12 12 12 2 Entry Drop-Off Plaza Entry Plaza Park Street Landscape - CIP Concrete retaining walls with landscape buffer planting. - Stormwater treatment areas integrated at base of wall. Garden Deck/Dining Area Stage/Seating/Sculpture Platform - Removable bollards with a curb-less transition to the plaza and building entry plaza. - Concrete unit pavers with seat benches and accent tree groupings. - Vehicular access with drop-off and turn around area. Central Square Dining Pavilion Custom Wood Seating Element Loading Dock Garage Entry/ Exit Groves Utility/Infrastructure Yard Parcel Boundary Garden Edges Emergency Vehicle Access LEGEND - 20’-26’ wide per city standards with mountable curb at Park Street. - City standard fire truck hammerhead turn around at central square. - Wood seating platform with movable seating, potential fire pit, accent lighting and under-story planting. - The nexus of the campus, connecting the existing campus with the proposed four and five phases. Campus circulation connections to building entry/exit points and amenities spaces are included, along with native and adapted plantings with areas for various campus program. These include, outdoor corporate events, al fresco dining, lounge seating, outdoor meeting spaces, along with opportunities for food and beverage vendors. -Metal trellis with accent lighting and lounge seating -Potential food and beverage kiosk -Wood decking with movable and fixed seating elements, accent lighting and native and adapted under-story plantings. -A continuation of the phase one landscape incorporating storm-water gardens and tree bosques. -A variety of tree types help to define the edges of the central square and accent architectural facades. Under-story plantings consist of native and adapted plantings that help to define the outdoor rooms and give seasonal interest, along with providing habitat for local fauna. 8040 20100 06/08/20 225 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description CMG CMG 4 2 2 1 1 3 3 4 5 5 Entry/Exit Access Drive Surface Parking Lot Peripheral Landscape Fire Truck Turnaround Garage Entry/ Exit LEGEND 8040 20100SEE SHEET L4.101PROPOSED SITE PLAN L4-102 GOP 4 - PS OYSTER POINT BLVD BLDG 200 Parcel Boundary 06/08/20 226 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description CMG CMG L4-103 VIEW OF DINING DECK & GARDEN Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description 06/08/20 227 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description CMG CMG L4-104 VIEW OF CENTRAL SQUARE Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description 06/08/20 228 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description CMG CMG CIP CONCRETE CONCRETE HEX UNIT PAVERS PRECAST CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS WOOD DECKING ASPHALT STABILIZED CRUSHED STONE PAVING 1 2 3 4 5 6 L4-201 PAVING LEGEND SEE SHEET L4.202PAVING PLAN GOP 4 - N GOP 4 - S AMNTY. BLDG. GOP 4 - PS GOP 5 - E PARCEL BOUNDARY 6030150 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 06/08/20 229 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description GOP 4 - PS OYSTER POINT BLVD BLDG 200 CMG CMG L4-202 1 5 PAVING PLANSEE SHEET L4.201CIP CONCRETE CONCRETE HEX UNIT PAVERS PRECAST CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS WOOD DECKING ASPHALT STABILIZED CRUSHED STONE PAVING 1 2 3 4 5 6 PAVING LEGEND PARCEL BOUNDARY (N) SIDEWALK 6030150 1 06/08/20 230 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description CMG CMG 1 2 65 CONCRETE HEX UNIT PAVERS STABILIZED CRUSHED STONE PAVING WOOD DECKING ASPHALT PAVING CIP CONCRETE L4-203 PAVING PALETTE 3 CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS 4 06/08/20 231 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date DescriptionSEE SHEET L4.302CMG CMG 4 4 4 5 4 4 1 1 L4-301 PLANTING ZONES 3 3 3 3 GOP 4 - N GOP 4 - S GOP 4 - PS GOP 5 - E 2 6 6 6 ZONE 1: GROVES ZONE 2: ENTRY PLAZA ZONE 6: BIO-RETENTION AREAS ZONE 3: CENTRAL SQUARE ZONE 4: NATIVE CALIFORNIA ZONE 5: BUFFER/SLOPE TREES TREES TREES TREES PERENNIALS & GRASSES SHRUBS SHRUBS SHRUBS Alnus Rhombifolia White Alder Populus Freemontii Fremont Cottonwood Lophostemon Conferta Brisbane Box Magnolia ‘Samuel Sommer’ Samuel Sommer Southern Magnolia Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Arbutus Unedo Strawberry Tree Platanus Racemosa California Sycamore Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Quercus Virginiana Southern Live Oak Pinus Eldarica Afghan Pine Lophostemon Conferta Brisbane Box Achillea Millefolium Yarrow Carex Barbarae Santa Barbara Sedge Carex Divulsa European Grey Sedge Carex Praegracilis Clustured Field Sedge Iris Douglasiana ‘Canyon Snow’ Canyon Snow Douglas Iris Juncus Effusus Soft Rush Heteromeles Arbutifolia Toyon Myrica Californica Pacific Wax Myrtle Rhamnus Californica ‘Eve Case’ Coffeeberry Rhus Integrifolia Lemonade Berry Pittosporum Tenuifolium Kohuhu Heteromeles Arbutifolia Toyon Myrica Californica Pacific Wax Myrtle Rhamnus Californica ‘Eve Case’ Coffeeberry Rhus Integrifolia Lemonade Berry Pittosporum Tenuifolium Kohuhu Heteromeles Arbutifolia Toyon Myrica Californica Pacific Wax Myrtle Rhamnus Californica ‘Eve Case’ Coffeeberry Rhus Integrifolia Lemonade Berry TREES SHRUBS GROUNDCOVERS Betula Nigra ‘Dura Heat’ Dura Heat River Birch Liquidambar S. ‘Palo Alto’ Palo Alto Sweet Gum Melaleuca Quinquenervia Paper Bark Tea Tree Olea Eurpopaea Olive Tree Rhus Integrifolia Lemonade Berry Ribes S. ‘White Icicle’ White Icicle Red Flowering Current Rosmarinus Officinalis ‘Prostratus’ Trailing Rosemary Salvia Chamaedryoides Germander Sage Archtostaphylos U. ‘Point Reyes’ Manzanita Point Reyes Baccharis Pilularis ‘Pigeon Point’ Dwarf Coyote Bush Ceanothus t.g. ‘Yankee Point’ Carmel Creeper GROUNDCOVERS TREES PERENNIALS & GRASSES SHRUBS Magnolia Grandiflora Southern Magnolia Platanus Racemosa California Sycamore Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Achillea Millefolium White Flowering Yarrow Agastache Rupestris Licorice Mint Hyssop Carex Testacea Orange Sedge Erigeron Glaucus ‘Bountiful’ Seaside Daisy Eriogonum Fasciculatum California Buckwheat Leymus C. ‘Canyon Prince’ Canon Prince Wild Rye Lupinus Albifrons Silver Lupine Muhlenbergia Rigens Deergrass Nassella Pulchra Purple Needlegrass Heteromeles Arbutifolia Toyon Myrica Californica Pacific Wax Myrtle Rhamnus Californica ‘Eve Case’ Coffeeberry Pittosporum Tenuifolium Kohuhu Baccharis Pilularis ‘Pigeon Point’ Dwarf Coyote Bush Ribes Viburnifolium Evergreen Currant BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME 3 4 5 6 2 1 GROUNDCOVERS Baccharis Pilularis ‘Pigeon Point’ Dwarf Coyote Bush Ribes Viburnifolium Evergreen Currant PERENNIALS & GRASSES Achillea Millefolium White Flowering Yarrow Agastache Rupestris Licorice Mint Hyssop Carex Testacea Orange Sedge Erigeron Glaucus ‘Bountiful’ Seaside Daisy Eriogonum Fasciculatum California Buckwheat AMNTY. BLDG.PARK STREET (PRIVATE DRIVE)6030150 06/08/20 232 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description SEE SHEET L4.201GOP 4 - PS OYSTER POINT BLVD BLDG 200 CMG CMG L4-302 PLANTING ZONES 5 5 6 5 6030150 ZONE 1: GROVES ZONE 2: ENTRY PLAZA ZONE 6: BIO-RETENTION AREAS ZONE 3: CENTRAL SQUARE ZONE 4: NATIVE CALIFORNIA ZONE 5: BUFFER/SLOPE TREES TREES TREES TREES PERENNIALS & GRASSES SHRUBS SHRUBS SHRUBS Alnus Rhombifolia White Alder Populus Freemontii Fremont Cottonwood Lophostemon Conferta Brisbane Box Magnolia ‘Samuel Sommer’ Samuel Sommer Southern Magnolia Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Arbutus Unedo Strawberry Tree Platanus Racemosa California Sycamore Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Quercus Virginiana Southern Live Oak Pinus Eldarica Afghan Pine Lophostemon Conferta Brisbane Box Achillea Millefolium Yarrow Carex Barbarae Santa Barbara Sedge Carex Divulsa European Grey Sedge Carex Praegracilis Clustured Field Sedge Iris Douglasiana ‘Canyon Snow’ Canyon Snow Douglas Iris Juncus Effusus Soft Rush Heteromeles Arbutifolia Toyon Myrica Californica Pacific Wax Myrtle Rhamnus Californica ‘Eve Case’ Coffeeberry Rhus Integrifolia Lemonade Berry Pittosporum Tenuifolium Kohuhu Heteromeles Arbutifolia Toyon Myrica Californica Pacific Wax Myrtle Rhamnus Californica ‘Eve Case’ Coffeeberry Rhus Integrifolia Lemonade Berry Pittosporum Tenuifolium Kohuhu Heteromeles Arbutifolia Toyon Myrica Californica Pacific Wax Myrtle Rhamnus Californica ‘Eve Case’ Coffeeberry Rhus Integrifolia Lemonade Berry TREES SHRUBS GROUNDCOVERS Betula Nigra ‘Dura Heat’ Dura Heat River Birch Liquidambar S. ‘Palo Alto’ Palo Alto Sweet Gum Melaleuca Quinquenervia Paper Bark Tea Tree Olea Eurpopaea Olive Tree Rhus Integrifolia Lemonade Berry Ribes S. ‘White Icicle’ White Icicle Red Flowering Current Rosmarinus Officinalis ‘Prostratus’ Trailing Rosemary Salvia Chamaedryoides Germander Sage Archtostaphylos U. ‘Point Reyes’ Manzanita Point Reyes Baccharis Pilularis ‘Pigeon Point’ Dwarf Coyote Bush Ceanothus t.g. ‘Yankee Point’ Carmel Creeper GROUNDCOVERS TREES PERENNIALS & GRASSES SHRUBS Magnolia Grandiflora Southern Magnolia Platanus Racemosa California Sycamore Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Achillea Millefolium White Flowering Yarrow Agastache Rupestris Licorice Mint Hyssop Carex Testacea Orange Sedge Erigeron Glaucus ‘Bountiful’ Seaside Daisy Eriogonum Fasciculatum California Buckwheat Leymus C. ‘Canyon Prince’ Canon Prince Wild Rye Lupinus Albifrons Silver Lupine Muhlenbergia Rigens Deergrass Nassella Pulchra Purple Needlegrass Heteromeles Arbutifolia Toyon Myrica Californica Pacific Wax Myrtle Rhamnus Californica ‘Eve Case’ Coffeeberry Pittosporum Tenuifolium Kohuhu Baccharis Pilularis ‘Pigeon Point’ Dwarf Coyote Bush Ribes Viburnifolium Evergreen Currant BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME 6 3 4 5 2 1 GROUNDCOVERS Baccharis Pilularis ‘Pigeon Point’ Dwarf Coyote Bush Ribes Viburnifolium Evergreen Currant PERENNIALS & GRASSES Achillea Millefolium White Flowering Yarrow Agastache Rupestris Licorice Mint Hyssop Carex Testacea Orange Sedge Erigeron Glaucus ‘Bountiful’ Seaside Daisy Eriogonum Fasciculatum California Buckwheat 06/08/20 233 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description L-501 TREES SHRUBS & GROUNDCOVERS PERENNIALS & GRASSES F K A C G L B H M D I N E J O Preliminary Plant Schedule Alnus Rhombifolia White Alder Betula Nigra ‘Dura Heat’ Dura Heat River Birch Cercis Canadensis Eastern Redbud Cinnamomum Camphora Camphor Tree Cupressus Mwacrocarpa Monterey Cypress Ginkgo Biloba Maiden Hair Tree Liquidambar S. ‘Palo Alto’ Palo Alto Sweet Gum Magnolia Grandifolia Magnolia Olea Europa Non-Fruiting European Olive Pinus Contorta Murrayana Lodgepole Pine Platanus Racemosa California Sycamore Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Quercus Virginiana Southern Live Oak Tristaniopsis Laurina Water Gum Arctostaphylos Densiflora ‘Howard Mcminn’ Vine Hill Manzanita Arctostaphylos Uva Ursi ‘Point Reyes’ Manzanita ‘Point Reyes’ Ceanothus Maritimus ‘Valley Violet’ ‘Valley Violet’ Maritime Ceanothus Cistus X Hybridus White Rockrose Eriogonum Grande Var. Rubescens San Miguel Island Buckwheat Myrica Californica Pacific Wax Myrtle Polystichum Munitum Western Sword Fern Rhamnus Californica ‘Mound San Bruno’ Mound San Bruno Coffeeberry Rhus Integrifolia Lemonade Berry Rosmarinus Officinalis ‘Prostratus’ Trailing Rosemary Salvia Greggi Autumn Sage Westringia Fruitcosa ‘Mundi’ Mundi Coast Rosemary Woodwardia Fimbriata Giant Chain Fern Achillea Millefolium White Flowering Yarrow Agastache Rupestris Licorice Mint Hyssop Calamagrostis Foliosa Mendocino Reed Grass Carex Barbarae Santa Barbara Sedge Carex Divulsa European Grey Sedge Carex Praegracilis Clustered Field Sedge Carex Testacea Orange Sedge Dianella ‘Cassa Blue’ Flax Lily Erigeron Glaucus ‘Bountiful’ Seaside Daisy Eriogonum Fasciculatum California Buckwheat Eschscholzia Californica California Poppy Festuca Rubra Red Fesque Iris Douglasiana ‘Canyon Snow’ Canyon Snow Douglas Iris Lomandra Longifolia ‘Breeze’ Dwarf Mat Rush Lupinus Albifrons Silver Lupine Muhlenbergia Rigens Deergrass Nassella Pulchra Purple Needlegrass Teucrium Chamaedrys Wall Germander Salvia Chamaedryoides Germander Sage Zauschneria Californica ‘Bert’s Bluff’ Bert’s Bluff California Fuschia Baccharis Pilularis ‘Pigeon Point’ Dwarf Coyote Bush Ficus Pumila Creeping Fig Rubus Pentalobus ‘Emerald Carpet’ Creeping Rasberry Teucrium Chamaedrys Germander Westringia Fruticosa ‘Mundi’ Low Coast Rosemary Carex Spp. Sedge Iris Douglasiana Douglas Iris Juncus Effusus Soft Rush Mimulus Aurantiacus Sticky Monky Flower Leymus Condensatus ‘Canyon Prince’ Canyon Prince Wild Rye Polystichum Munitum Western Sword Fern Sarcococca Hookeriana Humilis Sweet Box General Design Intent: The landscape design for the Gateway of the Pacific will create a cohesive campus environment with a diversity of unique spaces and palettes that will provide seasonal variety, scale, and texture to the campus. The species above are indicative of the general design intent. Final species selection and layout will be refined and developed based on, wind and salt tol- erance, sun and shade exposure, water efficient landscape (WELO) requirements, aesthetic quality, ecological and habitat value, and maintenance considerations. Alnus Rubra Red Alder Populus Freemontii Fremont Cottonwood BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TREES SHRUBS PERENNIALS & GRASSES GROUNDCOVERS & VINES STORM-WATER SHRUBS LANDSCAPE AND PLANTING DESIGN NOTES: STORM-WATER TREES A B C E D M N K L F G H I J O CMG CMG PLANTING PALETTE L4-303 06/08/20 234 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description CMG CMG SITE FURNISHINGS L4-401 MOVABLE FURNITURE MONOLITHIC WOOD BENCH CUSTOM WOOD SEATING ELEMENT ENTRY PLAZA BENCH CUSTOM METAL TRELLIS WOOD DECKING 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 SITE AMENITIES LEGEND GOP 4 - N GOP 4 - S PARK STREETGOP 4 - PS GOP 5 - E 6030150 PARCEL BOUNDARY AMNTY. BLDG. 06/08/20 235 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description MONOLITHIC WOOD BENCH CUSTOM WOOD SEAT ELEMENT WOOD DECKING & POTENTIAL FIRE PIT DINING PAVILION CMG CMG L4-402 SITE FURNISHING PALETTE 06/08/20 236 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description L-701 CMG CMG L4-404 Site Furnishing and Lighting Site furnishings identified with the Precise Plan are intended to complement the architectural themes of materiality and quality, support the project’s resource- conscious design approach and enhance the use and flexibility of outdoor spaces. Specific furnishings shown are to indicate general intent of materiality and form only. Site elements and lighting that are installed as part of Building Four are proposed as examples of elements that may be incorporated into the Precise Plan area. LED POLE LIGHT BOLLARD LIGHTING LANDSCAPE FORMS - GENERATION 50 BANCAL BENCH - LANDSCAPE FORMSJANUS ET CIE-NIWA CHAIR FORMS+SURFACES-AVIVO TABLE CALPIPE EXTERNAL PADLOCKING BOLLARD WELLE CIRCULAR SQUARE TUBE BIKE RACK LIGHT POLE SITE FURNISHING PALETTE 06/08/20 237 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description L-602 GOP 4 CENTRAL SQUARE ENLARGEMENT - SEE SHEET L5.602 GOP 4 - NP.A PLAZA STAGE PLATFORM PLAZA P.A.GOP 4 -S PARK STREET 11’-0”20’-0”30’-0”17’-0”13’-0” PATHBTAPATHPA 6’-0”8’-0”5’-0”8’-0” CMG CMG L4-501 SITE SECTIONS SURFACE PARKING LOT Scale: 1”=20’-0” 06/08/20 238 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2345 678 12345678 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/11/2020 2:20:32 PM20189-01 Checker Author02/28/20 24X36 SAMPLE X4-YYY GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description L-602 GOP 4 CENTRAL SQUARE ENLARGEMENT GOP 4 - N GOP 4 - S GOP 4 - STAGE & SEATING PLATFORM PLAZA SEATING PLATFORM PLANTING GOP 4 - SGOP 4 - N PLAZA 20’-0”30’-0”17’-0”13’-0” CMG CMG L4-502 SITE SECTION ENLARGEMENT Scale: 1/8”=1’-0” 06/08/20 239 BUILDING 4S 5-STORIES 112,937 SF PARKING STRUCTURE 6 LEVELS BUILDING 4N 5-STORIES 113,063 SF MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE STAIR ENCLOSURE STAIR ENCLOSURE MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE SERVICE YARD SERVICE YARD SERVICE YARD Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/26/2020 11:32:24 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 SITE PLAN A4-100 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1" = 30'-0"1 SITE PLAN SITE DATA TOTAL LOT AREA:276,442 GFA FAR ALLOWED:1.25 BUILDING AREA: BUILDING 4N:113,063 GFA BUILDING 5E:112,937 GFA TOTAL:226,000 GFA FAR SHOWN:0.818* PARKING: PARKING REQUIRED 531 CARS* *REMAINING ALLOWABLE IN GOP DEVELOPMENT AFTER PHASES 1, 2 & 3 ARE COMPLETE. GFA -GROSS FLOOR AREA Rev Date Description 0' 15'30'60' PLAN NORTH 06/08/20 240 A4-301 3 A4-301 2 A4-301 1 A 4-3 024 A 4-3 023 A 4-3 021 A 4-3 022 DS CS BS AS 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8S 9S 10S 11S 12S DN CN BN AN 1N 2N 3N 4N 5N 6N 7N 8N 9N 10N 11N 12N5.7N 7.3N 7.3S 5.7S LOBBY LOBBY LOADING AREA LOADING AREA RESTROOMS OPEN ABOVE EXTERIOR SERVICE YARD EXTERIOR SERVICE YARD RESTROOMS OPEN ABOVE DROP OFF ACCESS DRIVEWAY PARK STREET (PRIVATE ACCESS)41' - 8"32' - 0"41' - 8"21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 15' - 9" 5' - 3" 10' - 6" 5' - 3" 15' - 9" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0"115' - 4"220' - 6" 2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "1 5 ' - 9 "5 ' - 3 "1 0 ' - 6 "5 ' - 3 "1 5 ' - 9 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 2 0 ' - 6 "4 1' - 8 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 4 1 ' - 8 " 1 1 5' - 4" Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/27/2020 11:08:04 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 -LEVEL 01 FLOOR PLAN A4-200 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 01 FLOOR PLAN Rev Date Description 06/08/20 241 A4-301 3 A4-301 2 A4-301 1 A 4-3 024 A 4-3 023 A 4-3 021 A 4-3 022 DS CS BS AS 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8S 9S 10S 11S 12S DN CN BN AN 1N 2N 3N 4N 5N 6N 7N 8N 9N 10N 11N 12N5.7N 7.3N 7.3S 5.7S41' - 8"32' - 0"41' - 8"115' - 4"OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 15' - 9" 5' - 3" 10' - 6" 5' - 3" 15' - 9" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 220' - 6" 2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "1 5 ' - 9 "5 ' - 3 "1 0 ' - 6 "5 ' - 3 "1 5 ' - 9 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 2 0 ' - 6 "4 1 ' - 8 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 4 1 ' - 8 " 1 15 ' - 4 " RESTROOMS RESTROOMS Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/27/2020 11:08:06 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 -LEVEL 02 FLOOR PLAN A4-201 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 02 FLOOR PLAN Rev Date Description 06/08/20 242 A4-301 3 A4-301 2 A4-301 1 A 4-3 024 A 4-3 023 A 4-3 021 A 4-3 022 DS CS BS AS 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8S 9S 10S 11S 12S DN CN BN AN 1N 2N 3N 4N 5N 6N 7N 8N 9N 10N 11N 12N5.7N 7.3N 7.3S 5.7S RESTROOMS RESTROOMS OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW41' - 8"32' - 0"41' - 8"115' - 4"21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 15' - 9" 5' - 3" 10' - 6" 5' - 3" 15' - 9" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 220' - 6" 2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "1 5 ' - 9 "5 ' - 3 "1 0 ' - 6 "5 ' - 3 "1 5 ' - 9 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 2 0 ' - 6 "4 1 ' - 8 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 4 1 ' - 8 " 1 1 5' - 4" Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/27/2020 11:08:07 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 -LEVEL 03 FLOOR PLAN A4-202 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 03 FLOOR PLAN Rev Date Description 06/08/20 243 A4-301 3 A4-301 2 A4-301 1 A 4-3 024 A 4-3 023 A 4-3 021 A 4-3 022 DS CS BS AS 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8S 9S 10S 11S 12S DN CN BN AN 1N 2N 3N 4N 5N 6N 7N 8N 9N 10N 11N 12N5.7N 7.3N 7.3S 5.7S RESTROOMS RESTROOMS41' - 8"32' - 0"41' - 8"115' - 4"21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 15' - 9" 5' - 3" 10' - 6" 5' - 3" 15' - 9" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 220' - 6" 2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "1 5 ' - 9 "5 ' - 3 "1 0 ' - 6 "5 ' - 3 "1 5 ' - 9 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 2 0 ' - 6 "4 1' - 8 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 4 1 ' - 8 " 1 15 ' - 4 " OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/27/2020 11:08:08 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 -LEVEL 04 FLOOR PLAN A4-203 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 04 FLOOR PLAN Rev Date Description 06/08/20 244 A4-301 3 A4-301 2 A4-301 1 A 4-3 024 A 4-3 023 A 4-3 021 A 4-3 022 DS CS BS AS 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8S 9S 10S 11S 12S DN CN BN AN 1N 2N 3N 4N 5N 6N 7N 8N 9N 10N 11N 12N5.7N 7.3N 7.3S 5.7S RESTROOMS RESTROOMS41' - 8"32' - 0"41' - 8"115' - 4"21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 15' - 9" 5' - 3" 10' - 6" 5' - 3" 15' - 9" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 220' - 6" 2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "1 5 ' - 9 "5 ' - 3 "1 0 ' - 6 "5 ' - 3 "1 5 ' - 9 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 2 0 ' - 6 "4 1 ' - 8 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 4 1 ' - 8 " 1 15 ' - 4 " Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/27/2020 11:08:09 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 -LEVEL 05 FLOOR PLAN A4-204 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 05 FLOOR PLAN Rev Date Description 06/08/20 245 A4-301 3 A4-301 2 A4-301 1 A 4-3 024 A 4-3 023 A 4-3 021 A 4-3 022 DS CS BS AS 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8S 9S 10S 11S 12S DN CN BN AN 1N 2N 3N 4N 5N 6N 7N 8N 9N 10N 11N 12N5.7N 7.3N 7.3S 5.7S41' - 8"32' - 0"41' - 8"115' - 4"21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 15' - 9" 5' - 3" 10' - 6" 5' - 3" 15' - 9" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 220' - 6" 2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "1 5 ' - 9 "5 ' - 3 "1 0 ' - 6 "5 ' - 3 "1 5 ' - 9 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 2 0 ' - 6 "4 1' - 8 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 4 1 ' - 8 " 1 1 5' - 4" MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE EXTERIOR ROOF AREA EXTERIOR ROOF AREA MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/27/2020 11:08:11 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 -PENTHOUSE FLOOR PLAN A4-205 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1" = 20'-0"1 PENTHOUSE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Rev Date Description 06/08/20 246 A4-301 3 A4-301 2 A4-301 1 A 4-3 024 A 4-3 023 A 4-3 021 A 4-3 022 DS CS BS AS 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8S 9S 10S 11S 12S DN CN BN AN 1N 2N 3N 4N 5N 6N 7N 8N 9N 10N 11N 12N5.7N 7.3N 7.3S 5.7S PENTHOUSE ROOF PENTHOUSE ROOF41' - 8"32' - 0"41' - 8"115' - 4"21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 15' - 9" 5' - 3" 10' - 6" 5' - 3" 15' - 9" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 21' - 0" 220' - 6" 2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "1 5 ' - 9 "5 ' - 3 "1 0 ' - 6 "5 ' - 3 "1 5 ' - 9 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 1 ' - 0 "2 2 0 ' - 6 "4 1' - 8 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 4 1 ' - 8 " 1 15 ' - 4 " STAIR ENCLOSURE STAIR ENCLOSURE Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/27/2020 11:08:12 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 -ROOF PLAN A4-206 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1" = 20'-0"1 ROOF PLAN Rev Date Description 06/08/20 247 12A4-32021A4-3301A4-330A4-3201CCBB3AA4A4-3211A4-32122A4-330-567891011121314151617A.2A.5B.62122B.4B.1A.6A.4A.1B.7B.5B.3B.2A.3RAMP UPVVEV-VAEV-AAMB3A4-3303A4-330Project TitleDrawn ByRev. No.Checked ByDateProject PhaseProject NumberSheet TitleSheet NumberG1Stamps & ApprovalsHFEDCBA2 3 4 567812345678NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145South San Francisco, CA 94080Precise PlanPhase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN2/14/2020 10:30:07 AM19309CheckerAuthor02/28/2020GROUND LEVEL FLOORPLANGateway ofPacificSCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANRev DateDescriptionProject Key PlanNGROUND LEVEL FLOORPLANPS4 - GROUND LEVELFLOOR PLANA4-22106/08/20248 UP12A4-32021A4-3301A4-330A4-3201CB3A4A4-3211A4-32122A4-3302A4-330-567891011121314151617A.2A.5B.62122B.4B.1A.6A.4A.1B.7B.5B.3B.2A.3/4A4-720SEE DETAILRAMP UPRAMP DN2' - 2"3A4-3303A4-330Project TitleDrawn ByRev. No.Checked ByDateProject PhaseProject NumberSheet TitleSheet NumberG1Stamps & ApprovalsHFEDCBA2 3 4 5 67812345678NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145South San Francisco, CA 94080Precise PlanPhase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN2/14/2020 10:30:08 AM19309CheckerAuthor02/28/2020SECOND LEVEL FLOORPLANGateway ofPacificSCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLANRev DateDescriptionProject Key PlanNSECOND LEVEL FLOORPLANPS4 - SECOND LEVELFLOOR PLANA4-22206/08/20249 12A4-32021A4-3301A4-330A4-3201CB3A4A4-3211A4-32122A4-3302A4-330-567891011121314151617A.2A.5B.62122B.4B.1A.6A.4A.1B.7B.5B.3B.2A.3RAMP UPRAMP DN3A4-3303A4-330Project TitleDrawn ByRev. No.Checked ByDateProject PhaseProject NumberSheet TitleSheet NumberG1Stamps & ApprovalsHFEDCBA2 3 4 5 67812345678NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145South San Francisco, CA 94080Precise PlanPhase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN2/14/2020 10:30:10 AM19309CheckerAuthor02/28/2020THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLANGateway ofPacificSCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLANRev DateDescriptionProject Key PlanNTHIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLANPS4 - THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLANA4-22306/08/20250 12A4-32021A4-3301A4-330A4-3201CCBB3AA4A4-3211A4-32122A4-3302A4-330-567891011121314151617A.2A.5B.62122B.4B.1A.6A.4A.1B.7B.5B.3B.2A.3RAMP UPRAMP DN3A4-3303A4-330Project TitleDrawn ByRev. No.Checked ByDateProject PhaseProject NumberSheet TitleSheet NumberG1Stamps & ApprovalsHFEDCBA2 3 4 5 67812345678NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145South San Francisco, CA 94080Precise PlanPhase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN2/14/2020 10:30:11 AM19309CheckerAuthor02/28/2020FOURTH LEVEL FLOORPLANGateway ofPacificSCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1FOURTH LEVEL FLOOR PLANRev DateDescriptionProject Key PlanNFOURTH LEVEL FLOORPLANPS4 - FOURTH LEVELFLOOR PLANA4-22406/08/20251 12A4-32021A4-3301A4-330A4-3201CCBB3AA4A4-3211A4-32122A4-3302A4-330-567891011121314151617A.2A.5B.62122B.4B.1A.6A.4A.1B.7B.5B.3B.2A.3RAMP UPRAMP DN3A4-3303A4-330Project TitleDrawn ByRev. No.Checked ByDateProject PhaseProject NumberSheet TitleSheet NumberG1Stamps & ApprovalsHFEDCBA2 3 4 5 67812345678NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145South San Francisco, CA 94080Precise PlanPhase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN2/14/2020 10:30:12 AM19309CheckerAuthor02/28/2020FIFTH LEVEL FLOOR PLANGateway ofPacificSCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1FIFTH LEVEL FLOOR PLANRev DateDescriptionProject Key PlanNFIFTH LEVEL FLOOR PLANPS4 - FIFTH LEVEL FLOOR PLANA4-22506/08/20252 12A4-32021A4-3301A4-330A4-3201CCBB3AA4A4-3211A4-32122A4-3302A4-330-567891011121314151617A.2A.5B.62122B.4B.1A.6A.4A.1B.7B.5B.3B.2A.3RAMP DN3A4-330Project TitleDrawn ByRev. No.Checked ByDateProject PhaseProject NumberSheet TitleSheet NumberG1Stamps & ApprovalsHFEDCBA2 3 4 5 67812345678NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145South San Francisco, CA 94080Precise PlanPhase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN2/14/2020 10:30:13 AM19309CheckerAuthor02/28/2020SIXTH (ROOF) LEVELFLOOR PLANGateway ofPacificSCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL FLOOR PLANRev DateDescriptionProject Key PlanNSIXTH (ROOF) LEVELFLOOR PLANPS4 - SIXTH (ROOF) LEVELFLOOR PLANA4-22606/08/20253 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/26/2020 8:40:41 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 OVERALL ELEVATION A4-300 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description 06/08/20 254 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/26/2020 1:34:03 PM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 GOP 4&5 RENDERING A4-300A GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description 06/08/20 255 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/26/2020 8:40:42 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 GOP 4 RENDERING A4-300C GATEWAY OF PACIFIC LOW IRON GLASS EXTERIOR WOOD PLANK METAL COLUMN COVER HIGH PERFORMANCE SOLAR GLASS - TINTED SHADOW BOX SPANDREL - TINTED METAL FIN Rev Date Description 06/08/20 256 Project TitleDrawn ByRev. No.Checked ByDateProject PhaseProject NumberSheet TitleSheet NumberG1Project Key PlanStamps & ApprovalsHFEDCBA2 3 4 567812345678NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145South San Francisco, CA 94080Precise PlanPhase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080NGOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT2/12/2020 3:25:34 PM 20189-01FLADFLAD02/28/2020B4 NORTH -EXTERIORELEVATIONSA4-301GATEWAY OFPACIFICRev DateDescriptionHIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLARGLASS - TINTEDHIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLARGLASS - TINTEDSHADOW BOX SPANDREL- TINTEDLOW IRON GLASSGFRC PANELMETAL FINSHADOW BOX SPANDREL - LOW IRONOVERHEAD COILING DOORMETAL COLUMN COVERCLEAR GLASS GUARDRAILCLEAR GLASS GUARDRAILMETAL COLUMN COVERREVOLVING DOORLOW IRON GLASSMETAL FINSSHADOW BOX SPANDREL - TINTEDHIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLARGLASS - TINTEDGFRC PANELMETAL FINSSHADOW BOX SPANDREL -TINTEDCLEAR GLASS GUARDRAILMETAL COLUMN COVERLOW IRON GLASSCLEAR GLASS GUARDRAILMETAL COLUMN COVERSHADOW BOX SPANDREL -TINTEDMETAL FINSREVOLVING DOORLOW IRON GLASSSHADOW BOX SPANDREL -LOW IRONHIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLARGLASS - TINTEDENLARGED LOADING DOCK VIEW -1/A4-30706/08/20257 Project TitleDrawn ByRev. No.Checked ByDateProject PhaseProject NumberSheet TitleSheet NumberG1Project Key PlanStamps & ApprovalsHFEDCBA2 3 4 567812345678NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145South San Francisco, CA 94080Precise PlanPhase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080NGOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT2/12/2020 3:25:40 PM 20189-01FLADFLAD02/28/2020B4 SOUTH -EXTERIORELEVATIONSA4-302GATEWAY OFPACIFICRev DateDescriptionHIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLARGLASS - TINTEDCLEAR GLASS GUARDRAILMETAL COLUMN COVERREVOLVING DOORLOW IRON GLASSMETAL FINSSHADOW BOX SPANDREL -TINTEDSHADOW BOX SPANDREL -LOW IRONMETAL COLUMN COVERLOW IRON GLASSCLEAR GLASS GUARDRAILSHADOW BOX SPANDREL -TINTEDGFRC PANELHIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLARGLASS - TINTEDMETAL FINSREVOLVING DOORLOW IRON GLASSHIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLARGLASS - TINTEDSHADOW BOX SPANDREL -TINTEDMETAL FINSMETAL COLUMN COVERCLEAR GLASS GUARDRAILSHADOW BOX SPANDREL -LOW IRONGFRC PANELOVERHEAD COILING DOORMETAL FINSSHADOW BOX SPANDREL -LOW IRONCLEAR GLASS GUARDRAILMETAL COLUMN COVERHIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLARGLASS - TINTEDSHADOW BOX SPANDREL -TINTEDENLARGED LOADING DOCK VIEW -2/A4-30706/08/20258 39' - 0" Level 1 - GOP 4 57' - 0" Level 2 - GOP 4 73' - 0" Level 3 - GOP 4 89' - 0" Level 4 - GOP 4 105' - 0" Level 5 - GOP 4 121' - 0" PENTHOUSE - GOP 4 AN 137' - 0" T.O. PARAPET - GOP 4 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/12/2020 2:58:50 PM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 EXTERIOR WALL SECTION A4-303 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 3/16" = 1'-0"1 WALL SECTION2PARTIAL AXONOMETRIC Rev Date Description HIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLAR GLASS - TINTED SHADOW BOX SPANDREL - TINTED LOW IRON GLASS CLEAR GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL FIN METAL COLUMN COVER HIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLAR GLASS - TINTED SHADOW BOX SPANDREL - TINTED METAL FIN METAL COLUMN COVER LOW IRON GLASS EXTERIOR WOOD PLANK 06/08/20 259 39' - 0" Level 1 - GOP 4 57' - 0" Level 2 - GOP 4 73' - 0" Level 3 - GOP 4 89' - 0" Level 4 - GOP 4 105' - 0" Level 5 - GOP 4 121' - 0" PENTHOUSE - GOP 4 11N 12N 137' - 0" T.O. PARAPET - GOP 4 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/12/2020 2:58:53 PM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 EXTERIOR WALL SECTION A4-304 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 3/16" = 1'-0"1 WALL SECTION2PARTIAL AXONOMETRIC Rev Date Description LOW IRON GLASS METAL COLUMN COVER HIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLAR GLASS - TINTED SHADOW BOX SPANDREL - TINTED METAL FIN EXTERIOR WOOD PLANK 06/08/20 260 39' - 0" Level 1 - GOP 4 57' - 0" Level 2 - GOP 4 73' - 0" Level 3 - GOP 4 89' - 0" Level 4 - GOP 4 105' - 0" Level 5 - GOP 4 121' - 0" PENTHOUSE - GOP 4 AN 137' - 0" T.O. PARAPET - GOP 4 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/12/2020 2:58:58 PM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 EXTERIOR WALL SECTION A4-305 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 2 PARTIAL AXONOMETRIC 3/16" = 1'-0"1 WALL SECTION Rev Date Description HIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLAR GLASS - TINTED SHADOW BOX SPANDREL - TINTED CLEAR GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL FIN GFRC PANEL LOW IRON GLASS EXTERIOR WOOD PLANK OVERHEAD COILING DOOR SHADOW BOX SPANDREL - LOW IRON 06/08/20 261 39' - 0" Level 1 - GOP 4 57' - 0" Level 2 - GOP 4 73' - 0" Level 3 - GOP 4 89' - 0" Level 4 - GOP 4 105' - 0" Level 5 - GOP 4 121' - 0" PENTHOUSE - GOP 4 12S 137' - 0" T.O. PARAPET - GOP 4 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLANDRAFT 2/12/2020 2:59:01 PM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 B4 EXTERIOR WALL SECTION A4-306 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 3/16" = 1'-0"1 WALL SECTION2PARTIAL AXONOMETRIC Rev Date Description HIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLAR GLASS - TINTED SHADOW BOX SPANDREL - TINTED CLEAR GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL FIN LOW IRON GLASS EXTERIOR WOOD PLANK SHADOW BOX SPANDREL - LOW IRON METAL COLUMN COVER HIGH-PERFORMANCE SOLAR GLASS - TINTED SHADOW BOX SPANDREL - TINTED 06/08/20 262 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/26/2020 8:40:49 AM20189-01 Checker Author02/17/20 LOADING/SERVICE A4-307 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1 AXONOMETRIC -GOP4N -LOADING/SERVICE2AXONOMETRIC -GOP4S -LOADING/SERVICE Rev Date Description 06/08/20 263 77' - 2" FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 97' - 6" SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 67' - 0" THIRD LEVEL - PS4 56' - 10" SECOND LEVEL - PS4 45' - 6" GROUND LEVEL - PS4 87' - 6" FIFTH LEVEL - PS4 EXTRUDED METAL SLATS TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN METAL SCREEN TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN 77' - 2" FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 97' - 6" SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 67' - 0" THIRD LEVEL - PS4 56' - 10" SECOND LEVEL - PS4 45' - 6" GROUND LEVEL - PS4 87' - 6" FIFTH LEVEL - PS4 EXTRUDED METAL SLATS TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN METAL SCREEN TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN PARKING GARAGE FACADE AT ELEVATORS AND STAIRS (GLASS CURTAINWALL) TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN EXTERIOR WOOD PLANK 77' - 2" FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 97' - 6" SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 67' - 0" THIRD LEVEL - PS4 56' - 10" SECOND LEVEL - PS4 45' - 6" GROUND LEVEL - PS4 87' - 6" FIFTH LEVEL - PS4 EXTRUDED METAL SLATS TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN PARKING GARAGE FACADE AT ELEVATORS AND STAIRS (GLASS CURTAINWALL) TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN EXTERIOR WOOD PLANK 77' - 2" FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 97' - 6" SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 67' - 0" THIRD LEVEL - PS4 56' - 10" SECOND LEVEL - PS4 45' - 6" GROUND LEVEL - PS4 87' - 6" FIFTH LEVEL - PS4 EXTRUDED METAL SLATS TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN METAL SCREEN TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN PARKING GARAGE FACADE AT ENTRANCES WITH (METALSCREEN MATERIAL) PARKING GARAGE FACADE TYP. Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/26/2020 10:01:16 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 PARKING STRUCTURE 4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4-320 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 1" = 20'-0"2 PRECISE PLAN -PS4 -SOUTH OVERALL 1" = 20'-0"3 PRECISE PLAN -PS4 -NORTH OVERALL 1" = 20'-0"4 PRECISE PLAN -PS4 -WEST OVERALL 1" = 20'-0"1 PRECISE PLAN -PS4 -EAST OVERALL Rev Date Description 06/08/20 264 39' - 0" Level 1 - GOP 4 77' - 2" FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 97' - 6" SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 67' - 0" THIRD LEVEL - PS4 56' - 10" SECOND LEVEL - PS4 45' - 6" GROUND LEVEL - PS4 87' - 6" FIFTH LEVEL - PS4 EXTRUDED METAL SLATS TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN METAL SCREEN TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN PARKING GARAGE FACADE AT ELEVATORS AND STAIRS (GLASS CURTAINWALL) TO MATCH GOP PARKING STRUCTURE 2&3 PRECISE PLAN EXTERIOR WOOD PLANK 77' - 2" FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 97' - 6" SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 67' - 0" THIRD LEVEL - PS4 56' - 10" SECOND LEVEL - PS4 45' - 6" GROUND LEVEL - PS4 87' - 6" FIFTH LEVEL - PS4 77' - 2" FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 97' - 6" SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 67' - 0" THIRD LEVEL - PS4 56' - 10" SECOND LEVEL - PS4 45' - 6" GROUND LEVEL - PS4 87' - 6" FIFTH LEVEL - PS4 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/26/2020 10:02:19 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 PARKING STRUCTURE 4 EXTERIOR WALL SECTIONS A4-321 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PS4 -WALL SECTION 1" = 20'-0"3 PS4 -LONGITUDINAL SECTION 1" = 20'-0"4 PS4 -CROSS SECTION Rev Date Description 06/08/20 265 Project Title Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number G 1 Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals H F E D C B A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1145 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Precise Plan Phase 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 N GOP 4 PRECISE PLAN 2/26/2020 8:41:00 AM20189-01 FLAD FLAD02/28/2020 SITE CROSS SECTION A4-400 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC Rev Date Description 06/08/20 266 GOP 3PARKING STRUCTUREGOP 2PARKING STRUCTUREGOP 3GOP 2SOUTHGOP 2NORTHAMENITY BUILDINGGATEWAY BLVDPARK AVENUEOYSTER POINT BLVD ECCL ES A V E N U E PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 4 GOP 1 NORTH GOP 4A NORTH GOP 4 PARKING STRUCTURE GOP 5 PARKING STRUCTURE GOP 4B SOUTH GOP 5E EAST GOP 5W WEST GOP 1 SOUTH B.02 : Primary Entry Identification B.03 : Secondary Entry Identification B.04 : Tenant ID Freestanding B.05 : Occupant Branding Identification TEN.02 : Tenant ID (Eyebrow) DIR.02 : Vehicular Directional DIR.03 : Pedestrian Directional/Directory R.01-.09 : Regulatory (stop, HC, fire, code...) TEN.01 : Tenant ID @ Building Skyline PHASE 5 W4-100 PHASE 4SIGN LOCATION PLAN(PRELIMINARY) JP JP 07/23/20 267 W4-101 PHASE 4 SQUARE FOOTAGE(PRELIMINARY) JP JP 07/23/20 B.02 : Primary Entry Identification B.03 : Secondary Entry Identification B.04 : Tenant ID Freestanding B.05 / Occupant Branding Identification DIR.02 : Vehicular Directional DIR.03 : Pedestrian Directional/DirectoryDIR.02 : DIR.03 R.01-.09 : Regulatory (stop, HC, fire, code...) TEN.01 : Tenant ID @ Building Skyline SIGN TYPE 0 5 5 2 2 0 2 2 40 21 15 N/A 21 14 28 802 0 105 75 N/A 264 0 28 56 PHASE 4 TOTAL PROPOSED SIGNAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE SUB - TOTAL QTY SQ FT EACH TOTAL SQ FT PHASE 4 Tenant Buildings : GOP 4N, 4S + PS4 Park Avenue SYMBOL (tenant occupancy is unknown at this time) TEN.02 : Tenant ID @ Eyebrow 4 22 88 225 450 268 W4-102 PHASE 4SIGN VISIBILITY(PRELIMINARY) JP JP 07/23/20 Letter Visibility For Building Mounted Tenant Identification Many factors such as design composition, contrast, lighting, site lines, etc. contribute to optimal legibility for building mounted tenant ientification using logos and type. The main requirement for optimal legibility is determining the correct letter/logo size that will properly communicate the identity message to the probable viewing locations. 1000 ft viewing distance = minimum required 43“ letter height 500 ft viewing distance = minimum required 22” letter height Major tenants will size and display their logo / name after considering the viewing distance, the allowable square footage, and the visual impact on the surrounding environment. Letter Visibility For Building Mounted Tenant Identification Daylight letter visibility, white on dark background Daylight letter visibility, dark on light background with day/night vinyl faces Night letter visibility will show internally illuminated White faces. ABC CompanyABC Company 1000 ft500 ft 500 ft GOP 4North GOP 4 GOP 5 South West GOP 5East PS 4 PS 5 500 ft1000 ft 1000 ft269 ABC COMPANY TEN.01 : Tenant ID @ Building Skyline This sign type is located at the building roofline but not above the roofline. The purpose of this sign is to identify the major building occupants from a greater viewing distance. Tenant logo use is acceptable. Exact location along bldg. top to be determined with selected tenant. This sign type is approximately 225 Square Feet and should be taken into consideration as an Allowable Modification to the master program as a unifying wayfinding sign for the campus during Phase 4 and subsequent phases. QTY : 1 Sign Per Elevation GOP 4 NORTH / NORTH ELEVATION Fabricated aluminum individual channel letters/logos with face lit or halo lit warm white illumination, letters/logos are concealed mounted to building facade without exposed rails or attachments ABC COMPANY W4-103 PHASE 4SIGN ELEVATION(PRELIMINARY) JP JP 07/23/20 BUILDING TOP SIGNAGE LIMIT 2 PER TOWER LETTERS/LOGOS NOT ALLOWED ABOVE ROOF LINE 225' - 0" ( North Tower ) 225 +- TOTAL SQ FT - NORTH ELEVATION / 1 SQ. FT. P ER LINEA R FT . OF BU ILDING FRON TAGE A LLOWE D PE R S SF SIG N ORDINANCE - TABLE 20.36 0.008 GOP 4N GOP 4S ABC COMPANY 270 TEN.01 : Tenant ID @ Building Skyline This sign type is located at the building roofline but not above the roofline. The purpose of this sign is to identify the major building occupants from a greater viewing distance. Tenant logo use is acceptable. Exact location along bldg. top to be determined with selected tenant. This sign type is approximately 120 Square Feet and should be taken into consideration as an Allowable Modification to the master program as a unifying wayfinding sign for the campus during Phase 4 and subsequent phases. QTY : 1 Sign Per Elevation GOP 4 NORTH / EAST ELEVATION GOP 4 NORTH / WEST ELEVATION Fabricated aluminum individual channel letters/logos with face lit or halo lit warm white illumination, letters/logos are concealed mounted to building facade without exposed rails or attachments ABC COMPANY ABC COMPANY ABC COMPANY ABC COMPANY W4-104 PHASE 4SIGN ELEVATION(PRELIMINARY) JP JP 07/23/20 BUILDING TOP SIGNAGE LIMIT 2 PER TOWER LETTERS/LOGOS NOT ALLOWED ABOVE ROOF LINE 120' - 0" ( North Tower ) 120 +- TOTAL SQ FT - EAST ELEVATION / 1 SQ. FT. P ER LINEA R FT . OF BU ILDING FRON TAGE A LLOWE D PE R S SF SIG N ORDINANCE - TABLE 20.36 0.008 LETTERS/LOGOS NOT ALLOWED ABOVE ROOF LINE 120' - 0" ( North Tower ) 120 +- TOTAL SQ FT - WEST ELEVATION / 1 SQ. FT. P ER LINEA R FT . OF BU ILDING FRON TAGE A LLOWE D PE R S SF SIG N ORDINANCE - TABLE 20.36 0.008 GOP 4N GOP 4S GOP 4N GOP 4S 271 ABC COMPANY Fabricated aluminum individual channel letters/logos with face lit or halo lit warm white illumination, letters/logos are concealed mounted to building facade without exposed rails or attachments TEN.01 : Tenant ID @ Building Skyline This sign type is located at the building roofline but not above the roofline. The purpose of this sign is to identify the major building occupants from a greater viewing distance. Tenant logo use is acceptable. Exact location along bldg. top to be determined with selected tenant. This sign type is approximately 225 Square Feet and should be taken into consideration as an Allowable Modification to the master program as a unifying wayfinding sign for the campus during Phase 4 and subsequent phases. QTY : 1 Sign Per Elevation GOP 4 NORTH / SOUTH ELEVATION ABC COMPANY W4-105 PHASE 4SIGN ELEVATION(PRELIMINARY) JP JP 07/23/20 BUILDING TOP SIGNAGE LIMIT 2 PER TOWER LETTERS/LOGOS NOT ALLOWED ABOVE ROOF LINE 225' - 0" ( North Tower ) 225 +- TOTAL SQ FT - SOUTH ELEVATION / 1 SQ. FT. P ER LINEA R FT . OF BU ILDING FRON TAGE A LLOWE D PE R S SF SIG N ORDINANCE - TABLE 20.36 0.008 GOP 4N GOP 4S 272 TEN.02 : Tenant ID (Eyebrow) This sign type is located at the base of the building. The purpose of this sign is to identify the major building occupants. Tenant logo use is acceptable. Exact location along bldg. base to be determined with selected tenant. This sign type is approximately 22 Square Feet and should be taken into consideration as an Allowable Modification to the master program as a unifying wayfinding sign for the campus during Phase 4 and subsequent phases. QTY : 1 / 2 Signs Per Elevation (dependent on final tenant occupancy) GOP 4 NORTH / EAST ELEVATION GOP 4 NORTH / WEST ELEVATION Materials: Brushed Stainless Steel or similar materials that match architectural finishes. Square Footage: Overall area of Tenant Eyebrow Signage not to exceed 22 sq. feet. ABC COMPANY ABC COMPANY ABC COMPANYABC COMPANY W4-106 PHASE 4SIGN ELEVATION(PRELIMINARY) JP JP 07/23/20 EYEBROW SIGNAGE LETTERS/LOGOS NOT TO EXCEED 22 TOTAL SQ FT. 120' - 0" ( North Tower ) 120' - 0" ( North Tower ) GOP 4N GOP 4S GOP 4N GOP 4S LETTERS/LOGOS NOT TO EXCEED 22 TOTAL SQ FT. 273 Draft Entitlements Resolution Exhibit A: Previously Adopted Conditions of Approval 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 RESOLUTION NO. 2859-2020 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE 4 OF THE GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECT AT 850-900 GATEWAY BOULEVARD IN THE GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT. 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 and incorporating such EIR by reference, (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 Resolution No. 1559-2018 adopting a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement with BMR Gateway of Pacific I LP (formerly BMR-700 Gateway LP), BMR Gateway of Pacific II LP (formerly BMR-750, 800, 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) (“BioMed Realty”); and WHEREAS, in 2018 the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco adopted Resolution No. 2834-2018 determining that the Gateway of Pacific Phase 2-3 Precise Plans Project was fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2009 EIR and that the 2018 Addendum to the EIR was the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and WHEREAS, BioMed Realty (“Owner” or “Applicant”) submitted an application requesting approval of a Precise Plan and Design Review to construct Phase 4 of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan (“Project”); and WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the 292 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, the applicant seeks approval of Precise Plan (PP20-0001) and Design Review (DR20-0013) for the Project; 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 Precise Plan and Design Review; 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; 2018 Addendum to the 2009 EIR; the Project applications; the BMR GOP Phase 4 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 Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A) and the Precise Plan (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. Gateway Precise Plan 1. The Phase 4 Precise Plan is compatible with the intent and purpose of the Gateway Specific Plan because the overall Master Plan promotes campus-style uses, such as biotechnology, high- 293 technology and research and development uses, and the proposed buildings in Phase 4 will form a working campus environment and include high quality pedestrian circulation and open spaces. 2. The proposed development and/or construction standards of the Phase 4 Precise Plan are designed to achieve compliance with the development and/or construction standards of the Gateway Specific Plan because the site layout and overall architecture will help shape the urban character of the East of 101 Area, the overall Master Plan FAR of 1.25 is consistent with the Gateway Specific Plan and the proposed building heights will be below the 250-foot maximum allowable height limit. The Precise Plan includes high quality architecture that continues the aesthetic of Phases 1-3, and the Phase 4 Precise Plan has been designed appropriately to allow for incremental development while maintaining a functioning working environment for those areas on the site that have not yet been developed. 3. The Phase 4 Precise Plan is consistent with the first amendment to the second amended and restated development agreement because it clarifies and obligates several Project features and mitigation measures including transportation impact fees, public improvements in the East of 101 area, Fire Department obligations, phasing, provision for child care, park in-lieu fees, and TDM reporting and monitoring requirements. 4. The Phase 4 Precise Plan is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The 1999 General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to encourage the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 Area, allow for employee-serving vendor services, preparation of a TDM plan and traffic improvement plan to reduce congestion impacts, and provision of a framework for requiring future circulation system improvements as they are needed to prevent deficient levels of service from being reached. The Precise Plan consists of a high technology campus, allows for employee serving vendor services, and will be in keeping with the previously approved TDM plan and traffic improvement plans. C. Design Review 1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a high quality, energy efficient, contemporary, office/life science campus which will provide open spaces and a pedestrian- friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated. 2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan and the Gateway Specific 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 for the Business Commercial land use designation by encouraging the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 Area. 294 3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Gateway Specific Plan District Standards included in Chapter 20.220. 4. The Project is consistent with the Master Plan and Precise Plan, as proposed for modification, for the reasons stated in Section B above. 5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated against, and found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and approves the Precise Plan (attached as Exhibit B) and Design Review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the 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 295 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P12-0061: PP20-0001 and DR20-0013 GATEWAY OF PACIFIC – PHASE 4 PRECISE PLAN (Adopted by Planning Commission on August 6, 2020) The Applicant/Project shall conform to all the conditions of approval identified in City Council Resolution 44-2013, 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 Planning Commission in association with DR20-0013 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 / 2009 EIR for the Gateway of Pacific Phase 4 Revised Project. 4. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA20- 0003). 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 Plan 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. 296 c. For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the City, 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. 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. 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 297 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 letters 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 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 and grading permit submittals, Applicant shall submit separate Right-of-Way (ROW) improvement plans for the Public Improvement Permit Application. An engineer’s cost estimate for the scope of work shown on the approved ROW improvement plans is required to determine the performance and payment bond 298 amount. The submittal of the bonds is required prior to the execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 9. Improvement plans shall be 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). 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 299 14. 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 15. Prior to Building Permit issuance, all applicable mapping shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Clerk Recorder’s Office. 16. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of any mapping application. 17. 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 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. 18. Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees for any mapping application prior to review. 19. The applicant shall clearly show all existing easements on the improvement plans. Right-of-Way 20. 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. 21. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall enter into an Improvement Agreement and Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These 300 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. 22. 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. 23. Applicant shall construct a new ADA accessible driveway entrance along the Oyster Point Boulevard entrance to the project site. 24. The Applicant shall rehabilitate the pavement on Oyster Point Boulevard from the eastern property line of GOP 1 to eastern most limits of the driveway access off of Oyster Point Boulevard for GOP 4. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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 Gateway Blvd to the satisfaction of the 301 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work on Oyster Point Boulevard and/or any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. 31. 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 affecting 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. 32. 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 33. 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. 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. 302 34. 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. 35. The development shall not increase peak runoff 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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 39. 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. 40. 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 41. 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 Oyster Point Boulevard. Sanitary sewer mains shall not flow more than 2/3 full at peak wet weather flow. Please be sure to include all supporting calculations. 303 42. 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. 43. Applicant shall abandon all existing Sanitary Sewer Laterals serving the property to City Standards. 44. 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. 45. The on-site sanitary sewer laterals shall not be dedicated to the City for maintenance. The sanitary sewer facilities within the subdivision shall be repaired and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. 46. 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 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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 50. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 51. 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 304 grading, drainage, or other improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans. 52. 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. 53. 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 54. The Applicant shall provide documentation from a qualified environmental consultant of compliance with Mitigation Measures IV.G-2.2, IV.G-2.3, IV.G-3.4, IV.G-3.5, IV.G-4.2, and IV.G-4.3 as required by the Gateway Business Park Master Plan MMRP. 55. 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. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. 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. 59. 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. 305 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. 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. 306 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. 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 307 occupancies will generally require a Knox vault instead of box. Provide Knox Key Switch for any electronic gates. 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. After 7/1/19, Demolition Projects must complete a PCBs Screening Assessment Form (attached and available in Building Division). If screening determines the building is an applicable structure, the Protocol for Evaluating PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition shall be followed 5. 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. 308 6. Roof leaders/gutters must NOT be plumbed directly to storm drains; they shall discharge to stormwater treatment devices or landscaping first. 7. Fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and be clearly shown on plans. 8. 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. 9. Install a condensate drain line connected to the sanitary sewer for rooftop equipment and clearly show on plans. 10. 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. 11. Submit specs on the sample port. 12. 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. 13. Grease interceptor shall be connected to all non-domestic wastewater sources in the kitchen (wash sinks, mop sinks, floor drains) and shown on plans. 14. A cut sheet of the Grease Interceptor/Trap must be shown on plans. 15. Garbage Disposals in Industrial/Commercial facilities are prohibited by City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Remove Garbage Disposal(s) from plans. 16. 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 $361,327.42, payable with the Building Permit. 17. Elevator sump drainage (if applicable) shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to connection to the sanitary sewer. 309 18. 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. 19. Wherever feasible, install landscaping that minimizes irrigation runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes use of pesticides and fertilizers and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping programs (such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 20. 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; 21. 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. 22. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development. 23. Submit flow calculations and related math for LID. 24. 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. 25. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 310 26. 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. 27. A SWPPP must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in effect all year long. 28. A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted (if > 1 acre). E. POLICE DEPARTMENT 311 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 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. 312 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. All parking lot lighting must conform to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48.080 Exterior security lighting. 14. The Police Department requires acknowledgement of these comments to include specific locations in the plans where the applicable change requests have been made. 3567874.1 313 314 315 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMMENT LETTER Date: May 11, 20202 Applicant: BMR – 475 Eccles Avenue LLC Att: Salil Payappilly 17190 Bernardo Center Drive San Diego, CA 92128 Site Address: 850- 900 Gateway Blvd Project No.: P08-0034: PP20-0001& DR20-0013 On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, the Design Review Board reviewed your plans for 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 Planning Manager and the Design Review Board have determined that this application is in compliance and pursuant to Title 20, Section 20.480 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and Design Guidelines after the following changes have been made to the plans: 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. 2. Concern for the wind in this portion of the plan may require a design for some wind attenuation. 3. 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. CITY COUNCIL 2020 RICHARD GARBARINO, MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, VICE MAYOR KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER MARK NAGALES, COUNCILMEMBER BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, COUNCILMEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (650) 829-6620 FAX (650) 829-6657 E-MAIL WEB-ECD@SSF.NET 316 Page 2 of 2 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 fruit icosa 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. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, provide accessibility plans from the parking garage to the buildings and public right -of-way. 5. 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. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures. Please include these comments and any others into your Planning Commission submittal. Attached is a copy of the department comments for you to include into your submittal. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the Planning Division at (650) 877 -8535. Sincerely, __________________________ _______________________ Billy Gross Sailesh Mehra Senior Planner Planning Manager Attachments: Department comments Cc: Cecily Barclay, 505 Howard Street, Ste. 1000, San Francisco, CA 94105 317 RESOLUTION 22-30 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, ACTING AS THE SAN MATEO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION, DETERMINING THAT THE PROPOSED GATEWAY OF PACIFIC PHASE 4 DENSITY TRANSFER PROJECT, INCLUDING GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, IS CONDITIONALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR THE ENVIRONS OF SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), in its capacity as the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, that, WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65302.3 states that a local agency General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and/or any affected specific plan must be consistent with the applicable airport/land use criteria in the relevant adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and furthermore, per Policy GP-10.1 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO ALUCP), if a jurisdiction has not made its local plans consistent with the ALUCP all proposed development projects within AIA B may be subject to ALUC review; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has received an application for General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments to allow a transfer of density within the Gateway of Pacific Master Plan area, resulting in an increased height (from 5-stories to 9-stories) for a previously entitled building at 900 Gateway Boulevard (the “Project”) which is located within Airport Influence Area B of San Francisco International Airport (SFO); and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has referred the Project to C/CAG, acting as the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, for a determination of consistency with the SFO ALUCP; and WHEREAS, three sets of airport/land use compatibility policies and criteria in the SFO ALUCP relate to the Project: (a) noise compatibility policies and criteria; (b) safety policies and criteria; and (c) airspace protection policies, as discussed below: (a) Noise Policy Consistency Analysis - The 65 dB CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) aircraft noise contour defines the threshold for airport noise impacts established in the SFO ALUCP. All land uses located outside this contour are deemed consistent with the noise policies of the SFO ALUCP. Per SFO ALUCP Exhibit IV-6, the Project lies outside the bounds of the 65dB CNEL contour, and therefore is consistent with the SFO ALUCP noise policies and criteria. (b) The SFO ALUCP includes five safety zones and related land use compatibility policies and criteria. Per SFO ALUCP Exhibit IV-3, the Project site is located outside of the safety zones established in the SFO ALUCP, and therefore the safety policies and criteria do not apply to the Project. 26 318 (c) Airspace Protection – Pursuant to the SFO ALUCP, airspace protection compatibility of proposed land uses within its AIA is evaluated in accordance with the following criteria: (1) 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 (FAR Part 77), “Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace”, which establishes the standards for determining obstructions to air navigation; and (2) FAA notification surfaces. By definition, any object that penetrates one of the imaginary surfaces of the FAR Part 77 exhibit is deemed an obstruction to air navigation. In order to be deemed consistent with the ALUCP, the maximum height of a new building must be the lower of (1) the height shown on the SFO Critical Aeronautical Surfaces map or (2) the maximum height determined not to be a “hazard to air navigation” by the FAA in an aeronautical study prepared pursuant to the filing of Form 7460-1. As proposed, the 9-story structure would be 178 feet tall to the top of the mechanical screen. With a ground elevation of approximately 39 feet above mean sea level (MSL), the height of the project would therefore be about 217 above MSL. Utilizing the ‘SFO Online Airspace Tool”, it has been determined that the building would be more than 320 feet below critical airspace. However, as shown on SFO ALUCP Exhibit IV-11, the Project is located in an area that requires FAA notification for projects greater than 65-100 feet tall, and a determination from the FAA that the project will not be a hazard to air navigation. In acknowledgement of this requirement, a condition is included in this consistency determination to require compliance; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Airport Influence Area A (AIA A) of SFO, the real estate disclosure area. Pursuant to Policy IP-1, notification is required, prior to sale or lease of property located within the AIA, of the proximity of the airport and that the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations. As neither the Project application materials nor South San Francisco’s ordinances address this requirement, it is included herein as a condition of the consistency determination; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on April 28, 2022, based on the factors listed above and subject to the conditions identified, the Airport Land Use Committee recommended that the C/CAG Board of Directors, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission, determine that the Project is consistent with the SFO ALUCP; and, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the City/County Association of Governments for San Mateo County, acting as the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, that subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached, the Project is determined to be consistent with the applicable airport land use policies and criteria contained in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 2022. Davina Hurt, Chair 27 319 EXHIBIT A Resolution 22-30 – Conditions of Consistency Determination: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall file Form 7460-1 with the FAA and provide to the City of South San Francisco an FAA “Determination of No Hazard”. 2. The City of South San Francisco shall require that the project sponsor comply with the real estate disclosure requirements outlined in Policy IP-1 of the SFO ALUCP. 28 320 City of South San Francisco Resolution 2887-2022 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-365 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council adopt findings and certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Gateway of Pacific Phase 4 Density Transfer Project. WHEREAS, in 2010 the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted Resolution No. 18-2010 certifying the Environmental Impact Report (“2009 EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008062059), making CEQA findings, addressing alternatives, adopting a statement of overriding conditions and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (collectively the “Original CEQA Findings”) for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project located at 700-1000 Gateway Boulevard, which subsequently became known as the Gateway of Pacific (“GOP”) Project (“GOP Project”); and WHEREAS, as described in further detail herein and in the accompanying staff report, the GOP Project has been entitled and proceeded in several phases known respectively as GOP Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 pursuant to the Master Plan and Precise Plan and modifications thereto approved for the Project, where each phase includes entitlement and construction of various office/R&D buildings, parking, and related amenity improvements; and WHEREAS, in 2013 the City adopted Resolution No. 43-2013 making findings and re-certifying the previously certified 2009 EIR and re-adopting the Original CEQA findings in connection with approving modifications to the GOP Project; and WHEREAS, in 2018 the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco (“Planning Commission”) adopted Resolution No. 2834-2018 determining that the GOP Phases 2-3 Precise Plans for the GOP Project was fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2009 EIR and that the 2018 Addendum to the EIR was the appropriate environmental document for the approval of the phase 2 and 3 Precise Plan; and WHEREAS, in 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2858-2020 determining that the GOP Phase 4 (“GOP 4”) Precise Plan for the GOP Project was fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2009 EIR and that the 2020 Addendum the City had prepared was the appropriate environmental document for approval of the GOP 4 Precise Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 20201, the owners of the properties subject to the Gateway of Pacific Master Plan, all of which are affiliated with Bio-Med Realty (“BMR”)(“Applicant”), applied for several approvals to implement a density transfer of available Floor Area Ratio from adjacent parcels that were formerly the site of rail spurs and that are part of a separate project previously known as the 475 Eccles Avenue Project, and now called “GOP 5”; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 1 of 6 powered by Legistar™321 File #:22-365 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3a WHEREAS,specifically,Applicant proposed to implement the transfer of available Floor Area Ratio and deed restrict the rail spur properties to eliminate development of the transferred FAR,and requested that the City adopt certain legislative amendments to allow a density transfer in limited circumstances,and modify the Precise Plan for GOP 4 to add 4 floors to the northern GOP 4 building.The implementation of these modifications would allow Applicant to build up to 120,221 additional square feet at GOP 4 that could otherwise be built on the adjacent rail spur properties (the “GOP 4 Density Transfer Project” or “Project”); and WHEREAS,the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project site is subject to the Business Commercial land use designation in the South San Francisco General Plan,the Gateway Specific Plan (where it should be noted that the relevant components of said Specific Plan have been incorporated into the applicable zoning district regulations),the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District,the Gateway Business Park Master Plan,and a Precise Plan for each phase of the GOP Project, including the GOP 4 Precise Plan; and WHEREAS,to implement the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project,Applicant applied for a general plan amendment to the Business Commercial land use designation to allow a density transfer,repeal of the Gateway Specific Plan,a zoning text amendment to the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District regulations to allow a density transfer,an amendment to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan to allow a density transfer,and an amendment to the GOP 4 Precise Plan to allow an additional 4 floors with up to 120,221 additional square feet on the GOP 4 North building; and WHEREAS,approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,the City prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR to address the implementation of the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project,circulated a Notice of Preparation of that Draft Supplemental EIR for comment from November 16,2021 to December 20,2021,held a scoping meeting on December 6,2021,and circulated the Draft Supplemental EIR for comment from January 26, 2022 through March 14, 2022; and WHEREAS,the City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR that includes responses to comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR,and the Draft Supplemental EIR and Final Supplemental EIR are collectively referenced as the “2022 Supplemental EIR” (retaining SCH #2008062059); and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the 2009 EIR as supplemented by the 2022 Supplemental EIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on June 2,2022,made the findings attached to this Resolution,and recommends that the Council certify the Supplemental EIR and approve the GOP 4 Density Transfer 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; and WHEREAS,no feasible mitigation exists for certain significant and unavoidable impacts that would reduce the City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 2 of 6 powered by Legistar™322 File #:22-365 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3a WHEREAS,no feasible mitigation exists for certain significant and unavoidable impacts that would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS,the Project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which evaluates the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable impacts and the Project offers specific benefits. 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;2018 Addendum;2020 Addendum;2022 Supplemental EIR;the Project applications;the BMR GOP Phase 4 Density Transfer Project Plans,as prepared by Flad Architects,dated September 17,2021;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 2,2022 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.Exhibit A to this Resolution is the Original CEQA Findings adopted by Resolutions 18-2010 and 43- 2013.In light of the factors addressed below,no changes to the Original CEQA Findings are necessary or appropriate,except for the findings set forth below.Exhibit B to this Resolution is the 2022 Supplemental EIR.Exhibit C is the supplemental Mitigation,Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by this Resolution to address mitigation for Vehicle Miles Travelled impacts.Exhibits A,B and C 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 Chief Planner. B.Findings Regarding Certification and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1.Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163,the City reviewed the Applicant’s application for the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project and determined that a Supplemental EIR was required to incorporate minor additions and changes to the EIR.The City prepared the Supplemental EIR.Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163,the Planning Commission confirms that it has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 3 of 6 powered by Legistar™323 File #:22-365 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3a as revised by the Supplemental EIR, as well as the information in the record. 2.The Supplemental EIR adequately describes the GOP Density Transfer Project.It adequately addresses changes to the GOP Project,changes in surrounding circumstances,and significant new information.The Supplemental EIR sets forth minor additions and changes to the EIR,which constitute all information necessary to make the EIR adequate for the GOP Density Transfer Project. 3.The Supplemental EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis,is adequate,and has been completed in compliance with CEQA.The Planning Commission adopts and incorporates the facts, reasoning,analysis and conclusions of the Supplemental EIR,and bases its decisions upon those facts, reasoning, analysis and conclusions. C.Significant and Unavoidable Vehicle Miles Traveled Impacts 4.The Supplemental EIR adequately explains why most transportation impacts would be less than significant,but identifies both a significant project-specific impact relating to vehicle miles travelled and a considerable contribution towards a significant cumulative vehicle miles travelled impact. D.Other Impacts 5.The Supplemental EIR adequately explains why additional information regarding impacts other than transportation impacts is not required to make the EIR adequate for the GOP Density Transfer Project.This explanation includes section 3.2 of the Draft Supplemental EIR,which documents how no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required to address other impacts.The GOP Density Transfer Project will not create any other new or substantially more severe significant impacts as compared to those already identified and analyzed in the EIR,and there are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that demonstrates any other new or substantially more severe significant impacts,as compared to those identified in the EIR.Nor are any new,additional,or more feasible mitigation measures required to mitigate any other impacts of the GOP Density Transfer Project other than Mitigation Measure 3.1-1. 6.The Original CEQA Findings,set forth in Exhibit A,including the original Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and its mitigation measures,remain applicable to the GOP Density Transfer Project and the GOP Project.The Planning Commission acknowledges that many mitigation measures have already been satisfied during prior buildout of the GOP Project and does not intend by confirming applicability of the Original CEQA Findings to require that duplicative efforts be made to satisfy such measures again. 7.The Planning Commission recommends adoption of a supplement to the Mitigation and Monitoring Program,as set forth in Exhibit B,to require mitigation and monitoring for the vehicle miles travelled impacts.Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 is imposed as a condition of approval to require first-and last-mile transit connections and active transportation improvements.Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 constitutes a feasible change or alteration that will substantially lessen the significant vehicle miles travelled impacts.This mitigation is extensive,and Caltrans commended the City for imposing this mitigation measure.However, City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 4 of 6 powered by Legistar™324 File #:22-365 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3a mitigation is extensive,and Caltrans commended the City for imposing this mitigation measure.However, as explained in the Supplemental EIR,the effectiveness of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 is unknown and therefore may not reduce the impacts to less than significant levels,resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.The impacts have been reduced to the extent feasible.No mitigation has been identified that would provide a substantially greater degree of certainty regarding a reduction in the impacts to less than significant levels. E.Alternatives 8.The Supplemental EIR evaluates a range of alternatives that is reasonable in light of the narrow scope of the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project,the objectives of that project and the significant and unavoidable vehicle miles travelled impacts.The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the reasoning and conclusions of the Supplemental EIR regarding alternatives considered but dismissed from further consideration.These include a reduced height alternative that is dismissed because a smaller project would not correlate to reduced vehicle miles travelled in light of the fact that vehicle miles travelled impacts are assessed based on a per-capita rate that does not change with building size.A residential alternative,which might have reduced vehicle miles travelled by siting residences closer to employment locations,is dismissed because it is not consistent with City policies and goals.Among other things,residential uses would not be consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan or General Plan direction and policies to preserve land East of 101 for employment use.An off-site alternative to transfer density to a different parcel is dismissed because,among other things,it would not reduce vehicle miles travelled,and alternative sites are not controlled by BMR. 9.The No Project alternative is adequately addressed in the Supplemental EIR,and is the environmentally superior alternative.It is rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project objectives,which is to transfer unused Floor Area Ratio from the adjacent rail spur properties to enable the expansion of GOP 4 and to build upon previously approved architectural elements,soften height transition between buildings for different GOP Phases,and expand a previously-approved office/R&D campus and allows for utilizing approved pedestrian connections and multi-modal improvements,all as set forth in further detail in the Supplemental EIR. F.Overriding Considerations 10.Both the project-specific vehicle miles travelled impact and the contribution towards a significant cumulative vehicle miles travelled impact remain significant and unavoidable.These impacts are acceptable.They are overridden by the considerations set forth in the Original CEQA Findings,which apply to the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project and continue to apply to the GOP Project as modified by the current proposal.In addition,the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project includes benefits consisting of promoting flexibility in planning,efficient use of infill development sites,and comprehensive,coordinated development planning,all without increasing the overall amount of square footage allowed in the area. Each of these benefits outweighs the significant and unavoidable impacts. City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 5 of 6 powered by Legistar™325 File #:22-365 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3a SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council make the CEQA findings and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in this Resolution, adopt the supplemental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Project, attached as Exhibit C, and certify the 2022 Supplemental EIR for the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project attached as Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 6 of 6 powered by Legistar™ Attest:__________________________________ Tony Rozzi Secretary to the Planning Commission 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 2nd day of June, 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Chair Shihadeh, Vice Chair Tzang, De Paz Fernandez, Murphy, Funes, Evans ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Faria_____________________________________________________ ******* 326 City of South San Francisco Resolution 2888-2022 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-366 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3b Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Repeal, Zoning Text Amendment, Master Plan Modification, Precise Plan Modification and Development Agreement Amendment to allow for the transfer of development capacity from adjacent rail spur properties to Phase 4 of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project, including an additional 120,221 square feet to the Gateway of Pacific Phase 4 North building, increasing the building from five-stories to nine-stories. 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 (“GOP Project”); and WHEREAS, in 2013 the City adopted (1) Resolution No. 43-2013 making findings and relying on the previously certified 2009 EIR and incorporating such EIR by reference, (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, whose interest was eventually transferred to BioMed Realty (“Applicant”); and WHEREAS, as described in further detail herein and in the accompanying staff report, the GOP Project has been entitled and proceeded in several phases known respectively as GOP Phases 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 pursuant to the Master Plan and Precise Plan and modifications thereto approved for the Project, where each phase includes entitlement and construction of various office/R&D buildings, parking, and related amenity improvements; and WHEREAS, in 2018 the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco adopted Resolution No. 2834-2018 determining that the Gateway of Pacific Phase 2-3 Precise Plans for the GOP Project was fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2009 EIR and that the 2018 Addendum to the EIR was the appropriate environmental document for the Precise Plans; and WHEREAS, in 2020 the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco adopted Resolution No. 2858-2020 determining that the Gateway of Pacific Phase 4 (“GOP 4”) Precise Plan for the GOP Project was fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2009 EIR and that the 2020 Addendum to the EIR was the appropriate environmental document for the Precise Plan; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted an application to the City to modify GOP 4 to allow for a transfer of density from the adjacent property, resulting in the expansion of up to 120,221 square feet configured in four additional floors on the GOP 4 North building (“GOP 4 Density Transfer Project” or “Project”); and City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 1 of 7 powered by Legistar™327 File #:22-366 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3b WHEREAS,the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project site is subject to the following plans,regulations and entitlements:(a)the Business Commercial land use designation in the General Plan,(b)the Gateway Specific Plan enacted in 1981 by Ordinance 868-81,(c)the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District regulations,(d)the Gateway Business Park Master Plan,as revised by City Council Resolution No.44-2013 (“GOP Master Plan”), (e)the GOP Phase 4 Precise Plan approved by Planning Commission Resolution No.2859-2020 (“GOP 4 Precise Plan”),and (f)a Development Agreement as most recently amended by Ordinance 1606-2020 approving the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement Between the City of South San Francisco and certain BMR Gateway of Pacific entities (“GOP Development Agreement”); and technical modifications to all these plans,regulations and entitlements are required to enable a transfer of density to the GOP 4 site; and WHEREAS,the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed legislative enactments associated with the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project on May 12,2022 and found them consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and WHEREAS,the Applicant seeks approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA21-0003),Specific Plan Repeal (SP21-0001),Zoning Text Amendment (ZA21-0001),a Third Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA22-0002),and a Precise Plan Modification (PPM21-0001)for the 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 City determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed GOP 4 Density Transfer Project; and WHEREAS,the City prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR to address the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project, circulated a Notice of Preparation of that Draft Supplemental EIR for comment from November 16,2021 to December 20,2021,held a scoping meeting on December 6,2021,and circulated the Draft Supplemental EIR for comment from January 26, 2022 through March 14, 2022; and WHEREAS,the City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR that includes responses to comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR,and the Draft Supplemental EIR and Final Supplemental EIR are collectively referenced as the “2022 Supplemental EIR” (retaining SCH #2008062059); and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the 2022 Supplemental EIR,and by separate resolution,recommends that the City Council certify the 2022 Supplemental EIR. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq. (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan,and General Plan Environmental Impact Report;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;2009 EIR,and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs;2018 Addendum;2020 Addendum;2022 Supplemental EIR;the Project applications;the BMR GOP Phase 4 Density Transfer Project City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 2 of 7 powered by Legistar™328 File #:22-366 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3b Addendum;2022 Supplemental EIR;the Project applications;the BMR GOP Phase 4 Density Transfer Project Plans,as prepared by Flad Architects,dated September 17,2021;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 2,2022 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 General Plan Amendment (Exhibit A),the Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance (Exhibit B),the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Modification ( Exhibit C),the GOP 4 Precise Plan Modification Plans (Exhibit D),the proposed Development Agreement Ordinance (Exhibit E)and associated Draft Third Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Exhibit E1),and Draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit F)are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner. 4.By separate Resolution,the Planning Commission,exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that a Supplemental EIR was prepared for the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project in accordance with CEQA,which Supplemental EIR adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed GOP 4 Density Transfer Project's potentially significant environmental impacts,its growth inducing impacts,and its cumulative impacts,and analyzed alternatives to the proposed GOP 4 Density Transfer Project;the Planning Commission has further found that the benefits of approving the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project outweigh the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project's significant and unavoidable impact;accordingly,the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council certify the Supplemental EIR for the Project and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with CEQA. B.General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Repeal Findings 1.The text changes to the General Plan that are set forth in Exhibit A allow a transfer of density in very limited circumstances,including only when transferor and transferee properties are adjacent to each other. City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 3 of 7 powered by Legistar™329 File #:22-366 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3b limited circumstances,including only when transferor and transferee properties are adjacent to each other. These text changes will not result in an increase of overall development,and the transferred density will remain in the same general area.The text changes therefore comprise a minor amendment,and are consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan.The text changes will not reduce the correlation between the land use and circulation elements of the General Plan; 2.The portions of the land use regulations of the Gateway Specific Plan that remain relevant today have already been incorporated into the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District regulations,which have already been deemed consistent with the General Plan.Accordingly,repealing the Gateway Specific Plan will not result in an inconsistency with the General Plan; and 3.The 2020 Master Plan area,as evaluated as part of both the CEQA process and analysis of demographics,including anticipated population and employment growth,identifies the employment districts as physically suitable for the proposed land use designation(s)and the anticipated development since the area is well served by multi-modal transportation options,private commuter shuttle options, existing infrastructure and utilities,and other public services as identified for further investment as part of the 2020 Master Plan’s implementation.The text changes to the General Plan and repeal of the Gateway Specific Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest,health,safety,convenience,or welfare of the City. C.Zoning Text Amendment Findings 1.The Zoning Text Amendment allows a transfer of density in very limited circumstances,including only when transferor and transferee properties are adjacent to each other.It will not result in an increase of overall development,and the transferred density will remain in the same general area.The amendment is accordingly minor, and is consistent and compatible with the General Plan. 2.The Zoning Text Amendment will result in a requirement that the transferred density adhere to the use restrictions and development standards of the transferee district,does not change the uses of land allowed in any zoning district,and does not rezone any property.The restrictions on the ability to transfer density set forth in the Zoning Text Amendment will ensure that a transfer is appropriate and that the transferred density is suitable for the transferee site.Accordingly,the Zoning Text Amendment will promote the suitability of uses in terms of access,size of parcel,relationship to similar or related uses,or any other relevant considerations. 3.The Zoning Text Amendment will not be detrimental to use of land in any adjacent zone.By allowing more flexibility in planning without increasing overall density,the Zoning Text Amendment will promote the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City. 4.The Zoning Text Amendment includes conforming text amendments that address the concurrent repeal City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 4 of 7 powered by Legistar™330 File #:22-366 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3b 4.The Zoning Text Amendment includes conforming text amendments that address the concurrent repeal of the Gateway Specific Plan,and delete outdated references to the owner participation agreement that was entered into previously when the area was subject to a Redevelopment Plan. 5.Based on the record presented,the Zoning Text Amendment meets the criteria of Municipal Code section 20.550.008. D.Gateway Business Park Master Plan and Precise Plan Modification 1.The GOP Master Plan and GOP 4 Precise Plan Modifications are consistent and compatible with the General Plan and zoning,as so amended,because the overall Master Plan continues to promote campus- style uses,such as biotechnology,high-technology and research and development uses,and the proposed buildings in Phase 4 will continue to form a working campus environment and include high quality pedestrian circulation and open spaces. 2.The proposed GOP Master Plan and GOP 4 Precise Plan Modifications will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 3.The proposed addition of up to 120,221 square feet configured in four additional floors on the GOP 4 North building will maintain the overall site layout and architecture previously approved.The GOP 4 Density Transfer Project includes an expansion of previously-approved uses.It proposes high quality architecture that continues the aesthetic of previously approved phases of the GOP Master Plan,and in particular the previously-approved GOP 4 Precise Plan.The additional square footage will be subject to all conditions and mitigation measures applicable to GOP 4 prior to adoption of this Resolution. 4.The GOP 4 Density Transfer Project is compatible with the intent and purpose of the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District.The proposed development and construction standards are designed to achieve compliance with the development and/or construction standards of that zoning district.The GOP 4 Precise Plan amendments are consistent with the GOP Master Plan, as amended. E.Design Review Findings 1.The GOP 4 Density Transfer Project,including Design Review,is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the additional square footage will only add four floors to GOP 4, which has already been determined to be a high quality,energy efficient contemporary,office/life science campus which will provide open spaces and a pedestrian-friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated. 2.The GOP 4 Density Transfer Project,including Design Review,will extend the design elements already approved for GOP 4.The Project is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 5 of 7 powered by Legistar™331 File #:22-366 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3b approved for GOP 4.The Project is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Gateway Specific Plan District Standards included in Chapter 20.220. 3.The GOP 4 Density Transfer Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”)because the additional four floors have 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. F.Development Agreement Findings 1.As amended by the Third 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 (“Third Amendment”),the Development Agreement sets forth the duration,property,project criteria,and other required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2.The Third Amendment is consistent with the objectives,policies,general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan,the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District Regulations,the GOP Master Plan and all GOP Precise Plans. 2.The Third Amendment 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,as amended in connection with the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project,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 Third Amendment is in conformity with public convenience,general welfare and good land use practice. 4.The Third Amendment will not be detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare because the amendment promotes flexibility in planning within strict limitations, without increasing overall density. 5.The Third Amendment will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values because the Third Amendment improves the property's campus-like environment and is consistent with surrounding R&D and office uses. SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution,and recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve the entitlements request for the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project (P21-00xx; City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 6 of 7 powered by Legistar™332 File #:22-366 Agenda Date:6/2/2022 Version:1 Item #:3b Francisco City Council approve the entitlements request for the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project (P21-00xx; GPA 21-0001, SPA21-0001, ZA21-0001, DAA21-0001 and PPM21-0001). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/27/2022Page 7 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Attest:__________________________________ Tony Rozzi Secretary to the Planning Commission 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 2nd day of June, 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Chair Shihadeh, Vice Chair Tzang, De Paz Fernandez, Murphy, Funes, Evans ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Faria_____________________________________________________ ******* 333 City Council July 13, 2022 1334 2335 3 ▪Transfer development capacity of former rail spurs to GOP 4 site ▪Add ~120k SF to GOP 4 North Building ▪No changes to GOP 4 South Building ▪Additional area parked at 2 spaces / 1,000sf ▪Add service yard adjacent to parking structure ▪No changes to landscape plan / site plan ▪Deed restriction on rail spurs properties 336 4337 5338 6339 7340 8341 9 ▪General Plan Amendment ▪Gateway Specific Plan Repeal ▪Zoning Ordinance Amendment ▪Master Plan Modification ▪Precise Plan Modification ▪Minor amendments to Dev Agreement ▪Certification of SEIR, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) and supplement to MMRP 342 10 Land Use Element Table 2.2-1 ▪The Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan are permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 with a TDM, and the Gateway Business Park Master Plan is allowed to develop additional density to the extent such density would otherwise be available on immediately adjacent property that is (a) subject to an FAR limitation of 1.25 or less; (b) part of the same research and development campus; and (c) deed-restricted to preclude development of the transferred FAR. 343 11 ▪Originally adopted in 1981 ▪Superseded by the Zoning Ordinance’s Gateway Specific Plan District ▪Will also be superseded by upcoming General Plan Update 344 12 * The Gateway Specific Plan District is allowed to develop additional density to the extent such density would otherwise be available on immediately adjacent property that is (a) subject to an FAR limitation of 1.25 or less; (b) part of the same research & development campus; and (c) deed-restricted to preclude development of the transferred FAR. Standard GSP Additional Regulations Lot and Density Standards Maximum Floor Area Ration (FAR) 1.25*See Chapter 20.040 Rules of Measurement 345 13 ▪Amend all references in Chapter 20.220 to “Gateway Specific Plan” to instead refer to the “Gateway Specific Plan District” ▪Delete outdated phrase “and the owner participation agreement” in Section 20.220.012 ▪Delete subdivision 20.220.012.C.8.c ▪Delete subdivision 20.220.012.E 346 14 ▪Amend Master Plan Goals and Objectives ▪Amend Section 2.2 of the Master Plan as follows: The Master Plan proposes to densify the development site to achieve up to the permitted 1.25 FAR capacity by the phased incremental redevelopment of the existing buildings with new buildings and associated parking structures. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Master Plan, the development of density exceeding 1.25 FAR is allowed to the extent such density would otherwise be available on immediately adjacent property that is (a) subject to an FAR limitation of 1.25 or less; (b) part of the same research & development campus; and (c) deed-restricted to preclude development of the transferred FAR. ▪Amend Section 2.3 to reference the additional density allowed per Section 2.2 347 15 ▪Update the Project Description ▪Update the project fees applicable to only the additional building area proposed for the Phase 4 North building ▪Citywide Transportation Fee -~$3.6M ▪Commercial Linkage Fee -~$2M ▪Library Impact Fee -~$15k ▪Agreement by developer to participate in a Community Facilities District if formed 348 16 ▪City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report on February 10, 2010 –included Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Consideration ▪Supplemental EIR prepared for GOP 4 Density Transfer Project ▪Draft SEIR circulated from Jan 26 –Feb 24, 2022 ▪Potentially significant impacts identified 349 17 ▪Significant and Unavoidable Impact ▪Vehicle Miles Traveled ▪Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 ▪Development of rail spurs into publicly accessible multi-use path ▪Connect multi-use path to Oyster Point and Forbes Blvds 350 18 ▪Reviewed the proposed entitlements on June 2, 2022 ▪Recommended approval unanimously 351 19 That the City Council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions: 1.Adopt a resolution making findings and certifying the Supplemental EIR; and, 2.Adopt a resolution conditionally approving the proposed entitlements subject to future approval of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3.Introduce an ordinance amending SSFMC 20.220 “Gateway Specific Plan District” and waive further reading; and, 4.Introduce an ordinance approving the Third Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement and waive further reading. 352 20353 7/6/2022Planning Div.21354 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-368 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11a. Resolution making findings and certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Gateway of Pacific Phase 4 Density Transfer Project. WHEREAS,in 2010 the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted Resolution No.18-2010 certifying the Environmental Impact Report (“2009 EIR”)(State Clearinghouse No.2008062059),making CEQA findings, addressing alternatives,adopting a statement of overriding conditions and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (collectively the “Original CEQA Findings”)for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project located at 700-1000 Gateway Boulevard,which subsequently became known as the Gateway of Pacific (“GOP”) Project (“GOP Project”); and WHEREAS,as described in further detail herein and in the accompanying staff report,the GOP Project has been entitled and proceeded in several phases known respectively as GOP Phases 1,2,3 and 4 pursuant to the Master Plan and Precise Plan and modifications thereto approved for the Project,where each phase includes entitlement and construction of various office/R&D buildings, parking, and related amenity improvements; and WHEREAS,in 2013 the City adopted Resolution No.43-2013 making findings and re-certifying the previously certified 2009 EIR and re-adopting the Original CEQA findings in connection with approving modifications to the GOP Project; and WHEREAS,in 2018 the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco (“Planning Commission”) adopted Resolution No.2834-2018 determining that the GOP Phases 2-3 Precise Plans for the GOP Project was fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2009 EIR and that the 2018 Addendum to the EIR was the appropriate environmental document for the approval of the phase 2 and 3 Precise Plan; and WHEREAS,in 2020,the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.2858-2020 determining that the GOP Phase 4 (“GOP 4”)Precise Plan for the GOP Project was fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2009 EIR and that the 2020 Addendum the City had prepared was the appropriate environmental document for approval of the GOP 4 Precise Plan; and WHEREAS,on September 17,20201,the owners of the properties subject to the Gateway of Pacific Master Plan,all of which are affiliated with Bio-Med Realty (“BMR”)(“Applicant”),applied for several approvals to City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 1 of 6 powered by Legistar™355 File #:22-368 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11a. Plan,all of which are affiliated with Bio-Med Realty (“BMR”)(“Applicant”),applied for several approvals to implement a density transfer of available Floor Area Ratio from adjacent parcels that were formerly the site of rail spurs and that are part of a separate project previously known as the 475 Eccles Avenue Project,and now called “GOP 5”; and WHEREAS,specifically,Applicant proposed to implement the transfer of available Floor Area Ratio and deed restrict the rail spur properties to eliminate development of the transferred FAR,and requested that the City adopt certain legislative amendments to allow a density transfer in limited circumstances,and modify the Precise Plan for GOP 4 to add 4 floors to the northern GOP 4 building.The implementation of these modifications would allow Applicant to build up to 120,221 additional square feet at GOP 4 that could otherwise be built on the adjacent rail spur properties (the “GOP 4 Density Transfer Project” or “Project”); and WHEREAS,the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project site is subject to the Business Commercial land use designation in the South San Francisco General Plan,the Gateway Specific Plan (where it should be noted that the relevant components of said Specific Plan have been incorporated into the applicable zoning district regulations),the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District,the Gateway Business Park Master Plan,and a Precise Plan for each phase of the GOP Project, including the GOP 4 Precise Plan; and WHEREAS,to implement the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project,Applicant applied for a general plan amendment to the Business Commercial land use designation to allow a density transfer,repeal of the Gateway Specific Plan,a zoning text amendment to the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District regulations to allow a density transfer,an amendment to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan to allow a density transfer,and an amendment to the GOP 4 Precise Plan to allow an additional 4 floors with up to 120,221 additional square feet on the GOP 4 North building; and WHEREAS,approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,the City prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR to address the implementation of the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project,circulated a Notice of Preparation of that Draft Supplemental EIR for comment from November 16,2021 to December 20,2021,held a scoping meeting on December 6,2021,and circulated the Draft Supplemental EIR for comment from January 26, 2022 through March 14, 2022; and WHEREAS,the City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR that includes responses to comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR,and the Draft Supplemental EIR and Final Supplemental EIR are collectively referenced as the “2022 Supplemental EIR” (retaining SCH #2008062059); and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the 2009 EIR as supplemented by the 2022 Supplemental EIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on June 2,2022,making the findings in Resolution 2887-2022,and recommending that the Council certify the Supplemental EIR and approve the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 2 of 6 powered by Legistar™356 File #:22-368 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11a. WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 13,2022 to consider the 2009 EIR as supplemented by the 2022 Supplemental EIR, and take public testimony; and WHEREAS,the City Council exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project; and WHEREAS,no feasible mitigation exists for certain significant and unavoidable impacts that would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS,the Project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which evaluates the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable impacts and the Project offers specific benefits. 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;2018 Addendum;2020 Addendum;2022 Supplemental EIR;the Project applications;the BMR GOP Phase 4 Density Transfer Project Plans,as prepared by Flad Architects,dated September 17,2021;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 2,2022 meeting;all site plans,reports, minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed public hearing on July 13, 2022;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.Exhibit A to this Resolution is the Original CEQA Findings adopted by Resolutions 18-2010 and 43- 2013.In light of the factors addressed below,no changes to the Original CEQA Findings are necessary or appropriate,except for the findings set forth below.Exhibit B to this Resolution is the 2022 Supplemental EIR.Exhibit C is the supplemental Mitigation,Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by this Resolution to address mitigation for Vehicle Miles Travelled impacts.Exhibits A,B and C 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, City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 3 of 6 powered by Legistar™357 File #:22-368 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11a. and in the custody of the Chief Planner. B.Findings Regarding Certification and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1.Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163,the City reviewed the Applicant’s application for the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project and determined that a Supplemental EIR was required to incorporate minor additions and changes to the EIR.The City prepared the Supplemental EIR.Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163,the City Council confirms that it has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR as revised by the Supplemental EIR, as well as the information in the record. 2.The Supplemental EIR adequately describes the GOP Density Transfer Project.It adequately addresses changes to the GOP Project,changes in surrounding circumstances,and significant new information.The Supplemental EIR sets forth minor additions and changes to the EIR,which constitute all information necessary to make the EIR adequate for the GOP Density Transfer Project. 3.The Supplemental EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis,is adequate,and has been completed in compliance with CEQA.The City Council adopts and incorporates the facts,reasoning, analysis and conclusions of the Supplemental EIR,and bases its decisions upon those facts,reasoning, analysis and conclusions. C.Significant and Unavoidable Vehicle Miles Traveled Impacts 4.The Supplemental EIR adequately explains why most transportation impacts would be less than significant,but identifies both a significant project-specific impact relating to vehicle miles travelled and a considerable contribution towards a significant cumulative vehicle miles travelled impact. D.Other Impacts 5.The Supplemental EIR adequately explains why additional information regarding impacts other than transportation impacts is not required to make the EIR adequate for the GOP Density Transfer Project.This explanation includes section 3.2 of the Draft Supplemental EIR,which documents how no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required to address other impacts.The GOP Density Transfer Project will not create any other new or substantially more severe significant impacts as compared to those already identified and analyzed in the EIR,and there are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that demonstrates any other new or substantially more severe significant impacts,as compared to those identified in the EIR.Nor are any new,additional,or more feasible mitigation measures required to mitigate any other impacts of the GOP Density Transfer Project other than Mitigation Measure 3.1-1. 6.The Original CEQA Findings,set forth in Exhibit A,including the original Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and its mitigation measures,remain applicable to the GOP Density Transfer Project and the GOP Project.The City Council acknowledges that many mitigation measures have already been satisfied during prior buildout of the GOP Project and does not intend by confirming applicability of the City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 4 of 6 powered by Legistar™358 File #:22-368 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11a. satisfied during prior buildout of the GOP Project and does not intend by confirming applicability of the Original CEQA Findings to require that duplicative efforts be made to satisfy such measures again. 7.The City Council adopts a supplement to the Mitigation and Monitoring Program,as set forth in Exhibit B,to require mitigation and monitoring for the vehicle miles travelled impacts.Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 is imposed as a condition of approval to require first-and last-mile transit connections and active transportation improvements.Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 constitutes a feasible change or alteration that will substantially lessen the significant vehicle miles travelled impacts.This mitigation is extensive,and Caltrans commended the City for imposing this mitigation measure.However,as explained in the Supplemental EIR,the effectiveness of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 is unknown and therefore may not reduce the impacts to less than significant levels,resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.The impacts have been reduced to the extent feasible.No mitigation has been identified that would provide a substantially greater degree of certainty regarding a reduction in the impacts to less than significant levels. E.Alternatives 8.The Supplemental EIR evaluates a range of alternatives that is reasonable in light of the narrow scope of the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project,the objectives of that project and the significant and unavoidable vehicle miles travelled impacts.The City Council adopts the reasoning and conclusions of the Supplemental EIR regarding alternatives considered but dismissed from further consideration.These include a reduced height alternative that is dismissed because a smaller project would not correlate to reduced vehicle miles travelled in light of the fact that vehicle miles travelled impacts are assessed based on a per-capita rate that does not change with building size.A residential alternative,which might have reduced vehicle miles travelled by siting residences closer to employment locations,is dismissed because it is not consistent with City policies and goals.Among other things,residential uses would not be consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan or General Plan direction and policies to preserve land East of 101 for employment use.An off-site alternative to transfer density to a different parcel is dismissed because,among other things,it would not reduce vehicle miles travelled,and alternative sites are not controlled by BMR. 9.The No Project alternative is adequately addressed in the Supplemental EIR,and is the environmentally superior alternative.It is rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project objectives,which is to transfer unused Floor Area Ratio from the adjacent rail spur properties to enable the expansion of GOP 4 and to build upon previously approved architectural elements,soften height transition between buildings for different GOP Phases,and expand a previously-approved office/R&D campus and allows for utilizing approved pedestrian connections and multi-modal improvements,all as set forth in further detail in the Supplemental EIR. F.Overriding Considerations 10.Both the project-specific vehicle miles travelled impact and the contribution towards a significant cumulative vehicle miles travelled impact remain significant and unavoidable.These impacts are City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 5 of 6 powered by Legistar™359 File #:22-368 Agenda Date:7/13/2022 Version:1 Item #:11a. cumulative vehicle miles travelled impact remain significant and unavoidable.These impacts are acceptable.They are overridden by the considerations set forth in the Original CEQA Findings,which apply to the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project and continue to apply to the GOP Project as modified by the current proposal.In addition,the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project includes benefits consisting of promoting flexibility in planning,efficient use of infill development sites,and comprehensive,coordinated development planning,all without increasing the overall amount of square footage allowed in the area. Each of these benefits outweighs the significant and unavoidable impacts. SECTION 2. DECISION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council makes the CEQA findings and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in this Resolution,adopts the supplemental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Project,attached as Exhibit C,and certifies the 2022 Supplemental EIR for the GOP 4 Density Transfer Project attached as Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2022Page 6 of 6 powered by Legistar™360 Draft CEQA Resolution Exhibit A: Original CEQA Findings adopted by Council Resolutions 18-2010 and 43-2013 361 RESOLUTION NO. 18-2010 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING AN ENVIIZONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECT WHEREAS, Chamberlin Associates submitted an application requesting approval a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, a Master Plan, a Phase 1 Precise Plan, a preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, and a Development Agreement, which would collectively authorize the phased removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6-acre project site and construction of five to six new buildings, six stories in height, and two to four parking structures, in five phases from 2011 to 2020, to be located at the corner of Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards (700, 750, 800, 850, 900, and 1000 Gateway Boulevard), in the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area and Gateway Specific Plan Area ("Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR (FEIR) for the Project consists of the Draft EIR, Response to Comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation was issued on June 16, 2008 and reissued on October 22, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for 45-day public/agency review period from October 21, 2009 through December 7, 2009; and WHEREAS, notices of the availability of the Draft EIR were published in the San Mateo Times, mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site, noticed to local agencies and cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on November 19, 2009 to take public testimony on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report reviewed and analyzed the following potential environmental impacts: Aesthetics including the visual character of the proposed Project, including lighting; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Air Quality, including construction dust; 362 Geology/Soils, including ground shaking, soil stability, landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction and expansive soils; Hazards/Hazardous materials; Hydrology/Water Quality, including water quality degradation; Land Use and Planning, including the maximum square footage of development allowed by the General Plan; Noise; Population and Housing; Transportation and Traffic, including trips generated in peak hours, impacts to freeway segments, declines in Level of Service at nearby intersections, and restrictions on parking to reduce congestion; Utilities/Service Systems; Project alternatives; and Cumulative impacts WHEREAS, a Final EIR was prepared, including responses to comments received on the Draft EIR and made available to agencies and individuals from whom comments on the Draft EIR were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (collectively, "EIR") at a duly noticed public hearing held on January 21, 2010, and, be resolution, unanimously recommended certification of the EIR, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Project's environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, where feasible, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to reduce identified impacts to a level of less than significant; and WHEREAS, no feasible mitigation exists for the significant and unavoidable air quality, noise, and transportation impacts that would reduce the impacts to ales-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the Proj ect cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which evaluates the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable impacts, and an earlier Statement of Overriding Considerations was made by the City and also applies to the Project as follows: The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and Environmental Impact Report in October 1999. The City Council made a statement of overriding considerations in its approval of the General Plan update, because the measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101 and regional air pollution would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 2. The Gateway Business Park Master Plan Proj ect would impact some of the same freeway segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose construction-related noise and traffic effects could only be partially mitigated. 363 3 . Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan would also apply to decision-making on the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project by the City. 4. Additionally, the Project offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project (attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein). 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, l4 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General. Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Gateway Business Park Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan, as prepared by DGA Architects, Kenkay Associates, BKF Engineers, Surveyors, Planners; the EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR prepared for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan and appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed November 19, 2009, and January 21, 2010, meetings; and all site plans, reports, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency's duly noticed, j oint meeting of February 10, 2010; and any other evidence within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. The EIR for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan, as well as the Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the CEQA Findings (Exhibit A), the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit C), are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. Based on the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, the City Council makes the findings regarding the Project's significant impacts and Project alternatives, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 5. Based on the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, the City Council finds that for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the CEQA findings attached as Exhibit A, and certifies EIR-08-0002, including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon 364 its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of February, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Pedro Gonzalez, Richard A. Garbarino, and Karyl Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Kevin Mullin and Mayor Mark Addie~o NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None A c;~ty 365 Exhibit A CEQA Findings 366 367 Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Included in Final EIR (See Exhibit X to Staff Report); Incorporated Here By Reference) 368 EXHIBIT A CEQA FINDINGS Section I: Introduction Prior to approving a project for which an EIR has been certified, a lead agency must make findings as to each significant impact. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) As articulated in Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines: a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1) Changes 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. 2) Such 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. 3) Specific 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.) 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.) Pursuant to these requirements, the City hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potentially significant impacts of the project. Section II• General Findines As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these CEQA Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 369 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 2 of 84 Program for the project. The City finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these findings included as Exhibit C to the Resolution, meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part of the certification of the Final EIR for the project. For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City's decision on the project consists of, without limitation: a) matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, State and local laws and regulations; and b) the following documents which are in the custody of the City, and available for review by the public at the City's Planning Department, City Hall Annex, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA: Notice of Preparation and other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project; The Public Review Draft EIR; All written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments; The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; All findings, statements of overriding consideration, and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred therein; All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, correspondence, and all planning documents prepared by the City or the consultants, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to: a) the City's compliance with CEQA; b) the Project site; or c) the City's action on the Project; and All documents submitted to the City by agencies or members of the public in connection with the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment as the lead agency for the project. Section III• Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project AESTHETICS 370 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 3 of 84 Impact IV.B-4: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light orglare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Implementation of the proposed project would create new sources of light from exterior building illumination, lighted vehicle and pedestrian circulation. There are no residential land uses on-site or within the project vicinity in the East of 101 Area that would be adversely affected by these new light sources. Lighting would be designed to appropriately illuminate signage and wayfinding system components to make information clearly legible at night. The project would follow the lighting levels as recommended by the Engineering Society of North America for all pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems. This would maintain appropriate levels of light at building entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots, and private roads at night consistent with minimum levels required by building codes. Nighttime security lighting would not be expected to substantially increase over current conditions. Lighting would be directed onto the specific locations intended for illumination and would be characteristic of existing lighting in the surrounding industrial areas. Preparation of a Lighting Design Plan, which will establish policies required to reduce light and glare impacts, will be required for the Precise and other subsequent Precise Plan phases of the project. Overall, lighting would be designed to avoid unnecessary light pollution by use of "cut-off' fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light where appropriate and to consider ambient light generated by buildings in the design of site lighting systems to help prevent over lighting. Additional lighting would not have the potential to create "spillage" onto sensitive land uses, as none exist within the area. As the proposed project calls for an increase in the density and height of development, nighttime light would increase if inappropriate levels of light are used or inappropriate lighting plans are implemented. However, the proposed project including the Precise Plan and all subsequent phases of the Master Plan as they are designed and constructed would comply with the guidelines in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan, including those related to lighting, specifically Guidelines DE-29 and DE-50. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure listed below, impacts related to a substantial increase in light would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project could create new sources of glare from reflective building surfaces. No residential uses are located within or near the project site and residential uses are not permitted within the entire East of 101 Area. Land uses in the general vicinity of the project site are mostly limited to office, R&D, commercial (including childcare facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and 371 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 4 of 84 light industrial uses. However, the project site is visible from US 101. As the proposed project calls for an increase in development at the site from one-story buildings to more visible four- to six-story buildings, daytime glare would increase if reflective materials were used, which could adversely affect views by distant land uses, such as motorists traveling along US 1011ooking towards the project site to views of the San Francisco Bay, San Bruno Mountain, and Mt. Diablo. Mitigation Measure IU.B-4.1 Lighting In order to reduce sources of light and glare created by project site lighting, the applicant shall specify fixtures and lighting that maintains appropriate levels of light at building entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots and private roads at night consistent with minimum levels detailed in the City's building codes. These fixtures shall be designed to eliminate spillover, high intensity, and unshielded lighting, thereby avoiding unnecessary light pollution. Prior to issuance of building permits for buildings constructed for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Design Plan for review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Planning Department for each phase. The plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: The Lighting Design Plan shall disclose all potential light sources with the types of lighting and their locations. Typical lighting shall include low mounted, downward casting and shielded lights that do not cause spillover onto adjacent properties and the utilization of motion detection systems where applicable. Fixture types and heights shall conform to the following styles, as feasible: Parking lots and roads-provide round fixtures on 22' poles on raised concrete footings not to exceed 25' total finished height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal. Sidewalks, pathways, and plazas-provide round hardtop on post top fixtures not to exceed 15'total finished height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal. Accent pedestrian lighting-provide bollard style fixtures, not to exceed 42" total height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal. o No flood lights shall be utilized. o Lighting shall not "wash out" structures or any portions of the site. o Lighting shall be limited to the areas that would be in operation during nighttime hours. o Low intensity, indirect light sources shall be encouraged. o On-demand lighting systems shall be encouraged. 372 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 5 of 84 o Mercury, sodium vapor, and similar intense and bright lights shall not be permitted except where their need is specifically approved and their source of light is restricted. o All light sources shall be fully shielded from off-site view. o All buildings and structures shall consist ofnon-reflecting material or be painted with nonreflective paint. o Generally, light fixtures shall not be located at the periphery of the property and should shut off automatically when the use is not operating. Security lighting visible from the highway shall be motion- sensoractivated. o Use "cut-off' fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light and avoid unnecessary light pollution where appropriate. o All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the building codes and the approved lighting plan during construction. Mitigation Measure IV.B-4.2 Daytime Glare In order to reduce sources of daytime glare created by reflective building materials, the applicant shall specify exterior building materials for all proposed structures constructed for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan that include the use of textured or other non-reflective exterior surfaces and nonreflective glass types, including double glazed and non-reflective vision glass. These materials would be chosen for their non-reflective characteristics and their ability to reduce daytime glare. All exterior glass must meet the specifications of all applicable codes for non-reflective glass and would therefore reduce daytime glare emanating from the project site. Finding: Impact IV.B-4: The building design would incorporate a mixture of materials including glass, stone, pre-cast/GFRC, and painted metal. This mixture of materials would not create large blocks of glass or reflective materials that would create excessive glare. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the guidelines in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan, including those related to building design, specifically Guidelines DE-41 and DE-42. However, to further reduce impacts from glare, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.B-2 listed above would reduce impacts related to daytime glare to less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.B-4.1 through IV.B-4.2 identified in this section would adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to aesthetics. These impacts would also be reduced to a less than significant level. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 373 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 6 of 84 Impact IV.D-1; The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S Fish and Wildlife Services. Of the thirty-five (35) special status species that have potential to occur on the project site, as determined by habitat and the aforementioned criteria, only one (1) has a low potential to occur, the bank swallow. This California threatened species would not be expected to nest on site as suitable nesting habitat is not present, but it is possible the species would be transient through the site during foraging activities; however, the proposed project will not result in a significant impact to this species as it would avoid construction areas during potential foraging. Project construction activities associated with implementation of the Precise Plan and Master Plan build out have potential to result in the destruction of active bird nests during removal of vegetation or grading, or may potentially result in the abandonment of active nests due to noise and increased activity. These potential impacts to nesting birds maybe considered significant. Mitigation Measure IV.D-1.1 Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, special-status birds and/or raptors during Phase 1 Precise Plan and Master Plan development, the following shall be implemented prior to commencement of each phase of the proposed project: Project development activities (disturbances to vegetation, structures and substrates) shall take place outside of the breeding bird season which generally runs from March 1-August 31 (as early as February 1 for raptors) to assist in the avoidance of take (including disturbances which would cause abandonment of active nests containing eggs and/or young). OR If project activities cannot feasibly avoid the breeding bird season, weekly bird surveys shall begin 30 days prior to disturbance of suitable nesting habitat to detect any protected native birds in the habitat to be removed and any other such habitat within 300 feet of the construction work area (within 500 feet for raptors) as access to adjacent property allows. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than three days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work. If a protected native bird is found, the project proponent shall delay all clearance/construction disturbance activities in 374 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 7 of 84 suitable nesting habitat or within 300 feet of nesting habitat (within 500 feet for raptor nests) until August 31 or continue the surveys in order to locate any nests. If an active nest is located, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest (within 500 feet for raptor nests) or as determined by a biological monitor shall be postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and when there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. The results of the recommended protective measures described above shall be recorded to document compliance with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Fish and Game Code protecting nesting birds. Finding Impact IV.D-1: The applicant shall require that the construction contractor implement mitigation measure MM IV.D-1, which requires avoiding ground disturbing activities during nesting season or conducting pre-construction bird surveys prior to each project phase and avoiding nests during the nesting season, thereby reducing the possibility of disturbing or destroying active bird nests. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this potential impact will be reduced to less-than-significant. Impact IV.D-5: The proposed project would conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. A tree survey for the 8.91-acre Phase I Precise Plan was conducted in September 2008, and identified at least 19 treesll within landscaped areas that would be considered protected under the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.3012. In particular, the popular trees along the site boundaries, which extend from the Oyster Point access driveway behind 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard, are considered protected as their circumference would be greater than 48 inches at 54 inches above natural grade. All of the 19 protected trees would be removed by implementation of the Precise Plan, which would be considered a significant impact, as it would conflict with the protected tree ordinance. Detailed tree surveys have not yet been conducted within remaining portions of the 22.6-acre Gateway Business Park Master Plan due to the fact that trees would need to be surveyed prior to each phase to account for tree growth. Development activities associated with future project phases could involve "removal" or "pruning" of additional protected trees that exceed 48 inches in circumference. Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist or arborist will conduct a tree survey, for the identification of protected trees, followed by permit application to determine 375 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 8 of 84 requirements for removal and replacement of such trees, thereby reducing the impact to protected trees. Mitigation Measure IV.D-5.1 Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources In order to minimize impacts to protected trees, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist or arborist to conduct preconstruction surveys of trees within the project site and provide a map to the applicant and the City prior to initiation of future Master Plan phases.. Each protected tree identified that will be directly impacted by removal or pruning shall require a Tree Pruning/Removal Permit per Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC). This permit application shall be submitted to the City and its approval must be a condition of issuance of any grading or building permit. The following outlines the procedures for obtaining a tree removal permit, and procedures for the subsequent tree replacement pursuant to the City's Protected Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 13.30). Owners, or their authorized representative, of protected trees shall obtain a permit to remove or prune a protected tree. The application shall be on a form furnished by the department and shall state, among other things, the number and location of the tree(s) to be removed or pruned by type and the reason for removal or pruning of each. The application shall also include a photograph with correct botanical identification of the subject tree(s). When removal or pruning of a protected tree is proposed as part of or in conjunction with new development the application shall also include: (1) a site plan showing the location of buildings, structures and proposed site disturbances; (2) the location of all protected trees on the site; and (3) the protected trees on the site that would be removed or pruned. An authorized representative of the department shall make an inspection of any protected tree or site subject to this section and shall file a written report and his recommendations to the director. Prior to removal of trees to be conducted during Precise Plan and Master Plan development, the required replacement of protected trees shall be determined as set forth in SSFMC Section 13.30.080. Any protected tree that is removed shall be replaced as follows, and the method of replacement shall be approved as part of the protected tree removal permit process: a) Replacement shall be three 24-inch box size or two 36-inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree removed as determined below. However, the director maintains the right to dictate size and species of trees in any new developments. 376 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 9 of 84 b) Any protected tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two 36- inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree so removed, as determined below. c) The director can waive replacement of a protected tree, if a sufficient number of trees exist on the property to meet all other requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. d) If replacement trees, as designated in subsection (b) (1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, cannot be planted on the property, payment of twice the replacement value of the tree as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture Standard shall be made to the City. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree planted fund to be drawn upon for public tree. purchase and planting. (Ord 1271 Section (part), 2000:Ord 1060 Section 1 (part) 1989). Finding Impact IV.D-5: Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist or arborist will conduct a tree survey, for the identification of protected trees, followed by permit application to determine requirements for removal and replacement of such trees, thereby reducing the impact to protected trees. Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.D-2, as described further below, would reduce any significant project-level and program-level impacts associated with Precise Plan and Master Plan development to aless-than-significant level. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative biological resources impacts consists of San Mateo County. All future development that may occur in this geographic region would be subject to existing federal, state and local regulations. Land uses and development consistent with the proposed project and additional twenty cities and cumulative projects, could result in a significant loss of populations and/or essential habitat for special-status plant and animal species, loss of sensitive natural communities, and wildlife habitat and result in the obstruction of wildlife movement opportunities. The proposed project does not involve the loss of existing natural habitat and future development of such habitat in the area would be very limited. However, the project many involve the removal of trees and/or impacts to nesting birds, but with the implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.D- 1.1 and IV.D-5.1 these impacts will be reduced to less than significant. Therefore cumulative biological impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. CULTURAL RESOURCES 377 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 10 of 84 Impact IV.E-1: The proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 A records search for historic resources was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the Gateway Business Park Master Plan area or environs had been previously studied for resources or contained recorded historic resources. Additional archival research was completed at the San Mateo County Historical Association Archives, the archives of the City of South San Francisco's Engineering Division in the Department of Public Works, and by utilizing other published sources. A pedestrian surface survey of the project area was also completed. The project area was not found to contain any recorded historic resources. This area was not part of the historic development either of the residential/commercial portion of the City (west of Highway 101), nor of the earliest industrial development east of Highway 101. In addition, this area has been developed and redeveloped more than once in the twentieth century, processes that have virtually completely removed potential for and make the property quite unlikely to contain significant historic resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. Although no historic resources were found in the project area, the entire project site would be subject to ground disturbance through various phases of the project and it is possible that subsurface deposits may exist or that evidence of such resources has been obscured by more recent natural or cultural factors and could be uncovered during construction of the Precise Plan or Master Plan. Historic resources are protected from unauthorized disturbance by State law and supervisory and construction personnel should therefore be made aware of the possibility, however low, of encountering historic materials in this location. Historic materials older than 45 years-bottles, artifacts, privy and disposal pits, structural remains, etc.-may also have scientific and cultural significance and should be more readily identified. Mitigation Measure IV.E-1.1 Unknown Historic or Cultural Resources In order to avoid impacts to unknown historic or cultural resources, if during the proposed construction of the Precise Plan and all subsequent phases of the Master Plan any evidence of or cultural resources is uncovered or encountered, all excavations within 10 meters/30 feet of the discovery shall be halted. In order to protect these resources from damage, a qualified archaeologist approved by the City shall determine whether this resource is a "unique archaeological resource" under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource," the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code 378 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 11 of 84 21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume at the completion of a mitigation plan and/or recovery of the resource. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource, work can resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. Finding Impact IV.E-1: Although the potential to impact historic resources is unlikely, mitigation measures to reduce this impact are required. The construction contractor will halt surrounding excavation activities if evidence of historic or cultural resources is discovered and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to investigate further, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying historic resources. Upon implementation of these steps as described further in Mitigation Measure E-1.1 above, this impact would be less than significant. Impact IV.E-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. A records search for archeological resources was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the Gateway Business Park Master Plan area or environs had been previously studied for resources or contained recorded archaeological resources. Additional archival research was completed at the San Mateo County Historical Association Archives, the archives of the City of South San Francisco's Engineering Division in the Department of Public Works, and by utilizing in-house resources and other published sources. A pedestrian surface survey of the project area was completed. The Gateway Business Park project area was not found to contain any recorded archaeological resources. Although no archaeological resources were found in the project area, it is possible that subsurface deposits may exist or that evidence of such resources has been obscured by more recent natural or cultural factors and would be uncovered during construction of the Precise Plan or subsequent phases of the Master Plan since ultimately the entire site would be subject to ground disturbance. Archaeological resources are protected from unauthorized disturbance 379 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 12 of 84 by State law and supervisory and construction personnel should therefore be made aware of the possibility, however low, of encountering archaeological materials in this location. In this area, the most common and recognizable evidence of prehistoric archaeological resources are deposits of shell and/or bones, usually in fragments, and usually in a darker fine-grained soil (midden); chert, obsidian and other stone flakes left from manufacturing stone tools, or the tools themselves or ground stone (mortars, pestles, grinding slabs, arrowheads and spear points), other artifacts (shell beads, bone tools, etc.), and human burials, often as dislocated bones. Nevertheless, since archaeological resources could be located in the subsurface, and impacts to these resources would be unknown until encountered during excavation, impacts to such resources would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure IV.E-2.1 Unknown Archaeological Resources If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during construction of the Precise Plan or any subsequent phases of the Master Plan, a qualified archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall conduct further archival and field study to identify the presence of archaeological resources in the area surrounding the discovery. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, auguring, and monitoring construction activities as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources in a fully developed urban area. If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during any phases of construction, a qualified archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall first determine whether this resource is a "unique archaeological resource" under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource," the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code 21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume at the completion of a mitigation plan or recovery of the resource. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource, work will resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. Finding Impact IV.E-2: The construction contractor will halt surrounding excavation activities if evidence of archaeological resources is discovered and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to investigate further, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying unique archaeological resources. Therefore, 380 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 13 of 84 upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E-2.11isted below, this impact would be less than significant. Impact IV.E-4: The proposed project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries. While there is no evidence that human remains are present on the project site, there is still the potential that the construction phases of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan could encounter human remains, which in turn could result in a potentially significant cultural resource impact. Mitigation Measure IV.E-4.1 Disturbance of Human Remains In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone during construction of the Precise Plan or any subsequent phases of the Master Plan, all excavation or grading within 100 feet of the find shall halt immediately, the area of the find shall be protected, and the project applicant immediately shall notify the San Mateo County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of PRC Section 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if necessary. Work may resume once the area is protected or the body is removed. Finding Impact IV.E-4: The construction contractor will halt ground-disturbing activities if human remains are discovered so that the County's Medical Examiner can investigate further, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying cultural resources or Native American remains. Therefore, project impacts related to a disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.E-4.1. Impacts related to historical resources tend to be site-specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. The City of South San Francisco would require the applicants of future development subject to CEQA to assess, determine, and mitigate any potential impacts related to historical resources that could occur as a result of development, as necessary. Through compliance with the existing laws and the mitigation measures listed previously, project impacts associated with historic resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, unique geologic features, and human remains would be less than significant. The occurrence of these less than significant impacts would be limited to the project site and would not contribute to any potentially significant cultural resources impacts that could occur at the sites of future development subject to CEQA. As such, the proposed project would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts related to cultural resources. 381 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 14 of 84 Therefore, cumulative impacts related to cultural resources would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.E-2.1 through IV.E-4.1 identified in this section would adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to cultural resources. These impacts would also be reduced to aless-than-significant level. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact IV.F-Z: The proposed project would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving exposure to strong seismicground shaking. The proposed project is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area and there is a high probability that the proposed development would be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an earthquake during its design life. Strong seismic ground shaking is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.F-2.1 California Building Code Requirements The project applicant shall ensure that the project development during all phases of the Precise and Master Plan meets requirements of the California Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2007 Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2007 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California to reduce impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. As new development occurs over the project site from the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan, this development would meet the current requirements existing at each phase of the project. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. Mitigation Measure IV.F-2.2 Foundation Engineering and Construction The project applicant shall ensure that proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed during all phases of the Precise and Master Plan in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in structural design to reduce impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. As new development is proposed over the project site from the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan, each 382 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 15 of 84 development would require geotechnical evaluation and the preparation of specific recommendations for each phase of the project based on the site specific location and proposed building design. The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the 2007 California Building Code. The project Geotechnical Investigation shall establish the seismic design parameters, as determined by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with requirements of the 2007 California Building Code. Mitigation Measure IV.F-2.3 Seismic Design Criteria The project applicant shall obtain building permits during all phases of the Precise and Master Plan through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco to reduce impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. Buildings shall be designed in accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element polices, which state that buildings shall be designed to resist earthquakes so that they not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. As new development is proposed over the project site from the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan, each development shall require Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures completed by a licensed structural engineer for each phase of the project based. Finding Impact IV.F-2: The project applicant shall require that construction of buildings on the project site adhere to the requirements of building code provisions and current foundation-engineering principles designed to minimize earthquake- induced impacts to safety and the structural integrity of buildings. Implementation of these requirements as described in Mitigation Measures IV.F-2.1 through 2.3 would ensure proper foundation and structural design, thereby decreasing this impact to a level of less than significant. Impact IV.F-4: The proposed project would be subject to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides or be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and subject to landslide. No landslides are mapped across the property. The project site has a naturally gentle slope, which has been graded to a nearly level pad for the currently existing development. Due to this grading there is an approximately 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) cut slope along the southeastern border of the project site. There are also approximately 2:1 (h: v) slopes (likely fill) along Gateway Boulevard. More cuts may 383 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 16 of 84 be necessary, requiring construction of retaining walls, which could fail if improperly designed. The impact of landslides is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure IU.F-4.1 Landsliding The project applicant shall ensure all phases of the Precise and Master Plan that proper foundation engineering and retaining wall design shall be performed under the direction and guidance of the geotechnical engineer of record and in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. Geotechnical Investigations for each phase of the Precise and Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer for compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. As new development is proposed over the project site from the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan, each development shall require proper foundation engineering and retaining wall design in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation and reviewed and approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer for each phase of the project based. Finding Impact IV.F-4: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.F-4.1 would ensure proper design of retaining walls and foundations, thereby reducing the impact of Landsliding to a level of less than significant. Impact IV.F-5: The proposed project would result in soil erosion. All phases of the project would involve mass grading in a sensitive area near the San Francisco Bay. During construction, grading would disturb soil and displace any topsoil that could potentially impact vicinity drainages, and would eventually impact Colma Creek and the Bay. This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site construction activities. The project applicant will ensure that dust, erosion, and pollution control measures including soil stabilization techniques and other best management practices will be followed during construction activities to reduce the potential for loose soils impacting nearby drainages. Mitigation Measure IV.F-5.1 Soil Erosion The project applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application for the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The Plan shall include winterization, dust, erosion and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of 384 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 17 of 84 Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, with sediment basin design calculations. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Mitigation Measure IV.F-5.2 Soil Erosion In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), thecproject applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of construction of the Precise Plan and all subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Finding IV.F-S: The project applicant will ensure that dust, erosion, and pollution control measures including soil stabilization techniques and other best management practices will be followed during construction activities to reduce the potential for loose soils impacting nearby drainages. Implementation of these practices as described in Mitigation Measures IV.F-S.1 and 5.2 would ensure that soils disturbed during construction would not be mobilized by either storm- or construction- related runoff and therefore reduce the impact of soil erosion to a level of less than significant. Impact IV.F-6: The proposed project would be located on expansive soils. The geotechnical investigation performed by Treadwell and Rollo did not identify expansive material in the sand and sand with clay native site soils. However, some of the near surface fill materials consist of sandy clay that may have expansive properties. This impact would be mitigated through adherence to foundation, pavement and slabs on grade design recommendations put forth in the Geotechnical Reports prepared for each phase of the project. Recommendations include: over excavation of materials two feet below foundations and replacement with engineered fill compacted to 95 percent relative to maximum dry density under 385 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 18 of 84 building footprints; floor slabs underneath garages 1 and 2 shall be underlain by 6 inches of Class II aggregate base compacted to 95 percent relative to maximum dry density; and the upper 6 inches of soil under pavement areas shall be compacted to 95 percent relative to maximum dry density. Mitigation Measure (not numbered): Measures as specified in the Geotechnical Report. Finding Impact IV.F-6: Incorporation of the measures as specified in the Geotechnical Report would reduce the impact of expansive soils to a level of less than significant. Likewise, Geotechnical impacts related to future development in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco would involve hazards associated with site-specific soil conditions, erosion, and groundshaking during earthquakes. The impacts on each site would be specific to that site and its users and would not be common or contribute to (or be shared with, in an additive sense) the impacts on other sites. In addition, development on each site would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards that are designed to protect public safety. Therefore, cumulative geology and soils impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.F-2.1 through IV.F-2.3, IV.F- 4.1, IV.F-5.1, and IV.F-5.2 identified in this section would adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to geology and soils. These impacts would also be reduced to a less than significant level. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact IV.G-1: The proposed project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project could include construction of office uses, and Class-A office and laboratory buildings for both the Precise Plan and all subsequent phases of the Master Plan. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed information has not yet been provided, there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the site that would eventually require disposal. This could include both biohazards, as well as chemical hazards. There would also likely be transportation of hazardous 386 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 19 of 84 materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101, Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. The impact of routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.1 Hazardous Materials Business Plan Businesses occupying the project site through all phases of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they maybe used and transported from, risks of using these materials, included in material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods; medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed project site through all phases of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan must submit a business plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program, which maybe contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business at least once a year to ensure the Business Plan is complete and accurate. Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.2 South San Francisco Municipal Code Building space thorough all phases of the project must be designed to handle the intended office and laboratory use, with sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment structures, in accordance with the guidelines laid out in Chapter 15.24 Fire Code) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Requirements include the following: 387 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 20 of 84 All occupancies and buildings shall be protected throughout by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with UBC Standard 9-1. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all garbage compartments, dumb waiter shafts, and storage rooms when located in all occupancies except Group R, Division 3, detached carports, greenhouses and Group U occupancies less than 200 square feet. An accessible indicating shut off valve shall also be installed. An approved audible anal visual sprinkler flow alarm shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location. A single approved sprinkler flow alarm shall be provided on the interior of the building in a normally occupied location. For buildings more than four stories in height, the following additional requirements must be met: o Products of combustion detectors shall be provided in all mechanical equipment, electrical, transformer, telephone equipment, elevator machine or similar rooms. o Detector(s) shall be located in the air conditioning system. Activation of any detector shall initiate the fire alarm system and place into operation all equipment necessary to prevent the recirculation of smoke. A smoke control system meeting the requirements of Chapter 9 and Section 1005.3.3.7 of the Uniform Building Code shall be provided. A manual fire alarm system shall be provided that will alarm both audibly/visually throughout the building if activated and also alert: the Fire Department via an approved monitoring station. The fire alarm system shall be provided with a public address system and an outside remote annunciator. Standby power shall be provided and must conform to Section 403.8 of the California Building Code. These systems must pass plan review through the City of South San Francisco Planning, Building, and Fire Departments for the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan. Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.3 Sprinkler System During construction of the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan, the utilities including sprinkler systems shall pass pressure and flush tests to make sure they perform as designed. At the end of construction of each building constructed under the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan, occupancy shall not be allowed until a final inspection is made by the Fire Department for conformance of all building systems with the Fire Code and National Fire Protection Agency Requirements. The inspection shall include testing of sprinklers systems, alarm systems, ventilation and airflow systems, and secondary containment systems. The inspection shall include a review of the emergency 388 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 21 of 84 evacuation plans. These plans shall be modified as deemed necessary to ensure that they ensure safety to building occupants. Mitigation Measure IV,G-1.4 Hazardous Materials Transportation All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. These regulations shall be followed for the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan to ensure the safe transport of hazardous materials and waste to and from the site. Finding Impact IV G-1: The proposed project would include Class A research laboratories, which require the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. As described above, registration in the San Mateo County Environmental Health Hazardous Material Business Plan Program would help to ensure safe and responsible handling of hazardous materials by site tenants. Construction inspection for adherence to fire codes would ensure that buildings are equipped with safety measures including sprinklers, alarms, etc, to minimize potential impacts of the presence of hazardous materials. Finally, compliance with DOT regulations would ensure that all necessary safety precautions would betaken during transport of hazardous materials during all phases of the project. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.41isted below, this impact would be less than significant. Impact IV.G-2: The proposed project would 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. Existing buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, organic compounds, and petroleum products. Underlying site soils may contain hazardous materials including motor oil, gasoline, diesel, other chemicals and toxic heavy metals related to the history of heavy industry in the area. The historic railroad grade along the southeast edge of the project site may be a source of additional hazardous materials, including arsenic, chromium, creosote, zinc chloride, or other wood preservatives. During demolition operations required for the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Following construction, 389 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 22 of 84 operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of hazardous materials since the site is proposed to include Class A laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials are likely to be stored, used, and ultimately require disposal. This represents a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of all of the below mitigation measures would reduce risks from hazardous materials on the project site. The project site has a history of hazardous material use, and residual contamination may remain in the surface soils, and in buildings on-site through all phases of the Precise Plan and the Master Plan. A demolition plan will ensure any hazardous materials remaining in buildings or building materials will be properly disposed of. Site soil testing and a soil management plan will ensure that residual contamination is not mobilized by site grading activities. The development of risk management plans through the CaIARPP and compliance with BAAQMD and OSHA standards through all phases of the project would reduce risk of hazardous material releases related to post construction land uses. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-2.1 through IV.G- 2.51isted below, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure IV.G-2,1 Demolition Plans Demolition plans with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition of buildings for the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The Demolition Plans for safe demolition of existing structures shall include dust control and shall incorporate measures for the potential release of asbestos or lead and recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plans shall address both on-site Worker Protection and offsite resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, anal ordinances. The Demolition Plans shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. Additionally, any soil removal plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program (SMGPP). Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.2 Soil Sampling 390 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 23 of 84 Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the project, the applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, other petroleum products, or wood preservatives are present in site soils for the specific area that would be redeveloped under that phase of the project. These tests shall take place within the entirety of the project site for that phase. Results of testing shall be submitted to SMGPP prior to implementation of any soil removal plans. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels for commercial/industrial Sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals for commercial/industrial sites, or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented. Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.3 Contaminated Soils If contamination of site soils is detected for the Precise Plan or any subsequent phase of the Master Plan, then results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment will be provided in the Plan. At a minimum the Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the site. Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project development, including engineering controls that maybe required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site. Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include treatment and disposal. measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. 391 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 24 of 84 Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the project. Mitigation Measure IV.G-2,4 Compliance with Local and State Hazardous Materials Regulations Future businesses at the development as a result of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CaIARP registration form and submit it to the SMCEHD. Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses on the site as a result of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must: include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff, maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an accidental release. Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.5 Compliance with BAAQMD Regulations Each independent R&D facility operating on the property shall obtain necessary permits and comply with monitoring and inspection requirements of the BAAQMD. Future operations shall comply with all local, state and federal requirements for emissions. Each facility shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards for R&D facilities. This includes plan review by the City of South San Francisco to examine if the proposed development plans meet the same standards as for other similar facilities. Engineering controls, such as exhaust hoods, filtration systems, spill kits, fire extinguishers, and other controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA requirements. These standards are 392 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 25 of 84 primarily designed to maintain. worker safety, but also function to reduce the risk of accidental upset and limit potential hazardous emissions. Finding Impact IV.G-2: Implementation of all of the above mitigation measures would reduce risks from hazardous materials on the project site. The project site has a history of hazardous material use, and residual contamination may remain in the surface soils, and in buildings on-site through all phases of the Precise Plan and the Master Plan. A demolition plan will ensure any hazardous materials remaining in buildings or building materials will be properly disposed of. Site soil testing and a soil management plan will ensure that residual contamination is not mobilized by site grading activities. The development of risk management plans through the CaIARPP and compliance with BAAQMD and OSHA standards through all phases of the project would reduce risk of hazardous material releases related to post construction land uses. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-2.1 through IV.G- 2.5 listed below, this impact would be less than significant. Impact IV.G-3: The proposed project could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one- quartermile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school or childcare site to the project is the YMCA of San Francisco Gateway Childcare center located at 559 Gateway Boulevard, less than aquarter- mile southwest of the project site. The project site itself also houses Genentech's Second Generation, a childcare facility serving Genentech's employees that would be in operation through Phase 1a of the Precise Plan. The project currently contains hazardous materials that could be released during demolition and site grading activities thorough all phases of the project. Implementation of the mitigation measures previously discussed would incorporate management and testing procedures relating to hazardous materials during the construction and operation phases of the project, thereby minimizing the potential for the emission of hazardous materials to nearby school facilities. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-3.1 through IV.G-3.71isted below, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.1 Hazardous Materials Business Plan Businesses occupying the development through all phases of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the. Master Plan must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they maybe used and transported from, risks of using these materials, included in material safety data sheets for each 393 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 26 of 84 material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods; medical professionals who Store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must submit a business plan prior to The start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program, which maybe contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business at least once a year to ensure the Business Plan is complete and accurate. Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.2 Hazardous Materials Transportation All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. These regulations shall be followed for the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan to ensure the safe transport of hazardous materials and waste to and from the site. Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.3 Demolition Plans Demolition plans with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition of buildings for the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The Demolition Plans for safe demolition of existing structures shall include dust control and shall incorporate measures for the potential release of asbestos or lead and recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous 394 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 27 of 84 building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plans shall address both on-site Worker Protection and offsite resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plans shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. Additionally, any soil removal plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program (SMGPP). Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.4 Soil Sampling Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the project, the applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer or Prc-fessional Geologist to complete additional surface and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, other petroleum products, or wood preservatives are present in site soils for the specific area that would be redeveloped under that phase of the project. These tests shall take place within the entirety of the project site for that phase. Results of testing shall be submitted to SMGPP prior to implementation of any soil removal plans. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels for commercial/industrial Sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals for commercial/industrial sites, or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented. Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.5 Contaminated Soils If contamination of site soils is detected for the Precise Plan or any subsequent phase of the Master Plan, then results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment will be provided in the Plan. At a minimum the Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the site,. 395 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 28 of 84 Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project development, including engineering controls that maybe required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site. Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the project. Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.6 Compliance with Local and State Hazardous Materials Regulations Future businesses at the development as a result of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CaIARP registration form and submit it to the SMCEHD. Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses on the site as a result of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training 396 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 29 of 84 staff, maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an accidental release. Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.7 Compliance with BAAQMD Regulations Each independent R&D facility operating on the property shall obtain necessary permits and comply with monitoring and inspection requirements of the BAAQMD. Future operations shall comply with all local, state and federal requirements for emissions. Each facility shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards for R&D facilities. This includes plan review by the City of South San Francisco to examine if the proposed development plans meet the same standards as for other similar facilities. Engineering controls, such as exhaust hoods, filtration systems, spill kits, fire extinguishers, and other controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA requirements. These standards are primarily designed to maintain worker safety, but also function to reduce the risk of accidental upset and limit potential hazardous emissions. The project site is located within 1/4 mile of an existing school and has a history of hazardous material use. Residual contamination may remain in the surface soils and in buildings on-site. A demolition plan will ensure any hazardous materials remaining in buildings or building materials will be properly disposed of. Site soil testing and a soil management plan will ensure that residual contamination is not mobilized by site grading activities. The development of risk management plans through the CaIARPP and compliance with BAAQMD and OSHA standards would reduce risk of hazardous material releases related to post construction land uses to a level of less than significant. Finding Impact IU.G-3: ImpleYnentation of the mitigation measures would incorporate management and testing procedures relating to hazardous materials during the construction and operation phases of the project, thereby minimizing the potential for the emission of hazardous materials to nearby school facilities. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-3.1 through IV.G-3.7 listed above, this impact would be less than significant. Impact IV.G-4: The proposed project would 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, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 397 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 30 of 84 The site is included on the "Cortese List". Portions of the project site are listed on the following governmental databases: FINDS, RCRA -SQG, RCRA-LQG, RCRA non-gen, HAZNET, LUST, Cortese, SWEEPS, and San Mateo County Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Hazardous materials onsite include batteries, lamps, pesticides, thermostats, Silver, chlorobenzene, chloroform, potassium cyanide, liquids with halogenated organic compounds, other organic compounds, halogenated and nonhalogenated solvents, and waste oil. Additionally, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks at the Federal Express facility and adjacent parcels have affected groundwater, and there contamination due to herbicides and wood preservatives associated with the railroad grade at the southeastern edge of the project site. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.G-4.1 Demolition Plans Demolition plans with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition of buildings for the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The Demolition Plans for safe demolition of existing structures shall include dust control and shall incorporate measures for the potential release of asbestos or lead and recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plans shall address both on-site Worker Protection and offsite resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plans shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. Additionally, any soil removal plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program (SMGPP). Mitigation Measure IV.G-4.2 Soil Sampling Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the project, the applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, other petroleum products, or wood preservatives are present in site soils for the specific area that would be redeveloped under that phase of the 398 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 31 of 84 project. These tests shall take place within the entirety of the project site for that phase. Results of testing shall be submitted to SMGPP prior to implementation of any soil removal plans. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels for commercial/industrial Sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals for commercial/industrial sites, or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented. Mitigation Measure IV,G-4.3 Contaminated Soils If contamination of site soils is detected for the Precise Plan or any subsequent phase of the Master Plan, then results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment will be provided in the Plan. At a minimum the Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the site. Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified. Industrial Hygienist. Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project development, including engineering controls that maybe required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site. Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering Water Quality Control Board guidelines. Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the project. 399 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 32 of 84 Finding Impact IV.G-4: The subject property is listed on numerous government hazardous material lists as a result of storage and disposal of hazardous materials including, but not limited to: hE~avy metals, batteries, halogenated and non- halogenated solvents, organic compounds and motor oil. There may also be residual contamination related to the removal of leaking underground storage tanks. Demolition plans would be submitted for the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan. The demolition plans would ensure any hazardous materials remaining in buildings or building materials would be properly disposed of. Site soil testing and a soil management plan would ensure that residual contamination is not mobilized. by site grading activities. Implementation of a site health and safety plan would ensure worker protection, decreasing Impact IV.G-4 to a level of less than significant.. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-4.1 through IV.G-4.31isted below, this impact would be less than significant. HYDROLOGY Impact IV.H-1: The proposed project would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project will involve an intensification of land-use through the gradual increase in development on the site through construction of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan. Development of these phases would result in the incremental increase in floor area and number of occupants. This increased use may increase non-point source pollution to receiving waters. Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various industrial activities are listed in Table IV.H-1 in the EIR. Development of the proposed project would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential groundwater drinking sources. Mitigation Measure IV.H-1.1 SWPPP Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the project applicant shall develop a SWPPP for the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan to protect water quality during and after construction of each phase. The project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 400 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 33 of 84 Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. Best management practices" (BMPs) for preventing the discharge of other construction related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to dovvnstream wat:ers. After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, he following: o Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. o Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. o Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs maybe hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. o The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. o The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the project site. At a minimum the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. 401 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 34 of 84 Mitigation Measure IV.H-1.2 Erosion Control Plans The applicant shall complete Erosion Control Plans to be submitted to the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application for the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan. The Erosion Control Plans shall include controls for winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution in accordance with the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Plans shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plans shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction of the Precise Plan and all subsequent phases of the project to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Finding Impact IV.H-1: Implementation of this mitigation measure will be required and enforced through the MMRP. The implementation of Water Quality BMPs for stormwater runoff from the loading and trash area, would reduce the level of potential pollutants that may enter the San Francisco Bay. Implementation of a SWPPP including BMPs to control erosion and siltation during the construction phase of the project will reduce erosion and siltation on and off the project site. The long-term mitigation measures in the SWPPP are important to mitigate the potentially increased non-point source pollution due to the intensified land-use. The short- and long-term mitigations and BMPs outlined above will serve to reduce the potentially significant impacts of increased non-point source pollution and increased sedimentation to receiving waters during construction activities to a level of less than significant. NOISE Finding Noise-2: Implementation of this mitigation measure will be required and enforced through the MMRP. 7'he use of best management practices, identified in the mitigation measure, would ensure that construction-related noise impacts do not exceed the City-established thresholds. Accordingly, the mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level ofless-than-significant. Impact IV.J-1: The proposed project could result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Operational noise 402 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 35 of 84 at the site, such as that created by HVAC equipment, would exceed the noise generation standards set forth in the City's Municipal Code. The heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment for the project buildings will likely be located on the roof-tops of the buildings. At this time the details of the HVAC system are not known and therefore, precise predictions can not be made regarding the noise levvels at the nearby land uses. It is possible that HVAC noise levels could exceed the limits of the Municipal Code at adjacent noise sensitive land uses such as the Larkspur Landing Hotel. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.J-1.1 Operational Noise As the proposed project moves forward an analysis of the noise generated by the project's mechanical equipment should be conducted to assess the proposed equipment with respect to the standards of 60 dBA at the property line between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and 65 dBA at the property line between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The analysis should specify the noise control measures required to meet these noise levels. Specific measures can not be specified at this time because of the lack of detailed information on the HVAC equipment design and location. Typical measures include barriers or enclosures around rooftop equipment. Other measures include duct silencers and acoustical louvers at the ventilation openings. Once the noise control measures are included in the design a letter should be submitted to the City Building Division should require a letter from the designer stating that the project has been designed to meet the City's Standards. Finding Impact IV.J-1: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-1.1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level by requiring the project's HVAC design to include noise control measures adequate to meet the City's Noise Standards. Impact IV.J-2: The proposed project could result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The proposed project could expose persons to traffic-related noise levels greater than the upper limit of satisfactory noise levels for commercial land use of CNEL 70 dBA. In the future, the proposed project buildings will be exposed to a CNEL of up to 76 dBA due to traffic along Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. The city will require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and noise insulation features be included, as needed, in the design. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact. 403 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 36 of 84 Mitigation Measure IV.J-2.1 Future Traffic Noise Prior to the approval of any precise plan for the project site, an acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant in order to determine the measures required to achieve acceptable interior noise levels for the buildings included as part of the precise plan. The East of 101 Area Plan contains interior noise level goal of Leq 45 dBA. 'This will require a noise reduction of up to 30 dBA. This analysis can not be made at this time because of the lack of detailed information on the glazing typE~ and exterior facade construction. Typical measures include sound-rated windows and special exterior wall construction. Finding Impact IV.J-2: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-2.1 will reduce this impact to a less than significant level by requiring sound-rated windows and special exterior wall construction as necessary to meet the East of 101 Area Plan interior noise level goal. Impact IV.J-5: The proposed project could result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbornevfbration orgroundborne noise levels. Construction equipment could generate noticeable vibration at adjacent buildings on and off the site. The greatest potential for vibration generation would be during the excavation and foundation construction activities. Pile driving often generates the highest vibration levels at a construction site, however, pile driving would not be required for the project. Table IV.J-6 shows the vibration levels for different construction equipment at their closest approach to the Larkspur Landing South San Francisco Hotel and commercial buildings both on and off the site. As the equipment moves farther away, the vibration level drops rapidly, due to absorption from the ground through which the vibration propagates. Construction activities would result in vibration levels that are generally within the FTA's impact levels of 80 VdB for residences and hotels and 83 VdB for offices. The vibration level from a vibratory roller could slightly exceed thE~ impact criteria (by 1 VdB), but only briefly when it is at its closest point. Since the project would be constructed in phases, it is possible that onsite office buildings could be still be occupied and, therefore, potentially affected during the construction of a project building. There is also the potential for nearby buildings to contain vibration sensitive research equipment such as electron microscopes. This equipment could be affected at lower levels that those discussed above. Therefore, groundborne vibration is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.J-5.1 Groundborne Vibration 404 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 37 of 84 Prior to the commencement of ground clearing activities, the project applicant shall conduct a preconstruction survey to determine whether the construction project's activities would impact vibration sensitive equipment located in adjacent buildings within 100 feet of the construction acl:ivity. If it is determined that no impact would occur then construction activities shall begin and no further action need be taken. If the project applicant determines that vibration sensitive equipment has the potential to be affected, it shall implement .a construction schedule to ensure that construction activities would occur during tames when vibration sensitive equipment would not be in use. Finding Impact IV.J-S: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-5.1 would reduce the impact of groundborne vibration to a less than significant level by minimizing the potential for vibration to interfere with vibration sensitive equipment which maybe located nearby. Impact IV.J-6: The proposed project could result in exposure of people residing or working at the project site to excessive noise levels from a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public or public use airport. The proposed project site is located within two miles of the San Francisco International Airport. Noise contours prepared for the airport indicate that the project site is located 2,700 feet outside the CNEL 60 dBA contour. Therefore, the proposed office buildings would be exposed to an aircraft generated CNEL below 60 dBA which is considered satisfactory for commercial development by the policies of the South San Francisco General Plan and the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission. The policies of the East of 101 Area Plan indicate that office and retail buildings located in the project area are required to provide a minimum exterior-to- interior noise attenuation of 2'7 dBA to reduce indoor maximum instantaneous noise levels (Lmax) from aircraft to the goal of 60 dBA (Policy NO-2). Therefore, airport noise is a less than significant :impact with respect to the City and County criteria but mitigation is required to be consistent with the local land use plan (East of 101 Area Plan). Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-6.1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure IV,J-6.1 Aircraft Noise Prior to approval of submittal of the first building permit, an aircraft sound attenuation study must be prepared that indicates what measures will be implemented to achieve the minimum exterior-to-interior noise attenuation of 27 405 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 38 of 84 dBA from aircraft overflights. The study should review the exterior window/wall and roof/ceiling construction and specify, if necessary, measures such as sound- ratedwindows and acoustical treatments to the fresh air ventilation system. Finding Impact IV.J-6: Airport noise is a less than significant impact with respect to the City and County criteria bui: mitigation is required to be consistent with the local land use plan (East of 101 Area Plan). Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-6.1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.J-1.1, IV.J-2.1, IV.J-5.1, and IV.J-6.1 identified in this section would adequately mitigate potential impacts related to operational noise, future traffic: noise, construction noise impacts to office uses, groundborne vibration, and aircraft noise. These impacts would also be reduced to a less than significant level. Ho~Never, construction noise impacts to noise sensitive uses TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact IV.M-1: Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours The half-developed project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours (412 t~vo-way [inbound + outbound] trips during the AM peak hour and 357 two-way trips during the PM peak hour [see Table IV.M-21]). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IU.M-1 Transportation Demand Management Program The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that maybe credited for each TDM measure. The project's TDM program is included in Appendix H to the EIR and will generate trip credits to offset the 412 total AM peak hour and 406 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 39 of 84 357 PM peak hour net new trips generated by the project by the year 2015. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-1: Implementation of this mitigation measure would address the City's Transportation Demand Management program goals. The project's TDM program is included in Appendix H of the EIR and will generate trip credits to offset the 412 total AM peak hour and 357 PM peak hour net new trips generated by the project by the year 2015. The impact is reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-ZA: Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 5.0 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 5.2 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IvM-2A ?015 Intersection Level of Service at Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover Intersection (see Figure IV.M-•20 and Table IV.M-24) The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measures. Add a fourth through lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. In conjunction with this measure, provide an additional westbound departure lane, which should extend to the Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection. Restripe the right turn lane on the U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection approach to also allow through movements. In conjunction with this measure, provide a third eastbound departure lane. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F- 195 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 206 seconds control delay) PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS E-65.9 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-104 seconds control delay) Impact reduced to a less than significant level. 407 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 40 of 84 Finding Impact IV.M-2A: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-195 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-206 seconds control delay) PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS E-65.9 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-104 seconds control delay). Thus, this impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-2B: Oyster Point Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard /Project Entrance AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 7.9 percent at a location where unacceptable LOS D Base Case operation would be degraded to unacceptable LOS E operation. PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 9.9 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-2B '1015 Intersection Level of Service at Oyster Point Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard /Project Driveway Intersection (see Figure IV.M-20 and Table IV.M-24) The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measures. Add one additional through lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (and continuE~ to the Dubuque Avenue intersection). Restripe the northbound two-lane driveway approach to provide a left turn lane and acombined lei=t/through/right turn lane. Add an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS C- 29.1 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS E-67.6 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-104 seconds delay) Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-2B: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS C-29.1 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation PM Peak Hour: The proposed 408 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 41 of 84 mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS E-67.6 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-104 seconds delay). Thus the Impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-2C: Gateway Boulevard /So. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 2.1 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-2C 2015 Intersection Level of Service at Gateway Boulevard /S. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue Intersection (see Figure IV.M-20 and Table IV.M-24) The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measures. Provide a second right turn lane on the southbound Gateway Boulevard approach. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS E- 59.1 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 108 seconds delay) Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-2C: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS E-59.1 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-108 seconds delay). Thus, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-ZD: Oyster Poini: Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 4.5 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-ZD 2015 Intersection Level of Service Oyster Point Boulevard/DubuqueAvenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramplntersection (see Figure IV.M-20 and Table IV.M-24) 409 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 42 of 84 The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measures. Add a second right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approach. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F- 87.3 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 271 seconds control delay) Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-2D: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-87.3 seconds control delay, which is; better than Base Case operation (LOS F-271 seconds control delay). Thus, this impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-3A; Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 4.9 percent in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point intersection approach where Base Case volumes would already be exceeding available storage. PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 8.3 percent and 8.2 percent in the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach left and right turn lanes, where Base Case volumes would already be exceeding available storage. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-3A ~.~015 Vehicle Queuing - Synchro Evaluation at Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue/ U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection-Eastbound Approach (see Figure IV.M-ZO) See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2D Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce 95th percentile vehicle queuing in the eastbound approach through lanes to 268 feet, which would be better than B<~se Case queuing of 282 feet. PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce 95th percentile queuing in the westbound approach right turn lane to 1,418 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 2,855 feet, and 95th percentile queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane would be 1,192 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,250 feet. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. 410 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 43 of 84 Finding Impact IV.M-3A: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce 95th percentile vehicle queuing in the eastbound approach through lanes to 268 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing •of 282 feet. PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce 95th percentile queuing in the westbound approach right turn lane to 1,418 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing ~of 2,855 feet, and 95th percentile queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane would be 1,192 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,250 feet. Thus, this impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-3B: Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off- Ramp AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 7.1 percent in the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through lanes, where Base Case volumes would already be exceeding available storage. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-3B 2015 Vehicle Queuing - Synchro Evaluation (see Figure IV.M-ZO) at Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover Intersection-Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2A. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce 95th percentile queuing in the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through lanes to 1,271 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,280 feet. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-3B: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reducE~ delay, which will reduce 95th percentile queuing in the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through lanes to 1,271 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,280 feet. Thus, this impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-5C: U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection 411 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 44 of 84 AM Peak Hour: The project would increase off-ramp volumes by 6.2 percent (from 2,151 up to 2,284 vehicles) at a location where the two-lane off-ramp diverge capacity would be 2,300 vehicles per hour. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-50015 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection Provide a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. The required improvements are contemplated in and funded in the City's East of 101 traffic program, and by paying the City's East of 101 traffic fee, the project proponent will be funding its fair share of the required improvements. Planned provision of a second off-ramp would increase diverge capacity to 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles per hour. This could accommodate the project off-ramp volume of about 2,284 vehicles per hour. Finding Impact IV.M-5C: Impllementation of this mitigation measure could accommodate the projected ofF-ramp volume of about 2,284 vehicles per hour. Thus the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-8: Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours The totally developed project ~NOUId generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours (7Ei4 two-way (inbound + outbound) trips during the AM peak hour and 780 two-way trips during the PM peak hour (see Table IV.M-22)). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the ;Z003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-8 Transportation Demand Management Program The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management TDM) program consistent wi1:h the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that maybe credited for each TDM measure. The project's TDM program is included in Appendix H to the EIR and will generate trip credits to offset the 764 total AM peak hour and 780 PM peak hour net new trips generated by the project by the year 2035. 412 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 45 of 84 Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IY.M-8: The p:roject's TDM program is included in Appendix H to the EIR and will generate trip credits to offset the 764 total AM peak hour and 780 PM peak hour net new trips generated by the project by the year 2035. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-9A: Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 3.4 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-9A 2035 Intersection Level of Service at Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25) Add a second right turn lane on the Airport Boulevard Southbound approach to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard intersection. The applicant should pay a fair share contribution towards this measure (see Figure IV.M-22). Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS D- 50.0 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-9A: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS D-50.0 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-9B: Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 6.2 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 7.7 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. This would be a significant irripact. 413 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 46 of 84 Mitigation Measure IV.M-9B 2035 Intersection Level of Service at Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25) Same mitigations as for 2015. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F- 318 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 381 seconds control delay) PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-138 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation LOS F-142 seconds control delay) Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-9B: will improve operation to LOS F-318 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 381 seconds control delay) PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-138 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-142 seconds control delay) Impact reduced to a less. than significant level. Impact IV.M-9C: Oyster Point Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard /Project Entrance AM Peak Hour: The project traffic would increase volumes by 5.7 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 7.2. percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-9C 2035 Intersection Level of Service at Oyster Point Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard /Project Entrance Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25) Same mitigation as for ;2015. Resultant Operation: A1vI Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F- 130 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 150 seconds control delay) PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-186 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation LOS F- 289 seconds control delay) 414 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 47 of 84 Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-9C: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-130 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 150 seconds control delay) PM Peak Hour: T'he proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-186 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 289 seconds control delay). Thus, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-9D: Gateway Boulevard /So. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 4.5 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-9D ~,~035 Intersection Level of Service at Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25) Same mitigation as for x'.015 and adjust signal timing. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS D- 39.6 seconds control delay. Operation is improved to an acceptable level. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-9D: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reduces delay, which will improve operation to LOS D-39.6 seconds control delay. Operation is improved to an acceptable level. Thus, the impact would be reduced to a :less than significant level. Impact IV.M-9E: Airport Boulevard /San Mateo Avenue /Produce Avenue PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 3.2 percent at a location where unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation would be degraded to unacceptable LOS F operation. This would be a significant impact. 415 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 48 of 84 Mitigation Measure IV.M-9E 2035 Intersection Level of Service at Airport Boulevard /San Mateo Avenue /Produce Avenue Intersection (see Figure IV.M- 22 and Table IV.M-25) Restripe the Airport Boulevard right turn on the southbound approach to the Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue intersection to allow through movements. Funding for this measure would be the full responsibility of the Project sponsor. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS D- 54.9 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 141 seconds control delay) Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-9E: Imp:lementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS D-54.9 seconds control delay, which i;> better than Base Case operation (LOS F-141 seconds control delay). Thus the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-9G: Dubuque Avenue/ U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp Intersection PM Peak Hour: Project traffic would degrade acceptable LOS D Base Case operation to unacceptable LOS E operation. Mitigation Measure IV.M-9G 2035 Intersection Level of Service at Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25) Adjust signal timing. Resultant Operation: P1VI Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS C- 30.9 seconds control delay Impact reduced to a less than significant level. 416 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 49 of 84 Finding Impact IV.M-9G: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS C-30.9 seconds control delay. Thus the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-10B: Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off- Rarr,~p Intersection AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 5.7 percent in the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach through lanes, where Base Case 95th percentile queues would already be exceeding available storage. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-10B 2035 Vehicle Queuing - Synchro Evaluation at Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off- Ramp Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22) Same mitigation as for ]level of service (Mitigation Measure IV.M-9B). Resultant Operation: A1VI Peak Hour: Oyster Point Boulevard Eastbound Through Lanes: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queue to 1,633 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,650 feet. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-10B: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reducE~ delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queue to 1,633 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,650 feet. Thus the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-10C: Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard Intersection PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 2.9 percent in the left turn lane and by 10.6 percent in the through lanes on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approach where Base Case 95th percentile queues would already be exceeding availablE~ storage. This would be a significant irripact. 417 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 50 of 84 Mitigation Measure IV.M-10C'2035 Vehicle Queuing - Synchro Evaluation at Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard Intersection Same mitigation as for level of service (Mitigation Measure IV.M-9A) PM Peak Hour: Oyster F'oint Boulevard Westbound Through Lanes: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th pert;entile queuing to 701 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing; of 738 feet. Oyster Point Boulevard Westbound Left Turn: The proposed mittigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing to 411 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 486 feet. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-10-C: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing to 701 feet, which would be butter than Base Case queuing of 738 feet. Oyster Point Boulevard Westbound Left Turn: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing to 411 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 486 feet, thus will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-16: Pedestrian Circulation A wide variety of pedestrian walkways are proposed as part of the project. They would include: A central pedestrian spine, which would be the major thoroughfare for pedestrian movements through the campus. It would be wide enough to also serve as an emergency vehicle route. A secondary network of walkways connecting to the central spine. Direct connections bet<Neen the parking structures and the central spine. Direct connections bet~Neen the street and the internal campus. Anew public sidewalk along the project's Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard frontages that will connect to the existing sidewalk system along Gateway Boulevard at the south end of the campus and to the sidewalk system to be provided lby the 180 and 200 Oyster Point buildings. The project's new street frontage sidewalk will be utilized to provide access to two additional shuttle stops, which are being proposed along the site frontage (one along Oyster Point Boulevard and one near the north end of Gateway Boulevard). 418 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 51 of 84 An existing walkway about 30 feet from Gateway Boulevard (called the perimeter walk) that is located between hedges of Poplar trees and will be maintained and utilized. primarily by employees. While the proposed walkway system will provide acceptable pedestrian circulation within the majority of the campus, all drivers using any of the four large parking structures along the east edge of the campus will be required to cross the main internal circulation road to access any of the project buildings. At full buildout, from 200 to 500 vehicles per hour maybe on various segments of the internal street providing access to the garages. While speed table and pedestrian crossings of materials other than asphalt are being considered to slow traffic and highlight locations with significant pedestrian crossings, the proposed location of the main internal road (on the west rather than the east side of the garages) could lead to significant pedestrian/auto conflicts. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-16 Aedestrian Circulation Consider relocating the internal roadway running along the west side of the parking garages to the east side of the garages along the project boundary. This will eliminate thousands of pedestrian crossings of a busy internal roadway as employees walk between the €;arages and the office buildings. An emergency access roadway may still be required between the garages and offices to meet fire department requirements. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Finding Impact IV.M-16: Implementation of this mitigation measure will eliminate thousands of pedestrian crossings of a busy internal roadway as employees walk between the garages and the office buildings. An emergency access roadway may still be required between the garages and offices to meet fire department requirements. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV.M-17: Site Access and Internal Vehicle Circulation Primary project vehicle access; would be provided via an existing signalized intersection along Oyster Point Boulevard (about 850 feet south of Oyster Point Boulevard and now being used for access to the project site) as well as via the south leg of the existing signalized Oyster Point Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard intersection. The south leg of t:he Veterans Boulevard intersection would also be used for access to the 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard buildings, which are about to be completed but are not part of the Gateway project. Both major entrances would connect to an access lane, which would run along the west side of the project's proposed four parking garages. Two secondary signalized entrances would 419 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 52 of 84 also be provided to the site. One would be located along Oyster Point Boulevard at the easterly project boundary, opposite the entrance to the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard development and in the location of the existing FedEx driveway. The other would be located along Gateway Boulevard at the south end of the project frontage at an existing signal. Both secondary entrances would also connect to the access lane running adjacent to the project's four garages. Supplemental (right turn in/right turn out) access points would also be provided along the project's Oyster Point Boulevard frontage (one supplemental access) and Gateway Boulevard frontage (one supplemental access). These would provide limited pick up/drop off access to buildings not adjacent to the internal access lane as well as access to subsurface parking for the Gateway building on the corner of the Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard intersection. Speed tables are being considered along all internal streets at major pedestrian crossings in order to slow speeds. Paving would also be interrupted with contrasting materials at pedestrian crossings and internal intersections to increase pedestrian safety. Overall, the proposed project circulation system appears that it will function acceptably for employees, wha~ will quickly learn which is the most convenient driveway to use for their assigned parking garage. However, given the size of the project, its numerous buildings and garages as well as the variety of driveway connections to Gateway and Olympic boulevards, unless frequent, large and clear signing is provided, visitors m<~y experience confusion in regards to finding appropriate parking closest to their final destination. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.M-17~~ccess and Internal Vehicle Circulation Provide building addresses that can be read easily by drivers on Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Provide easy-to-follow directions for visitors from the access driveway intersections along Gateway Boulevard or Oyster Point Boulevard and along the internal driveways to the specific garage associated with each office building. Impact reduced to a less than significant level, Finding Impact IV.M-17: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide easy-to-follow directions for visitors from the access driveway intersections along Gateway Boulevard or Oyster Point Boulevard and along the internal driveways to the specific garage associated with each office building. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS 420 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 53 of 84 Impact IV.N-1: The proposed project would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of e:~isting or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional ;sources of polluted runoff. Surface and stormwater runoff in the project area is collected by the City's storm drainage system and is discharged to San Francisco Bay east of the project area. The existing storm drainage system in the project area is designed to accommodate flows from office development and the amount of existing impervious surfaces in the area. The proposed project would remove existing buildings on the site and redevelop the area with similar uses. The project consists of the phased removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6 acre project site and construction of five to six new office buildings and two to four parking structures. As a result of increased traffic, increased stormwater pollutants, such as copper and zinc from break pads23 or oil from leaking engines, may result in a potentially significant change in storm water quality. To comply with the Clean WatE~r Act (CWA), STOPPP was formed. STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. These guidelines are regulated by the SSFMC, General Plan, or other best management practices guidelines. The project site is divided into three separate sub-drainage areas: North (Portion of Building 1000), Central (Portion of Buildings 800 and 1000) and South (Buildings 700, 750,, 850, 900 and a portion of Building 800). The on-site storm drainage system varies :in size from 12-inch to 30-inch in diameter. The three sub-drainage areas discharge 1:o the City's public storm drainage system as follows: North Sub- Drainage Area, Central Sub-Drainage Area, and South Sub-Drainage Area. The North sub-drainage area discharges to the existing 18-inch to 24-inch public storm drainage system on Oyster Point Boulevard. The Oyster Point Boulevard storm drainage system outfalls to the San Francisco Bay at the Oyster Cove Marina (north of the Master Plan Area) via a 24 by 30-inch box storm drain line. The Central subdrainage area discharges to the existing 18-inch public storm drainage line on Gateway Boulevard. The existing 18-inch Gateway Boulevard line connects to the Oyster Point Boulevard public storm drainage system at the intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevard. The South sub-drainage area discharges to the existing 30-inch public storm drain line on Gateway Boulevard. The Gateway Boulevard public storm drainage system collects and conveys storm runoff from the site and outfalls south of the sate to Colma Creek. The outfall is located east of the intersection of Harbor Way anal Mitchell Avenue. The Gateway Boulevard public system varies in size from 30-inch to 72-inch. 421 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 54 of 84 Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.1 l)perational SWPPP The project applicant shall develop an operational SWPPP for all drainage to the Central and South Sub-Drainage areas prior to construction of the Precise Plan and for the North Sub-Drainage area prior to construction of the subsequent phases of the Master Plan to protect water quality after construction. These project SWPPPs shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures for project operation: Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the project site for each phase of the Master Plan. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used for each phase of the Master Plan at the proposed project site shall be described. This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. Identification of BMPs to be implemented for the Precise Plan and for each phase of the Master Plan at the project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls uses as needed. Development of a monitoring and implementation plan for the Precise Plan and for each phase of the Master Plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be careirully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, •etc. Wastes removed from BMPs maybe hazardous; therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared on a daily basis of debris that may enter the storm drain system. The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually in coordination with the S'~TOPPP. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequaciies of the BMPs. The project applicant shhall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the project site. At a minimum, the information shall cover: (1) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; (2) proper use of landscaping chemicals; 3) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and (4) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.2 ,Storm Drain Interceptors 422 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 55 of 84 The project applicant shall install a storm drain interceptor (also known as an oil/water or oil/grit separator)I on-site to remove oils and heavy particulates from stormwater at appropriate storm drains for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan. Appropriate sizinl; of the unit relative to the impervious surface drainage area is important and should be taken into consideration when choosing the interceptor unit model and size. Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.3 Impervious Area Drainage Retention Devices The project applicant shall incorporate alternative drainage solutions around surface parking lots and near large areas of impervious surfaces such as public plazas to increase pervious surfaces on the site and increase infiltration. This shall be done for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan. Such solutions may include, but are not limited to, vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes, and ponds. Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.4 Rooftop Retention Devices The project applicant shall incorporate rooftop or downspout retention into all building plans proposed by the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan to capture all roof runoff. Finding Impact IY.N-1: ConstY•uction impacts to water quality are mitigated through soil stabilization and erosion control techniques as described in Mitigation Measure IV.H-1.1 and IV.H-1.2 in Section IV.H (Hydrology/Water Quality) of this Draft EIR. However, operation of the proposed project could contribute to polluted stormwater runoff. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, as described above, mitigation measures, such as incorporating rooftop downspouts and the installation of a storm drain interceptor to capture oil and heavy particulates before entering stormwater drainage systems, would minimize pollutant contributions to stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.9~ would reduce operation impacts associated with polluted runoff to aless-than-significant level. Impact IV.N-2: The proposed :project would require or result in the construction of new water treatment, distribution, or conveyance facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.1 Fire Flow Analysis Report 423 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 56 of 84 In order to assure that the water system has the ability to serve peak flow demands including for fire flow, prior to first building permit for all buildings constructed for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan, the project applicant shall consult a NCEES certified Fire Protection Engineer to prepare an analysis of the proposed project and determir.~e the required design fire flow and fire duration. A certified report shall be submitted to the South San Francisco Fire Department for review and comment to ensures that all required design fire flow and fire duration requirements are met. Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.2 Fire Flow Testing In order to assure that the water system has the ability to serve peak flow demands including for fire flow, prior to receiving a building permit for all buildings constructed for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan, the project applicant shall perform fire flow tests for all hydrants within 500 feet of the project site pursuant to American Water Works Association filed testing standards25 to verify if adequate fire flows defined in Mitigation Measure N-5 are achieved. Any deficiency measured shall be corrected and retested prior occupancy. Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.3 Fire Protection Water Supply In order to assure that the water system has the ability to provide water supply for fire protection, prior to occupancy of all buildings constructed for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Flan, California Water Service Company shall certify that reservoir storage, beyond their operational and emergency allotments, required for adequate protection identified in Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.1 will be maintained at all times. Finding Impact IV.N-2: The proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on the water system that delivers the required fire flows. Water for fire flow would be provided in 12 inch mains that would be constructed with the Precise Plan and each phase of the project. The water distribution system is owned and operated by CWSC. The water system consists of a network of 12-and 10-inch lines which should be adequate to serve tl-ie required flows.24 .To avoid impacts to the water system's ability to serve peak :flow demands, fire flow testing as well as analysis and certification by fire protection personnel as described in Mitigation Measure IV.N- 2.1 above would reduce the impacts associated with increased fire flow demands to a less than significant level. Impact IV.N-4: The proposed. project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources and no new or 424 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 57 of 84 expanded entitlements are needed. While this is aconsidered aless-than-significant impact, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.N-4.1 would further minimize the impact and ensure that it remains less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure IV.N-4.1 {Water Conservation In order to reduce water demands of all phases of the project, the project applicant shall include methods of water conservation in the proposed project's buildings and landscaping for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan. These methods shall include, but not be limited, to the following: Install water-conservin;; dishwashers and washing machines, and water- efficient centralized coaling systems in all new buildings (this method would not apply to process development or research development laboratory equipment); nstall water-conserving; irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation and evaportranspiration-based irrigation controllers); Design landscaping with drought-resistant and other low-water-use plants; and Install water-saving devices such as water-efficient toilets, faucets, and showerheads. Finding Impact IV.N-4: The W~SA was prepared using the assumptions that approximately 40 percent of the proposed new building space will be used for offices and the remaining 60 percent of space for biotechnology research and development laboratories. R&]D uses typically consume more water than office uses. Therefore, the estimated increase in water demand due to the proposed project of 49,411 gpd is more conservative than what would be demanded under full buildout of the Precise Plan and all sub<.~equent phases of the Master Plan. The project would employ a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-equivalent standard for the design of the new buildings and would use water consumption. In addition, Cal Water concluded that for the next 20 years, the SSF District will have adequate water supplies to mE~et projected demands associated with the proposed project along with those of all existing customers and all other anticipated future users for normal, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. While the proposed project's effect on water supply is not a significant effect under CEQA, the proposed measures, addressing the installation ofwater-conserving appliances including dishwasl-iers, washing machines, toilets, and faucets and the use of drought-resistant plants in landscaping, would minimize the project site's water demand. Therefore, Mitigation Measure IV.4.1 above would reduce the 425 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 58 of 84 proposed project's contribution to the total water demand, ensuring that the less- than-significant impact remains so. Section IV: Findings Regardine Alternatives The EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of three alternatives to the project. All alternatives are located on the project site. Differences between the build alternatives include square footage of development, land uses allowed on the site, total employees, and the number of parking spaces. Alternative A: No Project/Buildout Under Existing General Plan. Alternative A assumes the Applicant's proposal is not approved, but would allow for redevelopment of the project site under the existing General Plan and zoning regulations, including at a maximum FAR of 1.0. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Buildout on the site would be a combination of Office and R&D uses (50 percent each). This alternative would result in the construction of approximately 492,225 sf of office uses and 492,225 sf of R&D uses, for a total of 984,500 sf of development. Buildout under Alternative A would result in approximately 2,406 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf of development for a total of 2,835 spaces. Alternative B: Reduced ProjE:ct Alternative. Alternative B would allow redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, but developed with Research & Development (R&D) uses only resulting in a reduced project due to the reduction of employees on site. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Under Alternative B, buildout on the site would result in the construction of approximately 1,230,570 sf of R&D uses. Buildout under Alternative B would result in approximately 2,735 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf of development for a total of 3,544 spaces. Alternative C: Reduced Parking Alternative. Alternative C would develop the site with Office and R&D uses at ari FAR of 1.25. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Buildout on the site would be a combination of Office and R&D uses (50 percent each). Alternative C would result in the construction of approximately 1,230,570 sf of development and approximately 3,009 employees on the site. Under 426 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 59 of 84 Alternative C, parking would bf~ provided at a reduced ratio of 2.3 spaces per 1,000 sf resulting in a total of 2,264 parking spaces on the site. The City Council hereby concludes that the EIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, so as to foster informed public participation and informed decision making. The City Council finds that the alternatives identified and described in the EIR were considered and further finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA section 21081(c). ALTERNATIVE A: NO-PROJECT Alternative A - No Project/ Buildout Under Existing General Plan Alternative As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a "No Project" Alternative Alternative A). CEQA requires the evaluation of a "No Project" alternative, which assumes "the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e] [2]). 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. Alternative A assumes that they proposed project would not be approved, but the Alternative would still allow for the redevelopment of the project site under the existing General Plan and zoning regulations, including development to a FAR of 1.0. This Alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Buildout on the site would be a combination of Office and R&D uses (50 percent each). This alternative would result in the construction of approximately 492,225 sf of office uses and 492,225 sf of R&D uses, for a total of 984,500 sf of development. Buildout under Alternative A would result in approximately 2,406 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,OOiD sf of development for a total of 2,835 spaces. Aesthetics 427 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 60 of 84 The project site is currently developed as a business park. Under Alternative A, a business park housing Office and R & D uses would be developed on the site. Similar to the project, no public views Ito scenic vistas would be blocked and impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. Additionally, similar to the project there would be no impact to state scenic highways. The site is currently developed at an FAR of 0.29. Alternative A would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.0, a higher density. Similar to the project, this increase in FAR could be accomplished primarily by increasing the height of the buildings on the site, thereby increasing the amount of open space on the site, which would minimize the feeling of density on the site. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative A would result in improvements to the visual quality of the site by increasing open space and pedestrian-oriented areas and creating a cohesive pedestrian-oriented environment. Lighting and building materials on the site under Alternative A would similar to the project and would be subject to the same City standards as the project. Therefore, impacts to visual character and light and glare under Alternative A would be less than significant and tree same as under the project. Overall impacts to visual resources would be the same a.s under the project. Air Quality Similar to the project, Alternative A would involve the demolition of the existing structures on the site. Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately 984,500 squarE~ feet of Office and R & D uses. Alternative A would be consistent with the City's General Plan FAR of 1.0. Therefore, unlike the project, Alternative A would not create a significant unavoidable impact due to inconsistency with the BAAQN[D's Clean Air Plan. Alternative A would implement the same construction mitigation measures as the project and this impact would be less than significant and similar to the project. Alternative A would result in operational emissions primarily from increased vehicular trips to and from the commercial development. Altriough Alternative A would result in an approximately 20 percent decrease in square footage of development and proposes 50 percent R&D uses (which would generate fewer employees), this decrease would not be enough to reduce the project's significant unavoidable PM10 emissions. Therefore, air quality impacts PM10 emissions from under Alternative A (both project and cumulative) would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. Local CO concentrations would be reduced incrementally, however, impacts would remain less than significant acid the same as under the project. Assuming that Alternative A would be constructed in a phased manner and therefore the childcare facility could remain on site during some phases of the project, the impacts from TACs would remain the same .as under the project and less than significant. Similar to the project, there would be less than significant impacts from objectionable odors under Alternative A and it would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32. Overall impacts to air quality under Alternative A, although incrementally less than under the project, would be the same as under the project and remain significant and unavoidable. 428 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 61 of 84 Biological Resources The project site is currently developed as a business park and the only biological resources on the site are mature landscaping. Alternative A could potentially remove fewer trees on the site during construction of new buildings due to the decrease in FAR on the site. However, under Alternative A, project construction activities could result in the destruction of active bird nests during removal of vegetation or grading or could potentially result in the abandonment of active nests due to noise and increased activity. As with the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. Similar to the project, Alternative A would have no impact to riparian habitat, wetlands, or to migratory corridors. Regarding the removal of trees,, impacts to tree removal and conflict with existing codes or plans protecting biological resources would be less than significant and the same under Alternative A ais the project. Cultural Resources The project site has been develloped and redeveloped several times in the twentieth century. These processes have almost completely removed potential for, and make the property quite unlikely to contain, significant cultural resources that could be impacted by development that: could occur under Alternative A. Similar to the proposed project, the potential for disturbance of subsurface resources, including fossilbearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and archeological sites and sites of cultural signi:Ficance to Native Americans, during ground disturbing activities still exists under this alternative. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed for any future construction at the site, and possible impacts to historical resources would be ;avoided to the extent feasible. Under Alternative A, impacts to cultural resources ~NOUId remain less than significant, and similar to the proposed project. Geology and Soils Development of the site under the existing General Plan FAR of 1.0 would result in slightly less development (984,500 sf opposed to 1,230,570 sf). Similar to the project, there would be no impact due to they lack of an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone on the site. Geologic hazards such as seismic ground shaking would still exist under this alternative. However, impacts would be lessened due to decreased development which would directly result in fewer people exposed to ground shaking at the site. Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil, subsidence, expansive soils, and landslides would be the same as under the project as this alternative would 429 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 62 of 84 result in grading and construction over the entire site. Collectively, impacts would be less than significant, and less than the proposed project due to the presence of fewer buildings and people on the site. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implementation of Alternative A, as with the proposed project, would likely result in development of additional labc-ratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. However, fewer of these uses would be constructed under Alternative A. As with the proposed project, compliance with safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations would ensure the risks associated with the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant. However, impacts would be incrementally less due to the reduced development on the site. Similar to the proposed project, existing buildings at the site would be demolished in order to make room for new' development. These buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, halogenated and non- halogenated solvents, organic compounds, and petroleum products. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Portions of the project site would still be included on government lists of sites containing hazardous materials, and development at the site could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, as projects are reviewed on a situ-by-site basis, mitigation measures would be identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts associated with the release of hazards and hazardous materials under this alternative would be incrementally less due to the smaller amount of development and remain less than significant. Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools would also remain the same, and it is expE~cted That mitigation measures would be identified to ensure impacts remain less than significant. Hydrology and Water Qualit~~ Buildout under Alternative A would result in development of 984,456 sf of Office and R&D uses at the site. Typical industrial non-point source (NPS) pollutants associated with industrial activities would still be present at the site. Development of this alternative would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and Litter entering downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential groundwater drinking sources. However, mitigation measures would 430 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 63 of 84 reduce impacts to a less than significant level and this impact would be the same as under the project. Alternative A could result in a reduction of impervious surfaces. Approximately 70 percent of the project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. Implementation of the project would decrease impervious surfaces from 70 percent to 61 percent of the project site. Under Alternative A, fewer buildings would be developed and it is likely, although unknown if, Alternative A would result in a greater percentage of pervious surfaces. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed on a site by site basis, as individual projects are proposed and reviewed. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts would be less than significant, but not less than the proposed project. Redevelopment at the project site under Alternative A would involve demolition of existing structures and paved areas, as well as grading, activities. Construction operations associated with this alternative would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction. However, mitigal:ion measures would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Collectively, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would, similar to the project, be less than significant under Alternative A. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative A, the project site would be redeveloped with business park uses. These uses would be consistent with existing land uses in the surrounding area which include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development activities. Similar to the project, Alternative A would redevelop the project site and there would be no division or displacement and therefore no impact to existing residential communities. Under Alternative A, a General. Plan Amendment would not be required as the FAR on the site would be consistent with the existing General Plan allowance. However, the Gateway Specific Plan District zoning allowing an FAR of 1.25 was adopted for the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gateway Specific Plan District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are redeveloped, it is likely That they may request General Plan Amendments to allow redevelopment at increased densities. Although density under Alternative A would be consistent with the General Plan density for the site, it would not be consistent with the City's vision for development in the area, and this impact would be slightly greater than under the project and be less than significant. There are no natural community plans or applicable habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site and the project site does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Therefore, similar to the 431 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 64 of 84 project, Alternative A would have no impact to conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Noise Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately 984,500 square feet of Office and R & D uses. Heating, ventilation and air- conditioning (HVAC) equipment for buildings would likely be located on the roof- tops of the buildings. Similar tc~ the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Similar to the project, buildings on the site under Alternative A could be e:posed to a CNEL of up to 67.6 dBA along Gateway Boulevard and 73.4 dBA along Oyster Point Boulevard. However, the City would require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and noise insulation features be included., as needed, in the design and this impact would be less than significant and the same as under the project. Alternative A would result in an approximately 20 percent decrease in square footage of development and there would a corollary decrease in employees on the site, and therefore, traffic generated noise due to the decrease in vehicular trips. This would further reduce the less than 1.1 dBA increase in noise attributed to project generated traffic. This iimpact under the project would be less than significant and would remain the same under Alternative A. However, in the future cumulative traffic will increasE~ the traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses along Gateway and Oyster Poirlt Boulevards by 2.0 to 4.7 dBA. Cumulative traffic will increase the traffic noise levels at residential land use along Sister Cities Boulevard by up to 2.5 dBA. These cumulative traffic noise increases exceed the threshold of 3 dBA for a significant increase. Alternative A would further reduce noise impacts from traffic due to the decrease in vehicle trips and similar to the project the contribution to this; increase is generally small (1.4 dBA or less). However, since Alternative A would contribute the overall increase in traffic noise, it would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact the same as the project. Impacts from aircraft noise would be less than significant and the same as under the project. Under Alternative A, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would be less than significant with mitigation. However, similar to the project, redevelopment activities would be phased and the Genentech Child Care facility might still be operational. Therefore, construction noise would significantly affect the noise sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility resulting in a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Population and Housing 432 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 65 of 84 Development under Alternative A would result in the employment of 2,406 employees at the project site b~~ 2020. ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of South San Francisco of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, this alternative's contribution to the increase in employment in the City would lbe within ABAG's employment projections for the City for both the years of 2015 and 2020 and would be less than significant. The proposed project is also within ABAG's employment projections. However, Alternative A would result in the generation of fewer employees and therefore, reduce the demand for housin€; in the City as compared to the demand which would result from the proposed project. This alternative, as well as the proposed project, would promote a greater regional jobs balance, and would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population €;rowth and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed projectt, there would be no impact from the displacement of existing housing, need for construction of replacement housing, nor displacement of substantial numbers of people. Under this alternative, overall impacts to population and housing would be less than significant and Incrementally less than the proposed project. Public Services Demand for public services, including police and fire, would be reduced proportionally with the reduction in development under Alternative A. Development of this alternative would result in 2,406 employees at the site, constituting a minor increase (less than 3 percent) in the City's daytime population and would not lead to a changE~ in response times, service ratios, and/or requirement for construction of new police or fire facilities. Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new police or fire facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the impact to public services would be less than si,~gni~cant, and incrementally less than the proposed project. No mitigation measures would be necessary. Transportation and Circulation Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately 984,500 square feet of Office and R & D uses. Alternative A would result in an approximately 20 percent decrease in square footage of development and would include R & D uses and a commensurate reduction in the number of employees on the site. This reduction would result in an approximately 26 percent decrease in the number of trips generated under Alternative A as opposed to the project. Alternative A would generate enough trips to exceed the C/CAG trip generation limits by 2015 and 2035, but similar to the project this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Similar to the project, Alternative A would result in less than significant impacts to intersections and vehicle queuing by 2015. Alternative A 433 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 66 of 84 would result in impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2015. Similar to the project, these impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the reduction in vehicle trips is not enough to rE~duce the significant unavoidable impacts. Similar to the project, 2035 intersection impacts would be less than significant. Impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2035 would be the same as under the project, significant and unavoidable. ,Alternative A would provide parking at a 2.83 ratio and would, unlike the project, meet code requirements. Assuming that the parking garages would be located at the back of the site, impacts to pedestrian safety and vehicular circulation would be the less than significant, and the same under Alternative A as the project. Utilities and Service Systems Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately 984,500 square feet of Office a:nd R & D uses. Similar to the project, surface and stormwater runoff would be collected on-site and would not create or contribute runoff water which would excE~ed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in t:he need for construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Alternative A would result in fewer square feet of development than the project and would result in incrementally less demand for water supplies for fire flow, domestic, or manufacturing uses. Additionally, Alternative A would result in reduced wastewater and solid waste generation due to the smaller :square footage of development. Overall impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative A would be incrementally less than the project and would be less than significant. Relationship of Alternative A to the Project Objectives Alternative A would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site. Alternative A could potentially meet the project objectives of redeveloping the project site to create a cohesive working campus environment, emphasizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and allowing the incremental and phased redevelopment of the site. However, this redevelopment would occur at the existing General Plan FAR of 1.0 and Alternative A would not meet the project's objective to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.29 to 1.25. Additionally, the 1.25 FAR proposed by the project is allowed under the Gateway Specific Plan District zoning. This FAR was adopted by the City for the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gateway Specific Plan District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are redeveloped, it is likely that they will also be developed at increased densities as well. Therefore, although Alter°native A would be feasible it would not meet the project's objective to redevelop the site at an FAR of 1.25 nor meet the City's intent to redevelopment the Gateway Specific Plan District at this FAR. 434 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 67 of 84 Finding: The No Project Alternative fails to meet basic project objectives. Alternative A would not meet the project's objective to increase the floor area ratio FAR) from 0.29 to 1.25. Additionally, the 1.25 FAR proposed by the project is allowed under the Gateway Specific Plan District zoning. This FAR was adopted by the City for the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gateway Specific Plan District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are redeveloped, it is likely that they will also be developed at increased densities as well. Therefore, although Alternative A would be feasible it would not meet the project's objective to redevelop the site at an FAR of 1.25 nor meet the City's intent to redevelopment the Gateway Specific Plan District at this FAR. Likewise, Alternative A would result in retaining aging and inadequate low-density buildings on the site. The existing site development would generation fewer employees and would weaken the City's overall support for the Life Sciences Industry cluster in the East of 101 Area. ALTERNATIVE B: REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Alternative B would allow redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, but developed with Research & Development (R&D) uses only resulting in a reduced project due to the reduction of employees on site. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Under Alternative B, buildout on the site would result in the construction of approximately 1,230,570 sf of R&D uses. Buildout under Alternative B would result in approximately 2,735 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per1,00C1 sf of development for a total of 3,544 spaces ImpactAnalysis The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant under the proposed Project. Less than significant impacts are discussed only if implementation of the alternative will substantially increase the impact. Reduced development; intensity proposed under this Alternative would produce fewer vehicle trips acid less air pollutant emissions. However, the Alternative's resulting degree of trip generation reduction would not reduce traffic 435 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 68 of 84 levels sufficiently to reduce either the C/CAG peak hour trip generation limit impact Traf-1), nor any off-site traffic impact to a less than significant level. Reduced square footage would result in a shorter construction phase so a reduced impact related to construction noise and diesel emissions from construction vehicles. Reduced square footage would also be expected to result in a reduced number of workers/level of operations so would translate to a reduction in the operational use of hazardous materials and potential for hazardous materials- related impacts. A reduction in the number of workers on site would also slightly reduce impacts related to geological events that could pose a danger to people as there would be fewer people ors site. Aesthetics The project site is currently developed as a business park. Under Alternative B, another business park would be developed on the site housing R & D uses only. Similar to the project, no public views to scenic vistas would be blocked and there would be less than significanl~ impacts to scenic vistas. Additionally, similar to the project there would be no impact to state scenic highways. The site is currently developed at an FAR of 0.29. Alternative B would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.25, the same density as the project. Similar to the project, this increase in FAR could be accomplished primarily by increasing the height of the buildings on the site, thereby increasing the amount of open space on the site, which would minimize the feeling of density on the site. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative B would result in improvements to the visual quality of the site by increasing open space and pedestrian-oriented areas and creating a cohesive pedestrian-oriented environment. Therefore, impacts to visual character and light and glare under Alternative B would be less than significant and the same as under the project. Therefore, impacts under Alternative B would be the same as under the project. Air Quality Similar to the project, Alternative B would involve the demolition of the existing structures on the site and construction of office buildings and would implement the same construction mitigation measures as the project. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant and the same under Alternative B as the project. Similar to the project, Alternative B would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.25 and would result in the same impact regarding consistency with BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan. Although Alternative B would result in the same amount 436 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 69 of 84 of development on the site, it v~~ould result in fewer employees and therefore fewer vehicular trips. However, although Alternative B would result in an approximately 16 percent decrease in employees on the site, this decrease would not be enough to reduce vehicle trips significantly enough to eliminate the project's significant unavoidable PM10 emissions.'Cherefore, air quality impacts PM10 emissions from under Alternative B (both project and cumulative) would remain, similar to the project, significant and unava~idable. Impacts from local CO concentrations would be incrementally less than under the project and less than significant. Assuming that Alternative B would be constructed in a phased manner and therefore the childcare facility could remain on site during some phases of the project, they impacts from TACs would remain less than signifTCant, the same as under the project. Similar to the project, Alternative B would not create any objectionable odors and would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32.Overall impacts to air quality under Alternative B, although incrementally less, would be the same as under the project. Biological Resources The project site is currently developed as a business park and the only biological resources on the site are mature landscaping. Alternative B has the same potential to remove trees on the site during construction of new buildings as the project. Under Alternative B, project construction activities could result in the destruction of active bird nests during removal of vegetation or grading, or may potentially result in the abandonment of active nests due to noise and increased activity. However, similar to the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. Similar to the project, Alternative B would have no impact to riparian habitat, wetlands, or to migratory corridors. Regarding the removal of trees, impacts to tree removal and conflict with existing codes or plans protecting biological resources would be the same under Alternative B as the project and less than significant. Cultural Resources The project site has been developed and redeveloped several times in the past century. These processes have almost completely removed potential for, and make the property quite unlikely to contain, significant cultural resources that could be impacted by development. Similar to the proposed project, the potential for disturbance of subsurface resources during ground disturbing activities, including fossil bearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and archeological sites and sites oI' cultural significance to Native Americans, still exists under this alternative. Mitigatiion measures would be developed for any future 437 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 70 of 84 construction at the site, and possible impacts to historical resources would be avoided to the extent feasible, Ensuring impacts remain less than significant. Under Alternative B, impacts to cultural resources would remain the same as under the proposed project. Geology and Soils Development of the site under this alternative would produce the same amount of development 1,230,570 sf) as the proposed project. However, restricting uses to R&D would result in fewer employees at the site. Geologic hazards such as seismic ground shaking would still exist under this alternative. However, impacts would be lessened due to decreased employee generation which would directly result in a lower amount of people that would be exposed to seismic ground shaking and would be less than significant. Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil, subsidence, expansive soils, anal landslides would remain the same under this alternative as the same amount of the site area that would be built upon (50 percent of the total site), and the size of the development (1,230, 570 sf) would remain the same. Collectively, impacts would be less than significant, and less than the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implementation of this alternative could possibly increase impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Development of this alternative would result in the creation of R&D uses only, which would increase the amount of additional laboratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. As with the proposed project, compliance with safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations would ensure the risks associated with the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant. However, with this alternative, potential for accidental release or upset could increase with additional chemicals from R&D uses present at the site. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment may increase, compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, existing buildings at the site would be demolished in order to make room for new development. These buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, organic compounds, and petroleum products. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Portions of the project site would still be included on government lists of hazardous materials sites, and development at the site could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 438 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 71 of 84 However, as projects are revie~Ned on a site-by-site basis, mitigation measures would be identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools would also remain the same, and it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to ensure impacts remain less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality The reduced project alternative would result in development of 1,230,570 sf of R&D uses at the site, with a FAR of 1..25. Typical industrial non-point source (NPS) pollutants associated with industrial activities would still be present at the site. Development of this alternative would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential groundwater drinking sources. However, mitigation measures would be identified, to reduce possible impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would result in similar impacts to impervious surfaces, as those identified for the proposed project. Approximately 70 percent of the project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. This alternative would include a number of strategies designed to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces. Implementation of these stratE~gies would decrease impervious surfaces from 70 percent to 61 percent of the project site. Reducing the amount of impervious surfaces would reduce impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts to groundwater would be less than signi~can~t, and similar to the proposed project. Redevelopment at the project site under this alternative would involve demolition of existing structures and paved areas, as well as grading activities. Construction operations associated with this alternative would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction. However, it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts would be similar to those identified for proposed project. Like the proposed project, this alternative provides strategies intended to result in a net benefit to hydrology and water quality. Collectively, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant under Alternative B. Land Use and Planning 439 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 72 of 84 Under Alternative B, the project site would be redeveloped with R & D uses. These uses would be consistent with. existing land uses in the surrounding area which include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development activities. Similar to the project, under Alternative B no existing residential communities would be displaced or divided..and there would be no impact. Under Alternative B, a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR to 1.25 would be required. Similar to the project, once this General Plan Amendment was approved this FAR of 1.25 (and as allowed under the Gateway Specific Plan District zoning) would be consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, similar to the project, density under Alternative B would be consistent with the City's vision for development in the area and would not be inconsistent or create land use impacts due to the increased density and this impact would be less than significant. There are no natural community plans or applicable habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site and the project site does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative B would have no impact to conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Noise Under Alternative B, the project site would be redeveloped with R & D uses and the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment for buildings would likely be located on the roof-tops of the buildings. Similar to the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Similar to the project, buildings constructed on the site under Alternative B could be exposed to a CNEL of up to 67.6 dBA along (iateway Boulevard and 73.4 dBA along Oyster Point Boulevard. However, the City would require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted anal noise insulation features be included, as needed, in the design and this impact would be the same as under the project and less than significant. Alternative B would result in the same square footage of development as the project. However, R&D uses require fewer employees and there would a corollary decrease in traffic generated noise due t;o the decrease in vehicular trips. This would further reduce the less than 1.1 dBA increase in noise attributed to project generated traffic. This impact under the project would be less than significant and would remain the same under Alternative B. Hovvever, in the future cumulative traffic will increase the traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses along Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards by 2.0 to 4.7 dBA. Cumulative traffic will increase the traffic noise levels at residential land use along Sister Cities Boulevard by up to 2.5 dBA. These cumulative traffic noise increases exceed the threshold of 3 dBA for a significant increase. Alternative B would reduce noise impacts from traffic due to the decrease in vehicle trips and similar to t:he project the contribution to this increase is generally small (1.4 dBA or les;s). 440 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 73 of 84 However, since Alternative B v~~ould contribute to this overall increase in traffic noise, it would result in a signij~cant and unavoidable cumulative impact the same as the project. Impacts from aircraft noise would be less than significant, the same as under the project. Under Alternative B, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would be less than significant with mitigation. However, similar to the project, redevelopment activities would be phased and the Genentech Child Care facility might still be operational. Therefore, construction noise would significantly affect the noise sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility resulting in a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Population and Housing Development under Alternative B would result in the generation of 2,735 employees at the project site by 2020. AB,~G projects an increase in employment in the City of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, this alternative's contribution to the increase in employment in the City would be within ABAG's employment projections for the City for both the years of 2015 and 2020. The proposed project is also within ABAG's employment projections; however, Alternative B would result in the generation of fewer employees and therefore, reduce the demand for housing in the City as compared to the proposed project. This alternative, as well as the proposed project, would promote a greater regional jobs balance, and would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would not displace existing housing, necE~ssitate construction of replacement housing, nor displace substantial numbers of people. Under this alternative, impacts to population and housing wouldl be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. Public Services Demand for public services, including police and fire, would be reduced proportionally with the reduc1tion in development under this alternative. Development of this alternative would result in 2,735 employees at the site. This alternative would constitute a negligible increase (less than 3 percent) in the City's daytime population and would not lead to a change in response times, service ratios, 441 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 74 of 84 and/or requirement for construction of new police or fire facilities. Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new police or fire facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the impact to public services would be less than significant, and incrementally less than the proposed project. No mitigation measures would be necessary. Transportation and Circulation Under Alternative B, the same number of square feet of development would occur as under the project. However this development would be limited to R & D uses only, which requires fewer workers for the same number of square feet of development. Therefore, Alternative B would result in approximately 26 percent less employees on the site and an approximatE~ly 26 percent decrease in the number of trips generated under Alternative B as opposed to the project. However, Alternative B would generate enough trips to exceed the C/CAG trip generation limits by 2015 and 2035. Similar to the project this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Alternative B would result in less than significant impacts to intersections and vehicle queuing by 2015. Similar to the project, Alternative B would result in impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2015. Similar to the project, these impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the reduction in vehicle trips is not enough to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts. Similar to the project, 2035 intersection impacts would be less than significant. Impacts to U.S. 10'1 mainline and ramps under 2035 would be the same as under the project, significant and unavoidable. Alternative B would provide parking at a 2.83 ratio and would, unlike the project, meet code requirements. Assuming that the parking garages would be located at the back of the site, impacts to pedestrian safety and vehicular circulation would be the same under Alternative B as the project and there would be no impact. Utilities and Service Systems Under Alternative B, the same number of square feet of development would occur as under the project. However this development would be limited to R & D uses only, which requires fewer workers for the same number of square feet of development. Similar to the project, surface ;and stormwater runoff would be collected on-site and would not create or contributE~ runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in the need for construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Although Alternatives B would result in the same square footage of development, the development of R&D only uses would result in fewer employees 442 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 75 of 84 on the site than the project and would result in incrementally less demand for water supplies for fire flow, domestic, or manufacturing uses. Additionally, Alternative B would result in reduced wastewater and solid waste generation due to the smaller number of employees on the site. Overall impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative B would be incrementally less than the project and would be less than significant. Relationship of Alternative B to the Project Objectives Alternative B would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site and would meet all of the project's objectives. This alternative would allow for redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, however, the use would be restricted to Research and Development only. Alternative B would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelop~~nent of the project site and could potentially meet the project objectives of redeveloping the project site to create a cohesive working campus environment, emphasiizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and allowing the incremental and phased redevelopment of the site. However, Alternative B would restrict the uses developed on the site and would not allow for varied redevelopment that the project would provide. Finding: The Reduced Project Alternative fails to meet basic project objectives. The Reduced Project Alternative would result in a project similar to the proposed project, but smaller in size. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be incapable of generating all of tlhe benefits of the proposed Project. It would not for example, generate as much tax: revenue for the City, or create as many new employment opportunities. Furthermore, while the Reduced Intensity Alternative may further minimize some of the less-than-significant impacts of the proposed Project, the Alternative would be incapable of minimizing the significant and unavoidable impact to the off-ramp operation at the mainline diverge. For the reasons stated, the City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative fails to meet basic project objectives. ALTERNATIVE C: REDUCED :PARKING ALTERNATIVE Alternative C would develop the site with Office and R&D uses at an FAR of 1.25. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020,. Alternative C would result in the construction of approximately 984,500 sf of development and approximately 3,009 employees on the site. Under Alternative C, parking would be provided at a reduced ratio of 2.3 spaces per 1,000 sf resulting irl a total of 2,264 parking spaces on the site. 443 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 76 of 84 Aesthetics The project site is currently dE~veloped as a business park. Under Alternative C, a business park would be developed on the site housing Office and R & D uses. Similar to the project, no public views to scenic vistas would be blocked and there would be less than significant impacts to scenic vistas. Additionally, similar to the project there would be no impact to state scenic highways. The site is currently developed at an FAR of 0.29. Alternative C would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.25, the same density as the project. Similar to the project, this increase in FAR could be accomplished primarily by increasing the height of the buildings on the site, thereby increasing the amount of open space on the site, which would minimize the feeling of density on the site. However, due to the reduced number of parking spaces on the site, parking structures under Alternative C could potentially be smaller in size and there could be more open space areas provided on the site. However, this increase in open space would be incremental compared to the project and would only increase the benefits to visual quality already provided by the project. Lighting and building materials on the site under Alternative C would similar to the project, be less than significant, and would be subject to the same City standards as the project. Therefore, impacts under Alternative C would be the same as under the project. Air Quality Similar to the project, Alternat;ive C would involve the demolition of the existing structures on the site and con;>truction of office buildings. Similar to the project, Alternative C would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.25 and would result in the same impact regarding consistency with BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan. Alternative C would implement the same construction mitigation measures as the project and construction impacts would be less than significant and the same under Alternative C as the project. Alternative C would result in the same amount of development on the site, but wrould provide less parking on the site, resulting in fewer employees driving to the site and therefore fewer vehicular trips. However, although Alternative C would result in a decrease in employees driving to the site, this decrease would not be enough to reduce vehicle trips significantly enough to eliminate the project's significant unavoidable PM10 emissions. Therefore, air quality impacts PM10 emissions from under Alternative C (both project and cumulative) would remain, sinnilar to the project, significant and unavoidable. Impacts from local CO concentrations would remain the same as under the project and less than significant. Assuming that Alternative C would be constructed in a phased manner and therefore the childcare facility could remain on site during some phases of the project, thc~ impacts from TACs would remain less than 444 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 77 of 84 significant, the same as under the project. Similar to the project, Alternative C there would be no impact from objectionable odors and it would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32. Overall innpacts to air quality under Alternative C, although incrementally less, would be the same as under the project. Biological Resources The project site is currently dE~veloped as a business park and the only biological resources on the site are mature landscaping. Alternative C has the same potential to remove trees on the site as the project as it is likely that reduced parking would result only in smaller parking structures and would not increase the preservation of existing landscaping. Under Alternative C, project construction activities could result in the same less than significant impacts due to destruction of active bird nests during removal of vegetation or grading, or may potentially result in the abandonment of active nests due to noise and increased activity. However, similar to the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. Similar to the project, Alternative C would have no impact to riparian habitat, wetlands, or to migratory corridors. Regarding the removal of trees, impacts to tree removal and conflict with existing codes or plans protecting biological resources would be the same under Alternative C as the project and less than significant. Cultural Resources The project site has been developed and redeveloped several times in the twentieth century. These processes haves almost completely removed potential for, and make the property quite unlikely to contain, significant cultural resources that could be impacted by development. Similar to the proposed project, the potential for disturbance of subsurface resources during ground disturbing activities, including fossilbearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and archeological sites and sites of cultural significance to Native Americans, still exists under this alternative. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed for any future construction at the site, and possible impacts to historical resources would be avoided to the extent feasible, ensuring impacts remain less than significant. Under Alternative C, impacts to cultural resources would remain the same as under the proposed project. Geology and Soils Implementation of this alternative would result in the same amount of development 1,230,570 sf) and employees as the proposed project. Geologic hazards such as seismic ground shaking would still exist under this alternative, and impacts would remain less than significant. Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil, 445 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 78 of 84 subsidence, expansive soils, and landslides would also remain the same under this alternative since the amount of the site area that would be built upon (50 percent of the total site), and the size of the development (1,230, 570 sf) would remain. Collectively, impacts would be less than significant, but not less than the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Development of this alternative would result in the construction 615,285 sf of R&D uses, resulting in laboratories ;and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. As with the proposed project, compliance with safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations would ensure the risks associated with the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant. Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would remain the same as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, existing buildings at the site would be demolished in order to make room for new development. These buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, organic compounds, and petroleum products. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Portions of the project site would still be included on government lists of hazardous materials sites, and developmc~nt at the site could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, as projects are reviewed on a site-by-site basis, mitigation measures would be identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools would also remain the same as under the proposed project, and it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to ensure iimpacts remain less than significant, Hydrology and Water QualitJr The reduced parking alternative would result in development of 1,230,570 sf of R&D and Office uses, a FAR of 1.25, and 2,264 parking spaces. Typical industrial non-point source (NPS) pollutants associated with industrial activities would still be present at the site and would be the same as the project and less than significant. Development of this alternative would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. However, it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to reduce possible impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative could result in a reduction to impacts associated with impervious surfaces. More than 70 percent of the project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. This alternative includes a number of strategies designed to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces at the site. 446 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 79 of 84 Implementation of these strategies would decrease impervious surfaces from 70 percent to 61 percent of the project site. This alternative also includes less site development, and less parking, which could result in a greater reduction of impervious surfaces. Development of Alternative C would reduce impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge at the project site. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed on a site by site basis, as individual projects are proposed and reviewed. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts to ground~~ater would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project. Redevelopment at the project site under this alternative would involve demolition of existing structures and paved areas, as well as grading activities. Construction operations associated with this alternative would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction. However, it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified iin order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts would be similar to those identified for proposed project. Development of this alternative includes strategies intended to result in a net benefit to these resources. Collectively, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than sig.ni~cant under Alternative C, and similar to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative C, the project site would be redeveloped with Office and R & D land uses. These uses would be consistent with existing land uses in the surrounding area which include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development activities. Similar to the project, Alternative C would redevelop the project site with Office and R ~z D uses and there would be no impact to existing residential communities. Under Alternative C, a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR to 1.25 would be required. The Gateway Specific Plan District zoning allowing an FAR of 1.25 was adopted for the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gateway Specific Plan District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are redeveloped, it is likely that they may request General Plan Amendments to allow redevelopment at increased densities. Therefore, similar to the project, density under Alternative C would be consistent with the City's vision for development in the area. Density would not bey inconsistent or create land use impacts due to the increased density and this impact would be less than significant and similar to the project. Under Alternative C, t11e anticipated range of total parking provided at ultimate buildout would be 2,264 spaces. Parking would be provided at a ratio that 447 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 80 of 84 would not meet code requirements for this development level of 2.3 spaces per 1,000 s£ Although the City typically allows 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet for office/research and development uses, the City may accept revised parking standards as long as the amount of parking generated by the standards is supportive of the recommendations and rf~quirements of the Transportation Demand Management plan prepared for the project. Therefore, impacts to Gateway Specific Plan District Zoning parking requirements would be the less than significant and the same as under the project, There are no natural community plans or applicable habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site and the project site does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative C would have no impact to conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Noise Under Alternative C, the project site would be redeveloped with Office and R & D uses at the same density and square footage as the project, and would employ the same number of employees on the site. Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning HVAC) equipment for buildings would likely be located on the roof-tops of the buildings. As under the project:, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Similar to the project, buildings constructed on the site under Alternative C could be exposed to a CNEL of up to 67.6 dBA along Gateway Boulevard and 73.4 dBA along Oyster Point Boulevard. However, the City would require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and noise insulation features be included, as needed, in the design and this impact would be the same as under the project. Alternative C would result in t:he same square footage of development as the project and employees as the project. 'The number of vehicle trips and, therefore, traffic generated noise would be the .same as under the project. This impact under the project would be less than significant and would remain the same under Alternative C. In the future, cumulative traffic would increase the traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses along Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards by 2.0 to 4.7 dBA. Cumulative traffic would increase the traffic noise levels at residential land use along Sister Cities Boulevard by up to 2.5 dBA. These cumulative traffic noise increases exceed the threshold of 3 dBA for a significant increase. Similar to the project, Alternative C would rE~sult in the contribution to this increase and would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to noise the same as the project. Impacts from aircraft noise would be the same as under the project. Under Alternative C, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would be 448 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 81 of 84 less than significant with mitig<~tion. However, similar to the project, redevelopment activities would be phased and the Genentech Child Care facility might still be operational. Therefore, construction noise would significantly affect the noise sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility resulting in a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Population and Housing Development under Alternative C would result in the generation of 3,009 employees at the project site. ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, this alternative's contribution to the increase in employment in the City would be within ABAG's employment projections for the City for both the years of 2015 and 2020. The proposed project is also within ABAG's employment projections; however, Alternative C would result in the generation of fewer employees and therefore, reduce the demand for housing; in the City as compared to the proposed project. . This alternative, as well as the proposed project, would promote a greater regional jobs balance, and would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would not displace existing housing, necE~ssitate construction of replacement housing, nor displace substantial numbers of people. Under this alternative, impacts to population and housing would be less than significant and slightly less than the proposed project. Public Services Demand for public services, including police and fire, would be reduced proportionally with the reducl_ion in development under this alternative. Development of this alternative would result in 3,009employees at the site constituting a minor increase (less than 3 percent) in the City's daytime population and would not lead to a change in response times, service ratios, and/or requirement for construction of new police or fire facilities. Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new police or fire facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the impact to public services would be less than significant, and less than the proposed project. No mitigation measures would bE~ necessary. Transportation and Circulation 449 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 82 of 84 Under Alternative C, the same number of square feet of development of Office and R D uses would occur on the site as under the project. Therefore, Alternative C would result in the same number of employees on the site. However, under Alternative C, fewer parking spaces would be provided, which would act as a disincentive for employees to drive. This would theoretically result in an approximate 27 percent of decrease in the number of trips generated under Alternative C as opposed to the project. However, Alternative C would generate enough trips to exceed the C/CAG trip generation limits by 2015 and 2035. Similar to the project this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Alternative C would result in lE~ss than significant impacts to intersections and vehicle queuing by 2015. Similar to the project, Alternative C would result in impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2015. Similar to the project, these impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the reduction in vehicle trips is not enough to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts. Similar to the project, 2035 intersection impacts would be less than significant. Impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 20?~5 would be the same as under the project, significant and unavoidable. Alternative C would provide parking at a 2.3 ratio and would, similar to the project, not meet code requirements and this impact would be the same. Assuming that the parking garages would be located at the back of the site, impacts to pedestrian safety and vehicular circulation would be less than significant and the same under Alternative C as the project. Utilities and Service Systems Under Alternative C, the same number of square feet of development would occur on the site as under the project. Similar to the project, surface and stormwater runoff would be collected on-site and would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in the need for construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Although Alternative C would result in the same square footage of development, the development of R & D uses would consume more water and so would result in an increase in water usage on the site. Therefore, demand for water supplies for' fire flow, domestic, or manufacturing uses would be incrementally increased. Additionally, Alternative C would result in slightly reduced amount of wastewater and solid waste generation due to the increase in employees. However, overall impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative C would be the same as under the project and would be less than significant. 450 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 83 of 84 Relationship of Alternative C Ito the Project Objectives Alternative C would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site and would meet all of the project's objectives. This alternative would allow for redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, however, with fewer parking spaces provided on the site. Alternative C would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site and could potentially meet the project objectives of redeveloping the project site to create a cohesive working campus environment, emphasizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to various transit Triodes, and allowing the incremental and phased redevelopment of the site. Finding: The Reduced Parking Alternative fails to meet basic project objectives In light of the entire record, including the letter submitted by DGA Architects, the City finds that the parking reduction described in this alternative is substantially greater and more onerous tha~rr the parking restrictions considered, and ultimately approved, for other similar projects located in the East of 101 Area. The Reduced Parking Alternative effectively requires a 19% reduction in the number of parking spaces from the amount required under the Municipal Code. The indirect effects of the Alternative could prevent 'the Alternative from meeting basic project objectives. For example, provision of substantially fewer parking spaces per gross square foot, as compared to other developments in the area, could make finding tenants for the project difficult. This would negatively affect the viability of the project (Project Objective #4), as well as the project's ability to generate tax revenue for the City 3) and create quality jobs (#2). It would also impede the growth of the area's high technology research and development uses. The Reduced Parking Alternative, therefore, fails to meet the project's basic objectives. For the reasons stated, the City finds that requiring such a substantial and unique reduction in available parking is an infeasible alternative to the proposed Project. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior" alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection disclosed. In generall, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts. 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. Table IV-2 in the EIR summarizes the 451 Exhibit A CEQA Findings Page 84 of 84 comparative impacts of each of'the alternatives when compared to the project. The table lists the level of significance of the impacts of the project to each environmental topic analyzed in Chapter IV and shows whether the impacts anticipated under each proposed alternative would be lesser, similar, or greater than the proposed project. The table provides a comparison of the ability of each alternative to avoid or substantially reduce the significant impacts of the project. Alternative A, the No Project/B~uildout Under Existing General Plan Alternative, proposes a reduced amount of development that would result in the fewest employees on the site and therefore, potentially the least amount of vehicle trips. This smaller amount of trips would provide the biggest decrease in operational emissions, vehicular-related noise increases, and traffic impacts and would therefore be the environmentally superior alternative. However, 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 Alternative C would be the environmentally superior alternative, because this alternative would result in the next greatest reduction in significant project impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic. The alternatives to the project considered in this analysis propose either a reduced amount of development on the site, land uses requiring fewer employees, or fewer parking spaces on the site (thereby limited project-generated trips to the site). However, although all these alternatives would result in some reduction of employees or vehicle trips to the project site, none of the feasible alternatives would reduce impacts to a level that would reduce the significant unavoidable impaci:s to air quality, noise, and traffic. Therefore, no feasible alternative is superior in this regard and, similar to the project, all feasible alternatives would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts. 1364466.2 452 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to 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 Gateway Business Park Master Plan Environmental Impact Report ("Gateway Business Park Master Plan" or "Project"). (Resolution No. .) The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project. The proposed project is located in the City's East of 101 Area and the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area. The development is controlled by the South San Francisco General Plan, The East of 101 Area Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan. The project consists of a 1Vlaster Plan and a Phase 1 Precise Plan (Precise Plan) for the redevelopment of the existing Gateway Business Park. The Precise Plan consists of two sub-phases, la and 1b, and would define the first phase of the Project while other phases of the Project are more conceptual in nature. The Project consists of the phased removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6- acre project site and construction of five to six new buildings, six stories in height, and two to four parking structures. The project would be constructed in five phases from 2011 to 2020. The project includes three building types (Gateway Boulevard frontage buildings, internal site buildings, parking structures) varying architecturally in style to create visual interest and diversity on the Project site. The two easterly buildings proposed for 900 and 850 Gateway Boulevard would be six- stories in height. Other buildings on the site including the parking structures would be less than six stories in height. The buildings would be situated close to the perimeter of the site thereby creating large areas to accommodate open space and landscaping. The ratio of parking spaces provided on-site will vary during phases of the Project ranging from 2.52 to 2.88. At completion, the Project would provide 3,100 parking spaces on the site. The parking structures would be situated on the southeastern border of the master plan area. The office buildings would be situated primarily along Gateway Boulevard at the western border and the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Internal areas of the Project site would contain the Central Commons, an area incorporatiing open space areas, landscaping, and pedestrian walkways. 453 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 of 23 The proposed Project would involve increasing density at the site by developing the site up to an FAR of 1.25. This change in FAR translates to an increase in permitted development at the site to approximately 1,230,570 square feet (sf), or a net change of 946,570 sf, as compared to existing development. Upon buildout of the project, impervious area would be reduced from approximately 70 percent to approximately 61 percent. The objectives of the Project are as follows: Increase FAR at the site from approximately 0.29 to 1.25 FAR. Create a cohesive working campus environment with a clear organization of buildings, structures parking, and network ofhigh-quality pedestrian circulation and open space. Emphasize the pedestrian environment with well-designated and useful landscaping that respond to the climate of the City. Encourage high-quality architecture, landscape architecture, and sustainable design elements. Connect to and foster the use of various modes of transit such as Caltrain, BART, and future Ferry service. Allow for the incremental and phase redevelopment of the existing buildings while maintaining a functioning working environment for areas not concurrently being redeveloped. Promote alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City's transportation objectives by emphasizing shuttles, linkages, transportation demand management, and pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings. Generate tax revenue through the Redevelopment Agency. 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 with the original General Plan approval and by the measures adopted through the current project approval, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the EIR. Even with mitigation, however, the City Council recognizes 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. 454 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 of 23 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts have been identified in the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Environmental Impact Report: AIR QUALITY Impact IV.C-1: The proposed project would conflict with the applicable air quality plan because the increase in FAR would result in more vehicle miles traveled than could be generated under the existing General Plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable because no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact. Finding IV.C-1: The proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan will help reduce this impact. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures that reduce this impact to a level of less-than-significant. As the mitigation of this impact is not feasible, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. Impact IV.C-2: The proposed project would violate an air quality standard. This is considered a potentially signifiicant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.1 would reduce impacts from construction/demolition emissions to less than significant. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.2, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable because no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduice this impact. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.1 Construction/Demolition Emissions Implementation of the following measures would reduce airborne dust by reducing and controlling loose soils in areas subject to dust creating activity. As a condition of the construction contracts, thE~ project sponsors shall require that construction contractors follow these construction practices: a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet o1~ freeboard. c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parkin€; areas, and staging areas at the construction sites. 455 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 of 23 d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction sites. e. Sweep public streets adjacent to construction sites daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material. f. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic; soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). h. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. i. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. j. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible. k. Wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the construction site. 1. Install wind breaks at the windward sides of the construction areas m. Suspend excavation and grading activities when wind (as instantaneous gusts) exceeds 25 miles per hour. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.2 Regional Operational Emissions -Daily Emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10 As noted earlier, the primary sources of long-term, indirect emissions associated with the project are motor vehicles. The current evaluation includes implementation of a TDM program estimated to account fora 20 percent reduction in trip generation. Finding IV.C-2: Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.1 would reduce impacts from construction/demolition emissions to less than significant. However, even with implementation of Mitigation 1Measure IV.C-2.2, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable because no additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact. NOISE 456 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 5 of 23 Impact IV.J-4: The proposed project would result in substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J- 4.1 would reduce the construction noise impact at the existing office buildings and hotels to less than significant, but the construction noise at the Genentech Child Care facility is considered significant and unavoidable because no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact. Mitigation Measure IV.J-4.1 Construction Generated Noise Prepare a demolition and construction noise control plan that identifies detailed, site-specific noise attenuation :measures that will be used to minimize impacts on adjacent land uses. The plan should be prepared under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant or person experienced with equipment and techniques that can be used to reduce construction related noise. The plan must include but is not limited to the following: Implement noise attenuation measures, which shall include noise barriers or noise blankets. Particular attention should be paid to providing a noise barrier (at least 12-feet tall) to protect outdoor uses such as the eastern play area of the Genentech Child Care facility, if it remains during construction. Provide advance notification to surrounding land uses disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of they construction period. Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards. Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive users, where feasible. Schedule high noise-producing activities between when they would be least likely to interfere with the noise sensitive activities of the neighboring land uses. When near the hotels this would mean restricting construction during sleeping hours. However, near office buildings or Genentech Child Care uses the evening hours may be preferable because the buildings are not occupied. In addition to the preparation of the construction noise control plan, the following measures are recommended and maybe included in the plan: Designate an on-site construction noise complaint manager for the duration of the project. 457 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 6 of 23 Post signs around the project site to inform persons of the construction hours and the name and phone number of the person or persons to notify in the event of a noise related problem. Apre-construction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation practices including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are completed. The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging areas along with operation of earthmoving equipment within the project site be located as far away from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that heavily loaded trucks should be routed away i`rom noise and vibration sensitive uses, to the extent possible. Contract specifications shall be included on the construction documents, which shall be reviewed by thE~ City prior to issuance of a grading permit.. Finding IV.J-4: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-4.1 would reduce the construction noise impact at the existing office buildings and hotels to less than significant, but the construction noise at the Genentech Child Care facility, a sensitive receptor, is considerf~d significant and unavoidable because no feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid this impact. Since the construction noise would significantly affect the noise sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility that includes outdoor play areas and indoor areas that could be used for daytime sleeping, and mitigation measures such as noise barriers will be only partially effective in reducing construction noise levels and minimizing noise induced activity interference (the construction of the upper floors would be elevated above a noise barrier) construction noise at the Child Care facility, while temporary, is considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Impact IV.M-4A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would increase off-ramp volumes by 6.9 percent, with year 2015 Base 458 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 7 of 23 Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway mainline. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M 4A, this impact v~vould remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-4A 2015 Off-Ramp Queuing to Freeway Mainline - SIM Traffic Evaluation (see Figure IV.M-21) at U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off- Ramp to Oyster Point Boule~~ard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection The proposed project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measures. See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2A. In addition, add an exclusive right turn lane to the flyover off-ramp approach for a total of four lanes. Stripe as three through lanes and one exclusive right turn lane. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure is not currently included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. Further, as an improvement to a freeway ramp, the measure is not within the City's jurisdiction, but rather would require approval of Caltrans. Adjust signal timing to provide more green time to flyover off-ramp and Oyster Point eastbound movements. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which would eliminate the 95th percentile southbound flyover offramp queue extending to the freeway mainline. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented. While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing they impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. Finding IV.M-4A: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M 4A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which would eliminate the 95th percentile southbound flyover off ramp queue extending to the freeway mainline. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented. While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. 459 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 8 of 23 Impact IV.M-4B: The following; discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would increase off-ramp volumes by ?..3 percent, with year 2015 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway mainline. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-4B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-4B ;L015 Off-Ramp Queuing to Freeway Mainline - SIMTraffic Evaluation (see Figure IV.M-21) at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersecttion The proposed project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measures. Widen the off-ramp approachi to provide three exclusive left turn lanes and a combined through/ right turn ]lane. In addition, lengthen the offramp lanes to provide an additiona1600 to 700 feet of storage. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. This measure is not currently included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. Provide an additional lane on northbound Dubuque Avenue extending from the freeway ramps to Oyster Point Boulevard. Stripe the five-lane approach to Oyster Point as two lefts, one through and two right turn lanes. On the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass of the U.S.101 freeway, reconfigure the westbound lanes on the approach to Airport Boulevard to have one combined through /right turn lane, one through lane and one exclusive left turn lane extending the full length between Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard. In conjunction with this measure, have both eastbound left turn lanes on the approach to Dubuque Avenue-Northbound On-Ramp extend he full length between Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue. Adjust signal timing. Finding IV.M-4B: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will eliminate the 95th percentile northbound off- ramp queue extending to the freeway mainline. These measures would also eliminate the 95th percentile southbound off-rarrip queue on the approach to Airport Boulevard extending to the freeway mainline. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San 460 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 9 of 23 Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented While it is likelly that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. Impact IV.M-5A: The following; discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. AM Peak Hour: The project would increase off-ramp volumes by 6.9 percent (from 2,099 up to 2,243 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-5A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-5A 2015 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard Intersection No improvements are feasible ~to mitigate project specific impacts. The spacing of southbound off-ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and to Oyster Point Boulevard precludes the possibility of providing a second off-ramp lane connection to southbound U.S.101 to serve the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound off-ramp. A second off-ramp lane connection would require a long (i.e., 1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane, however, due to existing development in the area, only 300 feet of space is available. There is no room for provision of this lane. Without feasible measures to mitigate this impaict, the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. Finding IV.M-5A: As noted above, there are no feasible mitigation measures that reduce this impact to a level of'less-than-significant. As the mitigation of this impact is not feasible, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. Impact IV.M-5B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would increase off-ramp volumes by 3.3 percent (from 1,507 up to 1,556 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. This is considered a potentially significant impact, Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-5B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 461 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 10 of 23 Mitigation Measure IV.M-5B x:015 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection see Figure IV.M-20) The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measure. Provide a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101 mainline. Off-ramp diverge capacity would be increased to at least 2,200 vehicles per hour, which would accommodate the Base Case + project AM peak hour volume of 1,556 vehicles per hour. Finding IV.M-5B: This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure is currently not included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented. While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agE~ncy's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered t0 be significant and unavoidable. Impact IV.M-6A: The following discussion concerns U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the PM peak hour, the project would increase on-ramp volumes by 6.2 percent (from 2,366 up to 2,513 vehicles) with Base Case volunnes already exceeding 2,200 vehicles per hour. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-6A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-6A 2015 On-Ramp Operation to U.S.101 Mainline at U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measure. Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101 mainline. On-ramp capacity would be increased to at least 3,000 vehicles per hour, which would accommodate the Base Case + project PM peak hour volume of 2,513 vehicles per hour. 462 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 11 of 23 Finding Impact IV.M-6A: This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure is currently not included on the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be significant acid unavoidable. Impact IV.M-6B: The following; discussion concerns U.S. 101 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue. During the PM peak hour, the project would increase on- ramp volumes by 6.9 percent (iFrom 1,901 up to 2,032 vehicles) and increase Base Case volumes above the 2,000 vehicle/hour capacity limit. This is considered a potentially significant impact. I?ven with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-6B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-6B ~On-Ramp Operation to U.S.101 Mainline at U.S.101 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measure. Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101 mainline. On-ramp capacity would be increased to at least 3,000 vehicles per hour, which would accomnnodate the Base Case + Project PM peak hour volume of 2,032 vehicles.. Finding IV.M-6B: This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure is currently not included on the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead a€;ency for the project, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable Impact IV.M-7A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange). During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 1.5 percent (from 9,331 to 9,475 vehicles per hour) at a location where acceptable LO> E year 2015 Base Case operation would be degraded to unacceptable LOS F operation. This is considered a potentially significant impact. 463 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 12 of 23 Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-7A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-7A :? 015 Freeway Mainline Operation at U.S.101 Southbound (North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) Mitigation of this impact would. require widening the current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its close proximity to surrounding development, such mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 7A is not feasible as defined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 defining "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished...taking into account economic...and technological factors.").) Finding IV.M-7A: As noted above, the mitigation measure is not feasible and would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).) Impact IV.M-7B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange). During the PM peak hour, the project 10,162 vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F year 2015 Base Case operation. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Pvleasure IV.M-7B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-7B 2015 Freeway Mainline Operation at U.S.101 Northbound (North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) Mitigation of this impact would require widening the current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its close proximity to surrounding development, such mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 7B is not feasible 464 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 13 of 23 as defined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 (defining "feasible" as capable of being accomplished...taking into account economic...and technological factors.").) Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. d).) Where economic concern<,~ render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. a) (3).) Finding IV.M-7B: As noted above, the mitigation measure is not feasible and would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).) Impact IV.M-9F: The following; discussion concerns Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. During the PM peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 6.7 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation (resultant: operation would be LOS F-254 seconds control delay). This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-9F, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-9F 2035 Intersection Level of Service Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenuie / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection see Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25) See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2D. In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other financially feasible measures (as identified by the Public Works Department) that would provide any increased capacity. Provision of additional lanes on any of the intersection approaches would require either widening of bridge structures across the U.S. 101 freeway and/or the Caltrain rail line and possibly Broadway diversion around the supports for the Southbound Flyover off-ramp. 465 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 14 of 23 Finding IV.M-9F: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-223 seconds control delay, which is not better than Base Case operation (LOS F-196 seconds control delay). However, as noted above, additional mitigation measures are not feasible and would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses they would benefit. Under CEQ,~1, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code 21081. subd. (a)(3).) Impact IV.M-10A: The following discussion concerns Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 7.2 percent in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point intersection approach where 95th percentile Base Case queuing would already extend beyond available storage. In addition, the project would increase volumes by 5.0 percent in the Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lane, where Base Case 95t~1 percentile queues would already be exceeding available storage. During the P:M peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 11.0 percent in the right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approach, where 95th percentile Base Case queuing would already extend beyond available stora€;e; and by 11.2 percent in the left turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approach, where 95th percentile Base Case queuing would already extend beyond available storage. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-10A, this impact. would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-10A 2035 Vehicle Queuing - Synchro Evaluation at Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection (see Figure IV.NI-22) Same mitigations as for level of service (Mitigation Measure IV.M-9F). In light of that would provide any increased capacity. Provision of additional lanes on any of the intersection approaches would require either widening of bridge structures across the U.S.101 freeway and/or the Caltrain rail line and possibly roadway diversion around the supports for the Southbound Flyover off-ramp. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: Eastbound Approach Through Movement =The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduces delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing 466 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 15 of 23 to 432 feet, which would be bei:ter than Base Case queuing of 444 feet. Impact reduced to a less than significant level. Northbound Right Turn =The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing to 336 feet, which is longer than Base Case 308-foot: queue. Impact would not be reduced to a less than significant level. PM Peak Hour: Westbound Approach Right Turn: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing to 2,095 feet, which is longer than Base Case queuing of 1,892 feet. Impact would not be reduced to a less than significant level. Westbound Approach Left Turn: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other feasible measures reducE~ delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing to 1,396 feet, which is longer than Base Case queuing of 1,270 feet. impact would not be reduced to a less than significant level. Finding IV.M-10A: As noted above, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-10A, this impact: would remain significant and unavoidable. In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other feasible measures that would provide any increased capacity beyond those recommended for 2015 conditions that would reduce 95th percentile queues within available off- ramp storage. Impact IV.M-11A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would increase off-ramp volumes by 8.7 percent, with year 2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic backing up to the freeway mainline. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-11A, this impact: would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-11A 2035 Off-Ramp Queuing to Freeway Mainline - SIM Traffic Evaluation at U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Ioulevard Intersection In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other feasible measures that would provide any increased capacity beyond those recommended for 2015 conditions that would reduce 95th percentile queues within available off-ramp storage. Provision of additional lanes would potentially require 467 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 16 of 23 acquisition of additional righty-~of-way along Oyster Point Boulevard. Also, provision of additional eastbound lanes on the Oyster Point and Flyover offramp intersection approaches would not be feasible due to the complexity of merging the departure lanes on the eastbound (departure leg) of the intersection. Finding IV.M-11A: In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other feasible measures that would provide any increased capacity beyond those recommended for 2015 conditions that would reduce 95th percentile queues within available off-ramp storage. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-11A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact IV.M-11B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off- Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would increase off-ramp volumes by 3.0 percent, with year 2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the :Freeway mainline. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-11B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-11I3 2035 Off-Ramp Queuing to Freeway Mainline - SIM Traffic Evaluation at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection There are no other feasible signal timing or lane addition measures as identified by the Public Works Department beyond those recommended for 2015 conditions that would reduce 95th percentile ,AM peak hour queues within available off-ramp storage Finding IV.M-11B: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-11B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact IV.M-12A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would increase off-ramp volumes by 8.7 percent (from 2,035 up to 3,161 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-12A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 468 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 17 of 23 Mitigation Measure IV.M-1212035 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard Intersecttion No improvements are feasible ~to mitigate project specific impacts. The spacing of southbound off-ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and to Oyster Point Boulevard precludes the possibility of providing a second off-ramp lane connection to southbound U.S.101 to servE~ the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound off-ramp. 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. There is no room for provision of this; lane. Finding IV.M-12A: No improvements are feasible to mitigate project specific impacts. The spacing of southbound off-ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and to Oyster Point Boulevard prec;ludes the possibility of providing a second off-ramp lane connection to southbound U.S.101 to serve the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound off-ramp. 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. There is no room for provision of this lane. Even with implementation of Mitigation rvleasure IV.M-12A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact IV.M-12B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off- Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would increase off-ramp volumes by 3.0 percent (from 1,680 to 1,730 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-12B, this impact would rf~main significant and unavoidable Mitigation Measure IV.M-12B 2035 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection see Figure IV.M-22) Same mitigation as for 2015. (.Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101 mainline.) Off-ramp diverge capacity would be increased to at least 2,300 vehicles per hour, which would accommodate the Base Case + project volume of 1,730 vehicles per hour. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the 469 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 18 of 23 mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agE~ncy's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. Finding IV.M-12B: This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. Impact IV.M-12C: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/ Executive Drive Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would increase off-rarr~p volumes by 9.8 percent (from 2,897 up to 3,180 vehicles) at a location where the two-lane off-ramp diverge capacity would be 2,300 vehicles per hour. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation rvleasure IV.M-12C, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-121„ 2035 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive Intersection Provide a second off-ramp lame connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. The required improvements are contemplated in and funded in the City's East of 101 traffic program, and by paying the City's East of 101 traffic fee, the project proponent will be funding its fair share of the required improvements. Planned provision of a second off-ramp would increase diverge capacity to 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles per hour. This could accommodate the project off-ramp volume of about 2,284 vehicles per hour. Finding IV.M-12C: The identiiFied measure would increase capacity, thereby reducing the impact, though the impact would not be reduced to a less-than- significantlevel. Given the roadway geometry, there are no additional physical measures that could feasibly be implemented and which would be capable of 470 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 19 of 23 increasing capacity. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-12C, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact IV.M-13A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound One-Lane On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue. During the PM peak hour, the project would increase on-ramp volumes by 9.5 percent at a location where Base Case volumes would already be exceeding the ramp capacity limit of 2,000 vehicles per hour (up to 2,381 vehicles per hour). This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigattion Measure IV.M-13A, this impact Mitigation Measure IV.M-13A 2035 On-Ramp Operation to U.S. 101 Mainline at U.S.101 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue (see Figure IV.M-22) The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measure. Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101 freeway. On-ramp capacity would be increased from 2,000 up to 3,000 vehicles per hour, with a Base Case + project PM peak hour volume of about 2,381 vehicles per hour. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. Finding IV.M-13A: This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing they impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be significant a,nd unavoidable. Impact IV.M-13B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound Two- Lane On-Ramp from Produce Avenue. During the PM peak hour, the project would increase on-ramp volumes by ~4.7 percent at a location where project traffic would increase Base 471 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 20 of 23 Case volumes above atwo-lanE~ on-ramp capacity limit of 3,300 vehicles per hour from 3,256 up to 3,409 vehicles per hour). This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-13B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-13I3 2035 On-Ramp Operation to U.S. 101 Mainline at U.S.101 Southbound On-Ramp from Produce Avenue A second on-ramp lane is already provided at the Produce Avenue on-ramp, providing a capacity of ±3,300 vehicles per hour. There are no other physical improvements possible to accommodate the Base Case + project volume of about 3,410 vehicles per hour. Finding IV.M-13B: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-13B, this impact would remain signifTCa-nt and unavoidable. Impact IV.M-13C: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard. During the PM peak hour, the project would increase on-ramp volumes by ~~.9 percent at a location where project traffic would increase Base Case volumes above 2,200 vehicles per hour (from 3,234 up to 3,521 vehicles per hour). This is con:>idered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation 1vleasure IV.M-13C, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-131C 2035 On-Ramp Operation to U.S. 101 Mainline at U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard Provision of a second on-ramp. lane (as recommended for 2015) would increase capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. There are no other physical improvements possible acceptable to Caltrans to accommodate the Base Case + project volume of about 3,521 vehicles per hour. Finding IV.M-13C: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-13C, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 472 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 21 of 23 Impact IV.M-14A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interc:hange). During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 2.4 percent (from 10,381 to 10,633 vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LO:i F year 2035 Base Case operation. This is considered a potentially significant impact:. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-14A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure IV.M-14A 2035 Freeway Mainline Operation at U.S.101 Southbound (North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) Mitigation of this impact would require widening the current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its close proximity to surroundin€; development, such mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation ~n~ould be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 14A is not feasible as defined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 defining "feasible" as "capablE~ of being accomplished...takingfnto account economic...and technological factors.").) Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).) Finding IV.M-14A: As noted above, the mitigation measure is not feasible and would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).) Impact IV.M-14B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange). During the PM peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 2.6 percent (from 11,220 to 11,510 vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F year 2035 Base Case operation. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-14B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 473 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 22 of 23 Mitigation Measure IV.M-14B'~ 2035 Freeway Mainline Operation at U.S.101 Northbound (North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) Mitigation of this impact would require widening the current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its close proximity to surrounding development, such mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 14B is not feasible as dE~fined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 defining "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished...takingfnto account economic...and technological factors.").) under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).) Finding IV.M-14B: As noted above, the mitigation measure is not feasible and would be prohibitively expensiive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).) 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council now balances the unavoidable impacts that apply to the development of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan, against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by thE~ benefits of the Project, as further set forth below. The following specific economic, legal, social, technological, land use, and other considerations support approval of the Project: A. The Project is expected to generate a new source of significant tax revenue and development impact fees for City of approximately $50,000,000 Additionally, at full build out,l:he Project is expected to employ an additional 474 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 23 of 23 2,531employees by 2020. Many of these new positions will be filled by residents of local communities. B. The existing physical environment consists primarily of industrial development, with limited sidewalks and minimal site improvements, and which lacks amenities. The Project will convert the property to uses consistent with the campus oriented research ~u development uses, including additional amenities and improvements. The proposed Project will be built to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LE'.ED) Green Building Rating System standard and also provide landscaping and lighting for the property and improve the overall aesthetic character of the site. C. 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 (3.5-G-1) ;and promotes high-technology, and research and development uses (3.5-G-3). D. The Project is consistent with General Plan Implementing Policies, which generally promote research & development uses, to the exclusion of residential and more traditional industrial uses. (See 3.5-I-3, 3.5-I-11.). E. 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, promotes parking cash-out incentives, and uses a lower parking ratio to increase ridership on BART and the East of 101 shuttle service, as well as constructing pedestrian walkways linking the Project to the adjacent shuttle stops and bikepaths. 1364468.2 475 Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Included in Final Environmental Impact Report Gateway Business Park Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 GATEWAY OF THE PACIFIC 4 DENSITY TRANSFER PROJECT, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2008062059 Prepared for January 2022 City of South San Francisco 658 659 GATEWAY OF THE PACIFIC 4 DENSITY TRANSFER PROJECT, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2008062059 Prepared for January 2022 City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 550 Kearny Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.896.5900 esassoc.com Bend Camarillo Delray Beach Irvine Los Angeles Mobile Oakland Orlando Pasadena Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Sarasota Seattle Tampa D202101143 660 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. 661 Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project i ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page Summary .............................................................................................................................S-1 Chapter 1, Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 CEQA Context ................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Purpose and Use of this EIR ............................................................................. 1-3 1.4 CEQA Environmental Review ............................................................................ 1-4 1.5 Document Organization ..................................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2, Project Description .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Project Objectives .............................................................................................. 2-4 2.4 Background ....................................................................................................... 2-4 2.5 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 2-5 2.6 Project Characteristics ....................................................................................... 2-6 2.7 Open Space ..................................................................................................... 2-11 2.8 Circulation ........................................................................................................ 2-11 2.9 Utilities ............................................................................................................. 2-14 2.10 Sustainability ................................................................................................... 2-15 2.11 Transportation Demand Management Plan ..................................................... 2-16 2.12 Construction Activities and Schedule ............................................................... 2-17 2.13 Project Approvals and Entitlements ................................................................. 2-18 Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ......................... 3-1 3.0 Introduction to the Analysis ................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................ 3.1-1 3.2 Other Resource Topics ................................................................................... 3.2-1 Chapter 4, Project Alternatives ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Factors in the Selection of Alternatives .............................................................. 4-1 4.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Evaluation ....................... 4-2 4.4 Alternatives Selected for Further Consideration ................................................ 4-4 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................. 4-6 Chapter 5, Other CEQA Required Considerations .......................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................... 5-1 5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects .................................................... 5-2 662 Table of Contents Page Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project ii ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 5.4 Growth-Inducing Effects .................................................................................... 5-3 Chapter 6, List of Preparers and Persons Consulted ..................................................... 6-1 6.1 Report Authors................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Persons Consulted ............................................................................................ 6-2 Appendices A. Notice of Preparation ..................................................................................................A-1 B. NOP Scoping Comment Letters ..................................................................................B-1 C. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis................................................................................. C-1 D. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report .................................................. D-1 E. Water Capacity Study .................................................................................................E-1 Figures Figure 2-1 Project Location ........................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 GOP 4 Site .................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2-3 GOP 4 Site Plan .......................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-4 Approved GOP Massing Diagram ............................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-5 Approved GOP Rendering ......................................................................... 2-10 Figure 2-6 Modified GOP Massing Diagram ............................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-7 Modified GOP Rendering........................................................................... 2-13 Figure 3.1-1 Mitigation Measure Improvements .......................................................... 3.1-16 Tables Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..........................................S-10 Table 2-1 GOP Master Plan Amendment .................................................................... 2-8 Table 3.1-1 Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Employee Thresholds .. 3.1-12 Table 3.1-2 Project VMT Impact Determination ......................................................... 3.1-14 Table 3.2-1 Summary of Operational Emissions – Criteria Air Pollutants .................... 3.2-3 Table 3.2-2 Summary of Operational Emissions – Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......... 3.2-5 663 Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-1 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 SUMMARY SGateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Introduction The City of South San Francisco has prepared this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Gateway of the Pacific (GOP) 4 Density Transfer project (“proposed project”) per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.). This Draft SEIR is a supplemental analysis to the certified EIR for the GOP Master Plan project (SCH #2008062059) and subsequently-prepared Addenda, which are collectively referenced in this Draft SEIR as the “EIR.” The proposed project is a modification to the GOP 4 project studied in the most recent Addendum. This Draft SEIR describes the existing environmental conditions in the vicinity of the GOP 4 site, located on the GOP Master Plan area south of Oyster Point Boulevard between Gateway Boulevard and Eccles Avenue, analyzes whether new or more severe significant environmental impacts will occur due to the proposed project, and identifies mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of those new or more severe significant impacts. The only environmental resource topic fully evaluated in the Draft SEIR is transportation, and all other topics are discussed to the extent warranted to disclose the SEIR’s consistency with the guidance for preparation of a supplemental environmental analysis (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15163 and 15162). The Draft SEIR considers a reasonable range of alternatives for the proposed project. This Draft SEIR is subject to review and comment by the public, as well as responsible agencies and other interested jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for a minimum of forty-five (45) days. The public may comment on the Draft SEIR by submitting written comments at any time during the public review period. The City will prepare a Final SEIR, which will include the written comments received regarding the Draft SEIR, responses to substantial environmental issues raised in the comments, and any changes to the Draft SEIR that are required by the responses to written comments, or that are initiated by staff. Upon publication of the Draft EIR and release of the Final SEIR, each of these environmental documents will be made available online to the public at https://weblink.ssf.net, and may be viewed in printed form at the offices of the City’s Planning Division at 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94083. A scoping hearing to address the scope of this SEIR was held on December 6, 2021. Public hearings regarding the proposed project, including its CEQA review, 664 Summary Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-2 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 will occur at various times, and the City will post public notices and hearing agendas at City Hall and on its website at www.ssf.net. City staff responsible for the drafting of the environmental document may be contacted with questions: Billy Gross, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Email: billy.gross@ssf.net The Final SEIR will be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. As part of the project review and consideration, the City, prior to approving the project, is required under CEQA to certify that the SEIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and would also consider adoption of Findings of Fact pertaining to this SEIR, specific mitigation measures, a Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to any identified significant and unavoidable effects, and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Project Description Project Location The GOP 4 site is located in the City of South San Francisco, approximately 1.5 miles north of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and approximately 10 miles south of downtown San Francisco. 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 US 101, Interstate 380 (“I-380”), Interstate 280 (“I-280”), and the Union Pacific Railroad (see Figure 2-1, Project Location). The GOP 4 project is the fourth phase of the GOP Master Plan project, which is located within the larger Gateway Specific Plan area and East of 101 Sub-area. The GOP Master Plan area consists of approximately 23 acres of land and is bounded by Oyster Point Boulevard on the north, Gateway Boulevard on the west, a narrow band of vacant land to the east, and a hotel to the south. The GOP Master Plan area is developed with office, warehousing and research and development (“R&D”) uses. The GOP 4 site itself is 4.8 acres in size and is generally located in the northeastern portion of the GOP Master Plan area, south of buildings housing R&D uses located at 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard, which are located outside the GOP Master Plan area. The site is presently developed with two one-story buildings, a Federal Express (FedEx) distribution center (900 Gateway Boulevard) totaling 50,000 sf and an abandoned office building (850 Gateway Boulevard) totaling approximately 19,300 sf (see Figure 2-2, GOP 4 Site). 665 Summary Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-3 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 Background In February 2010, the City certified an EIR, adopted certain findings under CEQA, and approved the Gateway Business Park Master Plan project and a Precise Plan for Phase 1. Other approvals included related General Plan and zoning changes, and a Development Agreement. Specifically, the environmental effects of the project were analyzed in the EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2008062059) that was certified on February 10, 2010 (City Council Resolution 18-2010)(“2010 EIR”). In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) and a statement of overriding considerations for the project were adopted at the same time. The master plan project involved the phased removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6-acre site, construction of five to six new buildings, and construction of two to four parking structures, in up to five phases. The plan would have developed the site with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.25, which would have resulted in approximately 1,230,570 square feet (sf) of building space. In April 2013, the City approved modifications to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan project and the Precise Plan for Phase 1 (City Council Resolution 44-2013). The City found that the modifications were within the scope of the 2010 EIR and re-certified that EIR (City Council Resolution 43-2013). As it considered the modifications to that project, the City re-adopted the CEQA findings, the MMRP and the statement of overriding considerations. The modifications included more flexibility in phasing, a new amenity building in Phase 1, a First Amendment to the Development Agreement, and minor changes to on-site circulation. The overall development standards and FAR of 1.25 did not change. These modifications were reflected in a revised Master Plan, which was renamed as the GOP Master Plan, and a revised Precise Plan for GOP 1. Phase 1 has since been constructed. In July 2018, the City approved a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (“Second Amendment”) (Ordinance No. 1559-2018). The Second Amendment recognizes a lot line adjustment that had previously adjusted the property line between Phases 1 and 2, recognized the current ownership of the various parcels that comprise the GOP Master Plan area, allocated responsibility for compliance with the conditions of approval and mitigation measures separately among each phase, and clarified that the requirement for a replacement childcare facility on the site be triggered upon occupation of 750,000 sf of gross floor area within the GOP Master Plan area. The City determined that no additional environmental review was required for the Second Amendment. In December 2018, the City approved Precise Plans for Phases 2 and 3 of the GOP Master Plan project (Planning Commission Resolution 2835-2018). The Planning Commission determined that Phases 2 and 3 were within the scope of the 2010 EIR and adopted an Addendum (Planning Commission Resolution 2834-2018) (“2018 Addendum”) to the previous analysis. The Precise Plans provided detailed development plans that implemented the already-approved GOP Master Plan project. Phases 2 and 3 are currently under construction. In July 2020, the City approved a Precise Plan for Phase 4 of the GOP Master Plan project, as well as a Use Permit for the adjacent project at 475 Eccles Avenue to the west, which is now known as GOP 5 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2859-2020 and City Council Resolution No. 119-2020). The Precise Plan for the GOP 4 project provided detailed development plans that 666 Summary Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-4 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 implemented the already-approved GOP Master Plan project. The GOP 4 project included two five-story buildings with R&D uses totaling 226,000 sf and a six-story parking structure, with a partial floor on the sixth level, in the northeastern portion of the GOP Master Plan area. The Planning Commission determined that Phase 4 was within the scope of the 2010 EIR and 2018 Addendum, and adopted another Addendum (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2858-2020) (“2020 Addendum”) to the previous analysis. Construction of GOP 4 has not commenced. The Use Permit for the GOP 5 project integrated the adjacent project at 475 Eccles Avenue into a campus that would include both the GOP Master Plan and GOP 5 projects. The GOP 5 project includes the site of some former rail spurs that previously separated the GOP Master Plan area from the 475 Eccles site, which will be converted into a publicly-accessible multi-use path connecting Oyster Point Boulevard with Forbes Boulevard, and providing pedestrian connections within the campus. Project Characteristics Previously Approved Project As discussed above, the approved GOP 4 project included two five-story buildings totaling 226,000 sf and a five-story parking structure. One building would be located on the northern portion of the site and the other building would be located on the southern portion of the site with the parking structure located to the east (see Figure 2-3, GOP 4 Site Plan). Both the northern and southern buildings were approximately the same size with each totaling about 113,000 sf. The two structures were also each 98 feet above the average level of the highest and lowest points on the lot. A total of 531 parking spaces would be provided in a six-level parking structure (five full floors and a partial level on the sixth floor). The massing and height of the approved structures are shown in Figure 2-4, Approved GOP Massing Diagram, and Figure 2-5, Approved GOP Rendering. The project would have employed approximately 603 workers. The envelope of the buildings consisted of a high-quality curtain-wall system with energy-efficient glazing and accents of metal panels, wood and concrete. Modified Project The site of the former rail spurs on the GOP 5 site is 2.76 acres or 120,221 sf in size. Based on an allowed FAR of 1.0 for R&D establishments permitted by the City’s General Plan, a total of 120,221 sf of R&D use could be developed on this portion of the GOP 5 site. The proposed GOP 4 Density Transfer project would transfer this space from the GOP 5 site to the GOP 4 site. The developable space would be added to the northern building on the GOP 4 site as four additional floors. The portion of the GOP 5 site encompassing the rail spurs would then be deed restricted to not allow any of the density transferred to GOP 4 site to be constructed on the rail spur property. The additional space would employ an additional 321 workers. The additional square footage would be parked at 2 spaces per 1,000 sf, which would be accommodated by adding 2.5 floors to the previously-approved parking structure; a total of approximately 240 new parking spaces would be provided. As revised, the northern building on the GOP 4 site would total nine floors and reach a height of 178 feet above the average level of the highest and lowest points on the lot. The northern 667 Summary Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-5 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 structure would include about 233,300 sf of space. The height and size of the southern building would remain the same. The parking structure would also now be eight levels in height and include 771 parking spaces. The massing and height of the modified structures are shown in Figure 2-6, Modified GOP Massing Diagram, and Figure 2-7, Modified GOP Rendering. The approved architectural scheme of the buildings would be extended to the new floors, without any substantive changes in architecture. The modified GOP 4 project also includes a generator yard at ground level in the landscaped area on the northwest side of the GOP 4 parking structure. In exchange for reducing current density at the rail spurs to zero, the overall FAR of the GOP Master Plan area would increase from 1.25 to 1.37 with the addition of the space associated with the proposed project. Areas of Controversy As required by the state CEQA Guidelines, the scope of this Draft SEIR includes all environmental issues to be resolved and all areas of controversy relevant to the physical environment known to the Lead Agency (City of South San Francisco), including those issues and concerns identified by the City, and by other agencies, organizations, and individuals in response to the City's Notice of Preparation (NOP) published on November 16, 2021 (see Appendix A for the NOP and Appendix B for the NOP Comment Letters). Areas of potential controversy or interest regarding the Project, based on the number of public comments received, include: • Vehicle miles traveled per capita associated with the proposed project; and • Compatibility of the proposed project with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. These environmental issues are discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. Environmental Effects The following discussion provides an overview of the key environmental effects of the proposed project. At the end of this chapter, Table S-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, includes a complete summary of all impacts and mitigation measures described in Chapter 3 of the SEIR. Transportation Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System The GOP Master Plan project would develop a pedestrian-friendly Central Commons open space in the area created by the parking structures and the office buildings. The master plan would enhance public street frontages and foster transit use by providing multiple pedestrian connections to and from the internal campus and shuttle system stops. The proposed project 668 Summary Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-6 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 would be compatible with the GOP Master Plan project and the existing GOP 4 Precise Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a detrimental impact to pedestrian circulation. Bicycle access to the proposed project is provided via the bicycle lanes on Oyster Point Boulevard and the bike route on Gateway Boulevard. As part of the GOP 5 project, the existing rail spur that separates the GOP 4 and 5 sites would be redeveloped into a multi-use trail. This multi-use trail would provide an additional connection between the Class II bicycle lanes on Oyster Point Boulevard and the existing multi-use trail on Forbes Boulevard. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities. The proposed project is expected to generate trips via transit services, which can be accommodated by the existing/planned transit capacity. According to California State Office of Planning and Research guidelines, the addition of new transit riders should not be treated as an adverse impact as such development also improves regional flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a detrimental impact to transit service. For the reasons presented above, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and this impact is considered less than significant. No new or substantially more severe impacts would occur than analyzed in the EIR. Vehicle Miles Traveled According to the City of South San Francisco’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) guidelines, a significant impact would occur for employment generating projects if the baseline project- generated home-based work (HBW) VMT per employee is higher than 85 percent of the existing nine-county Bay Area-Wide average for employee VMT, which is 14.2 under current conditions and 14.6 under cumulative 2040 conditions. Based on the C/CAG – VTA travel demand model, the VMT per employee for the proposed project would be 16.2 under existing conditions, which is above the threshold of 12.1 for existing conditions. Under cumulative 2040 conditions, the VMT per employee for the proposed project would be 12.9, which is above the threshold of 12.4 for cumulative conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant impact with respect to VMT under existing and cumulative conditions. Even with the implementation of the actions listed in Mitigation Measure 3.1-1, which include improvements that support and enable first- and last-mile non-auto commute strategies, this impact would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level as the effectiveness of these actions are unknown and may not reduce the project’s HBW VMT below the existing and cumulative thresholds. Therefore, the project’s effect on VMT would be significant and unavoidable. Design Hazards The proposed project would increase the intensity of planned uses on the GOP 4 site, but would not include the introduction of new land uses or changes to the GOP 4 Precise Plan site design. A project safety impact is considered significant if the proposed project would provide inadequate design features that present safety concerns within the project site or on the adjacent streets. The 669 Summary Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-7 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 proposed project would not alter any design components of the recently approved GOP Phase 4 Precise Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible land uses, and no impact would occur. No new or substantially more severe impacts would occur than analyzed in the EIR. Emergency Access The proposed project would not reroute or change any of the city streets in its vicinity that would impact emergency vehicle access to the GOP 4 site. Access to GOP 4 site would be provided via driveways along Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. Park Street, a new internal access roadway, would be constructed along the east side of the parking garages and would connect to Oyster Point Boulevard to the north and Gateway Boulevard to the south. The emergency vehicles would utilize all entries and supplemental access points as necessary to reach Park Street and the central pedestrian walkway which would be wide enough to serve as an emergency vehicle route. Thus, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and this impact is considered less than significant. No new or substantially more severe impacts would occur than analyzed in the EIR. All Other Topics The EIR addressed the remaining environmental topics: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases and climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, and utilities. With the exception of significant impacts related to construction air quality and noise, and transportation delay-based impacts that can no longer be considered significant impacts under CEQA, the EIR determined that GOP Master Plan project would not create significant impacts with respect to these environmental topics once mitigation was incorporated. The proposed project would be required to implement mitigation set forth in the MMRP approved in 2010 and again in 2013. In addition, since the increase in building space associated with the project is not substantial, significant impacts related to construction air quality and noise would not increase in severity. There has been no substantial change in surrounding circumstances or new information with respect to these environmental topics since the City most recently determined, in 2020, that no such changes had occurred in connection with the GOP 4 Precise Plan approval. As a result, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to these environmental topics are anticipated beyond those anticipated and analyzed in the EIR. Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1), an EIR must summarize the impacts and mitigation measures associated with a proposed project, as well as any significant impacts following mitigation. This information is detailed in this SEIR in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, and is summarized in Table S-1 at the end of this chapter. 670 Summary Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-8 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 Throughout this SEIR, certain transportation impacts are identified that would be less than significant without the need for additional mitigation measures. When impacts are identified which cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures, those impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. As discussed above, the proposed project has significant and unavoidable impacts associated with VMT, both at the project-level and the cumulative level. Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR must present and consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives should be able to feasibly achieve the majority of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant effects of the project. The feasibility of an alternative is determined by the lead agency and is evaluated based on a variety of factors, which may include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and site acquisition and control. Several alternatives were considered for their potential to reduce the project’s significant VMT impacts but not carried forward for analysis for several reasons. A reduced height alternative was considered but not carried forward for analysis as a smaller project does not directly correlate to a reduced VMT impact because VMT is assessed based on a per-capita or per-employee rate. A residential land use alternative was considered but not carried forward for analysis as the land use and zoning designations for the GOP 4 site do not permit residential use, residential use would not be consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity of the GOP 4 site, and residential use would be inconsistent with all project objectives. Two alternative locations near an existing Caltrain station and approximately 0.7 miles from the proposed project’s site were considered but not carried forward for analysis as the City is considering mixed-use development unrelated to this project on these parcels as part of the City’s general plan update. In addition, neither of these alternative sites considered are owned by the project applicant, both sites have existing long-term leases and tenants, and neither site may be available for purchase or development. Finally, as the proposed project is an addition to an already approved building, it would be more cost efficient from a construction perspective, as constructing this space on another site would involve additional construction phases, such as demolition and site preparation. For these reasons, there are no feasible alternatives that might feasibly accomplish most of the project’s basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the project. Thus, only the no project alternative was considered for further analysis. No Project Alternative State CEQA guidelines require consideration of the “No Project” alternative, which evaluates the impacts associated with not moving forward with the proposed project. Under the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), the transfer of density under the proposed project would not occur, and the approved GOP 4 project would be constructed on the GOP 4 site. 671 Summary Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-9 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 Environmentally Superior Alternative Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of alternatives that are evaluated. As the No Project Alternative was the only alternative carried forward for analysis it is the environmentally superior alternative, although the project- and cumulative level impacts associated with VMT would remain the same since the fewer vehicle trips associated with this alternative would not directly correlate to a reduction in VMT, which is assessed based on a per-capita or per-employee rate. Summary Table Table S-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, is structured to correspond with the environmental issues discussed in Chapter 3. The table is arranged in four columns: 1. New or more severe significant environmental impacts (“Impact”) 2. Level of significance without mitigation (“Significance Before Mitigation”) 3. Mitigation measures (“Mitigation Measure”) 4. Level of significance following implementation of mitigation measures (“Significance After Mitigation”) If an impact is determined to be significant or potentially significant, mitigation measures are identified to reduce the effects of that impact, where appropriate. Multiple mitigation measures may be required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. This SEIR assumes compliance with all plans, policies, guidelines, and regulations relevant and applicable to the proposed project. These actions and the plans, policies, guidelines, and laws upon which they are based are discussed within the Regulatory Setting and applicable impact analysis of each issue area. 672 Summary LTS = less than significant; NA = Not applicable; NI = no impact; PS = potentially significant; S = Significant; SU = significant and unavoidable. Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-10 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation 3.1 Transportation Impact 3.1-1: The proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. LTS None Required. NA Impact 3.1-2: The proposed project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision b) related to VMT. PS Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: First- and Last-Mile Transit Connections and Active Transportation Improvements First- and last-mile transit connections and active transportation improvements are likely to yield the greatest VMT reductions. These measures would not only serve the density transfer project but also the entire GOP Master Plan area and all of the existing and planned development in the area. Thus, the new VMT generated by the project would be partially offset by reductions in VMT for other development. The following mitigation measures support and enable the first-and last-mile non-auto commute strategies in the GOP Master Plan TDM Plan. The mitigation measures described below are appropriate under both existing plus project conditions and cumulative plus project conditions. SU a) The project applicant has acquired the rail spur property adjacent to the GOP 4 site and shall use it to connect the GOP Master Plan area with the 475 Eccles site, which is currently referred to as GOP Phase 5, approved for two office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 square feet and one parking structure. The applicant proposes to develop the rail spurs into a publicly accessible multi-use path connecting Oyster Point Boulevard with Forbes Boulevard, with pedestrian amenities, all to implement the City’s draft “rails to trails” plan. A grand staircase allowing access from the lower elevation of the GOP Master Plan area to the higher elevation of the 475 Eccles site is also proposed. The applicant shall construct these improvements. This multi-use path shall connect to Class II bicycle lanes on Oyster Point Boulevard and to the multi-use trail on Forbes Boulevard. b) The applicant shall construct crossings at the northern and southern ends of the multi-use path required by paragraph (a) above, at Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, in the configuration determined necessary by the City Engineer for bicycle access from those streets to the multi-use path. c) The applicant shall use good faith efforts to obtain all approvals and consent required to install the improvements required by paragraphs (a) and (b) above, including the use of any necessary land owned by the applicant or its affiliates. Each improvement shall be constructed by the later of (i) issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any portion of the 120,221 square-foot expansion in GOP 4, or (ii) such time as public agencies have granted all necessary approvals for the mitigation improvement and the applicant has been given the right to construct on any land owned by others that is necessary for the mitigation improvement. 673 Summary LTS = less than significant; NA = Not applicable; NI = no impact; PS = potentially significant; SU = significant and unavoidable. Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-11 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Impact 3.1-3: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment). NI None Required. NA Impact 3.1-4: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. LTS None Required. NA Impact 3.1-5: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other development, could contribute to cumulative conditions where VMT per capita or VMT per employee could exceed 85 percent of the 2040 cumulative Bay Area-wide regional average daily VMT per employee. PS Implement Mitigation Measure 3.1-1. SU 674 Summary Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project S-12 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 This page intentionally left blank 675 Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project 1-1 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 CHAPTER 1 Introduction In February 2010, the City of South San Francisco approved the Gateway Business Park Master Plan project and a Precise Plan for Phase 1. The master plan project involved the phased removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6-acre site, construction of five to six new buildings, and construction of two to four parking structures, in up to five phases. In April 2013, the City approved modifications to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan project and the Precise Plan for Phase 1. The modifications included more flexibility in phasing, a new amenity building in Phase 1, a First Amendment to the Development Agreement, and minor changes to on-site circulation. These modifications were reflected in a revised Master Plan, which was renamed as the GOP Master Plan and a revised Precise Plan for Phase 1. Precise Plans were subsequently approved for phases 2, 3 and 4 as well. When it was considering the precise plans, the City adopted addenda in 2018 and 2020 to the 2010 EIR, for the subsequent approval of the plans. As used in this Draft SEIR, the “2010 EIR” refers to the EIR certified on February 10, 2010, as supplemented by these Addenda. Phase 1 (GOP 1) has since been constructed while Phases 2 and 3 (GOP 2 & 3) are currently under construction; Phase 4 (GOP 4) has yet to begin construction. In July 2016, the City approved a project on a nearby property to the west of the GOP Master Plan area known as 475 Eccles. The project consisted of two office buildings and a parking structure. In 2020, the City approved an expansion of the 475 Eccles site to include the site of some former rail spurs that currently separate the GOP Master Plan area from the 475 Eccles site. The purpose of the expansion was to integrate the GOP Master Plan area and the 475 Eccles site into one life sciences campus connected by pedestrian pathways and a grand staircase. This modified project, which now includes both 475 Eccles site and the site of the former rail spurs, is now known as Phase 5 of the GOP Master Plan project (GOP 5). Construction has yet to begin on GOP 5. BioMed Reality (project applicant) proposes the transfer of 120,221 square feet (sf) of developable space from the GOP 5 site to the GOP 4 site. The developable space consists of what could potentially be built on the site of the former rail spurs and would be added to the northern building on the GOP 4 site as four additional floors. The portion of the GOP 5 site encompassing the rail spurs would then be deed restricted to allow no development of the density that is transferred. The new square footage on the GOP 4 site would be parked at 2 spaces per 1,000 sf, which would be accommodated by adding 2.5 floors to the previously-approved parking structure on the GOP 4 site. 676 1. Introduction Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project 1-2 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 The proposed density transfer project is referred to throughout this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) as the “GOP 4 Density Transfer project” or the “proposed project.” The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency for preparation of this Draft SEIR and responsible for the majority of approvals required for the project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15051). 1.1 Background The environmental effects of development on the Gateway Business Park Master Plan project and a Precise Plan for Phase 1 were analyzed in the 2010 EIR. The 2010 EIR examined the potential for environmental impacts of the master plan, as well as the specific development proposal for Phase 1. In April 2013, the City found that the modifications to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan and GOP 1 Precise Plan were within the scope of the 2010 EIR and re-certified that EIR. For the Phase 2, 3 and 4 Precise Plans, the City had adopted 2018 and 2020 Addenda that determined that no new or more significant effects would result from those Precise Plans. The most recent decision was made on August 6, 2020, when the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2858-2020 approving the 2020 Addendum and approving the Precise Plan for GOP 4, concluding that there were no changes to the project studied in the 2010 EIR, changes in surrounding circumstances, or significant new information, any of which showed a new or more severe significant impact. The currently proposed project modifies the previously-approved GOP 4 Precise Plan to provide for an expansion of 120,221 square feet. 1.2 CEQA Context Since the City already determined, as of August 6, 2020, that the 2010 EIR was adequate for the GOP 4 Precise Plan and that there were no material changes in surrounding circumstances or significant new information relating to GOP 4, and because the proposed project is a minor modification to the GOP 4 Precise Plan approved on August 6, 2020, this Supplemental EIR evaluates whether the changes proposed by the proposed project, or changes in circumstances or significant new information developed since August 6, 2020, will cause any new or more significant impacts than are identified in the 2010 EIR. Preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report would be warranted if and to the extent that the project meets any of the following stated conditions: 1) Substantial changes to the project or substantial changes to circumstances, or new information of substantial importance; which 2) require major revisions to the EIR; and 3) result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (PRC Section 21166; CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163.) 677 1. Introduction Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project 1-3 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 The findings for each of these standards must be based on substantial evidence (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). The metric for analyzing transportation impacts has changed under CEQA. Previously, impacts were analyzed using a congestion or delay-based metric, such as Level of Service. Now, CEQA requires that transportation impacts be assessed using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which measures the distance a vehicle will travel to a destination. Preliminary analysis by the City suggest that the GOP 4 Density Transfer project will create a significant VMT impact. As a result, the City determined that subsequent or supplemental environmental analysis for the project is required. According to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a supplement to an EIR is required if: (1) any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. When certified, the SEIR, along with the 2010 EIR, will serve as the environmental document for the proposed project. This Draft SEIR assesses whether the proposed project would or would not cause new or more significant impacts not previously identified for the GOP 4 site analyzed in the 2010 EIR. Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the analysis in this Draft SEIR also considers whether substantial changes to circumstances or new information of substantial importance exist that could result in the proposed project having a new significant impact not previously identified for the GOP 4 site in the 2010 EIR. 1.3 Purpose and Use of this EIR Consistent with CEQA, this SEIR is a public information document, and its key purpose is for use by governmental agencies and the public to identify and evaluate potential environmental consequences of a proposed project, to recommend mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts, and to examine feasible alternatives to the proposed project. The City, as Lead Agency for this SEIR, will review and consider the information contained in this Draft SEIR prior to taking action on the proposed project. The City’s actions on the project include several required discretionary permits and approvals necessary before development of the project could proceed. The currently anticipated City and other agency permits and approvals that may be required for the project are described at the end of Chapter 2, Project Description, of this document. In addition, the project may rely on or require review and approval by a number of public agencies and jurisdictions that have authority over specific aspects of the project. Copies of this Draft SEIR are available at the City of South San Francisco, Planning Division, at the offices of the City’s Planning Division at 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94083. This Draft SEIR is subject to review and comment by the public, as well as responsible agencies and other interested jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for a minimum of forty- five (45) days. During this review period, written comments on the SEIR may be submitted to the 678 1. Introduction Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project 1-4 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 City at the address above. Responses to all comments received on the environmental analysis in this Draft SEIR and submitted within the 45-day review period will be included in the Final SEIR. 1.4 CEQA Environmental Review 1.4.1 Preliminary Project Evaluation The State CEQA Guidelines define the role and standards of adequacy of an EIR as follows: • Informational Document. An EIR is an informational document that will inform public agency decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental effect(s) of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information that may be presented to the agency (State CEQA Guidelines section 15121[a]). • Standards for Adequacy of an EIR. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information that enables them to make an informed decision that takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure (State CEQA Guidelines section 15151). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project…” Therefore, in identifying whether the proposed project will cause new or more severe impacts, this SEIR describes the potential for the proposed project to result in substantial new physical effects within the area affected by the project, and identifies mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the magnitude of those new effects. See Section 3.0, Introduction to the Analysis, for further description of the approach to analyzing environmental impacts and identifying mitigation measures presented in this SEIR. 1.4.2 EIR Scoping On November 16, 2021, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft SEIR to governmental agencies and organizations and persons interested in the project (included in Appendix A). The NOP review period ended on December 20, 2021. The NOP was distributed to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons interested in the proposed project along with notice to the general public. The City sent the NOP to agencies with statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project with the request for their input on the scope and content of the environmental information that should be addressed in the EIR. 679 1. Introduction Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project 1-5 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 The City of South San Francisco received two written comment letters regarding the proposed project (included in Appendix B). Although many specific issues were mentioned in the NOP comment letters, the comments generally tended toward larger themes such as: • Analysis of vehicle miles traveled; • Support of transit and active transportation modes; • Implementation of travel demand management measures; and • Compatibility with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. 1.4.3 Public Review The Draft SEIR will be available for public review and comment as set forth in the Notice of Availability. During the review and comment period written comments (including email) regarding the Draft SEIR may be submitted to the City at the address below: Billy Gross, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Email: billy.gross@ssf.net The Draft SEIR, Notice of Availability and other supporting documents, such as technical studies prepared by the City as part of the EIR process, are available for public review at the offices of the Planning Division at 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080, and on the City’s website at https://weblink.ssf.net. 1.4.4 Final EIR and EIR Certification Following the public review and comment period for the Draft SEIR, the City will prepare responses that address all substantive written and oral comments on environmental issues addressed in the Draft SEIR that are received within the specified review period. The responses and any other revisions to the Draft SEIR will be provided as a Final SEIR. The Draft SEIR and its Appendices, together with the Final SEIR and the 2010 EIR, will collectively constitute the EIR for the proposed project. 1.4.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Throughout this SEIR, mitigation measures have been identified and presented in language that will facilitate preparation of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”). As required under CEQA, an MMRP will be implemented following certification of the Final SEIR for the proposed project and will identify the specific timing and roles and responsibilities for implementation of adopted mitigation measures.1 1 See State CEQA Guidelines, section 15097. 680 1. Introduction Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project 1-6 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 1.5 Document Organization This Draft SEIR document is organized as follows: Summary – This section summarizes the proposed project and the conclusions of the Draft SEIR. A summary table is included and organized to allow the reader to easily identify potentially significant effects, proposed mitigation measures, and any residual environmental impacts after implementation of mitigation measures. A summary of the alternatives to the proposed project and the environmentally superior alternatives are also provided. The Summary also describes areas of controversy regarding the proposed project that are known to the City as of publication of this Draft SEIR. Chapter 1, Introduction – This chapter describes the purpose and organization of the SEIR. Chapter 2, Project Description – This chapter describes the proposed project. The description includes, with text and graphics, the location and boundaries of the proposed project, statements of objectives from the project applicant and the City, and a description of the proposed project’s components and characteristics. Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis – For Transportation, this chapter discusses the environmental and regulatory setting, the methodology used, the detailed analysis of potential impacts (including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts), and where necessary, a discussion of potentially feasible mitigation measures. This section also discusses Other Resource Topics, summarizing impacts and whether the project would trigger any changes to the conclusions in the prior certified EIR. Chapter 4, Alternatives – This chapter describes alternatives considered and an alternative fully analyzed that may avoid or substantially reduce one or more of the project’s significant impacts while attaining most of the basic objectives of the project. This section evaluates the comparative environmental effects of the potentially feasible alternative and identifies the environmental superior alternative. Chapter 5, Other CEQA Required Considerations – This chapter discusses several issues required to be included in an SEIR, including effects not found to be significant, significant and unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible environmental changes, the potential for the proposed project to cause urban decay, and the potential for the proposed project to induce urban growth and development. Chapter 6, List of Preparers – This chapter identifies the agency staff and consultants who prepared the SEIR, and agencies or individuals consulted during preparation of the SEIR. Appendices – The appendices include environmental scoping information and technical reports and data used in the preparation of the Draft SEIR. 681 Gateway of the Pacific 4 Density Transfer Project 2-1 ESA / D202101143 City of South San Francisco January 2022 CHAPTER 2 Project Description 2.1 Introduction This chapter presents information regarding the components and characteristics of the proposed Gateway of Pacific (“GOP”) 4 Density Transfer project, or “proposed project.” which modifies the previously approved GOP 4 Precise Plan, which itself was a later approval for the GOP Master Plan project studied in the 2010 EIR, and the discretionary approvals anticipated to implement it. A concise outline of the project elements is provided in the Executive Summary. 2.2 Project Location The GOP 4 site is located in the City of South San Francisco, approximately 1.5 miles north of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and approximately 10 miles south of downtown San Francisco. 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 US 101, Interstate 380 (“I-380”), Interstate 280 (“I-280”), and the Union Pacific Railroad (see Figure 2-1, Project Location). The GOP 4 project is the fourth phase of the GOP Master Plan project studied in the EIR, which is located within the larger Gateway Specific Plan area and East of 101 Sub-area. The GOP Master Plan area consists of approximately 23 acres of land and is generally bounded by Oyster Point Boulevard on the north, Gateway Boulevard on the west, a narrow band of vacant land to the east, and a hotel to the south. The GOP Master Plan area is developed with office, warehousing and research and development (“R&D”) uses. The GOP 4 site itself is 4.8 acres in size and is located at 850 and 900 Gateway Boulevard, which is in the northeastern portion of the GOP Master Plan area. The site is located south of buildings housing R&D uses located at 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard, which are located outside the GOP Master Plan area. The site is presently developed with two one-story buildings, a Federal Express (FedEx) distribution center (900 Gateway Boulevard) totaling 50,000 sf and an abandoned office building (850 Gateway Boulevard) totaling approximately 19,300 sf (see Figure 2-2, GOP 4 Site). Regionally, the GOP 4 site is accessible from the northwest via the US 101 Oyster Point Boulevard off- and on-ramps and from the southwest by the East Grand Avenue exit off of US 101. Locally, the GOP 4 site is accessible from two points along Oyster Boulevard, a drive way between 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard, and the FedEx driveway along the eastern boundary of the GOP Master Plan area that connects with Oyster Point Boulevard. 682 SOURCE: ESA, 2021 FIGURE 2-1 PROJECT LOCATION BioMed GOP4 Master Plan Focused SEIR N Oakland Pleasanton Point Reyes Station Richmond Rio Vista San Anselmo San Bruno San Francisco San Jose San Martin San Mateo Santa Clara Sonoma Walnut Creek Project Location San Francisco Bay 82 101 280 280 683