Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-22 Planning Commission AgendaThursday, October 6, 2022 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Virtual Meeting Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 1 October 6, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda WELCOME If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about our procedure. This meeting is being held in accordance with the Brown Act as currently in effect under the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 which allows attendance by members of the Planning Commission, City staff and the public to participate and conduct the meeting by teleconference. Teleconference locations are not open to the public. Planning Commissioners teleconferencing: Michele Evans, Norm Faria, JulieAnn Murphy, Sam Shihadeh, Alex Tzang, Luis De Paz Fernandez, Sarah Funes. You may need to also install the Zoom app on your device prior to joining the meeting: Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/82584801637 Or One tap mobile: US: +16699006833,,82584801637# or +13462487799,,82584801637# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or 888 475 4499 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0282 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5257 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 825 8480 1637 International numbers available: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/u/kcIkA6wMWz Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the Zoom Meeting session, join the meeting from your computer or mobile device, enter your name, and request to comment through the “Chat” function and a staff person will add you to the queue for comments and unmute your microphone during the comment period. In the alternative, you may also provide email comments received during the meeting will be read into the record. Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject not on the Agenda will have 3 minutes to discuss their item. The Clerk will read the name and type of application to be heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain the proposal. The first person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons commenting on the proposal. The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes on any Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2022 2 October 6, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda agenda item. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. Remote Public Comments: Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The email and phone line below will be monitored during the meeting and public comments received will be read into the record. The City encourages the submission of comments by 6:00pm on the date of the Public Hearing to facilitate inclusion in the meeting record. A maximum of 3 minutes per individual comment will be read into the record. Comments that are not in compliance the Planning Commission’s rules of decorum may be summarized for the record rather than read verbatim. Email: PCcomments@ssf.net Electronic Comments received by email will be monitored during the meeting and read into the record. We ask that you limit your electronic comments so that they comply with the 3-minute time limitation for public comment. Planning Division Hotline: (650) 829-4669 Voice messages will be monitored during the meeting, and read into the record. Your voicemail should be limited so that it complies with the 3 minute time limitation for public comment. Observing the Meeting: This teleconference meeting may be observed via livestream: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/planning-commission Any interested party will have 15 calendar days from the date of an action or decision taken by the Planning Commission to appeal that action or decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk as provided under Chapter 20.570 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. In the event an appeal period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or any other day the City is closed, the appeal period shall end at the close of business on the next consecutive business day. If any interested party, other than the applicant, wishes to obtain a copy of a Notice of Action for any Planning Commission action or decision at a hearing, the interested party must file a written request of such notification with the Planning Division in advance of that Planning Commission hearing. When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you will go to the Planning Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535 or by e-mail at planning@ssf.net. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2022 3 October 6, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Sam Shihadeh, Chairperson Alex Tzang, Vice Chairperson Norm Faria, Commissioner JulieAnn Murphy, Commissioner Michele Evans, Commissioner Sarah Funes, Commissioner Luis De Paz Fernandez, Commissioner Tony Rozzi, Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Staff Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner Adena Friedman, Principal Planner Billy Gross, Principal Planner Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner Christy Usher, Senior Planner Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner Victoria Kim, Associate Planner Kelsey Evans, Clerk Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and participate in this meeting should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 877-8505, five working days before the meeting. 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 10/11/2022 4 October 6, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW The Planning Commission will inquire and staff will report on any change or order, deferral and/or removal of items on this meeting agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items not on the agenda. Under the Brown Act, the Commission cannot act on items raised during public communications, but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; refer the item to staff; or place the item on the next meeting agenda. DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for Planning Commissioners to disclose any communications, including site visits, they have had on current agenda items, or any conflict of interest regarding current agenda items. CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration of draft minutes from the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) 1. 9-15-22 Draft MinutesAttachments: Consideration of draft minutes from the August 9, 2022 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) 2. 8-9-22 Draft Minutes -Special MeetingAttachments: PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding consideration of a Use Permit to convert an existing Indoor Warehouse to Personal Storage at 1349 San Mateo Avenue in the Mixed Industrial Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act. (Victoria Kim, Associate Planner) 3. Attachment 1_Draft Findings.pdf Attachment 2_Conditions of Approval.pdf Attachment 3_Owner's Operation Letter.pdf Attachment 4_Site Plans.pdf Attachment 5_Site Photos.pdf Attachments: Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2022 5 October 6, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the repurposing of a structure into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District and a Class 1, Section 15301 categorical exemption under CEQA in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) 4. Attachment 1- Draft Findings and Conditions of Approval Attachment 2 - Project Plans Attachment 3 - 201 Baden Avenue Historic Resource Evaluation, dated May 28, 2019 Attachment 4 - Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, dated May 10, 2022 Attachment 5 - Design Review Board (DRB) Comment Letter, dated May 2, 2022 Attachments: Report regarding consideration of a Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Master Sign Program, Transportation Demand Management Plan and Environmental Consistency Analysis with the Downtown Station Area Plan Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to allow two office / R&D buildings totaling approximately 541,000 square feet, ancillary uses, and associated parking at 100 East Grand in the Transit Office / Research & Development (TO/RD) Zoning District. (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) 5. Attachment 1- Zoning Consistency Checklist.pdf Attachment 2 Loading Study.pdf Attachment 3 DRB Comments.pdf Attachments: Resolution making findings and a determination that the environmental effects of the proposed office / R&D project at 100 East Grand Avenue (“Project”) were sufficiently analyzed under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168, and that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines 15183, and that the proposed project is statutorily exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 5a. Exhibit A DSASP EIR.pdf Exhibit B ECA.pdf Exhibit B1 Traffic Memo.pdf Exhibit B2 Historical Evaluation.pdf Exhibit C DSASP MMRP.pdf Attachments: Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2022 6 October 6, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution making findings and approving the entitlements request for the 100 East Grand R&D Project, Project P21-0087, including Use Permit (UP21-0011), Design Review (DR21-0038), Tentative Parcel Map (PM22-0001), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM21-0010), and Master Sign Program (SIGNS22-0008), subject to the draft Conditions of Approval. 5b. Exhibit A 100 E Grand Draft COAs.pdf Exhibit B Project Plan Set.pdf Exhibit C TDM Plan.pdf Exhibit D Master Sign Program.pdf Attachments: ITEMS FROM STAFF Staff may report on items of general interest. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION The Commission may report on items of general interest. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC This portion of the meeting is reserved for additional comment on items not on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2022 7 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-812 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:1. Consideration of draft minutes from the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/30/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™8 September 15, 2022 Minutes Page 1 of 3 MINUTES September 15, 2022 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:05 PM AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Master Sign Program and Design Review for a previously approved 139,539 sf life science building and parking garage located in the Business and Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. (Christy Usher, Senior Planner) 2. Consideration of Approval of the Draft Meeting Minutes for August 18, 2022 (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) Motion to approve Consent Calendar – Norm Faria, Commissioner Second – JulieAnn Murphy, Commissioner, approved by roll call (6-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2022-09-15 7:00 PM (granicus.com) PUBLIC HEARING ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Chair Shihadeh, Vice Chair Tzang, Commissioners: Faria, Fernandez, Funes, Murphy ABSENT: Commissioner Evans STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi - Chief Planner – Adena Friedman – Principal Planner -Billy Gross - Principal Planner - Christopher Espiritu - Senior Planner- Christy Usher – Senior Planner - Stephanie Skangos - Associate Planner – Victoria Kim – Associate Planner - Kelsey Evans- Clerk 9 September 15, 2022 Minutes Page 2 of 3 3. Report regarding consideration of a Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Master Sign Program, Transportation Demand Management Plan and Environmental Consistency Analysis with the Downtown Station Area Plan Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to allow two office / R&D buildings totaling approximately 541,000 square feet, ancillary uses, and associated parking at 100 East Grand in the Transit Office / Research & Development (TO/RD) Zoning District. (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) 3a. Resolution making findings and a determination that the environmental effects of the proposed office / R&D project at 100 East Grand Avenue (“Project”) were sufficiently analyzed under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168, and that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines 15183, and that the proposed project is statutorily exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 3b. Resolution making findings and approving the entitlements request for the 100 East Grand R&D Project, Project P21-0087, including Use Permit (UP21-0011), Design Review (DR21-0038), Tentative Parcel Map (PM22-0001), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM21-0010), and Master Sign Program (SIGNS22-0008), subject to the draft Conditions of Approval. Public Hearing opened 7:15 pm -Continued item to date certain October 6, 2022 Public Hearing closed 7:15 pm Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2022-09-15 7:00 PM (granicus.com) 4. Report regarding consideration of adoption of resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt documents related to the comprehensive update of the General Plan, including the 2040 General Plan Update, Climate Action Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update, and certification of an overarching Environmental Impact Report (Lisa Costa Sanders, Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Principal Planner) 4a. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, including adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the 2040 General Plan Update, Climate Action Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update. 4b. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council adopt the 2040 General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Update. 4c. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council introduce an Ordinance repealing certain sections of Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and adopt the Zoning Ordinance Update, including a new Title 20 and Zoning Map. 10 September 15, 2022 Minutes Page 3 of 3 Motion on Resolution 4a: Commissioner Murphy motioned, Commissioner Faria seconded / 6-0 Motion on Resolution 4b: Commissioner Murphy motioned, Commissioner Faria seconded / 6-0 Motion on Resolution 4c: Commissioner Murphy motioned, Commissioner Faria seconded / 6-0 Public Hearing opened 7:17 pm - Billy Gross, Principal Planner Public Hearing closed 8:13 pm Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2022-09-15 7:00 PM (granicus.com) ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS None. ITEMS FROM STAFF None. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC • None ADJOURNMENT Chair Shihadeh adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:24PM. Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner, AICP Sam Shihadeh, Chairperson or Alex Tzang, Vice Chairperson Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco TR/tr 11 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-845 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:2. Consideration of draft minutes from the August 9, 2022 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™12 13 14 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-784 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:3. Report regarding consideration of a Use Permit to convert an existing Indoor Warehouse to Personal Storage at 1349 San Mateo Avenue in the Mixed Industrial Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act.(Victoria Kim, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the Project is categorically exempt under the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and approve the Use Permit (UP22-0008),based on the attached Draft Findings and subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval. MOTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1) Move to make CEQA determination and approve project subject to attached findings and conditions. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Storage Management Solutions LLC (the applicant)has proposed the conversion of an existing warehouse space (formerly a warehouse for Moss Rubber)located at 1349 San Mateo Avenue into a personal storage operation with 129 storage units.Under the Use Permit,an existing parking layout would be restriped to have 5 required and 1 accessible parking spaces. Site Overview The subject property is located at 1349 San Mateo Avenue in the Mixed Industrial (MI)Zoning District.The site is approximately 13,536 square feet (3.34 acres)and developed with an existing 16,325 square foot two story building adjacent to a science and technology company on the south and Arco’s Self-Storage on the north. The northern neighboring building is owned by the applicant and the proposed project is an extension of the applicant’s personal storage business.The primary access to the property is from San Mateo Avenue from the eastside. The current surface parking area is in the east of the property with seven parking spaces. Proposed Project The applicant is requesting to convert the existing warehouse to personal storage use with 129 units and a 630 square foot office space.The request would not include any exterior modifications nor changes to the building footprints.The present parking lot would be restriped to provide 5 parking spaces and 1 accessible parking stall. Although identifying signage for the proposed business is required,the project would not include a sign permit application at this time.The sign permit application would be conditioned to the Use Permit and proceed under a separate permit. Operation Plan The proposed personal storage would provide additional storage facility for the community and neighbors who need to reorganize their personal spaces,prepare for a move,and/or store seasonal items.The applicant also owns and runs the same personal storage business at the adjoining property at 1357 San Mateo Avenue and the project is an addition to his current business.The personal storage would have new three employees and the business hours would be 9:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.from Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm onCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™15 File #:22-784 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:3. business hours would be 9:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.from Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays. The proposed access hours to the personal storage units are 6:00 am to 9:00 pm, daily. ZONING CONSISTENCY Land Use The project property is located in the Mixed Industrial (MI)Zoning District.According to South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)Section 20.110.002 (Land Use Regulations),a broad range of commercial and employment uses are allowed by-right or with the approval of a Minor or a Use Permit.The proposed Emilio Arco’s Self Storage facility is considered as a Personal Storage use which is an allowed use after review and approval of a Use Permit. Parking Requirements Pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)Section 20.330.004 (Required Parking Spaces),1 parking space is required for every 75 storage units and 1 space for 300 square feet office area needs to be provided.The existing parking area at the front of the property would be restriped and would provide 5 parking spaces with 1 accessible stall,totaling 6 spaces.Under the same ownership,the applicant’s personal storage site next to the project location has a 5,000 square foot parking lot which could also accommodate a larger number of visitors to the project site. Landscaping Minimum 10 %of the site is required to have landscaping in MI Zoning District per SSFMC Section 20.110.003.The existing warehouse building is a non-conforming structure which is exceeding 60 %lot coverage with the parking requirements and proposed landscaping areas are unable to provide the required percentage of landscaping for the project site.The proposed site plan includes 469 square foot landscaping areas (approximately 3%of site)located at the entrance to the property.Staff has included a Condition of Approval requiring payment of the Cultural Arts Fee for the rest of the required landscaping area by the applicant (the remaining 7% requirement which would go to citywide landscaping efforts). GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The project site is designated as Mixed Industrial (MI)consistent with the City’s General Plan adopted in 1999. The land use designation is intended for industrial lands for manufacturing,industrial processing,general services,warehouse and storage and distribution and service commercial uses.The project includes converting existing warehouse to personal storage space which has a comparable warehouse use and meets the intent of the adopted General Plan designation.The proposed personal storage would serve neighbors’and community demands to find extra spaces as they work from home and provide extra storage for nearby apartments and condominium buildings recently constructed in the Downtown area. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed conversion from the Warehouse to Personal Storage use is categorically exempt under the provision of CEQA (Class 1,Section 1531,Existing Facilities),and no construction of modification of the exterior structure is proposed. CONCLUSION The project is compliant with the SSFMC,General Plan,Zoning Land Use Regulations and Development Standards.Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make findings and approve the Use Permit (UP22- 0008)under the Planning Project File (P22-0087),subject to the attached draft Findings and Condition of City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™16 File #:22-784 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:3. Approval. Attachments: 1.Draft Findings 2.Draft Conditions of Approval 3.Owner’s Operation Letter 4.Site Plans 5.Site Photos City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™17 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL P22-0087: UP 22-0008 1349 SAN MATEO AVENUE (As recommended by City Planning Staff on September 16, 2022) As required by the Use Permit Procedures (SSFMC Chapter 20.490), the following findings are made in support of a Use Permit for the conversion of an existing Indoor Warehouse and to allow Personal Storage at 1349 San Mateo Avenue in Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), based on materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Division which include, but are not limited to: Application materials prepared by applicant, submitted August 11, 2022; Use Permit staff report dated September 16, 2022; and Conditions of Approval. REQUIRED FINDINGS A. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Supportive Evidence: The project site is located within the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District. Pursuant to the land use regulations in Sections 20.110.002, personal storage is permitted in Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning Districts with a Use Permit. B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. Supportive Evidence: The project is consistent with the General Plan which designates the site as Mixed Industrial Use. C. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. Supportive Evidence: The project will not adversely impact to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, or detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The personal storage will be operated within an existing building and no exterior alteration is proposed, except for identifying signage which will be under a separate sign permit. D. The proposed use complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning district or the use in question as may be adopted by a resolution of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. Supportive Evidence: The project complies with design and development standards applicable to the MI Zoning District and use. No exterior modification is proposed, and the proposed use would be operated within the existing facility. E. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity. 18 Findings of Approval Supportive Evidence: The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the project would be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity. The project would be within the existing structure and no exterior change is proposed. F. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. Supportive Evidence: The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the project use, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. The access to the project site would remain the same from the San Mateo Avenue and no physical expansion of the existing building is proposed. G. An environmental determination has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Supportive Evidence: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt per the provisions of Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities. 19 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P22-0087: UP 22-0008 1349 SAN MATEO AVENUE (As recommended by City Planning Staff on September 16, 2022) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the City of South San Francisco, Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division, standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Family Residential Projects. 2. The construction drawing shall substantially comply with the approved plans dated August 4, 2022, prepared by JP Development as approved by the Planning Commission for UP 22-0008, as amended by the Conditions of Approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Chief Planner. 3. The applicant shall maintain the landscape proposed (Approx. 3%) to meet the landscaping requirement (10% of site) and Cultural Arts fee shall be required for the rest of the landscaping area (Approx. 7%) by the applicant. All landscaped area shall be permanently maintained in compliance with Chapter 20.300.007 of the Zoning Ordinance. Payment of the Cultural Arts fee shall be required prior to issuance of the Building Permit for any work constructed. 4. Any exterior business signage will require a sign application pursuant to Chapter 20.360 of the Zoning Ordinance. Submitting a sign permit application for the exterior signage is required prior to a final Building Permit. 5. The business shall be operate substantially as outlined in the Operation Letter submitted by Emilio Arco dated September 14, 2022 (Ref. Attachment 3). 6. All parking areas shall be maintained clear of litter and storage at all the time. No outdoor storage of materials is allowed, and no work shall be conducted outside of a building. (Planning Division contact person: Victoria Kim, Associate Planner (650) 877-8535) 20 B. Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The building permit application plans shall conform to the standards of the Engineering Division’s “Building Permit Typical Plan Check Submittals” requirements, copies of which are available from the Engineering Division or on our website https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division/development-review 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. The owner may be made to comply with Title 14 Chapter 14.14 SEWER LATERAL CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION of the South San Francisco Municipal Code http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/ where the sewer lateral will be examined and the appropriate requirements will be imposed. Depending on the severity of the sewer lateral, the cost incurred may be in the range of $5,000 to $20,000. All work shall be accomplished at the applicant's expense. 4. The owner shall, at his/her expense, replace any broken sidewalk, curb, and gutter fronting the property. The City of SSF shall be the sole judge of whether any such replacement is necessary. All adjacent sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be rebuilt to City standard at the Owner’s expense. 5. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work to be done within the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. 6. Contractors must have a Class A-Engineering license for any work in the street (beyond the face of curb). Contractors with a Class A license may perform any and all work associated with building permit requirements. For concrete work between the curb and the building, a Class C-8 license is sufficient. For plumbing work between the curb and the building, a Class C-36 license is sufficient. An exemption may be granted by the City if a relatively minor portion of the work is not covered by the Contractor’s license. For example, if a new sewer cleanout is being installed in the sidewalk by a Contractor with a C-36 (plumbing) license, the same Contractor may remove and reform no more than one (1) panel of the sidewalk without the need for a Class C-8 (concrete) license. 7. The Engineering Division reserves the right to revise or include additional conditions during the building permit application plan review. (Engineering Division contact: Giuseppe Cannavo at (650) 829-6652) 21 22 Existing Site PlanN HB27'-8"6'18'-3"24'-1"18'53"51"10'8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"2'-4"6"13'-3"5'-6"9'37'-7"68'-6"9'-7"630 sq ft54 sq ft190 sq ft54 sq ftRest RoomSerElevRest RoomEntrance1349 SAN MATEO AVELOWRIE AVEeTUFF GRASSOffice CubeExisting Chain link FenceMain Water Shut-offeConcreteeConcrete432eWater Meter15221 Sqft181 Sqft67 SqfteTUFF GRASSeTUFF GRASSePalm TreeNS All designs, draw ings, and w ritten materials appearing herein, are protected and constitute original and unpublished w ork of JP Developm ent and m ay not be revised, re -u s e d , copied, or disclosed witho ut its w ritten consent. The use is to b e re s tric te d to the site fo r w hich they are prepared. Scope of Works:Interior remodel onlyConvert existing two story,16, 325 SqFt warehouseinto storage units (129 )perplan.Provide 5 parking spaces and1 Handicap Parking per plan1357 San Mateo StorageAll works shall be complied with applicable code:- 2019 California Residential Code- 2019 California Building Code (Vol 1 & 2)- 2019 California Green Building Standard Code - 2019 California Mechanical Code- 2019 California Electrical Code- 2019 California Plumbing Code- 2019 California Fire Code - 2019 California Energy Code- State & Local S. San Francisco City OrdinancesAnd RegulationsPRINTED DATE 8/5/2022ENGINEERED BY:AS NOTEDJOB DESCRIPTION:Amilo Arco LLC1349 SAN MATEO AVES. SAN Francisco , CA 94080DRAWN: M.PSHEET: 1 Of 6SCALE @ 24"x 36" :A-1DATE:2022/08/04JPDevelopment155 Bovet Road, Suite 700San Mateo, CA 94402650-533-9480jpdevelopmentsm@gmail.comE_STAMP1/10" = 1" - 0"Front Scape Area Calc:Front Area = 2569.00 SqFt 10% Landscape = 259 SqFteTuff grass Area = 221+181+67 = 469 Sqft 23 1/8" = 1" - 0"DEMODEMON1007330681201283610FX3619AW3646FX11'-6"Q FT8'-6" X 11'-11"101 SQ FT7" X 11'-9"01 SQ FT7'-4" X 8'-5"62 SQ FT" X 11'-8"0 SQ FT11'-8"SQ FT5"TAABBCCDDSTORAGEAGEORAGERAGEE1ST FLR STORAGE AREA8257 SQFT - 62 UNITSTORAGESTORAGEHB10073306814014932'-11"23"206"8"232"8"233"8"232"8"232"8"232"8"243"230"1912"591"112233445566778899AABBCCDD All designs, draw ings, and w ritten materials appearing herein, are protected and constitute original and unpublished w ork of JP Developm ent and m ay not be revised, re -u s e d , copied, or disclosed witho ut its w ritten consent. The use is to b e re s tric te d to the site fo r w hich they are prepared. PROPOSED REMODEL 1st FLOOR PLANEXISTING1st FLOOR PLAN W/ DEMOLITION NOTES1357 San Mateo StoragePRINTED DATE 8/5/2022ENGINEERED BY:AS NOTEDJOB DESCRIPTION:Amilo Arco LLC1349 SAN MATEO AVES. SAN Francisco , CA 94080DRAWN: M.PSHEET: 2 Of 6SCALE @ 24"x 36" :A-2DATE:2022/08/04JPDevelopment155 Bovet Road, Suite 700San Mateo, CA 94402650-533-9480jpdevelopmentsm@gmail.comE_STAMPTO BE REMOVED 1/8" = 1" - 0"24 NDNDN3045SH3645SH3645SH636810'-5" X 9'-8"100 SQ FT8'-2" X 8'-2"66 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-0"50 SQ FT13'-8" X 7'-3"99 SQ FT5'-0" X 5'-7"28 SQ FT9'-0" X 5'-6"49 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT9'-0" X 11'-1"100 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT10'-0" X 10'-0"100 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT5'-0" X 10'-1"50 SQ FT5'-2" X 6'-8"35 SQ FT7'-5" X 6'-8"50 SQ FT7'-5" X 6'-8"50 SQ FT5'-3" X 6'-8"35 SQ FT8'-2" X 4'-9"39 SQ FT4'-7" X 13'-10"70 SQ FT10'-0" X 9'-11"100 SQ FT10'-0" X 5'-0"50 SQ FT10'-0" X 10'-0"100 SQ FT10'-0" X 10'-0"100 SQ FT10'-0" X 10'-0"100 SQ FT10'-0" X 10'-0"100 SQ FT10'-0" X 10'-0"100 SQ FT10'-0" X 10'-0"100 SQ FT10'-0" X 10'-0"100 SQ FT10'-0" X 10'-0"100 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT5'-1" X 9'-10"50 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT16'-9" X 30'-1"575 SQ FT10'-10" X 9'-3"100 SQ FT10'-0" X 6'-0"60 SQ FT4'-8" X 10'-9"50 SQ FT13'-4" X 7'-6"100 SQ FT4'-3" X 9'-2"39 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT13'-0" X 7'-10"101 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT7'-3" X 9'-2"66 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT6'-6" X 9'-2"60 SQ FT3'-8" X 8'-5"31 SQ FT11'-2" X 9'-0"101 SQ FT11'-7" X 8'-7"100 SQ FT11'-11" X 8'-5"101 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT9'-2" X 10'-11"100 SQ FT14'-0" X 7'-2"100 SQ FT12'-8" X 7'-11"100 SQ FT12'-4" X 8'-3"101 SQ FT9'-0" X 11'-2"101 SQ FT9'-0" X 11'-0"99 SQ FTSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESER_ELEVSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGE STORAGE STORAGE STORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGEOPEN BELOWSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGEeFIXEDSKYLIGHT (TYP.)112233445566778899AABBCCDD2ND FLR STORAGE AREA8068 SQFT - 67 STORAGE UNITSSTORAGESTORAGEOPEN BELOWSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGEDNDN3037SH3227FX3637SH3627FX3627FX3637SH5068S15S15E25E25S25S25239"41"917"8"953"16'-7" X 29'-11"8'-2" X 8'-0"5'-11" X 13'-4"53'-3" X 159'-3"SER_ELEVeFIXEDSKYLIGHT (TYP.)112233445566778899AABBCCDDOPEN BELOWSTORAGEOPEN BELOW All designs, draw ings, and w ritten materials appearing herein, are protected and constitute original and unpublished w ork of JP Developm ent and m ay not be revised, re -u s e d , copied, or disclosed witho ut its w ritten consent. The use is to b e re s tric te d to the site fo r w hich they are prepared. 1357 San Mateo StoragePRINTED DATE 8/5/2022ENGINEERED BY:AS NOTEDJOB DESCRIPTION:Amilo Arco LLC1349 SAN MATEO AVES. SAN Francisco , CA 94080DRAWN: M.PSHEET: 3 Of 6SCALE @ 24"x 36" :A-3DATE:2022/08/04JPDevelopment155 Bovet Road, Suite 700San Mateo, CA 94402650-533-9480jpdevelopmentsm@gmail.comE_STAMPPROPOSED REMODEL 2nd FLOOR PLANe_2nd FLOOR PLAN(N) SHED METALWALL 1/8" = 1" - 0"25 NDNDN3037SH3227FX3637SH3627FX3627FX3637SH50681 : 121 : 12S15S15Cross Section 1E25E25Elevation 2S25S25Cross Section 2SER_ELEVeFIXEDSKYLIGHT (TYP.)112233445566778899AABBCCDDOPEN BELOWSTORAGEOPEN BELOW8x8 Wood Post(typ.)8x22 Roof Beam (typ.)4x12 Roof Beam (typ.)eSkylight (typ.)2nd FloorHB10073306830713071306814014930683010FX3646FX3610FX3619AW3610FX3619AW3646FX60"23"206"8"232"8"233"8"232"8"232"8"232"8"243"230"1912"591"112233445566778899AABBCCDDRest Room Ser Elev Rest Room EntranceOffice Cube 11st Floor All designs, draw ings, and w ritten materials appearing herein, are protected and constitute original and unpublished w ork of JP Developm ent and m ay not be revised, re -u s e d , copied, or disclosed witho ut its w ritten consent. The use is to b e re s tric te d to the site fo r w hich they are prepared. 1357 San Mateo StoragePRINTED DATE 8/5/2022ENGINEERED BY:AS NOTEDJOB DESCRIPTION:Amilo Arco LLC1349 SAN MATEO AVES. SAN Francisco , CA 94080DRAWN: M.PSHEET: 4 Of 6SCALE @ 24"x 36" :A-4DATE:2022/08/04JPDevelopment155 Bovet Road, Suite 700San Mateo, CA 94402650-533-9480jpdevelopmentsm@gmail.comE_STAMPExisting Framing Plan1/8" = 1" - 0"26 N 116"102"99"89" 95" 105" 93" 4 x 12 F.J @ 12" O.C.6x6 Floor Steel Beam (typ.)6x6 Steel Post (typ.)8x8 Wood Post(typ.)8x8 Wood Post(typ.)8x22 Roof Beam (typ.)4x12 Roof Beam (typ.)FGCH1FF2CH2FF1Cross Section 1 - Existing FramingElevation 282"Cross Section 2 - Rear Stair All designs, draw ings, and w ritten materials appearing herein, are protected and constitute original and unpublished w ork of JP Developm ent and m ay not be revised, re -u s e d , copied, or disclosed witho ut its w ritten consent. The use is to b e re s tric te d to the site fo r w hich they are prepared. 1357 San Mateo StoragePRINTED DATE 8/5/2022ENGINEERED BY:AS NOTEDJOB DESCRIPTION:Amilo Arco LLC1349 SAN MATEO AVES. SAN Francisco , CA 94080DRAWN: M.PSHEET: 5 Of 6SCALE @ 24"x 36" :A-5DATE:2022/08/04JPDevelopment155 Bovet Road, Suite 700San Mateo, CA 94402650-533-9480jpdevelopmentsm@gmail.comE_STAMPExisting Section Plan3/16" = 1" - 0"27 28 29 30 31 32 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-581 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. Report regarding consideration of a Conditional Use Permit,Design Review,and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the repurposing of a structure into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning District and a Class 1,Section 15301 categorical exemption under CEQA in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed Conditional Use Permit (UP22- 0002),Design Review (DR22-0006),and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0001)for the repurposing of the old Firehouse into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction at 201 Baden Avenue is categorically exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 1,Section 15301,Existing Facilities,and approve a Conditional Use Permit,Design Review,and Transportation Demand Management Plan based on the attached Draft Findings and subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval. MOTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1) Move to make CEQA determination and approve project subject to attached findings and conditions. BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION Site Overview The project site is located at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)sub-district of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)District.The site is a through lot extending from Baden Avenue to Second Lane and is located mid-block between Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard.The project site,currently owned by the City,is approximately 22,460 square feet (0.51 acres)and consists of three parcels (APNs 012-335-100 and 012-335-110,with the third not possessing an APN).There is an existing retired firehouse and surface parking lot on the site. Proposal The applicant is proposing to repurpose the retired firehouse into office space and potential commercial space. The project includes:1)exterior modifications including painting,replacement of existing doors and windows, and signage;2)interior tenant improvements to create a multi-tenant office space with shared facilities;and 3) associated site work for landscaping, pathways and surface parking. This project is part of a larger proposal for the site.In September 2017,the City of South San Francisco issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)to create a high quality,mixed-use,transit-oriented development on the project site.Ultimately,a developer team that proposed to retain the existing firehouse for commercial purposes on one half of the site and develop housing on the second half of the site was selected -Firehouse Work LLC (the applicant). The City has been negotiating the disposition of the project site with the applicant since August 2018.During this time,the applicant has worked with various housing partners to fulfill the housing aspect of their proposal,City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™33 File #:22-581 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. this time,the applicant has worked with various housing partners to fulfill the housing aspect of their proposal, as submitted in response to the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP). The applicant is moving forward with the Firehouse Work component of the overall project,and the Firehouse Live (or residential)component will continue to be negotiated with the relevant parties and processed for entitlements at a future date.As part of the completion of this initial component,the project site will be reconfigured into two parcels,and a Vacation and Lot Line Adjustment will be processed through the Engineering Division.A Parcel Map for the Vacation and Lot Line Adjustment has already been reviewed and will move forward to City Council approval after Planning entitlements have been approved. Historic Resource Evaluation A Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE)was prepared for the project site to determine the historic significance, if any,of the existing firehouse due to its age (Attachment 3).The building was constructed in 1949 as the location of South San Francisco Fire Department’s Central Station.Designed by architect William Henry Rowe, the subject building served as the City’s first purpose-built fire station between 1949 and 2006,when it was vacated and fire operations were relocated to a newly constructed station. The HRE evaluated the building based on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)criteria for historic significance,as well as the City’s criteria for designation of historic resources found in South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC Chapter 2.56 (Planning Commission).The subject building appears to be individually eligible for listing in the CRHR under two of the four criteria for historic significance and also appears to qualify under several evaluative criteria for local historic listing under the SSFMC. At this time,the City has opted not to undergo the application process to designate the site as a historic site.The proposal involves minor architectural changes,such as window replacement and exterior painting,however, and it is likely that any historic significance potential will not be negatively affected with this proposal. ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Proposed Use The project site is located in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)sub-district of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)District.Per SSFMC Section 20.280.003 (Land Use Regulations-Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts),office uses are allowed by-right,and a variety of commercial uses are allowed,either by-right or with the approval of a Use Permit.At this time,the three new tenant spaces are proposed for office use with the potential for one tenant space to possibly be used for retail.A condition of approval has been recommended that requires that any potential commercial use for the one tenant space to be evaluated for zoning consistency during the business license process and/or building permit process for interior tenant improvements. Design Review The project includes the renovation and exterior modification of the existing firehouse.Exterior modifications include new paint,the replacement of overhead doors with storefront windows and doors,and the infilling of some doors and windows.Additional site work,including new landscaping,pathways and a surface parking lot, as well as the expansion of the existing sidewalk along Baden Avenue,are also proposed.The exterior modifications present an improvement over the present conditions and is compatible with the design guidelines for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, as well as current development standards. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™34 File #:22-581 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. Parking Reduction Request and TDM Plan The conversion of the existing firehouse into new office tenant spaces requires a reevaluation of required parking for the site.Pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.330.007 (Required On-Site Parking Spaces,Downtown Districts),a total of 29 parking spaces is required,using the required parking ratio for business and professional office use.If one of the tenant spaces will be used for commercial use,the total number of parking spaces required decreases to 25.The parking ratio for retail use is the same as the ratio for business and professional use, but no parking is required for the first 1,500 square feet of floor area for retail sales. A new surface parking lot containing five parking spaces with access from Second Lane is proposed,which is 24 spaces less than what is required.As mentioned above,this proposal is part of a larger project for the site that includes the reconfiguration of the parcels that make up the project site,and this proposal will be located on a parcel of its own.The new configuration for this parcel will cause the existing building to take up a majority of the site, creating limited opportunity to provide additional parking spaces on-site. Pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.330.006,applicants may obtain a parking reduction for any use through applying for a Conditional Use Permit,which the Planning Commission would review and may only grant such permit if it finds that:(a)special conditions-including but not limited to the nature of the proposed operation; proximity to frequent transit service;transportation characteristics of persons residing,working,or visiting the site;or because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program-exist that will reduce parking demand at the site;(b)use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking;and (c) parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area. In support of the parking reduction request,the applicant has voluntarily proposed a draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM)plan (Attachment 4).Pursuant to SSFMC Chapter 20.400 (Transportation Demand Management),a TDM plan is required for all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips,based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)trip generation rates.A trip generation analysis was prepared for the project and determined that the project would not generate more than 100 daily trips.Therefore,this project would otherwise not require the implementation of a TDM plan,but one has been submitted to help relieve parking demand and support a reduction in on-site parking spaces. The draft TDM plan provides a concise description of TDM Measures that the project will implement in order to comply with the DSASP’s goal to “provide for a balanced mix of travel modes -including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and automobiles.” The location of the project site within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)area,which promotes pedestrian and bicycle travel in a high-density area of complementary land uses,and within a ¼-mile radius of the Caltrain Station and four SamTrans bus routes,which promotes use of alternate modes of transportation,will help reduce the parking demand at the project site.The adjacent proximity of the Caltrain plaza and station,as well as four SamTrans bus routes and retail and amenity uses in Downtown,will promote opportunities for office employees to walk or use public transportation and reduce dependency on single- occupancy vehicles.Additionally,the installation of eight long-term bicycle parking spaces within the renovated building will promote alternative modes of transportation.For those employees opting for vehicular use,the project site is located within proximity to several existing Downtown parking garages that will adequately serve their needs. Due to the project’s transit-oriented location,implementation of the measures outlined in the draft TDM plan, and availability of public parking in the surrounding area,staff supports the request for a parking reduction City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™35 File #:22-581 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. and availability of public parking in the surrounding area,staff supports the request for a parking reduction from 29 to five parking spaces.Further,a Condition of Approval for project entitlements will be included to ensure TDM compliance. It is worth noting that effective January 1,2023,most projects within ½mile of a major transit station such as SSF Caltrain will be exempt from Parking Minimums by State Law.Consideration of parking reductions like this in the areas of the City close to SSF BART,SSF Caltrain,the El Camino Real Corridor and near SamTrans high volume service will not be subject to local decision. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan,which designates the site as Downtown Transit Core (DTC).This land use designation is envisioned to be a vibrant,mixed-use area,and due to its proximity to the Caltrain Station,this area is suitable for higher intensities to support transit ridership.The project includes repurposing a vacant,unused building into new office tenant space,which revitalizes and activates the area, meeting the intent of the adopted General Plan designation. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB)on April 19,2022.The DRB had a positive reception to the design concept and liked the re-use of the retired firehouse.Additionally,the DRB commented that the exterior modifications are an improvement to the project site.The DRB supported the design and recommended approval to the Planning Commission with minor comments,most of which have already been incorporated into the project plans (see Attachments 2 and 5).A Condition of Approval for any DRB comments that have not been addressed has been included in the draft Conditions of Approval found in Attachment 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the provisions of CEQA,Class 1, Section 15301,Existing Facilities.The project site is an existing developed property surrounded by existing commercial buildings.The proposal includes minor exterior modifications to renovate the exterior of the building and interior improvements to create new tenant spaces. CONCLUSION The project,as conditioned,is compliant with the City’s Municipal Code,General Plan,Zoning Development Standards and Design Criteria.Therefore,staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed Conditional Use Permit (UP22-0002),Design Review (DR22-0006),and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0001)for the repurposing of the old Firehouse into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction is categorically exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),Class 1,Section 15301,Existing Facilities,and approve the Conditional Use Permit,Design Review,and Transportation Demand Management Plan based on the attached Draft Findings and subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1.Draft Findings and Conditions of Approval 2.Project Plans 3.201 Baden Avenue Historic Resource Evaluation, dated May 28, 2019 4.Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, dated May 10, 2022 5.Design Review Board (DRB) Comment Letter, dated May 2, 2022 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™36 File #:22-581 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™37 DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL P21-0128: UP22-0002, DR22-0006 & TDM22-0001 201 BADEN AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff on October 6, 2022) As required by the Transportation Demand Management, Design Review, and Use Permit Procedures (SSFMC Chapters 20.400, 20.480, and 20.490), the following findings are made in support of a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the repurposing of the old Firehouse into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), based on public testimony and materials submitted to the South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Application materials submitted January 27, 2022; project plans dated stamp received July 27, 2022; Planning Commission staff report dated October 6, 2022; and Planning Commission hearing of October 6, 2022. 1. Use Permit (Parking Reduction) A. The location of the project site within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) area, which promotes pedestrian and bicycle travel in a high-density area of complementary land uses, and within a ¼-mile radius of the Caltrain Station and four SamTrans bus routes, which promotes use of alternate modes of transportation, will help reduce the parking demand at the project site. Additionally, the applicant will implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan that will include design features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the roadway and parking demand that would be generated by the project; B. The use will adequately be served by existing parking on-site and surrounding parking in seven Downtown parking garages. Additional parking on-site is not feasible and, like most existing structures in the Downtown area, there is no ability to add additional on-site parking; and C. Based on the proposed uses and improvements described, parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area in that the surrounding area has available capacity to accommodate excess parking as needed. Furthermore, the applicant will implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan that will include design features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the parking demand that would be generated by the project. 2. Design Review A. The Project is consistent with the applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance because as submitted and modified through the Design Review Process, this Project meets or complies with the applicable standards included in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District (Chapter 20.280); 38 Findings of Approval Page 2 of 2 B. The Project is consistent with the General Plan because it is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Downtown area; C. The Project is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed use is consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District Regulations and Standards included in Section 20.280.004; D. The proposed Project is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Reduction, and those findings have been made in the above section; and E. 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 Zoning Ordinance. 3. Transportation Demand Management A. The proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the proposed use and the project’s location, size, and hours of operation because the proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan includes required trip reduction measures that would help to minimize traffic impacts; and B. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target alternative mode use established for the project by SSFMC Chapter 20.400 will be achieved and maintained because the proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan identifies strategies and resources to promote alternative transportation means for the site. Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and triennial report 39 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P21-0128: UP22-0002, DR22-0006 & TDM22-0001 201 BADEN AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff on October 6, 2022) PLANNING CONDITIONS GENERAL 1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Division’s Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects as amended, and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as otherwise amended by the following Conditions of Approval. 2. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared by Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc., dated July 27, 2022, and approved by the Planning Commission in association with P21-0128, as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner. 3. The construction drawings shall comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval, including the plans prepared by Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc., dated July 27, 2022. 4. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 5. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 6. A Parcel Map application for the Vacation and Lot Line Adjustment shall be filed with the Engineering Division and approved by the City Council prior to building permit issuance. 7. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) for 201 Baden Avenue. 8. Any proposed businesses for the new commercial tenant spaces shall obtain approval of a business license prior to occupation of the tenant space and commencement of the business. Prior to issuance of any business license, the proposed commercial use or other use requiring said business license shall be reviewed and evaluate by the City for consistency with applicable zoning designations and regulations. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any uses that is not consistent with said applicable regulations as evaluated by the City, prior to issuance of any aforementioned business 40 Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 22 license. 9. Any proposed interior tenant modifications for the new commercial tenant spaces shall require issuance of a building permit. CONSTRUCTION 10. 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. 11. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 12. During construction, the applicant shall provide parking on-site, or shall arrange for off- site parking, for construction workers. DESIGN REVIEW / SITE PLANNING 13. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall. Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility locations, stand-pipes, equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 14. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the City’s Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with SSFMC Section 20.300.007, Landscaping. 15. 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), as outlined in SSFMC Section 20.330.007, Landscaping, if applicable. a) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO. b) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the performance measures required by the MWELO. c) For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the City, upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system. 41 Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 22 16. 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 SSFMC Section 20.300.014, Trash and Refuse Collection Areas. The applicant shall submit an approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger to the Chief Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 17. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the Design Review Board from their meeting of April 19, 2022. 18. Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Any removal or pruning of protected trees shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and the applicant shall obtain a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees and avoid tree roots during trenching for utilities. 19. The applicant shall install three-inch diameter, PVC conduit along the project frontage, in the right-of-way, if any trenching is to take place, for the purpose of future fiber installation. Conduit shall have a pull rope or tape. A #8 stranded trace wire will be installed in the conduit or other trace wire system approved by the City. 20. All landscaping installed within the public right-of-way shall be maintained by the property owner. 21. Prior to receiving certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install street furniture, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks along the project sidewalk frontages. The Planning Division shall review and approve all street furniture, trash receptacles and bicycle rack options during the Building Permit process. 22. Permanent project signage is not included in project entitlements. Prior to installation of any project signage, the applicant shall submit an appropriate sign application per SSFMC Chapter 20.360, Signs, for review and approval. TRANSPORTATION / PARKING 23. The applicant has prepared and submitted a draft TDM Plan, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated May 10, 2022. In accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan for review and approval by the Chief Planner. a) The Final TDM Plan shall include all mandatory elements included in the Ordinance and shall substantially reflect the Preliminary TDM Plan prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated May 10, 2022. The Plan shall be designed to achieve a goal of 28% alternative mode usage by the Project. b) The Final TDM Plan shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring, including annual surveys. The initial annual survey will be submitted one (1) 42 Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 22 year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy. The initial annual survey shall either: (1) state that the applicable property has achieved 28% alternative mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not achieved the 28% alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the TDM goal of 28% alternative mode usage. c) The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM Program on an annual basis. The annual monitoring fee is $1,848 and is updated by the City Council on an annual basis. The monitoring fee for the Project’s first year of operation is due to the City prior to the project receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. d) The Final TDM plan shall be subject to review and approval by the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments. The property owner shall ensure compliance with the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program Land Use Implementation Policy (C/CAG TDM Policy). Specifically, the property owner shall ensure that the measures identified in the approved C/CAG TDM Checklist are implemented over the life of the project, and that the property owner and tenants acknowledge the requirement to participate in the periodic monitoring and reporting requirements identified in the C/CAG TDM Policy. Accordingly, itis recommended that the property owner and/or developer clearly identify these TDM provisions and responsibilities in any sales and/or lease or sublease transactions. 24. The proposed long-term bicycle parking shall meet the following standards: a) Location. Long-term bicycle parking must be located on the same lot as the use it serves. In parking garages, long-term bicycle parking must be located near an entrance to the facility. b) Covered Spaces. At least 50 percent of required long-term bicycle parking must be covered. Covered parking can be provided inside buildings, under roof overhangs or awnings, in bicycle lockers, or within or under other structures. c) Security. Long-term bicycle parking must be in at least one of the following facilities: i. An enclosed bicycle locker; ii. A fenced, covered, locked or guarded bicycle storage area; or iii. A rack or stand inside a building that is within view of an attendant or security guard or visible from employee work areas. 43 Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 22 d) Size and Accessibility. Each bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. Two feet of clearance shall be provided between bicycle parking spaces and adjacent walls, poles, landscaping, street furniture, drive aisles, and pedestrian ways and at least five feet from vehicle parking spaces. 25. The applicant shall purchase, using the City’s online permit management system, a minimum of 24 either monthly or quarterly parking permits from the Downtown Parking District. If the permits are sold out, contact Public Works at parking@ssf.net and attach conditions of approval to the email. At the time of purchase and annual renewal, the applicant shall provide proof of purchase to the Planning Division. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 26. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the developer shall revise the development plans to include the following Climate Action Plan requirements, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee: a) Electric Vehicle Charging Installations Measure 2.1, Action 5: Require new large-scale nonresidential developments to provide conduit for future electric vehicle charging installations and encourage the installation of conduits or electric vehicle charging stations for all new development. b) Heat Island Reductions Measure 3.4, Action 1: Encourage the use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the voluntary CALGreen standards. c) Alternative Energy Facilities Measure 4.1, Action 2: Require the construction of any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more, to comply with one of the following standards: i. Meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity needs with on- site renewable energy sources. To calculate 50% of building electricity needs for the new conditioned space, the applicant shall calculate building electricity use as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Total electricity use shall include total use for the new conditioned space excluding process energy. ii. Participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity use. Building electricity use shall be calculated using the method identified above. iii. Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency requirements by 20% or more. For additions to existing development of 5,000 square feet or more, CALGreen Tier 2 44 Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 22 shall be calculated as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Existing building space already permitted shall not be subject to CALGreen Tier 2 requirements. d) Solar Wiring Installation Measure 4.1, Action 3: Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar. e) Water Demand Reduction Measure 6.1, Action 2: Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following: i. Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features. ii. Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise. iii. Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors. iv. Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants. v. Installing drip irrigation systems. vi. Reducing impervious surfaces. IMPACT / DEVELOPMENT FEES **Fees are subject to annual adjustment and will be calculated based on the fee in effect at the time that the payment of the fee is due. The fees included in these Conditions of Approval are estimates, based on the fees in place at the time of project approval.** 27. CHILDCARE IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay any applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.310. This fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2022, the childcare impact fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $1.51/SF x 11,467 SF. = $17,315.17 28. CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay applicable transportation impact fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.73. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2022, the Citywide Transportation Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $34.85/SF x 11,467 SF. = $399,624.95 45 Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 22 29. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable commercial linkage fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.69, based on the current fee for each applicable land use category. The fee shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Based on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2022, the commercial linkage fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $17.38/SF x 11,467 SF = $199,296.46 30. LIBRARY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the development, the applicant shall pay applicable Library Impact Fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.74. Based on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2022, the Library Impact Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $0.14/SF x 11,467 SF = $1,605.38 31. PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the Parkland Acquisition Fee and Parkland Construction Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.67. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2022, the park fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $3.54/SF x 11,467 SF = $40,593.18 32. PUBLIC SAFEY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay applicable Public Safety Impact Fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.75. Based on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2022, the Public Safety Impact Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $1.31/SF x 11,467 SF = $15,021.77 33. PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT: All non-residential development is subject to the Public Art Requirement, per South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76. The public art requirement for this project shall be satisfied by providing qualifying public art, as defined in South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 and reviewed and approved by the Cultural Arts Commission or designee, with a value equal to not less than 1% of construction costs for acquisition and installation of public art on the project site; or electing to make a public art contribution payment in an amount not less than 0.5% of construction costs into the public art fund. The in-lieu contribution payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 46 Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 22 Contact: Stephanie Skangos, Planning Division, at (650) 877-8535 or stephanie.skangos@ssf.net 47 Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 22 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MIXED USE, AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Entitlement and Permit Status 1. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two (2) years of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on that date. A one-year permit extension may be granted in accordance with provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (Common Procedures). 2. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a duly authorized representative files an affidavit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, stating that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the conditions of the permit. 3. The permit shall be subject to revocation if the project is not operated in compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. Minor changes or deviations from the conditions of approval of the permit may be approved by the Chief Planner and major changes require approval of the Planning Commission, or final approval body of the City, per SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (Common Procedures). 5. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall authorize, require or permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances specifically named therein. 6. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City’s Building Division. 7. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the affected City Departments and Planning and Building Divisions prior to occupancy of any building. Any request for temporary power for testing equipment will be issued only upon substantial completion of the development. Lighting, Signs, and Trash Areas 8. All exterior lights shall be installed in such a manner that is consistent with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards), and there shall be no illumination on adjacent properties or streets which might be considered either objectionable by adjacent property owners or hazardous to motorists. 9. No additional signs, flags, pennants or banners shall be installed or erected on the site without prior approval, as required by SSFMC Chapter 20.360 (Signs). 10. Adequate trash areas shall be provided as required by SSFMC 20.300 (Lot and 48 Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 22 Development Standards). 11. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. If being installed in a food service facility the drain must be connected to a grease interceptor prior to the connection to the sanitary sewer. Landscaping, Construction, & Utilities 12. The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce to a minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation. 13. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 14. All sewerage and waste disposal shall be only by means of an approved sanitary system. 15. Prior to any on-site grading, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. 16. All existing utility lines, underground cable conduits and structures which are not proposed to be removed shall be shown on the improvement plans and their disposition noted. 17. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be maintained in fully operable condition at all times, and which complies with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 18. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained weed free. 19. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to develop. 20. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner. Parking Areas, Screening, & Drainage 21. All ducting for air conditioning, heating, blower systems, accessory mechanisms and all other forms of mechanical or electrical equipment which are placed on or adjacent to the building shall be screened from public view, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 22. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping areas shall be kept free of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site, 49 Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 22 structures, paving, landscaping, light standards, pavement markings and all other facilities shall be permanently maintained. 23. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, and turn-around areas must drain and be plumbed to the sanitary sewer. Public Safety 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, “Minimum Building Security Standards” Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. 25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code, “Fire Code” Ordinance. The Fire Department reserves the right to make additional safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. 26. All fire sprinkler test and/or drain lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. Revised March 2013 50 Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 22 ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS The Plans are generally approved by Engineering, but the following items shall be addressed during Permit submittals. 1. Per Muni Code, a parcel is only allowed a single sanitary sewer lateral. There are two existing laterals from the site and one new proposed lateral (serving the trash enclosure). The project shall revise the design to only reuse the existing laterals and not install a new lateral. Essentially, combine the flows so that the project only has two laterals in the post- development condition. 2. The proposed storm drain line in the western alley likely will conflict with the water service since the water meter is located at that location. The project will either end up relocating the water service or the storm drain alignment. Below are the special conditions that may apply to the subject permit, which may overlap with any standard development conditions – these conditions are subject to change. 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 an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable 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 an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of ROW improvements for deposit amount calculation. 2. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 3. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to grading. Otherwise, hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering- division. 51 Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 22 4. The Applicant shall obtain a Demolition Permit to demolish the existing buildings. 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 payment prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 7. An Encroachment 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. Plan Submittal 8. The Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California, along with three printed copies. 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), Detail Sheet(s), Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant may submit all related documentation along with the Building Permit. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment 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 Encroachment Permit. Applicant shall provide an engineer’s estimate for all work performed with in the public 52 Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 22 right-of-way and submit a bond equal to 110% of the estimate. The submittal of the bonds is required prior to the execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 11. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 12. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 13. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit, grading permit, or public improvement permit. Mapping and Agreements 14. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of any mapping application. 15. Prior to Building Permit issuance, all applicable mapping shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Clerk Recorder’s Office. 16. The Applicant shall process a Parcel Map to vacate the Public ROW to the two adjacent parcels such that existing or proposed buildings do not straddle a property line. 17. All required public easement dedications to the City on the project site shall be established via a Parcel Map for the property. 18. 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. 53 Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 22 19. Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees required for any mapping application prior to review. Right-of-Way 20. Prior to building permit issuance and prior to any work within the City Right-of-Way, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Engineering Division. 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 submit a video survey of the adjacent streets (perimeter of proposed property location) to determine the pre-construction condition of the streets at no cost to the City. The Applicant will be responsible to ensure that the condition of the streets and striping is in at least existing condition or better after construction is completed. 22. Per the Transportation Demand Management Plan by Hexagon, the Applicant shall install the following improvements: a) Required Measure 3: provide lighting and landscaping along the project frontage to enhance pedestrian safety. b) Required Measure 7: widen sidewalks to a minimum 5-ft wide and include planting strips along the project frontage. 23. 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, and sidewalks are to be constructed to current City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet current City standards. 24. The Applicant shall reconstruct the existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Baden Avenue frontage of the subject property. All sidewalks shall be constructed to current City and Caltrans standards and specifications. 25. 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 subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 54 Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 22 26. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work in Baden Avenue and/or any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. 27. Any work within the public sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian routes shall require 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. 28. 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, flow-through planters, or private development treatment structures 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. 29. The project shall not include any permanent structural supports (retaining walls, tiebacks, etc.) within the ROW. City Engineer approval is required for any temporary structural supports within the ROW. Any temporary structural supports shall be removed after construction. Stormwater 30. Post-development stormwater runoff peak flow and volume shall not exceed that of the pre-development condition for each discharge point from the site. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be a 10-year design storm based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of 10 minutes. 31. On-site and off-site storm drainage conveyance systems shall be designed to accommodate the 10-year design storm. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of 10 minutes. 32. Hydraulic Grade lines shall not be less than 1 foot from the ground surface. 33. Runoff Coefficients used for hydraulic calculations shall be as follows: a) Parks and open areas—0.35 b) Residential areas—0.50 c) Multiple dwelling areas—0.65 d) Commercial and paved areas—0.95 55 Conditions of Approval Page 17 of 22 34. 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. 35. All off-site drainage facilities required by the City Engineer to accommodate the runoff from the subdivision shall be provided by the Applicant at no cost to the City. 36. 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. 37. All storm drainage shall be directed toward Baden Avenue. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff shall not be surface drained into surrounding private property or public streets. In no case shall storm drainage connect to a sanitary sewer facility. 38. Existing on-site drains that are not adequately sized to accommodate run-off from the fully developed property and upstream drainage basin shall be improved as required by the Applicant’s civil engineering consultant’s plans and specifications as approved by the City Engineer. These on-site improvements shall be installed at no cost to the City. 39. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Sanitary Sewer 40. Applicant shall video inspect the sanitary sewer mains along the project frontage to the nearest manholes upstream and downstream of the project point of connection both prior to construction and post construction. Video must be submitted to City Engineering for review as part of the improvement plans submittal and shall confirm the number of existing sewer laterals serving the site that must be abandoned. 41. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) private sewer laterals serving the property. a) Any existing private sewer lateral that is not proposed to be reused shall be abandoned per City Standards. The number of sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be shown on the plans and shall be confirmed by the review of a video inspection of the private sanitary sewer main. b) Any existing private sewer lateral that is proposed to be reused shall obtain a Certificate of Compliance, which requires video inspection and review, prior to the lateral’s reuse. 56 Conditions of Approval Page 18 of 22 c) Any new private sewer laterals shall be installed to City Standards including a cleanout in the sidewalk and a new wye connection at the main. Lateral sizes of 8- inch or larger require a manhole connection at the City sewer main. 42. All utility crossings shall be potholed, verified and shown on the plans prior to the building permit submittal. 43. The on-site sanitary sewer system/plumbing shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, as amended and adopted by the City, and in accordance with the requirements of the South San Francisco Building Division. Utilities 44. All electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground within the property being developed and to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility vault. Pull boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed within pedestrian walkway areas. 45. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service/Westborough Water for all water-related issues. All water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of the California Water Service or the Westborough Water District, as appropriate. 46. 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 47. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 48. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy form the Building Division, the Applicant shall require his Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to certify that it conforms to the approved site plan and that there is positive drainage away from the exterior of the building. The Applicant shall make any modifications to the grading, drainage, or other improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans. 49. 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. 50. All common areas are to be landscaped and irrigated and shall meet the requirements of the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Submit landscape, drainage and grading plans for review and approval by the Engineering Division. 57 Conditions of Approval Page 19 of 22 51. Any monument signs to be installed for the project shall be located completely on private property and shall not encroach into the City’s right-of-way. The Developer shall ensure that placement of the monument signs do not obstruct clear lines of sight for vehicles entering or exiting the site. Grading 52. 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 developer’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. 53. 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 developer shall hire an environmental inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with the grading permit. 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. 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. 59. 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. Engineering Impact Fees 58 Conditions of Approval Page 20 of 22 60. The Applicant shall pay the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (per Res 120-2020) prior to Building Permit Issuance. Contact: Jason Hallare at Jason.Hallare@ssf.net FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS After review of application and plans provided for this project, the Fire Department has the following comments. Applicant is advised that the following Fire Department Standard Conditions apply to this project: 1. Projects shall be designed in compliance with established regulations adopted by the City of South San Francisco affecting or related to structures, processes, premises and safeguards regarding the following: a) The hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials or devices. b) Conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises. c) Fire hazards in the structure(s) or on the premises from occupancy or operation. d) Matters related to the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of the fire suppression or alarm systems. e) Conditions affecting the safety of fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. 2. Fire service features for buildings, structures and premises shall comply with all City adopted building standards, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Building Standards and South San Francisco City Code. 3. Permit(s) shall be required as set forth in adopted California Building Code (CBC) Section 105, California Residential Code (CRC) Section R105 and California Fire Code (CFC) Sections 105.6 and 105.7. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional. Where special conditions exist, the code official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional. a) Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on suitable material. Electronic media documents shall be submitted. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed 59 Conditions of Approval Page 21 of 22 and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of adopted codes and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the code official. b) Shop drawings for the fire protection system(s) shall be submitted directly to the Fire Department to indicate conformance with adopted codes and the construction documents and shall be approved prior to the start of system installation. Shop drawings shall contain all information as required by the referenced installation standards in Chapter 9. c) The construction documents shall show in sufficient detail the location, construction, size, and character of all portions of the means of egress including the path of the exit discharge to the public way in compliance with the provisions of adopted codes. In other than occupancies in Groups R-2, R-3, and R-2.1, the construction documents shall designate the number of occupants to be accommodated on every floor, and in all rooms and spaces. d) The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The code official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan where the application for permit is for alteration or repair or where otherwise warranted. e) Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access roads and construction documents, hydraulic calculations and material specifications for fire hydrant, fire protection or detection systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. 4. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except where approved alternative methods of protection are provided. 5. For the purposes of prescribing minimum safeguards for construction, alteration, and demolition operations to provide reasonable safety to life and property from fire during such operations. building, facilities, and premises in the course of construction, alteration or demolition, including those in underground locations shall be in compliance with CFC Chapter 33 and NFPA 241. Applicant is advised that the following Fire Department Specific Conditions apply to this project: 60 Conditions of Approval Page 22 of 22 6. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved illuminated or other approved means of address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabetic letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Character size and stroke shall be in accordance with CFC Section 505.1.1 through 505.1.2. Where required by the fire code official, address identification shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response in accordance with this code and CFC Section 505.1.3. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way or when determined by the fire code official, a monument, pole, or other approved illuminated sign or other approved means shall be used to identify the structure(s). Address identification shall be maintained. 7. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises on which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction, in accordance with CFC Section 507, Appendices B & C. a) Fire-flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings and facilities shall be determined by adopted CFC Appendix B. b) Fire hydrant systems shall comply with adopted CFC Section 507.5.1 through 507.5.8 and Appendix C. 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with CFC Section 503 and Appendix D. a) Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. i. Traffic calming measures (bollards, speed bumps, humps, undulations, etc.) are not approved as a part of this review and require specific approval from the Fire Department. ii. Should a security gate be planned to serve the facility, the gate shall be equipped with a Knox Company key operated electric gate release switch. During a power failure, gate shall release for manual operation OR be equipped with standby power or connected to the building emergency panel. In addition to sending the request to exit signal to the gate operator, the magnetic detection loop (when activated) shall prohibit the gate from closing upon fire apparatus. 61 Conditions of Approval Page 23 of 22 b) Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with CFC D105. For purposes of this requirement, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. One or more of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet and not greater than 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire long-side of the building or as approved by the fire code official. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. There shall be no architectural features, projections or obstructions that would limit the articulation of the aerial apparatus. c) Required Fire Department access roads shall be signed “No Parking – Fire Lane” per current Fire Department standards and California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500. d) A Fire Department key box shall be provided on the front of each structure for access to fire protection equipment within the building. 9. The provisions of the adopted CFC shall specify where fire protection and life safety systems are required and shall apply to the design, installation, inspection, operation, testing and maintenance of all fire protection systems. a) Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in adopted CFC Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.20. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing buildings and structures shall be provided in locations described in adopted CFC Section 903.6. i. Structure will be required to be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 1. If required Fire Department Connection (FDC) for the sprinkler and/or standpipe systems shall be located on the street side of the structure or facing approved fire apparatus access roadway fully visible and recognizable from the street, and within 100 feet an approved fire hydrant. b) Structure will be required to install a standpipe system in the building. i. Not less than one standpipe shall be provided for use during construction. Such standpipes shall be installed prior to construction exceeding 40 feet in 62 Conditions of Approval Page 24 of 22 height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. Such standpipes shall be provided with fire department hose connections at floor- level locations adjacent to stairways as construction progresses, such standpipes shall be extended to within one floor of the highest point of construction having secured decking or flooring. 10. A change of occupancy shall not be made unless the use or occupancy is made to comply with the requirements of the City adopted California Fire Code and the California Existing Building Code. Where approved by the fire code official, a change of occupancy shall be permitted without complying with the all requirements of this code and the California Existing Building Code, provided that the new or proposed use or occupancy is determined to be less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use or occupancy. 11. The following are a list of deferred plan submittal items that are required by the Fire Department - additional items may be called out based on subsequent permit reviews: a) Standpipe System b) Fire Sprinkler System modifications c) Fire Alarm/Fire Sprinkler Monitoring System modifications d) Emergency Responder Radio System (to be determined) e) Gates and barricades across fire apparatus access roads (to be determined) Contact: Ian Hardage, Fire Marshal, at (650) 829-6645 POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS All construction must conform to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48.070 Minimum- security standards for nonresidential buildings, (Ord. 1477 § 1C, 2013; Ord. 1166 § 1, 1995). 15.48.085 Additional Security Measures May Be Required Per South San Francisco Municipal Code 15.48.085 - Additional Security Measures, the following conditions will also be required: 1. 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. 2. All exterior doorways shall be illuminated during darkness by a white light source that has full cut-off and is of pedestrian scale. 3. Any exterior bicycle racks installed shall be of an inverted “U” design, or other design that allows two different locking points on each bicycle. 63 Conditions of Approval Page 25 of 22 4. Any publicly accessible benches shall be of a design that prevents persons from lying on them, such as a center railing. 5. Any publicly accessible power outlets shall be of a design that prevents their access of use during those hours the business is normally closed. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The Police Department reserves the right to review and comment upon the submission of revised and updated plans. Contact: Mike Toscano, Police Department, at (650) 877-8927 or mike.toscano@ssf.net WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION CONDITIONS The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Water Quality Control Stormwater and/or Pretreatment Programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit: 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. If 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). 64 Conditions of Approval Page 26 of 22 -An Operation & Maintenance Agreement will be required to be recorded with San Mateo County, ensuring the device(s) will be properly maintained (template attached). -A full trash capture system is any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area or designed to carry at least the same flow as the storm drain connected to the inlet. 5. Fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and be clearly shown on plans. 6. If trash storage area to be located outside, trash enclosure must be covered (roof, canopy) and contained (wall/fence). Details of trash enclosure shall be clearly provided on plans. 7. 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). Contact: Andrew Wemmer, Water Quality Control, at (650) 829-3840 or Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net 65 ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A0.0 COVER SHEET A2016-001 FIREHOUSE WORK 201 BADEN AVENUE, 94080 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION 2 JULY 27, 2022 PROJECT TEAM ARCHITECT:CIVIL: GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH + PLANNING: 211 LINDEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 T: (650) 871-0709 F: (650) 871-7911 CONTACT: JONATHAN HARTMAN BKF ENGINEERS 255 SHORELINE DRIVE, SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 T: (650) 482-6306 CONTACT: JONATHAN TANG PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK: THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES RE-PURPOSING THE OLD FIREHOUSE FOR AN OFFICE SPACE. THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE OLD FIREHOUSE INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR SURFACE PARKING, PATHWAYS, AND LANDSCAPING; REPLACING OVERHEAD DOORS WITH STOREFRONT; PAINTING; NEW BUILDING AND CODE SIGNAGE; AND OUTFITTING THE INTERIOR TO CREATE A MULTI-TENANT OFFICE SPACE WITH SHARED FACILITIES. LOCATION MAP: SHEET INDEX SHEET NO. SHEET NAME A0.0 COVER SHEET A0.4-0 PROJECT AND CODE DATA A0.4-4 CODE -MAXIMUM OPENINGS SOUTH A0.4-5 CODE -MAXIMUM OPENINGS EAST A0.4-6 CODE - MAXIMUM OPENINGS WEST A0.4-7 CODE PLAN A1.0-0 SITE PHOTOS A1.0-2 EXISTING SITE PLAN C1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C2.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C3.0 SAN MATEO COUNTY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES L1.0 LANDSCAPE A1.1-1 SITE PLAN A1.1-2 SITE PLAN SURROUNDINGS A2.0-1 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT A2.0-2 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - FIRST FLOOR A2.0-3 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - SECOND FLOOR A2.0-4 DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS A2.0-5 DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS A2.1 RENDERED ELEVATIONS A2.4-0 FLOOR PLAN- BASEMENT A2.4-1 FLOOR PLAN- FIRST FLOOR A2.4-2 FLOOR PLAN- SECOND FLOOR A2.4-3 ROOF PLAN A2.5-0 FLOOR PLAN - TENANT AREAS A3.1-1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.1-2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEFERRED SUBMITTALS: A. STANDPIPE SYSTEM B. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS C. FIRE ALARM/FIRE SPRINKLER MONITORING SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS. D. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO SYSTEM E. GATES AND BARRICADES ACROSS FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS 2 2 ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 66 ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A0.4-0 PROJECT AND CODE DATA A2016-001 APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24), AND ALL LOCALLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS & RELATED ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS & REGULATIONS. APPLICABLE CODES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: PART 2-2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) PART 3-2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) PART 4-2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) PART 5-2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) PART 6-2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE PART 9-2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC) PART 11-2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALGREEN) CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE ZONING CHAPTER 1 -SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 3 -USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION CHAPTER 5 -GENERAL BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS CHAPTER 8 -INTERIOR FINISHES CHAPTER 9 -FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS CHAPTER 7 -FIRE AND SMOKE PROTECTION FEATURES FIRE RESISTANCE RATINGS AND FIRE TESTS (703) FIRE RESISTANCE RATING OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS (704) REFER TO SECTION 601 FOR FIRE RATING (IN HOURS) FOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE AND DEGREE OF OPENING PROTECTION (705.8) FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE DEGREE OF OPENING PROTECTION ALLOW. AREA 3 FT TO LESS THAN 5 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 15% 5 FT TO LESS THAN 10 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 25% 10 FT TO LESS THAN 15 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 45% 15 FT TO LESS THAN 20 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 75% FIRE WALLS (706) NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT FIRE BARRIERS (707) INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAYS/RAMPS (1023.2) CONNECTING ≥4 STORIES 2 HOURS SHAFTS AND ELEVATOR HOISTWAYS (713.4) CONNECTING ≥4 STORIES:2 HOURS SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION (707.5.1) 1 HOUR FIRE PARTITIONS (708) CORRIDORS SERVING TYPE 'B' OCCUPANCY (1018.1)0 HOURS ELECTRICAL ROOM (CEC 450.21)1 HOUR SMOKE PARTITION (710) ELEVATOR LOBBIES WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM (CBC 3006.2) PENETRATIONS (714) PENETRATIONS OF NONFIRE-RESISTANCE RATED FLOOR OR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLIES OR THE CEILING MEMBRANE OF A NONFIRE-RATED ROOF/CEILING ASSEMBLY SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 713 OR SHALL COMPLY WITH 714.5.1 OR 714.5.2 (714.5) PENETRATING ITEMS THAT CONNECT NOT MORE THAN TWO STORIES ARE PERMITTED, PROVIDED THAT THE ANNULAR SPACE IS FILLED WITH AN APPROVED MATERIAL TO RESIST THE FREE PASSAGE OF FLAME AND THE PRODUCTS OF COMBUSTION (714.5.2) OPENING PROTECTIVE (716) OPENING FIRE PROTECTION ASSEMBLIES, RATINGS AND MARKINGS (716.5) 2 HOUR RATED ASSEMBLY 1 1/2 HOUR MINIMUM FIRE DOOR/SHUTTER ASSEMBLY 1 HOUR RATED ASSEMBLY 3/4 HOUR MINIMUM FIRE DOOR/SHUTTER ASSEMBLY 1 HOUR FIRE PARTITION-CORRIDOR 1/3 HOUR MINIMUM FIRE DOOR/SHUTTER ASSEMBLY 1 HOUR FIRE PARTITION-OTHER 3/4 HOUR MINIMUM FIRE DOOR/SHUTTER ASSEMBLY 1 HOUR RATED EXTERIOR WALLS 3/4 HOUR MINIMUM FIRE DOOR/SHUTTER ASSEMBLY CHAPTER 6 -TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE PLANE: 49 FT ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET ABOVE GRADE PLANE (504.3): TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED) BUSINESS (B): 60 FT STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE: 4 (NON-CONFORMING) ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE (504.4): TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED) BUSINESS (B): 3 ALLOWABLE AREA FACTOR (506.2) (503): TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED), WITHOUT HEIGHT INCREASE) BUSINESS (B): 27,000 SF BUILDING AREA FOURTH FLOOR AREA: 346 SF THIRD FLOOR AREA: 346 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA: 3,904 SF FIRST FLOOR AREA: 6,871 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA (ABOVE GRADE PLANE): 11,467 SF ALLOWABLE AREA FACTOR PER TABLE 506.2, TYPE V-B: TYPE V-B SM = 27,000 SF EQUATION 5-2: Aa = [ At + (NS * If)] * Sa Aa = [ 27,000 + (9,500 * 0)] * 2 Aa = 54,000 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA (ABOVE GRADE PLANE): 11,467 SF < 54,000 SF = OK CHAPTER 15 -ROOF ASSEMBLY TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED)(602) FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (601): TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED) PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME: 0 HOURS BEARING WALLS (EXTERIOR): 0 HOURS BEARING WALLS (INTERIOR):0 HOURS NONBEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS (INTERIOR): 0 HOURS FLOOR CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED SECONDARY MEMBERS: 0 HOURS ROOF CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED SECONDARY MEMBERS: 0 HOURS FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTERIOR WALLS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION DIST. (602) FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY B X < 5 V-B 1 HOUR 5 ≤X < 10 V-B 1 HOUR 10 ≤X < 30 V-B 0 HOURS X ≥30 V-B 0 HOURS TABLE 803.11, INTERIOR WALL AND CEILING FINISH REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE 'B' OCCUPANCY IN SPRINKLED BUILDINGS INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAYS, INTERIOR EXIT RAMPS AND EXIT PASSAGEWAYS CLASS B CORRIDORS AND ENCLOSURE FOR EXIT ACCESS STAIRWAYS AND EXIT ACCESS RAMPS CLASS C ROOMS AND ENCLOSED SPACESC CLASS C PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS (906) -REQUIRED IN TYPE 'B' OCCUPANCY FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEMS (907) –REQUIREMENTS BASED ON B OCCUPANCY SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS PER CBC 903.2.1.3, BUILDING IS EQUIPPED WITH AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM THROUGHOUT. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM PER SECTION 907.2 AND NFPA 72, A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM WITH AN EMERGENCY VOICE/ALARM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED. ROOF CLASSIFICATION PER CBC 2019 SECTION 1505.1 -FIRE CLASSIFICATION, ROOF MINIMUM FIRE RETARDANT CLASS FOR TYPE III-B: ROOF CLASS: C ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS (APN): 012-335-100 and 012-335-110 PER CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, PARCEL IS CONFIRMED TO BE DTC, DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE WITH AN EXISTING USE OF C/I MISC. REQUIRED PROPOSED NORTH SETBACK: 10 FT FROM CURB 10 FT FROM CURB EAST SETBACK:NO REQUIREMENT VARIES, SEE A0.4 SERIES SOUTH SETBACK: 10FT [ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (E)]VARIES, SEE A0.4 SERIES WEST SETBACK: NO REQUIREMENT 9' -11" BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT: 85' -0"49' -0" PER TABLE 20.280.004-2 LOT, DENSITY AND FAR STANDARDS, THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR AT LEAST 65% OF THE LINEAR STREET FRONTAGE. FIREHOUSE WORK, LLC PROPOSES TO RETAIN AND REDEVELOP THE EXISTING FIREHOUSE STATION INTO COMMERCIAL SPACE. OCCUPANCY TYPES, INCLUDING: B: SPACES USED FOR OPERATIONAL AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES (304). 67 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" ABCDEFGH T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3"14' - 6"TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 37' - 7"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 741.4 SF 217.7 SF 45% OK 29.4% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 37' - 7"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 741.4 SF 261.9 SF 45% OK 35.4%TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 4' - 2"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 338.7 SF 23.9 SF 15% OK 7.1%TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 5' - 0" 10' - 2"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 656 SF 160.2 SF 25% OK 24.5% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 4' - 2"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 211.4 SF 20.6 SF 15% OK 9.8% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 4' - 2"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 292 SF 20.6 SF 15% OK 7.1% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 4' - 2"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 217 SF 20.6 SF 15% OK 9.5% EGRESS COURT, (E) 4-HR FIRE RESISTANCE RATED 8" CONCRETE WALL10' - 0"ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A0.4-4 CODE -MAXIMUM OPENINGS SOUTH A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (CO) EL- SOUTH ELEVATION 2 SOUTH AXONOMETRIC N 68 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 11' - 8"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 199.3 SF 18.6 SF 15% OK 9.4% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 11' - 8"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 156.7 SF 18.6 SF 45% OK 11.9% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 10' - 3"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 190 SF 71.5 SF 45% OK 37.7% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 11' - 8"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 302.8 SF 31.4 SF 15% OK 10.4% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 10' - 3"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 559.4 SF 221 SF 45% OK 39.5%TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 5'-0" TO 10'-0" 5' - 0"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 485.8 SF 94.6 SF 25% OK 19.6%TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 11' - 8"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 397.2 SF 102.4 SF 45% OK 25.8% INFILL WINDOW WITH 1-HR WALL ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A0.4-5 CODE -MAXIMUM OPENINGS EAST A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (CO) EL- EAST ELEVATION 2 EAST AXONOMETRIC N 69 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1234567 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 5' - 0" TO 10' - 0" 9' - 11"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 1167 SF 221.2 SF 25% OK 19% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 9' - 11"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 1466.7 SF 196.34 SF 25% OK 13.4% 5' - 0" TO 10' - 0" INFILL WINDOW WITH 1-HR WALL ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A0.4-6 CODE - MAXIMUM OPENINGS WEST A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (CO) EL- WEST ELEVATION 2 WEST AXONOMETRIC N 70 UP BADEN AVENUECYPRESS AVENUEAIRPORT BOULEVARD2ND LANE PROPERTY LINE 211 BADEN AVE199 AIRPORT BLVD 100 BADEN AVE RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48" WIDE ACCESSIBLE PATH FOR ENTRYEXISTING FIRE HOUSE FIREHOUSE LIVE 201 BADEN AVE 10' - 7 1/2"4' - 2 1/4"18' - 7 1/8"10' - 6"9' - 11 1/8"5' - 0" 21' - 0 1/2"39' - 9" 66' - 8 7/8" 33' - 1 11/16"127' - 7 5/8" 8. (7) PARALLEL PARKING TO BE ELIMINATED. 8. (4) PARALLEL PARKING TO BE ELIMINATED. SITE PLAN LEGEND 48" WIDE ACCESSIBLE PATH FOR ENTRY PROPERTY LINE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR SHEET NOTES A0.4-7 CODE PLAN A2016-001 1/16" = 1'-0"1 CO- CODE PLAN 1. EXISTING 8” CONCRETE WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THREE (3) PUNCHED OPENINGS FOR WINDOWS. Proposed property line: 3’-2” from face of existing building Per CBC Table 602, an FSD of less than 5’-0” for Type V-B construction requires a 1-hour exterior wall. Per CBC Table 722.2.1.1, the max required thickness for 1-hr rating for a solid concrete wall is 3.5”.Per the same table, the 8” concrete wall is 4-hr rated. Per CBC Table 705.8, an unprotected, sprinklered wall with a FSD greater than 3’-0” but less than 5’-0”is allowed to have no more than 15% openings per floor. The existing wall is approximately 29% open. The proposed plan is to infill two of the three existing exterior openings with 1-hr rated walls. The remaining single opening will represent 9.7% of the wall area, which complies with Table 705.8. No accessible path of travel is anticipated along this side of building. An accessible exterior travel from Baden will occur along the west side of the building. 2.EXISTING 8” CONCRETE WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH FOUR (4) PUNCHED OPENINGS FOR WINDOWS, PLUS AN EXTERIOR DOOR. Proposed property line: 10’-2” from face of existing building Per CBC Table 602, an FSD greater than 10’-0” for Type V-B construction requires a 0-hour exterior wall. Per CBC Table 722.2.1.1, the max required thickness for 1-hr rating for a solid concrete wall is 3.5”.Per the same table, the 8” concrete wall is 4-hr rated. Per CBC Table 705.8, an unprotected, sprinklered wall with a FSD greater than 10’-0” but less than 15’-0” is allowed to have no more than 45% openings per floor. The existing wall is approximately 24.5% open, which will complies with Table 705.8. No accessible path of travel is anticipated along this side of building. 3.EXISTING 8” MIN. CONCRETE WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH ONE (1) PUNCHED OPENINGS FOR WINDOWS, PLUS AN EXTERIOR DOOR WITH NON-RATED GLASS BLOCK SURROUND. Proposed property line: 10’-6” from face of existing building Per CBC Table 602, an FSD greater than 10’-0” for Type V-B construction requires a 0-hour exterior wall. Per CBC Table 722.2.1.1, the max required thickness for 1-hr rating for a solid concrete wall is 3.5”.Per the same table, the 8” concrete wall is 4-hr rated. Per CBC Table 705.8, an unprotected, sprinklered wall with a FSD greater than 10’-0” but less than 15’-0” is allowed to have no more than 45% openings per floor. The existing wall at the ground floor level is approximately 24.5% open, which will complies with Table 705.8. All floors above also comply (9.9%, 11.2%, 8.8%) The existing training tower element has a basement that extends eastward into the site approximately 7’-4”. There is a sidewalk-door style opening in the hardscape that allows access into the basement from the exterior. This opening is not required by code and is intended to be filled in with concrete. An accessible path from the parking area in the rear of the building to the rear entry door of the stair tower does pass along this face of the building. Per CBC 11B-403.5.1-Ex3, a 48” wide path of travel is required. A compliant 48” wide path will be provided. 4.EXISTING 8” MIN. CONCRETE WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH ONE (1) EXTERIOR DOOR. Proposed property line: 4’-2” from face of existing building Per CBC Table 602, an FSD of less than 5’-0” for Type V-B construction requires a 1-hour exterior wall. Per CBC Table 722.2.1.1, the max required thickness for 1-hr rating for a solid concrete wall is 3.5”.Per the same table, the 8” concrete wall is 4-hr rated. Per CBC Table 705.8, an unprotected, sprinklered wall with a FSD greater than 3’-0” but less than 5’-0”is allowed to have no more than 15% openings per floor. The existing wall at the ground floor level is approximately 7.1% open, which will complies with Table 705.8. All floors above also comply (9.5%, 9.8%, 7.1%) The existing exterior door, due to its location in overlapping FSD areas, has an FSD of greater than 50’ and does not need to be rated. An accessible path from the parking area in the rear of the building to the rear entry door of the stair tower does pass along this face of the building. Per CBC 11B-403.5.1-Ex3, a 48” wide path of travel is required. A compliant 48” wide path will be provided. Per CBC 1028.4.2, an “egress court” condition applies when the width of the path of travel is greater than 44” and less than 10’-0”. In such cases, a 1-hr rated wall is required for a minimum height of 10’-0”. The existing concrete wall is a 4-hr wall and has no openings in this area, and is therefore compliant. The upper three floors of the training tower have an existing exterior fire escape system. The system is comprised of steel ladders and open grille-work platforms. Because the platforms are open-grille and have free air movement through them, they are not governed by the projection requirements of CBC 705.2. CBC 1021 and 1027 discuss exterior fire stairs, but not fire escapes. The California Existing Building Code speaks explicitly about fire escapes as in Section 314, which has been adopted by the SFM for existing high-rise buildings. While this training tower does not meet the height requirements of a high-rise building, this project proposes to apply the high-rise standards to this existing fire escape as a conservative approach to a second exit from training tower spaces on the second, third, and fourth floors of the tower. Section 314.8 gives the enforcing agency the ability apply exiting requirements in these situations with reasonable judgement. Section 314.9 allows for fire escapes to be accessible by a window operable from the interior with a minimum dimension of 29 inches when open. The existing operable windows are approximately 40” x 60” when open. Section 314.10 allows for protection of exterior openings within 5’ horzinontally of landings to be protected as appropriate by the enforcing agency. The walls within 5’ horizontally of the fire escape are 8” thick concrete, a 4-hr rated wall. The fire escape is partially within the area bounded by the 4’-2” property line. Given that the interior floor plates of the training tower are approximately 280sf per floor, and over 82sf of each floor level is taken up by the utility access stair that provides primary access and egress, there is a usable floor area of less than 200sf per level which equates to a B-occupancy of 2 person per level. This project proposes to use the existing fire escape in its current configuration and location as shown as a second means of egress from the upper floors of the existing training tower. 5. EXISTING 8” CONCRETE WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH TWO (2) PUNCHED OPENINGS FOR WINDOWS, PLUS AN EXTERIOR DOOR ON THE GROUND FLOOR. Proposed property line: 10’-6” from face of existing building Per CBC Table 602, an FSD greater than 10’-0” for Type V-B construction requires a 0-hour exterior wall. Per CBC Table 722.2.1.1, the max required thickness for 1-hr rating for a solid concrete wall is 3.5”.Per the same table, the 8” concrete wall is 4-hr rated. Per CBC Table 705.8, an unprotected, sprinklered wall with a FSD greater than 10’-0” but less than 15’-0” is allowed to have no more than 45% openings per floor. The existing wall at the ground floor level is approximately 39.5% open, which will complies with Table 705.8. The floor above also complies (37.7%) An accessible path from the parking area in the rear of the building to the rear entry door of the stair tower does pass along this face of the building. Per CBC 11B-403.5.1-Ex3, a 48” wide path of travel is required. A compliant 48” wide path will be provided. 6.TRAINING TOWER This is served by an existing, non-conforming utility stair. This stair is not enclosed by any shaft. The project proposes to make adjustments to handrails and handrail extensions to enhance conformity. 7.GRAND STAIR The existing grand staircase has dimensionally code-conforming stair treads, risers and landings. Current handrails and guardrails are non- conforming. The project proposes to make adjustments to handrails, guardrails and handrail extensions to enhance conformity. 8.2ND LANE PARALLEL PARKING There are currently seven (7) parallel parking spaces striped on 2nd Lane to the south of the existing 201 Baden Property (between Giorgi and 199 Airport. There are no existing parallel parking spaces that are striped on 2nd Lane behind 199 Airport. Per discussions with SSF Fire Department, it is understood that with the development of the existing 201/205 Baden Property, there shall be no parallel parking on 2nd Lane from Linden to Airport. This includes the seven (7) spaces adjacent to 201/205 Baden, as well as four (4) additional spaces adjacent to 211 Baden, for a total of eleven (11) spaces that will be eliminated. 1 ▲1 REVISION PER 02/25 PLANNING COMMENTS ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 2 71 ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A1.0-0 SITE PHOTOS A2016-001 NORTH FACADE SOUTH FACADE CONCRETE DETAIL -NORTH FACADE CONCRETE PIERS -NORTH FACADE GENERAL VIEW OF THE AREA ENTRANCE -NORTH FACADE WEST FACADE EAST FACADE BIRD'S EYE VIEW PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 72 LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PRIOR TO LOT ADJUSTMENT 201 BADEN -PARKING AREA 201 BADEN -EXISTING BUILDING(11) PARALLEL PARKING SPACES AT SECOND LANE TO BE REMOVED. ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A1.0-2 EXISTING SITE PLAN A2016-001 1/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN 73 I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4080 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,NING CRAE TCEIT SC S N N 7 S 5 06 C 0718 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 74 I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4080 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,NING CRAE TCEIT SC S N N 7 S 5 06 C 0718 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 75 I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4080 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,NING CRAE TCEIT SC S N N 7 S 5 06 C 0718 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 76 2ND LANE 211 BADEN AVE RESIDENTIAL (N) ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROPERTY LINE (N) CONC. WALKWAY, ACCESSIBLE PATH FOR ENTRY FIREHOUSE LIVE 201 BADEN AVE EXISTING FIRE HOUSE 205 BADEN AVE BADEN AVENUE (N) TRASH ENCLOSURE (N) GATE (N) PLANTING AREA, 5-GALLON BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA ‘GREEN BEAUTY’, 36-48" O.C. MAX HEIGHT 3' -0" (N) FENCE (N) SLOPED WALKWAY LESS THAN 1:20 GRADIENT (E) CONC. PAD 6' - 6 3/16" (N) DECOMPOSED GRANITE (N) PLANTING AREA, 5-GALLON BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA ‘GREEN BEAUTY’, 36-48" O.C (N) PLANTING AREA, 5-GALLON BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA ‘GREEN BEAUTY’, 36-48" O.C. ALIGN (N) PLANTING AREA, 5-GALLON MANZANITA HOWARD MCMINN, 30-36" O.C. PARKING AREA LANDSCAPE PARKING LOT AREA: 66.74' x 33.28' = 2221.11ft2 2221.11ft2 x 0.10 = 222.11ft2 PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AREA 49.33' x .4.58' = 225.93 ft2 225.93 ft2 > 222.11ft2 COMPLY WITH AREA REQ. SIDEWALK MIN. WIDTH CLEARANCE: 6'-0" 12' - 3 5/8"8' - 6"5' - 2"18' - 0"5' - 10"(N) GATE 18' - 0"5' - 10"49' - 4" (N) FENCE 8' - 6"8' - 6"8' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 10 15/16"1/2" / 12"11/16" AIRPORT BOULEVARD211 BADEN AVE 199 AIRPORT BLVD 100 BADEN AVE RESIDENTIAL (N) ACCESSIBLE PARKING 10' - 0 1/2"PROPERTY LINE FIREHOUSE LIVE 201 BADEN AVE EXISTING FIRE HOUSE 205 BADEN AVE BADEN AVENUECYPRESS AVENUE(N) GATE (N) GATE (N) PLANTING AREA, S.L.D. (N) FENCE (N) TRASH PICK UP(N) SLOPED WALKWAY LESS THAN 1:20 GRADIENT (E) CONC. PAD 6' - 6" (N) DECOMPOSED GRANITE (N) PLANTING AREA (N) PLANTING AREA, S.L.D. LOT SIZE 9,513 SF LOT SIZE 13,002 SF SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING, SEE A2.4-1 WIDENING OF SIDEWALK AND EXTENDING PLANTED AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT FRONTAGE 53' - 7 3/8"18' - 7 1/8"67' - 10 1/2"5' - 0" 10' - 7 1/2"4' - 3 5/8"10' - 6" 39' - 9" 21' - 0 1/2" SIDEWALK MIN. WIDTH CLEARANCE: 6'-0" (N) PLANTING AREA 1 (N) LOADING ZONE (N) CAR-POOL PARKING 66' - 8 7/8"94' - 0 1/2" 160' - 9 3/8"140' - 0 7/16"33' - 1 11/16"127' - 7 5/8"140' - 0 7/16"160' - 9 3/8" 2ND LANE 2 29' - 11 1/8"FIRST FLOOR GROSS AREA: 6,910 SF LOT SIZE: 12,294 SF LOT COVERAGE RATIO: 53.4% LOT COVERAGE SITE PLAN LEGEND 48" WIDE ACCESSIBLE PATH FOR ENTRY PROPERTY LINE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR SHEET NOTES A1.1-1 SITE PLAN A2016-001 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SP- SITE PLAN 1. SEE A2.4-1 FLOOR PLAN -FIRST FLOOR, FOR THE DESIGNATED TRASH COLLECTION LOCATION AND THE SLOPED WALKWAY FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO THE BADEN ENTRANCE. 2. SIX PARKING SPOTS WILL BE PROVIDED INCLUDING ONE ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL. 1 1 1 1 1 ▲1 REVISION PER 02/25 PLANNING COMMENTS ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 78 CYPRESS AVENUEAIRPORT BOULEVARD2ND LANE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FIREHOUSE LIVE 201 BADEN AVE EXISTING FIRE HOUSE 205 BADEN AVE BADEN AVENUE12 15 4 3 11 7 68910 1 5 2 13 14 16 ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A1.1-2 SITE PLAN SURROUNDINGS A2016-001 1/32" = 1'-0"1 SP- SITE PLAN SURROUNDINGS 5. VIEW OF INTERSECTION IN FRONT OF SUBJECT SITE 4. PROPERTY ACROSS FRONT STREET OF SUBJECT SITE 7. PROPERTIES ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 8. PROPERTIES ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 9. PROPERTIES ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 11. REAR VIEW OF PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT OF SUBJECT SITE 10. PROPERTIES ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 12. FRONT VIEW OF PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT OF SUBJECT SITE 3. FRONT VIEW OF PROPERTY ON THE LEFT OF SUBJECT SITE 6. VIEW OF PROPERTY ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 1. VIEW OF PROPERTIES ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 15. PROPERTY ACROSS FRONT STREET OF SUBJECT SITE 2. REAR VIEW OF PROPERTY ON THE LEFT OF SUBJECT SITE 1 13. PROPERTY ACROSS FRONT STREET OF SUBJECT SITE 14. PROPERTY ACROSS FRONT STREET OF SUBJECT SITE 16. PROPERTY ACROSS FRONT STREET OF SUBJECT SITE ▲1 REVISION PER 02/25 PLANNING COMMENTS 79 UP UP A2.0-5 5 A2.0-4 A2.0-5 A2.0-4 1 7 2 ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 BUILDING FOOTPRINT D002 D001 0110 OBSERVATION ROOM 2 SMOKE ROOM 1 BOILER ROOM 3 ENGINE TEST PIT D024 DEMOLITION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL, TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.0-1 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (D) FP00-BASEMENT-DEMOLITION KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0110 ENGINE TEST PIT D001 (R) DOOR, TYP. D002 (R) WALL, TYP. D024 (R) STAIR, PREP FOR INFILL 80 UP DN UP UP A2.0-5 5 A2.0-4 A2.0-5 A2.0-4 1 7 2 ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 DN D003 D003 D003 D003 D001 D001 D004 1241 D001 1 0108 D008 D008 D001 D006 D007 D005D005 REPAIR SHOP 102 STORAGE 103 OIL STORAGE 104 APPARATUS ROOM 101 ALARM ROOM 114 STAIR HALL 115 DRILL TOWER 116 BATTERY 113 MEN 110 WOMEN 109 CLEANING RM 111 ASS'T CHIEF 108 FIRE CHIEF 107A KITCHEN 106 RECREATION ROOM (DINING AND CLASSROOM) 105 FIRE CHIEF 107B HALLWAY 112 0549 D011 0636 D015 D015 D015 D024 DEMOLITION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL, TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.0-2 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - FIRST FLOOR A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (D) FP01- FIRST FLOOR PLAN-DEMOLITION KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 1 SPRAYED FIRE-RESISTIVE MATERIAL OVER W14X61 COLUMNS, SEE TABLE A ON A0.4-9 & A0.4-10 0549 (E) COLUMN TO REMAIN 0636 BARRE D001 (R) DOOR, TYP. D003 (R) ROLL UP DOOR, PREP FOR NEW STOREFRONT D004 (R) SIDEWALK DOOR, PREP FOR INFILL D005 (R) WINDOWS, PREP FOR NEW WINDOWS D006 (R) CASEWORK, TYP. D007 (R) PLUMBING FIXTURES, TYP. D008 (R) WINDOWS, PREP FOR INFILL D011 (R) CONCRETE SLAB AND PREP FOR NEW WALKWAY D015 (R) CONCRETE WALL, PREP FOR NEW DOOR D024 (R) STAIR, PREP FOR INFILL 81 UP UP A2.0-5 5 A2.0-4 A2.0-5 A2.0-4 1 7 2 ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 1D007 D001 D007 D002 0105 DORMITORY 201B DORMITORY 201A DRILL TOWER 211 STAIR HALL 210 DRYING ROOM 209 OFFICERS 206 WRITING 207 OFFICERS 208 SHOWERS 205 LAVATORIES 204 LOCKER ROOM 202 STORAGE ROOM 203 ROOF ROOF D012 0727 D013 D014D014D014 DEMOLITION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL, TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.0-3 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - SECOND FLOOR A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (D) FP02-SECOND FLOOR PLAN-DEMOLITION KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 1 SPRAYED FIRE-RESISTIVE MATERIAL OVER W14X61 COLUMNS, SEE TABLE A ON A0.4-9 & A0.4-10 0105 OPEN TO BELOW D001 (R) DOOR, TYP. D002 (R) WALL, TYP. D007 (R) PLUMBING FIXTURES, TYP. D012 (R) BUILT-UP ROOF, PRE FOR NEW ROOF D013 (R) FLOOD LIGHTS, TYP. D014 (R) HVAC EQUIPMENT 82 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" ABCDEFGH T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" 0735 D004 D001 D005D005 0736 D013D013 D013 D014D014D014 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" A B C D E F G H T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" D003 D003D003 D003 D014D014D014 ELEVATION COLOR LEGEND EXISTING ELEMENT TO REMAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ELEMENT TO BE DEMOLISHED ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.0-4 DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0735 (E) FINISH 0736 ROOF LADDER D001 (R) DOOR, TYP. D003 (R) ROLL UP DOOR, PREP FOR NEW STOREFRONT D004 (R) SIDEWALK DOOR, PREP FOR INFILL D005 (R) WINDOWS, PREP FOR NEW WINDOWS D013 (R) FLOOD LIGHTS, TYP. D014 (R) HVAC EQUIPMENT 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (D) EL- SOUTH ELEVATION-DEMOLITION 1/8" = 1'-0"2 (D) EL- NORTH ELEVATION-DEMOLITION 83 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" T.O. 2ND CEILING 26' -3" D008 D004 D003 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1234567 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" 0736 D008 ELEVATION COLOR LEGEND EXISTING ELEMENT TO REMAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ELEMENT TO BE DEMOLISHED ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.0-5 DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"7 (D) EL- EAST ELEVATION-DEMOLITION 1/8" = 1'-0"5 (D) EL- WEST ELEVATION-DEMOLITION KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0736 ROOF LADDER D003 (R) ROLL UP DOOR, PREP FOR NEW STOREFRONT D004 (R) SIDEWALK DOOR, PREP FOR INFILL D008 (R) WINDOWS, PREP FOR INFILL 84 PLACEHOLDER MARQUEE SIGNAGE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.1 RENDERED ELEVATIONS A2016-001 1 SOUTH ELEVATION RENDERING 2 EAST ELEVATION RENDERING 3 NORTHWEST ELEVATION RENDERING 4 NORTH ELEVATION RENDERING 2 ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 85 UP ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 0109 BUILDING FOOTPRINT ABOVE STORAGE 1 STORAGE 2 1242 RENOVATION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN (N) NON-BEARING WALL (N) 1-HR RATED WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE BASEMENT/ SUBGRADE EXISTING & PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN AREA FIRST LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 960 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF EXISTING AREA 750 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF PROPOSED AREA NOTES FILL IN ENGINE PIT NO CHANGE NO CHANGE ST 07-31-2023 OARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.4-0 FLOOR PLAN- BASEMENT A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0109 INFILL WITH LOST FORM AND CONCRETE 1242 EIGHT (8) WALL MTD. LONG TERM BIKE PARKING 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FP00-BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ROOM SCHEDULE - BASEMENT ROOM NO. ROOM NAME AREA FUNCTION 1 STORAGE 260 SF STORAGE 2 STORAGE 380 SF STORAGE ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 2 2 86 UP UP UP ABCDEFGH 33 44 55 66 77 1 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-1 3 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-2 1 A3.4-2 TENANT 2 120 TENANT 1 100 RESTROOMS 131 TENANT 1 OFFICE 140 TENANT 2 OFFICE 122 A0.4-51 A3.1-1 2 A3.1-1 1 A3.1-22 A3.1-2 1 0401 0401 2201 2210 0401 0401 STAIR HALL 130 0121 0121 0122 0723 2202 2206 LOBBY 112 STORAGE 141 STORAGE 142 0401 0829 0829 0723 0723 0723 TENANT 2 121TENANT 2 123 3201 1239 1238 12' - 0"18' - 0"0534 5' - 2"5' - 10"4' - 0"1241 42' - 1 1/4"7' - 3 7/16"18' - 6"9' - 9 1/2" 8' - 6"8' - 6"8' - 6"8' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 9 3/8" 8' - 8 1/2" 6"3' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0" 1240 CONCRETE SLAB "NO PARKING" SIGNAGE ON FRONT OF GATE (N) CMU WALL 1 HR RATED METAL GATE 7'-0" WIDE 5' - 5 5/8"4' - 0"RENOVATION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN (N) NON-BEARING WALL (N) 1-HR RATED WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE BASEMENT/ SUBGRADE EXISTING & PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN AREA FIRST LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 960 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF EXISTING AREA 750 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF PROPOSED AREA NOTES FILL IN ENGINE PIT NO CHANGE NO CHANGE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.4-1 FLOOR PLAN- FIRST FLOOR A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0121 (N) ASPHALT AND STRIPING 0122 (N) PLOT DIVISION 0401 (N) CONCRETE WALL INFILL, MATCH ADJACENT 0534 (N) 2"X8" STEEL WIRE SYSTEM FENCE, 6'-0" HIGH, COATED & PAINTED BLACK 0723 ACM PANEL 0829 (N)STEEL WIRE GATE SYSTEM. H: 6'-1/16", COATED PAINT TO MATCH WINDOW FRAME COLOR 1238 KIOSK DISPLAY FOR TRANSPORTATION RELATED INFORMATION 1239 LOCKERS FOR EMPLOYEES WHO CHOOSE TO WALK OR BIKE TO WORK 1240 FOUR (4) SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING, TYP. SEE SHEET L1.0 1241 TWO (2) WALL MTD. LONG TERM BIKE PARKING 2201 (N) LAVATORY, TYP. 2202 (N) W.C., TYP. 2206 (N) LAVATORY, CERAMIC, WALL MOUNTED 2210 (N) ROLL-IN SHOWER 3201 PARKING STALL DESIGNATED FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONE ONLY 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FP01-FIRST FLOOR PLAN ROOM SCHEDULE - LEVEL 1 ROOM NO. ROOM NAME AREA FUNCTION 100 TENANT 1 2670 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 112 LOBBY 380 SF SHARED LOBBY 113 SHOWER 70 SF SHARED RESTROOM 120 TENANT 2 440 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 121 TENANT 2 200 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 122 TENANT 2 OFFICE 190 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 123 TENANT 2 1030 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 130 STAIR HALL 260 SF 131 RESTROOMS 280 SF SHARED RESTROOM 140 TENANT 1 OFFICE 720 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 141 STORAGE 80 SF STORAGE 142 STORAGE 60 SF STORAGE 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ▲1 REVISION PER 02/25 PLANNING COMMENTS ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 1 1 1 1 2 87 UP UP ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 1 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-2 1 A3.4-2 STORAGE 230 STAIR HALL 231TENANT 3 200 OLD DRILL TOWER 232 A3.1-1 2 A3.1-1 1 A3.1-22 0806 0109 DE 33 44 55 2 A3.4-1 1 A3.4-2 0109 OLD DRILL TOWER - 3 300 DE 33 44 2 A3.4-1 0109 OLD DRILL TOWER - 4 400 RENOVATION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN (N) NON-BEARING WALL (N) 1-HR RATED WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE BASEMENT/ SUBGRADE EXISTING & PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN AREA FIRST LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 960 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF EXISTING AREA 750 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF PROPOSED AREA NOTES FILL IN ENGINE PIT NO CHANGE NO CHANGE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.4-2 FLOOR PLAN- SECOND FLOOR A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0109 INFILL WITH LOST FORM AND CONCRETE 0806 (N) SKYLIGHT 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FP02-SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"2 FP03 - THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"3 FP04 - FOURTH FLOOR PLAN ROOM SCHEDULE - LEVEL 2, 3 & 4 ROOM NO. ROOM NAME AREA FUNCTION 200 TENANT 3 3090 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 230 STORAGE 60 SF STORAGE 231 STAIR HALL 30 SF CIRCULATION 232 OLD DRILL TOWER 280 SF CIRCULATION/ OFFICE 300 OLD DRILL TOWER - 3 280 SF CIRCULATION/ OFFICE 400 OLD DRILL TOWER - 4 280 SF CIRCULATION/ OFFICE 88 ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 1 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-1 3 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-2 1 A3.4-2 A3.1-1 2 A3.1-1 1 A3.1-22 A3.1-2 1 0120 ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOF APP +16'-0" APP +29'-3 1/2" APP +24'-5 1/2" APP +12'-8" APP +10'-1" APP +46'-10 1/2" 2304 2304 1/2" / 12"ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.4-3 ROOF PLAN A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0120 ROOF HATCH 2304 (N) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 1/8" = 1'-0"1 RP - ROOF PLAN 89 3470 SF Tenant 1 1840 SF Tenant 2 TENANT LEGEND Tenant 1 Tenant 2 3110 SF Tenant 3 TENANT LEGEND Tenant 3 ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.5-0 FLOOR PLAN - TENANT AREAS A2016-001 3/32" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR 3/32" = 1'-0"2 SECOND FLOOR 1. AREAS SHOWN HAVE BEEN CALCULATED AS USABLE AREA. 90 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" A B C D E F G H T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" 0802 08020802080808080302 2304 2304 0805G 1056 105810581058 10592 1055 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" ABCDEFGH T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" 0305 08040804 03050305 2304 26022602 05340805 1057 11 1 1 0805 0805G05349' - 10"2 ELEVATION COLOR LEGEND EXISTING ELEMENT TO REMAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ELEMENT TO BE DEMOLISHED ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A3.1-1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0302 (N) SLOPED WALKWAY, RISE TO RUN NOT TO EXCEED 1:20 0305 (N) CONCRETE INFILL, FINISH TO MATCH ADJACENT 0534 (N) 2"X8" STEEL WIRE SYSTEM FENCE, 6'-0" HIGH, COATED & PAINTED BLACK 0802 (N) STOREFRONT 0804 (N) WINDOW 0805 (N) ACCESS DOOR 0805G (N) GATE WITH 2X8 STEEL MESH TO MATCH ADJACENT FENCE, COATED & PAINTED BLACK 0808 (N) DOOR 1055 MAIN BUILDING SIGN "FIREHOUSE" 1056 BUILDING ADDRESS SIGN "205" FACING BADEN STREET ILLUMINATED 1057 BUILDING ADDRESS SIGN "205" FACING THE PARKING LOT ON 2ND LANE ILLUMINATED 1058 LAMINATED TENNANTS' SIGNS AT STOREFRONT WINDOWS 1059 KNOX BOX 2304 (N) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 2602 (N) LED LIGHT FIXTURE, WHITE LIGHT WITH FULL CUTOFF 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EL- NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EL- SOUTH ELEVATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. IMAGE OF SIMILAR FENCE INSTALATION 1. IMAGE OF SIMILAR FENCE INSTALATION ▲1 REVISION PER 02/25 PLANNING COMMENTS ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 2 1 2 2 91 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" T.O. 2ND CEILING 26' -3" 03050802 2602 2602 2304 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1234567 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" 0305 2304 2602 2602 2602 ELEVATION COLOR LEGEND EXISTING ELEMENT TO REMAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ELEMENT TO BE DEMOLISHED ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A3.1-2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0305 (N) CONCRETE INFILL, FINISH TO MATCH ADJACENT 0802 (N) STOREFRONT 2304 (N) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 2602 (N) LED LIGHT FIXTURE, WHITE LIGHT WITH FULL CUTOFF 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EL- EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EL- WEST ELEVATION ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 2 92 201 Baden Avenue South San Francisco, CA Historic Resource Evaluation – DRAFT Prepared for Dawn Merkes Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. 211 Linden Ave South San Francisco, CA Prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. May 28, 2019 Source: South San Francisco Public Library 93 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Resource Description .............................................................................................................................. 3 Historic Context: South San Francisco ............................................................................................... 10 Site Evolution and Construction Chronology .................................................................................. 16 Evaluation Framework ......................................................................................................................... 23 Evaluation Findings .............................................................................................................................. 26 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 33 References .............................................................................................................................................. 34 Appendix A: ........................................................................................................................................... A Appendix B: Available Building Permits ........................................................................................... B 94 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 1 INTRODUCTION PROJECT OVERVIEW Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. (GA) was contracted by Dawn Merkes, Principal, Group 4 Architecture of South San Francisco, in March of 2019 to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the property at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco (Figures 1 and Figure 2). This report has been requested in connection with proposed modifications to the property. The building has not been previously evaluated for individual historical significance. Figure 1. Aerial view of subject property outlined in red, with building highlighted in yellow (Google Maps, amended by author) Figure 2. San Mateo County Assessor’s Map with subject property shaded red (San Mateo County Assessor’s Office. Amended by author) 95 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 2 This HRE will address the subject property’s individual eligibility for listing as a historic resource on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and as a local historic resource under the criterion described in the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 2.56. METHODOLOGY GA staff conducted a site visit and survey of the property’s interior and exterior on April 9, 2019. During this visit, staff documented the building’s configuration and architectural elements with photographs and field notes. The client provided GA with historic architectural drawings of the building. All photographs herein were taken by GA on April 9, 2019, unless otherwise noted. GA also conducted additional archival research on the subject property and surrounding area. The following repositories/collections were consulted to complete the research process (see References section for complete list of resources). • Ancestry.com • Calisphere.org • Newspapers.com • Online Archive of California • San Mateo County History Museum • San Mateo County, Office of the Assessor-Recorder • San Francisco Public Library, History Room • South San Francisco Historical Society, Museum • South San Francisco Historical Society, Plymire Schwarz Museum • South San Francisco Planning Department, Building Division • South San Francisco Public Library 96 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 3 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION SITE The subject .52-acre site is rectangular in shape and consists of three parcels: APN 012-335-100; APN 012-335-110; and an adjoining, un-numbered parcel, in downtown South San Francisco. The site is bound by Baden Avenue (north) and 2nd Lane (south). A multi-story Giorgi Bros. furniture store is situated on the neighboring parcel to the west, and a restaurant building is situated on the neighboring parcel to the east. The subject site contains a former fire station building, a driveway off of Baden Avenue at the east, and a parking lot at the rear.1 Figure 3. Aerial view of subject property outlined in red, with building highlighted in yellow and building volumes labeled (Google Maps, amended by author) BUILDING Exterior The fire station is a reinforced-concrete building comprised of three volumes of varying height, including: a one-story east volume, two-story west volume, and a five-story drill tower. All volumes have flat roofs covered with composition materials. The three volumes combine to form an L-shaped plan, with the drill tower situated south (rear) of the intersecting east and west volumes (Figure 3). The exterior is finished with painted, architectural concrete and minimally adorned with fluted concrete piers between window bays and fluted concrete cornices. All window openings are rectangular and contain single, paired, or tripartite arrangements. Within the west volume and 1 Acreage estimated sourced from CSS Environmental Services, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment: 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, California-CSS Project No: 6527, (South San Francisco: City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development, November 20, 2017). EAST WEST Drill Tower 97 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 4 east volume, windows are primarily replacement, anodized-aluminum with operable awning lites, referred to as “replacement windows” hereafter. The west wall of the apparatus bay at the first story of the west elevation, and the south wall of the maintenance bay at the first story of the south elevation retain original steel windows. The drill tower is fenestrated with original, operable (hinged) steel-casement windows containing eight lites of wired glass each. Entrances and the building’s central stairwell are lighted additionally by original glass block grids set into aluminum frames. Entry doors are flush-wood with aluminum frames. Additional features include a tall radio tower mounted to the roof. All roof planes are flat and are surrounded by shallow concrete parapets. North (Front) The facade of the building fronts Baden Avenue and is recessed from the public sidewalk by a short distance, providing a narrow lawn area in front of the building (Figure 4). The front personnel entrance is recessed into the facade and flanked by bays of single and paired replacement windows. The entrance is accessed by concrete steps with metal railings, and contains a flush-wood door with a glass block surround and an aluminum frame. To the immediate west of the entrance, the exterior shows signs of a removed feature that was at one mounted adjacent to the recessed entryway (Figure 5 to Figure 7). Further west, the building’s height increases to two stories at the west volume, which contains three apparatus bays at the first story and three window bays at the second story. Each apparatus bay contains a paneled- wood, roll-up door, with a massive concrete column separating each bay (Figure 8). Concrete wheel guards remain in place at the base of each column (Figure 9). A modest concrete canopy with curved ends is visible above the garage bays. Replacement windows at the second story are paired, with tripartite transoms. Figure 4. Facade viewed from Baden Avenue, looking southwest. 98 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 5 Figure 5. Windows, fluted concrete details, and entrance at east end of facade, looking west. Figure 6. Recessed entrance with flush-wood door and glass block surround at facade, looking south. Figure 7. Missing exterior feature to immediate west of entrance, looking south. Figure 8. Apparatus bay doors, looking west. Figure 9. Concrete columns and concrete wheel guards at apparatus bays. 99 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 6 East The north end of the east elevation features three bays of paired, replacement windows separated by fluted concrete piers at the first story (Figure 10). Far recessed from the first story, the second story contains two similar replacement windows in singular arrangements, which are more easily viewed from points north of the building (see Figure 4). Figure 10. Replacement aluminum windows at north end of east elevation, looking north. Continuing toward the rear of the building, the east facing elevation is comprised of portions of the west volume and the connected drill tower (Figure 11). The east elevation features a wood, roll-up garage door at the repair shop entrance located at the south end of the building. To the north, the east elevation has a flush-wood, single-entry door set beneath a tripartite, steel-sash horizontal window. Above, a tripartite replacement window is visible at the second story. To the north, the drill tower extends from the elevation to a height of four stories. The tower is fenestrated with operable steel-sash windows; each window contains 8 lites. The south wall of the tower has an anodized metal fire escape and a metal ladder extending to the roof (Figure 12). Figure 11. View of east elevation (left) and south elevation (right), looking northwest. 100 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 7 Figure 12. South portion of east elevation with garage bay, drill tower, and rear entrance, looking west. To the north of the drill tower, the first story contains a rear personnel entrance with similar door and glass block surround to that at the front of the building (Figure 13). This entrance, however, is roughly flush with the facade plane and is set beneath a curved overhang shared with an adjacent entry door at the south elevation. Above, a grid of prismatic glass block is punched into the elevation at the second story; this grid lights an interior stair (Figure 14). Figure 13. Flush wood door surrounded by prismatic glass block, at east elevation. Partially boarded-over flush wood door at south elevation pictured at right, looking northwest. Figure 14. Column of prismatic block glass at east elevation, looking northwest. South At the west, the south elevation features two single-entry doors–one boarded-over and the other infilled with concrete–and two bays containing steel sash windows that are boarded over at the exterior (Figure 15 and Figure 16). Windows are intact and visible at the interior of the repair shop. Doors were unable to be accessed from the interior during the site visit. The second story of the south elevation volume features replacement aluminum windows (see Figure 11). Within the east volume, the south elevation contains a partially boarded-over single entry door and four bays fenestrated with single and paired replacement windows (Figure 17). 101 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 8 Figure 15. Infilled and boarded-over door and window openings at west end of south elevation, first story. Standard replacement windows at second story. Figure 16. Boarded-over door and infilled door at first story of south elevation, looking north. Figure 17. Standard replacement windows at east portion of south elevation, looking north. West The west elevation is setback from the west property line a short distance and faces the neighboring commercial building to the west. Fenestration consists of steel windows at the first story and standard replacement windows at the second story (Figure 18 and Figure 19). A shed roof addition is located near the southwest corner of the building at the first story (Figure 20). A chain-link fence encloses the west side yard of the property at the southwest corner of the building (Figure 21). 102 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 9 Figure 18. Steel windows located along first story of the west elevation. Shed roofed addition pictured in background, looking south. Figure 19. Replacement windows at the second story of the west elevation, looking south. Figure 20. Window located near the rear of the building along the west elevation, looking north. Figure 21. Chain-link fence and gate between southwest corner of building and neighboring building to west, looking north. 103 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 10 HISTORIC CONTEXT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The following historic context for South San Francisco is excerpted from Chapter 1.2 of the South San Francisco General Plan: Evolution of South San Francisco The modern history of South San Francisco began in 1827, when the 15,000-acre Rancho Buri Buri was given to Jose Antonio Sanchez as a provisional land grant.2 In 1856, Charles Lux purchased 1,500 acres of the Rancho and founded the town of Baden, named for Lux’s native region in Germany. At that time, the Baden area was used for cattle grazing and dairy operations. The meat industry played an important role in South San Francisco’s evolution. The Gustavus Swift meat packing plant, established on Point San Bruno in 1888, was the City’s first industrial development. Swift organized a “beef trust” with other Midwestern meat packing companies to join in building a community of stockyards and packing plants on Point San Bruno, and organized for the development of an industrial town. In 1890, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company purchased 3,400 acres on the former site of the Rancho Buri Buri for development of the town. The arrangement of residential and industrial uses intentionally took advantage of stable ground and Bay access at Point San Bruno, as well the prevailing winds from San Bruno Gap that blew offensive odors away from residential areas and over the Bay. Community Growth Industry and [community] growth have been closely intertwined throughout South San Francisco’s history. The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) line between San Francisco and San Jose in 1904-1907 expanded opportunities for goods shipping from South San Francisco, and steel mills began to take advantage of the city’s abundant land with excellent transportation access. A major lack of housing and services and a battle over a copper smelter precipitated incorporation, allowing South San Francisco to control its industrial future and provide the services needed to attract resident workers. When the City incorporated on September 19, 1908, it had 1,989 residents and 14 major industries. Industries continued to locate and grow in South San Francisco in the 1920s and 1930s. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and the Edwards Wire Rope Factory were some of the city’s major establishments whose products helped build California’s modern transportation and communications infrastructure. In the 1930s, shipping also emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more attractive as a shipping terminal, and the city became the central distribution point for the entire Peninsula. 2 Information on South San Francisco’s history is primarily drawn from Linda Kaufman, South San Francisco: A History (1976) and Joseph A. Blum, “South City: The Town That Could” San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, September 4, 1983. 104 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 11 Downtown and Civic Development Grand Avenue has always been the spine of the city’s commercial core, extending west from the industrial areas, and had almost reached El Camino Real by the time incorporation occurred. With Sign Hill to the north and marshlands to the south limiting expansion, the oldest part of the city was developed with a strong east-west orientation, reinforced by a directional grid pattern of 950 by 300 foot blocks. The rail spur along Railroad Avenue formed the City’s southern boundary. […] In the years following incorporation, South San Francisco’s civic improvements kept pace with its growing industry. The City Hall was opened in 1920 and the 20-acre Orange Memorial Park was developed in 1925. Residential Development and Hillside Growth Constrained by marshlands to the south, residential development began to extend north around and along the slopes of Sign Hill as the city grew, requiring the introduction of a curvilinear street form. Industries expanded to the south and west, taking advantage of the SPRR and spurs along Railroad Avenue and other streets west of the rail right-of-way. […] The growth of South San Francisco’s steel and, later, shipbuilding industries through the 1920s and World War II helped spur residential growth. Between 1940 and 1960, South San Francisco’s population increased more than six-fold from 6,290 to 39,418.3 Over 46 percent of South San Francisco’s existing housing units were constructed between 1940 and 1959.4 Government-built housing for military personnel and shipyard workers was developed during the war on the former marshland between Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. The area is still known as Lindenville after the largest government development. Demolition of the housing in the late 1950s paved the way for redevelopment of the area with warehouses, light industry, and single-family housing in the Mayfair Village subdivision. Post-War Transformation By the end of the 1950s, South San Francisco had essentially reached its present level of urbanization between U.S. 101 and Junipero Serra Boulevard. Many of the residential subdivisions west of Sign Hill and El Camino Real were complete. Except at the city’s northwestern corner, Junipero Serra Boulevard formed the city’s western edge, and Hillside Boulevard/Randolph Avenue was the northern boundary. During this decade, the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the city for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a 600- acre industrial park adjacent to the newly-developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco’s first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design, and performance provisions, and 3 City of South San Francisco, Land Use, Transportation, and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, 1986. 4 1990 U.S. Census. 105 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 12 featured a 0.5 FAR, ample parking, and consistent landscaping and building design. The park heralded South San Francisco’s industrial future. In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research, development, and biotechnology. Because the city’s industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry will continue to play an important role in South San Francisco’s future. With some important exceptions, land use in South San Francisco since the 1960s has stemmed from internal change rather than outright expansion. Infill development occurred along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, and U.S. 101. Major expansion did occur in the Westborough area and the East of 101 area, enabled respectively by the construction of Interstate 280 and landfill at Oyster and Sierra Points. The city has recently entered its last phase of expansion with multi-use development at San Bruno Mountain. Future opportunities for growth other than redevelopment are limited to remaining unincorporated islands. South San Francisco Fire Department Firefighting in South San Francisco is rooted in the foundation of a volunteer fire company, South San Francisco Hose Company No. 1 (Hose Company No. 1), founded in 1892.5 In 1896, the Citizens Mutual Protection Association, founded 1895, purchased a cast iron bell to alert volunteer fire fighters. Due to limited funds and equipment failure, Hose Company No. 1 disbanded in 1900.6 As reported by the Vincent Mager of the Brisbane Bee: The [San Mateo] [C]ounty Board of Supervisors responded to a petition from residents to establish a fire department. By 1902, a Fire Commission was formed and new equipment purchased in time for the hose company to be reorganized in 1903. The fire house [built in 1904] was located at Grand and Linden avenues. Later, additional companies were houses at Aspen and Linden and the school house on Grand.7 In 1907, two new hose houses were built: Hose Company No. 2 at Aspen Linden Avenues and Hose Company No. 3 at the school house lot on Grand Avenue.8 The South San Francisco Fire Department was founded in 1908 as a small volunteer department that responded to fires with a hand drawn cart.9 5 Jacquelyne Kious, South San Francisco Fire Department, 1892-2003, (South San Francisco, CA: Jacquelyne Kious, December 2003), 5. 6 Ibid., 5. 7 Vincent Mager, “Today’s Sophistication Far Cry from First Volunteer Fire Outfit in South City,” Brisbane Bee, September 7, 1983. 8 Kious, 5. 9 City of South San Francisco, California, “Fire Department,” online. Accessed April 10, 2019. http://www.ssf.net/departments/fire. 106 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 13 Following the establishment of a paid fire department in 1910 by city ordinance, the department acquired two Seagrave pumper engines between 1916 and 1927. During this period, South San Francisco purchased an electric fire alarm system and installed fire alarm boxes on utility poles throughout the city. City Hall, dedicated in 1920, housed the city’s first firehouse in its basement. Despite construction of a second fire house on E. Grand Avenue in 1928, the basement of City Hall continued to house the department’s administrative offices until the completion of the subject building in 1949.10 In 1932, Alex Welte was appointed to the position of fire chief and building inspector. Welte, the department’s third chief, abolished the volunteer department and instituted a call system. During the 1930s, Welte sought additional department funding from the City council and established a local fire college. Welte’s efforts included sending firefighters out into the community to generate support for additional department funding, and were rewarded in 1947 when city residents voted to fund a bond program that enabled the construction of Central Station in 1949. The funding also beget acquisition of a pumper engine, the department’s first aerial truck, and construction of the Buri Buri substation on the west side of El Camino Real, which opened in 1950.11 With the completion of Central Station and the hiring of the department’s first full-time, paid firefighters in 1949, South San Francisco Fire Department entered a modern era of firefighting. Central Station was among the region’s best-equipped, modern fire stations. The 10,000 square foot building contained offices, a kitchen, watch room, storeroom, maintenance shop, and three apparatus bays at the first story. The second story housed dormitories, captain’s office, and locker rooms. The four-story drill tower contained a smoke room, dry standpipe system, exterior fire escapes, and provided space for hose drying. The tower was also equipped with a flood light system for night drills.12 In 1960, Station No. 2 was opened, and replaced the auxiliary station on E. Grand Avenue. In 1962, Welte retired, after serving as fire chief for three decades. Welte’s impact on the day-to-day operations of the fire department was evidenced by completion of Central Station in 1949, and the development of a staff of over 40 paid staff. In the 1970s, groundwork was laid for the addition of paramedic services. The paramedic program was first proposed in March of 1973 and enacted in 1975, giving the department the distinction of being the first, and only fire department to provide full paramedic transport services in San Mateo County.13 In 1980, Fire Administrative was relocated from Central Station to the Municipal Services Building. In 2006, Central Station was vacated as the department shifted operations to a new station at 480 N. Canal Street. Fire Stations 10 Ibid., 6-7. 11 Ibid., 8-9, 40. 12 Ibid., 45. 13 “EMS-South San Francisco Paramedics,” Accessed April 10, 2019. http://www.ssf.net/departments/fire/about-us. 107 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 14 The following historic context of the development of the fire station typology is adapted from Tom Wilkinson’s “Typology: Fire Stations.”14 The Fire Station building typology is one reflective of changes in firefighting technology that have occurred over many centuries, from efforts to fight fires bucket-by-bucket in ancient Rome, and later the invention of motorized fire engines by the turn of the twentieth century. By the mid-seventeenth century, firefighting equipment was began to be mounted on horse-drawn carriages, which required stations that accommodated such equipment and personal. Leather fire houses invented in Amsterdam in 1673 required hanging to dry out to avoid rot; hence, the need for hose towers at many stations. By the mid-1700s, both private and volunteer firefighting companies were established in the United States, preceding the establishment of municipal crews as cities grew rapidly. Stations were often limited by the narrow urban lots they were built upon, necessitating vertical space and multiple stories to house equipment and personnel. As Wilkinson notes: Fire crews had to take the stairs until David B Kenyon…invented the firehouse pole in 1878. This made his unit noticeably faster and was quickly adopted worldwide. Motori[z]ed engines were introduced around 1900, but these slotted fairly easily into existing buildings. By the middle of the century, however, a number of technological changes altered firefighting. Structural steel made buildings taller, requiring much longer ladders, and cherry pickers were also added to the kit. These innovations made fire engines bigger and this rendered many older stations unfit for purpose. A new wave of buildings was constructed with Modernist disregard for historical precedent, for instance Robert Mallet-Stevens’ 1936 station in Paris, Owen Williams’ 1938 station for the Boots drug factory in Nottingham, and Claude Ferret’s 1954 Bordeaux station surmounted by a Corbusian accommodation block. From the mid 1960s to the 1980s the Greater London Council built a large number of stations, such as the one at Shoreditch with its exposed concrete frame and cantilevered apartments. Hose towers were no longer disguised as campaniles or machicolated keeps, but stripped down to skeletal béton brut [rough textured concrete common to Brutalist style architecture].15 The subject building may be categorized as a modernistic station that features typical features of a fire station such as apparatus bays, spaces for personnel (offices and dormitories), and a drill tower for practice and training. The building is rendered in architectural concrete with modest exterior detail; primarily fluting at piers between windows and along the roofline. William Henry Rowe, Architect (Designer of Central Station) 14 Tom Wilkinson, “Typology: Fire Stations,” The Architectural Review, February 3, 2016. Accessed online, April 16, 2019. https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/typology-fire-stations/10002048.article. 15 Ibid. 108 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 15 William Henry Rowe (1894-1984) was a prominent architect whose career was based out of offices in San Francisco and San Mateo County between the 1920s and 1960s. Rowe frequently designed civic and institutional buildings, and school buildings, along with a select few residences, in Northern and Central California. Rowe designed the Central Fire Station under his private practice, William Henry Rowe, Architect, as indicated on the title block of original drawings for the building. Rowe’s design was completed between 1947 and 1948, based on dates on the provided plans. Rowe was born in Watsonville, California in 1894 and entered into architectural practice as a draftsman with the Watsonville-based firm of architect William Henry Weeks in 1913.16 Between 1915 and 1923, Rowe was employed as a draftsman and resident architect for the Spreckels Sugar Company in Spreckels, Monterey County, California.17 Census data from 1920 shows that Rowe resided with fellow employees during is time with Spreckels Sugar Company.18 Rowe relocated to San Francisco in 1923, the year he married Jean Charlotte Stevens (1901-1975) of Oakland, California, and began working as an architect for the firm Weeks & Day.19 By 1930, Rowe relocated to Burlingame, California, and in 1931, founded his eponymous firm. By 1940, Rowe resided in Hillsborough, California and continued to operate a private architectural practice.20 In the 1956 American Architects Directory, sponsored by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Rowe listed several principle works, including: • Spreckels Art Gallery, 1922-1923 • South San Francisco Civic Buildings, 1946-1949 • Elementary Schools at Moss Landing, 1952 • Paso Robles Civic Buildings, 1952 • Alisal School District, Salinas – 4 School buildings, 1953 • San Bruno Civic Buildings, 195621 Rowe joined the Northern California Chapter of the AIA in 1947 and served as its directory between 1951 and 1953. Rowe was also a member of the Peninsula Art Association, serving as president between 1952 and 1953, and served in the U.S. Army between 1917 and 1918, and U.S. Navy between 1942 and 1944.22 16 Edited by George S. Koyl, American Architects Directory, First Edition, (New York: R.R. Bowker Company under sponsorship of American Institute of Architects, 1955, 475. 17 World War I Draft Registration Card for William Henry Rowe, accessed at Ancestry.com.; American Architects Directory, First Edition, 475. 18 1920 U.S. Federal Census Data for William Henry Rowe. Accessed at Ancestry.com. 19 Ancestry.com. California, Marriage Records from Select Counties, 1850-1941; and, American Architects Directory, First Edition, 475. 20 1940 U.S. Federal Census Data for William Henry Rowe. Accessed at Ancestry.com. 21 American Architects Directory, First Edition, 475.; and, “Alisal Trustess Approve Budget, Set $1.35 Tax Rate,” The Californian, August 8, 1958, 2. 22 American Architects Directory, First Edition, 475. 109 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 16 SITE EVOLUTION AND CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY SITE DEVELOPMENT Historic Sanborn fire insurance survey maps and historic aerial photographs show the majority of the land contained within the subject site was vacant prior to its use as a fire station beginning in 1949 (Figure 22 and Figure 23). By 1925, South City Lumber & Supply Co. occupied the property to the immediate west, currently occupied by Giorgi Bros. furniture store, which ca. 1925 extended southward to Commercial Avenue. During this five-decade period, Cypress Avenue extended southward through what is currently the middle portion of the site. Figure 22. 1925 Sanborn map with approximate future location of subject property outlined with red dashed line (San Francisco Public Library. Amended by author) 110 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 17 Figure 23. 1946 aerial photograph of subject site and vicinity (Environmental Site Assessment, 201 Baden Avenue, EDR. Amended by author) The subject building was constructed in 1949 as Fire Station 61, and became known as Central Station (Figure 24 to Figure 26). As part of the site’s redevelopment, Cypress Avenue was cut off north of Baden Avenue.23 In early May 1949, the station neared completion, with occupancy targeted at the end of the month. The station was described in The South San Francisco Journal as: …two stories tall with a drill tower. The second story contains dormitory lockers and their officer quarters. The lower floor has two offices, a kitchen, fire alarm room store room, shop, apparatus floor and drill tower, with a test pit in the rear. The fire chief’s office in on the ground floor in the northeast corner.24 Following the occupancy of the station in late May, a dedication and ceremony was held on July 17, 1949. The ceremony provided South San Francisco residents an opportunity to inspect the new fire station and the department’s new equipment, including a 75-foot aerial truck and two pumper engines.25 23 Todd R. Brown, “South City Firefighters Bid Farewell to Old Station,” San Mateo County Times, March 11, 2006. 24 “New Fire Station Occupancy Soon,” The South San Francisco Journal, May 6, 1949. 25 “SSF to Inspect New Fire Station Sun.: Short Program Planned for Two O’Clock,” The South San Francisco Journal, May 6, 1949. 111 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 18 Figure 24. Central Station viewed from Cypress Avenue, shorty after its opening in 1949. Note the original apparatus bay doors did not feature a paneled exterior. (South San Francisco Library, History Room) 112 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 19 Figure 25. Firefighters with ladders outside drill tower, ca. 1949. Rear entrance beneath curved canopy at bottom-right. (South San Francisco Library, History Room) Figure 26. Undated photograph of Central Fire Station. Note the addition of “CENTRAL FIRE STATION” above apparatus bay entrance, growth of plantings adjacent to building perimeter, and light fixture adjacent to recessed entrance (South San Francisco Library, History Room) 113 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 20 The 1950 Sanborn map of South San Francisco was the first to record the subject building following its construction. Identified features included reinforced-concrete and wood-frame with curtain wall structural systems, concrete floors, a central stairwell, drill tower, and a shop at the rear of the building (Figure 27). Figure 27. 1950 Sanborn map of subject site and vicinity, with approximate site boundary outlined in red (San Francisco Public Library) According to newspaper reports, between 1980 and 2006, the department’s administration was relocated from the subject building to the Municipal Services buildings, prior to rejoining the crews of the new Central Station in 2006.26 Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the building was deemed seismically unfit, and the City purchased the former Black Mountain Water building at 480 N. Canal Street about two years ago (ca. 2004) for use as a new central station.27 Fire Station 61 crews moved into the new facility on March 10, 2006, and the subject building was vacated. CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY The following building permits are on file at the South San Francisco Permit Center. The subject building was built in 1949. No major alterations to the building are indicated on available building permits, which range from 1976 to 2000. Alterations not indicated on available permits, include: replacement of the original roll-up apparatus bay doors with paneled-wood apparatus bay doors at an unknown date after 1949; installation of wood paneling on some interior walls (office spaces); removal of the station’s fire poles at the interior; boarding over or infilling of select windows and doors at the rear of the building. Replacement, anodized-aluminum windows within the station were installed ca. 1968, based upon date stamps visible on window hardware. Research indicates that this date is consistent with the introduction of anodized-aluminum as a common window material in the 1950s and 26 Todd R. Brown, South City Firefighters Bid Farewell to Old Station,” San Mateo County Times, March 11, 2006. 27 Ibid. 114 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 21 1960s.28 Changes to the site, include: the removal of an oil fire test pit once located at the southeast corner of the site; removal of two flag poles that once flanked the front entrance; removal of a light fixture adjacent to the front entrance; and removal of station name letters that were once mounted above the apparatus bays at the exterior. Construction Chronology Table Date Permit No. Owner Work 1949 Plans City of South San Francisco Construction of Fire Station. 5/5/1976 19018 City of South San Francisco Electrical work. 7/2/1976 76390 City of South San Francisco Minor interior alterations. Description illegible. Appears to note carpets, lighting, may involve wall panels at interior. 11/17/1977 77807 Roof repair above repair garage. 5/22/1981 80276 City of South San Francisco Minor mechanical work. 10/22/1985 85980 City of South San Francisco 2 plys of glass ply felts, pan in on walls, install new jacks and galvanized metal on outside edge of roof. Flood coat etc. 1988 88700 City of South San Francisco Roof work 6/15/1992 91-669 Alteration to existing women’s restroom. 8/24/1994 94752 City of South San Francisco Ventilation/fan work. Diesel emission control, sliding balancer truck assorted ductwork, motor blower, control panel to be installed in garage area. 8/31/1998 14471 City of South San Francisco Environmental Health permit. Soil borings. 5/24/2000 M00-327 City of South San Francisco Replace HVAC unit on roof. 5/26/2000 E00-329 City of South San Francisco Electrical permit: circuit-related work. 6/7/2000 B00-743 City of South San Francisco Repair 2x3 hole in floor of fire station. OWNERSHIP HISTORY The ownership of the subject property was not intensively researched, as records of the City of South San Francisco indicated the property has been owned by the City since the subject building’s construction. 28 Kaaren R. Staveteig, National park Service Preservation Tech Notes: Windows Number 22-Maintenance and Repair of Historic Aluminum Windows, (Washington, D.C., National Park Service, May 2008), 3. 115 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 22 Biographical Information Alex Welte, Fire Chief 1932-1962 Alex Welte (1897-1976) served as Fire Chief of the South San Francisco Fire Department between 1932 and 1962. Welte was a firefighter with the department beginning in 1930 and resided in South San Francisco with his wife Gladys (1899-1941) and daughter Evelyn (1925-?). An obituary published in the San Francisco Examiner, in 1976 describes: A native of South San Francisco, he worked in the city’s meat packing industry and was a volunteer fireman until the city council chose him to the be the city’s first paid fireman in 1930. When he retired in 1962 he had expanded the department into a team of 46 paid employees manning three engine companies and an aerial ladder out of three stations. He served in the AEF in France in World War I and was active in veterans’ affairs as well as the Elks Lodge, and served as the first exalted rule of the South San Francisco lodge when it was formed.29 Welte was the department’s longest-tenured fire chief and the first chief to occupy the subject building upon its completion in 1949. 29 “Alex Welte,” San Francisco Examiner, November 23, 1976, 28. 116 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 23 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is the official list of properties, structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state, or national level. California Register properties must have significance under one of the four following criteria and must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and convey the reasons for their significance (i.e. retain integrity). The California Register utilizes the same seven aspects of integrity as the National Register. Properties that are eligible for the National Register are automatically eligible for the California Register. Properties that do not meet the threshold for the National Register may meet the California Register criteria. 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to the local, California or national history 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value; or 4. Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. CRHR criteria are similar to National Register of Historic Places criteria, and are tied to CEQA, so any resource that meets the above criteria, and retains a sufficient level of historic integrity, is considered an historical resource under CEQA. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE (SSFMC) CHAPTER 2.56 The SSFMC describes: a “historic resource” means as a structure, a natural feature, or a site which if 50 years old or older, of architectural, artistic, cultural, engineering, aesthetic, archeological, historical, political, or social significance to the citizens of the city of South San Francisco, the state, or nation.30 The SSFMC provides the following criteria for designation of historic resources: a) Its character, interest, or value as a significant part of the heritage of the City, the state, or the nation; and b) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or 30 South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 2.56, Planning Commission, 2.56.080 Historic preservation findings and purposes, 2.56.090 Definitions. Accessed online, April 8. 2019. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=2-2_56&showAll=1. 117 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 24 c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City, the state, or the nation; or d) Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or e) Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the City f) Its identification as the creation, design, or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly influenced the heritage of the City, the State, or the nation; or g) Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural, and/or engineering design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or h) Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity and character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood); or i) Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of the City; or j) Its potential of yielding significant information of archaeological interest ; or k) Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well being of the people of the City, the State, or the nation (for example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or some other feature that contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco). (Ord. 1440 § 2, 2011). 31 HISTORIC INTEGRITY When evaluating a resource for the CRHR, one must evaluate and clearly state the significance of that resource to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A resource may be considered individually eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one or more of the above listed criteria for significance and it possesses historic integrity. Historic properties must retain sufficient historic integrity to convey their significance. The following seven aspects define historic integrity: • Location. The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. • Design. The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. • Setting. The physical environment of a historic property. 31 South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 2.56 Planning Commission, 2.56.110 Criteria for historic designation. Accessed online, April 8, 2019. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=2-2_56- 2_56_110&frames=on. 118 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 25 • Materials. The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship. The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. • Feeling. A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. • Association. The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. To retain historic integrity, a resource should possess several of the above-mentioned aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is essential for a resource to convey its significance. Comparisons with similar properties should also be considered when evaluating integrity as it may be important in deciding what physical features are essential to reflect the significance of a historic context. 119 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 26 EVALUATION FINDINGS CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES This section uses the historic information discussed above to evaluate the property at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco for historic significance. The CRHR uses generally the same guidelines as the National Register of Historic Places (developed by the National Park Service); as such, selected language from those guidelines will be quoted below to help clarify the evaluation discussion. To be potentially eligible for individual listing on the CRHR, a structure must usually be more than 50 years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity. The subject building at 201 Baden Avenue was constructed in 1949 and therefore meets the age requirement. In terms of historic significance, the CRHR evaluates a resource based on the following four criteria: Criterion 1 (Events) As stated by the National Park Service (NPS), this criterion “recognizes properties associated with single events, such as the founding of a town, or with a pattern of events, repeated activities, or historic trends, such as the gradual rise of a port city's prominence in trade and commerce.”32 When considering a property for significance under this criterion, the associated event or trends “must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case of the town, or development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city…Moreover, the property must have an important association with the event or historic trends”33 The subject building appears to be individually eligible under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the development of modern municipal services and civic buildings in the City of South San Francisco, and as the City’s first purpose-built fire station, originally known as Central Station. The period of significance for this criterion is 1949, representing the building’s year of construction. The station’s construction in 1949 reflects the growth of the City of South San Francisco during the early twentieth century as industry and commerce, and a growing population, required extension of municipal services. Although the subject building does not associate with the origination of firefighting in South San Francisco, its association with the City’s development during the mid-twentieth century, remains important. Further, the subject building was the first purpose-built fire station in South San Francisco. Prior to the subject building’s construction, firefighting administration was housed in the basement of City Hall, and an auxiliary firehouse was used for equipment storage. Precedent buildings were utilized by Hose Company’s and do not appear to be extant. Criterion 2 (Persons) This criterion applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. The NPS defines significant persons as “individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context. The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person's important achievements. The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic context.” The NPS also specifies that these 32 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources staff, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,” National Register Bulletin, no. 15 (1990: revised for internet 1995). 33 Cultural Resources staff, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” 120 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 27 properties “are usually those associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance.”34 The subject building does not appear to be individually eligible under Criterion 2 (Persons) for its association with a person or persons who have made significant contributions to local, State, or national history. Of the many firefighters and individuals associated with the South San Francisco Fire Department and the subject building, which operated as Central Station between 1949 and 2006, long-time Fire Chief Alex Welte appears to be the individual whose career bears the greatest association with the building, particularly as Welte lobbied for the construction of a modern station that was realized with the completion of the subject building, and because Welte served as a Fire Chief with an office in the building during a large portion of his career. Research shows that Welte was an influential member of the department for over three decades, and was integral to the development of modern firefighting practices in South San Francisco throughout his career, including the efforts to obtain funding for Central Station. Despite Welte’s strong association with the subject building, which served as his primary location of employment during the prime of his career, the existing body of scholarship on the history of firefighting in South San Francisco and broader historic trends related to firefighting do not enable a thorough understanding of the relative importance of Welte’s achievements when compared to other professionals in his field contemporaneously. Criterion 3: Architecture According to the NPS, “ ‘Type, period, or method of construction’ refers to the way certain properties are related to one another by cultural tradition or function, by dates of construction or style, or by choice or availability of materials and technology. A structure is eligible as a specimen of its type or period of construction if it is an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history.”35 The subject building appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 as a building that embodies the distinct characteristics of a modern fire station typology rendered with elements of the International style, constructed in 1949 in South San Francisco. The period of significance for this criterion is 1949, representing the building’s year of construction. The building does not appear to be eligible as a representative work of a master architect. The building was designed by architect William Henry Rowe, whose career began as a draftsman for the firm of William H. Weeks, and later Spreckels Sugar Company, prior to Rowe’s establishment of a private architectural practice in 1931. Among design professionals active during Rowe’s career, which spanned ca. 1913 to the 1960s, Rowe does not stand out as a highly influential or innovate designer, or for a association with a building type, style, or philosophy of design that has made a particularly significant impact on the field of architecture. Nonetheless, Rowe’s design for the subject building provides an excellent local example of a modern fire station typology. The building’s concrete structure, restrained ornamentation, and distinct massing embody characteristics of the fire station typology that evolved from early high-style urban fire houses, to more utilitarian examples completed during the mid-twentieth century, that accommodated larger fire engines, hose drying and drill towers, and space for staff. 34 Cultural Resources staff, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” 35 Ibid. 121 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 28 Criterion 4: Information Potential Archival research and physical investigation of the site focused on the above ground resource only. Therefore, no informed determination could be made regarding the property’s eligibility for CRHR under Criterion 4. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES Assessment of various features is done according to a prioritized evaluation system. Once the character defining features have been identified, each is assigned a priority rating to create a sense of the relative historical importance of these spaces and features. A rating scale of “Premier-Important-Contributing-Non-Contributing” is used. In general, this system allows for the analysis of the structure as a whole to guide what types of work should be done, and where such work could be completed with the least damage to the historic integrity of the resource. The character-defining features of the residence and property at 201 Baden Avenue, include: Primary § Massing (east wing, west wing, and drill tower at rear) § Architectural concrete exterior § Fluted concrete details at concrete piers and along cornice line § Three apparatus bays (dimension of apparatus bays exclusive of replacement doors) § Glass block door surrounds § Steel casement windows in drill tower § Steel windows at additional locations § Windows set into banks or ribbons creating a horizontal emphasis Important § Glass block stairwell window at drill tower exterior § Curved concrete columns and wheel guards at apparatus bays § Front, recessed entrance § Rear entrance beneath curved canopy Contributing § Canopy with curved ends over apparatus bays § Flat roofs § Flush-wood doors Non-Contributing § Apparatus bay doors (previously altered) § Replacement aluminum windows installed ca. 1968 122 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 29 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE (SSFMC) CHAPTER 2.56 a) Its character, interest, or value as a significant part of the heritage of the City, the state, or the nation; and Eligible. The subject building has a distinct character among buildings in the city as a modern fire station typology. As the first purpose-built fire station in South San Francisco, and an example of its type, the building is associated with the development of municipal services in the growing city during the mid-twentieth century. The building is also reflective of building trends during the mid-twentieth century as firefighting modernized, and stations were typically constructed with less elaborate designs that accommodate larger fire engines, space for staff, and utilitarian spaces such as hose drying and drill towers. The building appears to be among the most intact examples of architecture of its period in the City of South San Francisco. b) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or Not Eligible. The subject building is not known to have been the location of a significant event. Events such as dedication ceremonies, or other commemorative events such as dinners or banquets held at the station do not appear to stand out among many similar events held throughout the City’s history. c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City, the state, or the nation; or Not Eligible. The subject building does not appear to be identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City, the State, or nation. d) Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or Eligible. The subject building is among the City of South San Francisco’s strongest examples of a modernist building; the building embodies the application of International style elements to a fire station typology. The building features apparatus bays, a drill tower, and additional volumes containing office space. These aspects of the building’s original use, and purpose-built design reflected through its utilitarian and minimally adorned exterior finishes, steel and aluminum windows set in horizontal bands or ribbons. The building is reflective of fire fighting practices ca. 1949 that revolved around a building that combined spaces for equipment storage, maintenance, along with office and dormitory spaces for personnel. 123 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 30 e) Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the City Eligible. The subject building appears to be the best remaining example of a modern (mid-twentieth century) fire station in the City of South San Francisco. f) Its identification as the creation, design, or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly influenced the heritage of the City, the State, or the nation; or Not Eligible. The subject building does not appear to be eligible under this criterion as the building’s designer is not known to have significantly influenced the heritage of the City, State, or nation. g) Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural, and/or engineering design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or Eligible. The subject building’s design, materiality, and evidence of craftsmanship ca. 1949, through the retention of many historic elements, enables the building to demonstrate outstanding attention to architectural design, materials, and craftsmanship. Although the building is modestly adorned, its utilitarian design remains reflective of its intended use, and is highly reflective of buildings practices of its period of construction. h) Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity and character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood); or Not Eligible. The subject building does not appear to be an element of a larger cohesive neighborhood, beyond being located within the downtown area. The building appears to be a stand-alone resource in terms of its significance and does not appear to be essential to the integrity of other resources. i) Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of the City; or Eligible. The subject building exhibits a distinct architectural design within downtown South San Francisco, reflective of building trends for civic buildings during the mid- twentieth century. The building’s singular design characteristics have been minimally altered, and, although the building’s setting has been altered by the construction of the west neighboring building, it remains a familiar and established visual feature of the City. 124 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 31 j) Its potential of yielding significant information of archaeological interest; or Not Eligible. This evaluation was limited to survey and evaluation of above-ground resources. Therefore, no informed determination could be made regarding the property’s eligibility under this criterion. k) Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well being of the people of the City, the State, or the nation (for example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or some other feature that contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco). (Ord. 1440 § 2, 2011). 36 Not Eligible. The subject property is not a natural environment, and therefore does not qualify for eligibility under this criterion. HISTORIC INTEGRITY The subject building and property at 201 Baden Avenue has been found to be potentially significant, and as such will be evaluated for its integrity. Location: The subject building retains integrity of location as it has not been relocated from its site of original construction. Design: The subject building retains integrity of design. Review of available building permit records and historic documentation (photographs, Sanborn maps) shows the building’s design has been minimally altered since its original construction in 1949. The building retains its original architectural concrete exterior, distinct massing comprised of three volumes, and key features such as apparatus bays, fluted concrete details. Replacement of original steel windows within anodized-aluminum windows ca. 1968 does not appear to have altered the size or location of openings within the building, or the characteristic horizontality of the building’s historic fenestration. Thus, the building’s design continues to express its essential form, embodying its 1949 appearance. Setting: The subject building retains integrity of setting. The subject building remains situated in an area of primarily commercial uses in downtown South San Francisco. The subject site retains similar spatial characteristics with respect to its spatial arrangement as designed in 1949. The L- plan building occupies the north, northwest, and west portions of the site, while a large parking area occupies the remainder of the site. Materials: The subject building retains integrity of materials. The building was originally designed with an architectural concrete exterior, wood doors set into aluminum frames, steel and glass block windows, and wood apparatus bay doors. Although the apparatus bay doors have been replaced by paneled-wood roll-up doors, and many original steel windows were replaced ca. 1968 by anodized-aluminum windows, steel windows have been retained in the 36 South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 2.56 Planning Commission, 2.56.110 Criteria for historic designation. Accessed online, April 8, 2019. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=2-2_56- 2_56_110&frames=on. 125 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 32 drill tower and at select windows bays, providing evidence of the building’s historic materiality. Workmanship: The subject building retains integrity of workmanship. The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory is evidenced through the retention of many historic windows, doors and glass block surrounds, exterior architectural concrete, and fluted concrete detailing at piers between window openings and along the cornice line. Feeling: The subject building retains integrity of feeling. The building’s original design in terms of massing, materiality, and evidence of workmanship has been retained as many original materials have been retains, and the building’s massing, scale, and overall design remain highly expressive of modern fire stations. The building feels like a 1949 modern fire station due to the retention of features including apparatus bays, its multi-story drill tower, period windows, and minimal modern detailing including fluted concrete elements. Association: The subject building retains integrity of association. The building continues to associate with a period of modern development, and its design as a modern fire station typology through its design, retention of a downtown setting, location, and evidence of period materiality and workmanship. Historic Integrity Summary The subject building retains all seven aspects of integrity. Thus, the building remains expressive of its significance under the above outlined criteria of the California Register, and the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 126 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 33 CONCLUSION The property at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco was developed in 1949 as the location of South San Francisco Fire Department’s Central Station. Designed by architect William Henry Rowe, the subject building served as the City’s first purpose-built fire station between 1949 and 2006, when it was vacated and fire operations were relocated to a newly constructed station. The subject building appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 1 for its association with the development of firefighting, extension of municipal services, and the growth of South San Francisco during the mid- twentieth century. Additionally, although the building’s designer, William Henry Rowe, AIA was a prominent and well-respected designer during his career, existing scholarship and understanding of Rowe’s influence does not suggest that he would be considered a master-level designer. Nonetheless, the subject building’s design provides an excellent example of a modern fire station typology, with high historic integrity, such that the building appears individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 for its embodiment of a type and period of construction. The building also appears to qualify under several evaluative criteria for local historic listing under the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 127 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 34 REFERENCES Blum, Joseph A. “South City: The Town That Could.” San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, September 4, 1983. Brown, Todd R. “South City Firefighters Bid Farewell to Old Station.” San Mateo County Times, March 11, 2006. City of South San Francisco, California. “Fire Department.” Accessed online. April 10, 2019. http://www.ssf.net/departments/fire. City of South San Francisco. Land Use, Transportation, and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, 1986. CSS Environmental Services, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment: 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, California-CSS Project No: 6527. South San Francisco: City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development, November 20, 2017. Kaufman, Linda. South San Francisco: A History. 1976. Kious, Jacquelyne. South San Francisco Fire Department, 1892-2003. South San Francisco, CA: Jacquelyne Kious, December 2003. Koyl, George S. Editor. American Architects Directory, First Edition. New York: R.R. Bowker Company under sponsorship of American Institute of Architects, 1955. Mager, Vincent. “Today’s Sophistication Far Cry from First Volunteer Fire Outfit in South City.” Brisbane Bee, September 7, 1983. Staveteig, Kaaren R. National park Service Preservation Tech Notes: Windows Number 22- Maintenance and Repair of Historic Aluminum Windows, (Washington, D.C., National Park Service, May 2008), 3. Wilkinson, Tom. “Typology: Fire Stations.” The Architectural Review, February 3, 2016. Accessed online, April 16, 2019. https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/typology-fire- stations/10002048.article. “Alex Welte.” San Francisco Examiner. November 23, 1976. “EMS-South San Francisco Paramedics.” Accessed April 10, 2019. http://www.ssf.net/departments/fire/about-us. “New Fire Station Occupancy Soon.” The South San Francisco Journal, May 6, 1949. “Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals.” The Californian (Salinas, CA). December 24, 1952. “Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals.” The Californian (Salinas, CA), October 6, 1949. 128 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 35 “SSF to Inspect New Fire Station Sun.: Short Program Planned for Two O’Clock.” The South San Francisco Journal. May 6, 1949. South San Francisco Municipal Code. Chapter 2.56, Planning Commission, 2.56.080 Historic preservation findings and purposes, 2.56.090 Definitions. Accessed online, April 8. 2019. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=2-2_56&showAll=1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources staff. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” National Register Bulletin, no. 15 (1990: revised for internet 1995). Ancestry.com. Newspapers.com. San Mateo County Assessor’s Office San Mateo County History Museum. South San Francisco Building Division. South San Francisco Historical Society Museum. South San Francisco Library History Collection. 129 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 A APPENDIX A: ORIGINAL PLANS 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 B APPENDIX B: AVAILABLE BUILDING PERMITS 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Firehouse Work (FHW), LLC at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco, CA Prepared for: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. May 10, 2022 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 175 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Hexagon Job Number:19TD02 Phone: 925.225.1439 173 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Transportation Facilities ..................................................................................................... 4 3. Parking ........................................................................................................................................... 11 4. TDM Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 13 List of Tables Table 1 SamTrans Services ................................................................................................................ 7 Table 2 Vehicular Parking Spaces Requirement .............................................................................. 11 Table 3 Recommended Trip Reduction Measures ........................................................................... 14 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location .......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Existing Bicycle Network ........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3 Existing Transit Service ....................................................................................................... 10 174 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 1 1. Introduction Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single–occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, and air pollution problems. The purpose of TDM is to (1) reduce the amount of traffic generated by new development; (2) promote more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage; (3) reduce the parking demand generated by new development and allow for a reduction in parking supply; and (4) establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to guarantee the desired trip and parking reductions are achieved. The main purpose of the proposed TDM plan for the proposed Firehouse Work (FHW), LLC project is to evaluate the parking reduction requirements outlined in Section 20.330.007 (Downtown Parking) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The code states that for the Downtown Parking District, the Planning Commission shall review any request for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces and make a determination whether there is sufficient parking within the District to accommodate the proposed use. As the project proposes to provide less on-site parking than what is typically required for downtown commercial developments, the project will implement a TDM program to encourage alternative modes of travel and offset the on-site parking deficit. Project Description The proposed FHW project will repurpose the existing two-story Firehouse station located at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco into 11,940 square feet of office space, with three different tenants. The project site is bordered by Baden Avenue to the north and 2nd Lane to the south. Located on the west side of the project is the Giorgi Bros Furniture Showroom, and on the east side is a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant. Vehicular access to the site is proposed on the back side of the building via 2nd Lane. The building frontage on Baden Avenue is proposed to include landscaping and wide sidewalks. Only pedestrian access will be provided on Baden Avenue. The project site location and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. The project is located in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area, which covers properties within 0.5 miles of the City’s Caltrain Station. The City of South San Francisco completed the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) and EIR that was adopted in February 2015. The land uses proposed for this project are consistent with those set forth in the DSASP EIR. Downtown Location and Proximity to Transit Also called location efficiency, the location of a project within or adjacent to a central business district promotes pedestrian and bicycle travel in a high-density area of complementary land uses. The project 175 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 2 is located in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) and will provide development within a ¼ -mile radius of the Caltrain Station, which will promote ridership and reduce emissions. Also, the project site is located within one quarter mile of four SamTrans bus routes. Chapter 2 describes the existing transit services in the study area. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into three chapters. Chapter 2 describes the transportation facilities and services in the vicinity of the project site. Chapter 3 describes the parking proposed by the project. Chapter 4 presents the TDM plan that is recommended for the proposed project, including the program for implementing and monitoring the TDM plan. 176 South San Francisco 101 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave Park W y Park Wy Poletti Wy Poletti W yRailroa d A v e Railroad Ave N Cana l S t N Canal St Airport BlvdLux Ave Park W y Poletti Wy Railroa d A v e N Cana l S t 3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Maple AveLinden AveGrand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n Gateway BlvdDubuque AveCypress AveS Canal St S Linden AveHarbor WayS Airport BlvdS Maple AveS Spruce AveMitchell Ave Ar m o u r A v e Utah Ave C o r p o r a t e D r E Grand Ave San Mateo AveHill s i d e B l v d = Site Location LEGEND South SanFranciscoCaltrainStation Firehouse Work, LLC TDM - South San Francisco, CA Figure 1 Site Location 177 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 4 2. Existing Transportation Facilities Transportation facilities and services that support sustainable modes of transportation include SamTrans bus routes, BART, Caltrain, shuttles, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities. This chapter describes the existing facilities and services near the 201 Baden Avenue project site. Information on the nearby roadway network is also included in order to provide a more comprehensive description of the nearby transportation network. Roadway Network Regional access to the project study area is provided by US 101. US 101 is a north-south major freeway through eastern San Mateo County between San Francisco and San Jose. It is the primary north/south route connection to I-280 and I-80 north of South San Francisco. US-101 is typically congested in both directions during both peak periods as people commute to and from San Francisco and the Silicon Valley. Access to the freeway from the project site is provided via interchanges at Miller Avenue, Airport Boulevard, and Grand Avenue. The following roadways provide local access to the site: Airport Boulevard is a major north/south arterial route through South San Francisco parallel to US-101. North of Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction. Airport Boulevard provides access to the site via Baden Avenue. Baden Avenue is primarily a two-lane local roadway that extends from Chestnut Avenue in the west to Airport Boulevard in the east. It is a four-lane roadway between Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard with no on-street parking. The project frontage is located along Baden Avenue with only pedestrian access provided along Baden Avenue. No vehicular access will be provided on Baden Avenue. Grand Avenue is a two- to six-lane roadway that extends from Mission Road to its termination point at Point San Bruno Park. West of US-101, Grand Avenue has one travel lane in each direction with on- street angled parking on both sides of the street. Linden Avenue is a two-lane local roadway that extends north from San Mateo Avenue at the city limits and terminates at Airport Boulevard. There are traffic signals at most major intersections, with the remainder of its intersections controlled by stop signs. Linden Avenue intersects Baden Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Miller Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. 178 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 5 2nd Lane is a one-way (eastbound) local roadway that extends east from Chestnut Avenue to Airport Boulevard. On-street parking is generally provided on the north side of the street. Vehicular access to the proposed project is provided on the backside of the project via 2nd Lane. Existing Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are pathways, separate from roadways, which are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III) are existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs. According to the Bicycle Master Plan, the City has 48.3 miles of existing bikeways, though most of them are not signed (see Figure 2). Transit stations, schools, parks and retail centers are all accessible by these bikeways. The following bicycle facilities exist in the project study area. Class I Bikeway (Multi-Use Path) • Grand Avenue has a bike path that extends from Industrial Way, crosses over East Grand Avenue and ends at Harbor Way. This path connects to Class II bike lanes that begin on Gateway Boulevard south of Grand Avenue. Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) • Airport Boulevard has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin north of Miller Avenue and connect to the Class III bicycle routes on Miller Avenue and Linden Avenue. • Gateway Boulevard has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin south of Grand Avenue and extend to South Airport Boulevard. • Grand Avenue has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin west of Spruce Avenue and connect to the Class III bicycle route on Spruce Avenue. • Railroad Avenue has a Class II bike lane in the eastbound direction that extends east from Spruce Avenue to Maple Avenue, after which it becomes a Class III bicycle route with sharrows. This lane connects to the Class III bicycle route on Spruce Avenue. Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) • San Mateo Avenue is a Class III bicycle route without sharrow markings. The route extends from Airport Boulevard past South Linden Avenue, connecting to the Class III bicycle route on Linden Avenue. • Linden Avenue is a Class III bicycle route without sharrow markings. The route extends south from Airport Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue. • Spruce Avenue is a Class III bicycle route with sharrow markings between Grand Avenue and Victory Way. The route connects to Class II bicycle lanes on Grand Avenue. The City of South San Francisco adopted its Citywide bicycle master plan in 2010, the goal of which is to expand the bicycle network to make it easier and safer for people to bicycle through the City. In the 179 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 6 project vicinity, bike lanes are planned in both directions on Airport Boulevard between Miller Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. Bike lanes are also planned in both directions on Grand Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard. As part of the proposed Caltrain Station reconstruction, a new ped/bike rail crossing tunnel is proposed at the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection that would directly connect to the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The new ped/bike tunnel would also provide a good bicycle connection between the downtown and the employment zone to the east of US 101. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are provided on most streets in the immediate vicinity of the project. Sidewalks exist in both directions on Airport Boulevard and on Baden Avenue along the project frontage. In the immediate vicinity of the project, crosswalks exist at the signalized intersections of Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue (on the west leg and the south leg) and Linden Avenue/Baden Avenue (on all four approaches) for pedestrians to get to downtown destinations. Pedestrian access improvements are proposed in the area covered under the Specific Plan and citywide under the South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan. The plan calls for area-wide improvements, such as establishing a Downtown pedestrian-priority zone, making pedestrian-friendly alley improvements to Downtown lanes, and completing the street grid to reduce block lengths immediately surrounding the Caltrain station. The new South San Francisco Station, located directly south of its previous location, is now accessible from Downtown and Poletti Way in South San Francisco. The station now features a 700-foot center- boarding platform and pedestrian underpass. Passengers no longer have to cross the tracks to board the train. The improvements also make the station fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Overall, the existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other points of interest in the downtown area. Existing Transit Service Transit services in the study area include local buses, express buses, shuttles, BART, Caltrain and ferry service. A majority of the public transit trips through the area are commuters who use the Caltrain station or connect from BART to Downtown and East of US-101 employers via employer shuttles. Employer sponsored shuttles connect to employment destinations east of the Caltrain station and other commuter connections in the area. These shuttles are available to individual riders not associated with sponsor employers for a monthly fee. See Figure 3 for the existing transit services. 180 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 7 SamTrans Bus Routes Existing bus service to the study area is provided by San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). Bus services to the study area are described in Table 1. Table 1 SamTrans Services BART Service Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates regional rail service in the Bay Area, connecting between San Francisco International Airport and the Millbrae Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco to the north, and cities in the East Bay. The BART stations closest to the South San Francisco Caltrain station area are the San Bruno Station located near Huntington Avenue east of El Camino Real, and the South San Francisco Station, located on Mission Road and McLellan Drive. Both stations are located within 3 miles of the South San Francisco Caltrain station, and SamTrans provides service from the BART stations to Downtown South San Francisco. BART trains operate on 15-minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways during off-peak hours Route1 Route Description Weekday Hours of Operation2 Headways2 (minutes) Express, SFO and Multi-City Route 397 San Francisco – Palo Alto Transit Center (Limited Overnight Service) - Serves SF Airport 12:45 AM - 6:30 AM 60 Express, SFO and Multi-City Route 292 San Francisco – Hillsdale Mall - Serves SF Airport 3:55 AM - 2:45 AM 10 to 30 North County Route 37 Alta Loma School - Hillside/Grove (School-day only) 8:10 AM - 8:30 AM 2:30 PM - 4:00 PM North County Route 130 Daly City BART - Airport/Linden 5:00 AM - 12:00 AM 15 North County Route 141 Airport/Linden – Shelter Creek 6:10 AM - 8:00 PM 30 South City Shuttle Provides access to SSF schools, parks, Municipal Services Building, downton SSF, Kaiser Hospital, senior centers, and provide connecting transportation to Santrans stops and the SSF BART station 7:15 AM - 7:00 PM 40 to 50 Notes: Source: SamTrans Service Schedule and Map, September 2021 1. Closest bus stop to bus routes 397 and 292 is located at Airport Boulevard and Baden Avenue (350 feet from the project location) and bus stop for routes 37, 130, and 141 are at Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue (800 feet from the project location). 2. Approximate weekday operation hours and headways during peak periods in the project area, as of September 2021. 181 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 8 Caltrain Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project is located within 0.5 miles of the new South San Francisco Caltrain station. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local trains, with 23 northbound and 23 southbound weekday trains. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station provides weekday service from 5:10 AM to 12:35 AM, with 60-minute headways. Previously, the only access to the South San Francisco Downtown used to be from the west side of the train tracks, via the Grand Avenue overpass. This overpass requires a long and circuitous detour for people walking and bicycling, who have to cross Grand Avenue and descend either a tall metal staircase or use Dubuque Avenue. The city in partnership with Caltrain recently completed the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Reconstruction project to improve safety and connectivity to nearby businesses. Caltrain passengers are now able to get to the east of Caltrain Station from the station’s center platform via ramps that connect to a tunnel underneath the tracks. The tunnel connects to a pedestrian plaza at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard on the west side of the tracks and a transit plaza at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Poletti Way on the east side of the tracks. Buses and shuttles pick up and drop off Caltrain passengers from the new east-side plaza instead of the parking lot on the west side of the station, which makes it easier for residents commuting to the City’s biotech job center on the east side of the tracks. East of US-101 Area Shuttles • The Oyster Point Caltrain Shuttle connects the South San Francisco Caltrain station to Oyster Point, Forbes Boulevard and Eccles Avenue. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between 6:30 AM and 10:00 AM, and between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM with 30-minute headways. • The Utah-Grand Caltrain Shuttle connects South San Francisco Caltrain station to East Grand Avenue and Utah Avenue. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between 5:30 AM and 9:30 AM, and between 4:00 PM and 6:15 PM with 30-minute headways. Bus Stops The nearest bus stop for Route 37, 130 and 141 is located near the Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue intersection, which is less than 800 feet walking distance from the project site. The nearest bus stops for Routes 292 and Route 397 going northbound are located on Airport Boulevard, just south of Baden Avenue, and the nearest stops for Route 292 and Route 397 going south bound are located on Airport Boulevard, just south of Grand Avenue. The shuttle services can be accessed at the Caltrain station, which is within walking distance of the project. Continuous sidewalks are present for pedestrians walking between the proposed project and the nearest bus stops. 182 South San Francisco101Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave P a r k W y P ark W y Poletti WyPoletti WyAirport BlvdLux Ave P a r k W y Poletti Wy3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Grand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n S Linden AveS A i rpo r t B lvdS Maple AveLinden AveMaple AveGateway BlvdS Spruce AveSan Mateo AveCypress AveDubuque AveUtah Ave Mitchell Ave E G r a n d A v e N Canal S t S Canal St Comm e r c i a l A v e South San Francisco Caltrain Station = Site Location LEGEND = Proposed Class II Bike Lanes = Proposed Class III Bike Routes = Proposed Class I Bike Paths = Existing Class II Bike Lanes = Existing Class III Bike Routes = Existing Class I Bike Paths = Proposed Ped/Bike Rail Crossing/Tunnel at Station = Proposed Ped Priority Street/Alley Firehouse Work, LLC TDM - South San Francisco, CA Figure 2 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 183 292 397 292 397 292 397 South San Francisco101 85 87 17 237 37 130 141 141 141 130 37 37 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave P a r k W y P ark W y Poletti WyPoletti WyAirport BlvdLux Ave P a r k W y Poletti Wy3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Grand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n S Linden AveS A i rpo r t B lvdS Maple AveLinden AveGateway BlvdS Spruce AveSan Mateo AveCypress AveDubuque AveUtah Ave Mitchell Ave E G r a nd Av e S Canal S t N Cana l S t Commer c i a l A v e Maple Ave292,397 37,130,141 37,130,141 = Site Location LEGEND = Oyster Point Ferry Shuttle (OPF) = SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART and Caltrain Stations = Bus Stop = Oyster Point Caltrain Shuttle (OPC) = Utah Grand Caltrain Shuttle (OGC) = Genesis Towers Shuttle (OTP) XXX = SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART StationsXXX = SamTrans School-day Only RoutesXX South SanFranciscoCaltrainStation Firehouse Work, LLC TDM - South San Francisco, CA Figure 3 Existing Transit Services 184 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 11 3. Parking The South San Francisco Municipal Code includes parking requirements for office projects within the Downtown Plan Area (Section 20.330.007). The parking requirements are as follows: 1 space per 400 s.f. of floor area of business and professional office. The project as proposed would redevelop the existing Firehouse building to consist of 11,490 square feet of office space. Based on the municipal code, this would require 29 vehicular parking spaces. The vehicular parking requirements are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Vehicular Parking Spaces Requirement According to the project site plan, the project would provide a total of 5 parking spaces: 4 standard spaces and 1 American Disability Act (ADA) compliant parking space. There would be a deficit of 24 spaces for the proposed office use. Given the project’s location and its proximity to the Caltrain station, it is expected that many employees would use public transportation and would not need a car. Also, the project is required to implement a comprehensive TDM plan, as described in Chapter 4 to encourage employees to use alternative modes of transportation and to reduce the project’s parking demand. For employees that are unable to take alternative modes of transportation to commute to work and are unable to park on the project site, paid parking permits as described below should be provided. Since paid parking works against the TDM goals of reducing single occupant vehicles, employers should be encouraged to have employees pay all or part of the parking cost. Alternatively, employers can implement a parking cash out program. Parking cash out is a commuter benefit in which an employer offers employees the option to accept taxable cash income instead of a free or subsidized parking space at work. Given a choice of cash or a parking space, many people would prefer to receive cash. Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement OfficeParking 11,490 29 Total 29 Notes: SF = square feet 1 Vehicular parking requirements per Table 20.330.007 of the South San Francisco Municpal Code Project Size Required SpacesParking Rate 1 1 per 400 sf 185 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 12 Paid Parking Permits and Parking Validation. The project applicant or the individual tenants should provide parking permits for all employees who do not use public transportation to park in designated City maintained parking lots. The City’s Parking Place Commission manages public parking in Downtown South San Francisco. Monthly parking is available in the following public lots, which are located within one-third of a mile from the project: • Parking Lot #2A at 216 Linden Avenue • Parking Lot #2B at 216 Baden Avenue • Parking Lot #4 at 241 Grand Avenue • Parking Lot #5 at 319 Baden Avenue • Parking Lot #12, at 337 Baden Avenue • Parking Lot # 15 at 201 Grand Avenue • Miller Parking Garage The project should coordinate with the City on the availability and how to purchase monthly parking permits for employees. Parking validation should be provided for all visitors. Visitors would park on the street, where on-street parking is provided or in the public parking lots. Since the project is not expected to generate a significant number of visitors, the project would not adversely impact the availability of public parking. It is noted that all on-street parking in the vicinity of the project is metered with a 2-hour time limit. 186 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 13 4. TDM Plan The TDM measures recommended for the Firehouse Work project include design features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the roadway and parking demand that would be generated by the project. The City’s Municipal Code requires all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips to implement a transportation demand management (TDM) program to reduce the number of vehicle trips by increasing access to and use of alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking. Although the proposed project could potentially generate fewer than 100 daily trips (based on all office tenants), the project is required to implement a TDM Plan as the project does not meet the minimum required number of on-site parking spaces. The project site is well suited to have a successful TDM Plan based on its location near residential development and other commercial and retail areas and its access to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Table 3 presents a summary of the measures recommended in this plan in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 20.400.004, along with an indication of who should have primary responsibility for implementing each measure. All measures should be implemented upon occupancy of the building. Proposed TDM Measures The following 14 TDM measures, all of which are required by Chapter 20.400.004 of the City’s zoning ordinance, and 2 supplemental trip reduction measures should be implemented for the proposed project. All of the measures that are required by the City should be implemented as soon as the project is constructed and occupied. Required Measures Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Services and Incentive Programs (Required Measure 1). The Employer Contact should promote the 511 RideMatch service, which assists employees in finding ridesharing partners who work nearby. The 511 Ridematch service is an interactive, on-demand system that helps commuters find others with similar routes and travel patterns with whom they may share a ride. Registered users are provided with a list of other commuters near their employment or residential ZIP code, along with the closest cross street, email, phone number, and hours they are available to commute to and from work. Participants are then able to select and contact others with whom they wish to commute. The service also provides a list of existing carpools and vanpools in their residential area that may have vacancies. 187 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 14 Table 3 Recommended Trip Reduction Measures Designated Employer Contact (Required Measure 2). The project applicant should identify an employee for each tenant who will be the official contact for the TDM program and should provide that person’s name and contact information to the City. The Employer Contact will serve as the on-site TDM Coordinator. Their responsibilities will include organizing and implementing the promotional programs, updating information on the information board/kiosk, administering the carpool and vanpool ridematching services, and serving as the official contact for the administration of the annual survey. Direct Route to Transit (Required Measure 3). The project is located within walking distance of the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The recently completed pedestrian tunnel connects the station directly to the east end of downtown’s Grand Avenue. The pedestrian plaza on Grand Avenue is #Required TDM Measures Implementation Responsibility 1 Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Services Available to public 2 Designated Employer Contact Building Developer 1 3 Direct Route to Transit Building Developer 4 Guaranteed Ride Home Trans.Coordinator 5 Information Boards/Kiosks Building Developer 1 6 Passenger Loading Zones Building Developer 1 7 Pedestrian Connections Building Developer 8 Promotional Programs Trans.Coordinator 9 Shower/Clothes Lockers Building Developer 10 Shuttle Program 2 11 Transportation Management Association (TMA)Building Developer 12 Bicycle Parking, Long-Term Building Developer 13 Bicycle Parking, Short-Term Building Developer 14 Free Parking for Carpools and Vanpools 3 Building Developer Other TDM Measures Transit Subsidies Trans.Coordinator Telecommuting Individual Tenants Paid Parking Permits Individual Tenants Notes: Trip Reduction Measures from South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 20.400.004) 1 The building developer will have initial responsibility for creating an online kiosk and appointing the Transportation Coordinator. After the building is occupied, the Transportation Coordinator will have ongoing responsibility for the online kiosk and i l t 3 Based on the interest of the employees, one parking space will be designated for carpool/vanpool in the future. 2 The South City Shuttle provides free service around South San Francisco and provides transit connections with SamTrans and BART. 188 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 15 located approximately 500 feet to the north and east of the proposed project. The project will provide lighting and landscaping along the project frontage on Baden Avenue to enhance pedestrian safety. Guaranteed Ride Home (Required Measure 4). The purpose of an Emergency Ride Home program is to guarantee that employees need not worry about being stranded at work without a car in the event of illness, family emergency, or unexpected overtime if they carpool or vanpool or take transit. By reassuring commuters who do not drive alone that they can have timely and paid transportation in the event of an emergency, this program removes one of the largest concerns expressed by most employees about using alternative modes of transportation. Commute.org has created a program that provides employees from participating employers with a free taxi ride in the case of an emergency. There is no need for employees to sign up for the program in advance, and the employer only pays when the service is used. The San Mateo County GRH Program reimburses people who commute to a workplace in San Mateo County for the cost of their ride home in the event they have an emergency. Commuters can use any form of transportation to get home, such as public transit, ride-hailing app (e.g. Uber or Lyft), carshare, or taxi, and be reimbursed a maximum of $60 per trip up to 4 times per calendar year. The Alliance’s website at www.commute.org provides detailed information on participating in the GRH program. Online Information Center (Required Measure 5). The project should maintain an online kiosk where transportation-related information can be displayed. The Employer Contact should post the following information: transit routes and schedules, carpooling and vanpooling information, information about bikeways and taking bikes on transit services, and information about incentive programs and transit subsidies. Passenger Loading Zone (Required Measure 6). It is recommended that one parking space on site be designated as a passenger loading zone for carpool and vanpool drop-off and pickup in the parking lot. Pedestrian Connections (Required Measure 7). The site is currently well-served by pedestrian amenities including sidewalks and crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads. Improvements to these existing facilities, including the widening of sidewalks and the addition of planting strips along the project frontage to provide buffer between vehicles and pedestrians by the development will encourage individuals to walk to nearby destinations. Promotional Programs (Required Measure 8). The Employer Contact should: • Prepare and distribute new employee orientation packets on transportation alternatives and the services available to employees. • Post, email, or distribute flyers, posters, brochures, and other materials on commute alternatives. The Commute.org can help provide marketing materials. • Promote special events such as Rideshare Week (October), Spare the Air days, or other events, such as the Alliance’s “Rethink Your Commute” contest. • Provide trip planning assistance to employees who are considering an alternative mode. Maintain a supply of up-to-date transit schedules and route maps for SamTrans, BART, and Caltrain and be knowledgeable enough to answer employees’ questions. Showers and Clothes Lockers (Required Measure 9). The project will provide a shower in the men’s and women’s restrooms for employees who walk or bicycle to work to use free of charge. Providing a shower and changing rooms will encourage employees to walk or bicycle to the site. 189 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 16 Shuttle Program (Required Measure Service 10). The South City Shuttle provides free service around South San Francisco and provides transit connections to SamTrans and the South San Francisco BART station. This free shuttle is open to the general public. The closest bus stop on this route is located at the intersection of Linden Avenue and Baden Avenue, which is approximately 300 feet west of the project site. Transportation Management Association (TMA) (Required Measure 11). The project will be required to participate in Commute.org, an alliance of 17 cities and the county of San Mateo, which provides comprehensive and ongoing support for alternative commute programs in San Mateo County. By joining the Alliance, the Employer Contact need not “re-invent the wheel” to develop an effective TDM program. All employers in San Mateo County can utilize the resources, incentive programs, and services provided by the Alliance to promote commute alternatives. The Alliance’s website at www.commute.org provides detailed information on their programs. Long-Term Bicycle Parking (Required Measure 12). Providing secure bicycle parking encourages bicycle commuting and reduces daily vehicle trips. Per the zoning ordinance, for estalishments with 25 or more employees, long-term bicycle parking should be provided at a ratio of one space per 25 vehicle spaces. The project should provide at least 2 long-term bicycle parking space on site. Short-Term Bicycle Parking (Required Measure 13). The zoning ordinance requires short-term bicycle parking spaces at a rate of 10 percent of the number of required automobile parking spaces. Bicycle parking in downtown districts may be located within the public right of way provided an unobstructed sidewalk clearance of four feet is maintained for pedestrians at all times. As the project is required to provide a total of 29 vehicular parking spaces, the project should provide at a minimum three short-term bicycle parking spaces. Parking for Carpools and Vanpools (Required Measure 14). The TDM ordinance requires that 10% of all vehicle parking spaces shall be reserved for carpools or vanpools. These spaces are to be in premium and convenient locations and should be free of charge. Due to limited parking on site, the need to provide a designated parking space for carpool/vanpool will be evaluated in the future based on the interest of the tenants and employees. Additional TDM Measures The project should implement the following supplemental trip reduction measures to encourage employees to use public transportation and to offset the limited on-site parking. Subsidized Transit Passes. The individual tenants should be required to provide monthly subsidized transit passes to all employees. This will encourage employees to use transit for commuting to work. The Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for administering the program. Each employee will be given a clipper card that can be used on various transit systems like BART, Caltrans and SamTrans. Clipper is the all-in-one transit card for the Bay Area and can be used on all Bay Area transit systems, including Muni. The Clipper card can also be used as an access key to Bikeshare by linking the card to a Bay Wheels (a regional public bicycle sharing system in California’s San Francisco Bay Area) account. Telecommuting. This measure provides employees with opportunities and the ability to work off-site. The individual tenants should allow an employee to telecommute on a case-by-case basis. 190 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 17 Paid Parking at Prevalent Market Rates. Due to limited on-site parking, paid parking permits will be provided by individual tenants in nearby City parking lots/garage for employees who drive. Alternatively, employees can apply this monetary amount towards offsetting the cost of public transportation. Program Monitoring and Reporting The project applicant shall submit a final TDM Plan to the City and shall be responsible for ensuring that the TDM measures are successfully implemented and remain in substantial compliance with the Downtown Specific Area Plan. The trip reduction measures included in this TDM Plan should be incorporated into the project. It is anticipated that, after the project is constructed, an individual from the owner or property management team within the project will be designated as the Transportation Coordinator and assume responsibility for the ongoing TDM measures. When any ownership, management, or contact information changes, the City should be notified of the name, phone number, and email address of the designated Transportation Coordinator. The TDM Coordinator should prepare a one-time annual monitoring report of the site one-year after completion and occupancy of the project site. The TDM monitoring report should include employee surveys with travel pattern information and use of TDM measures provided by the site to determine adjustments to this TDM Plan. The report should be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. Conclusions The TDM measures recommended to be implemented by the project complement the attributes of the site location, the site design, and surrounding uses. Such measures encourage walking, biking, and use of transit. The project will implement all trip reduction measures required by the code. Additionally, the project will provide subsidized transit passes, telecommuting and monthly parking permits for employees to park in City designated parking lots in order to offset on-site parking deficit. 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. Report regarding consideration of a Use Permit,Design Review,Tentative Parcel Map,Master Sign Program, Transportation Demand Management Plan and Environmental Consistency Analysis with the Downtown Station Area Plan Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to allow two office /R&D buildings totaling approximately 541,000 square feet,ancillary uses,and associated parking at 100 East Grand in the Transit Office /Research &Development (TO/RD)Zoning District. (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and take the following actions: 1.Adopt a resolution making findings and a determination that the 100 E.Grand Office/R&D Project is consistent with an adopted Program Environmental Impact Report /Addendum for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and,based on the Environmental Consistency Analysis and Environmental Checklist,would not necessitate the need for preparing a subsequent environmental document pursuant to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168,is categorically exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,and is statutorily exempt from CEQA per California Public Resources Code Section 21155.4. 2.Adopt a resolution making findings approving the entitlements request for Project P21-0087,including Use Permit (UP21-0011),Design Review (DR21-0038),Tentative Parcel Map (PM22-0001), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM21-0010),and Master Sign Program (SIGNS22-0008), subject to the draft Conditions of Approval. MOTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1) Move to adopt the resolution making a CEQA determination. (2) Move to adopt the resolution approving planning entitlements. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND Site Overview The project site is a 5.5-acre site,irregularly-shaped site located at 100 E.Grand Avenue,within the East of 101 area,adjacent to the newly expanded and relocated Caltrain station.The site currently is developed with single- story warehouse buildings,outdoor storage,and surface parking areas.The site is bounded by Highway 101 to the west,E.Grand Avenue to the north,Sylvester Road (a private street)and Baker Avenue to the east,and Associated Road to the south.Existing uses surrounding the site include a hotel on the north side of E.Grand City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 1 of 13 powered by Legistar™215 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. Associated Road to the south.Existing uses surrounding the site include a hotel on the north side of E.Grand Avenue,additional warehouse uses to the east and south,and the Caltrain station directly northwest of the site. The 100 E.Grand project site is within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan,and is zoned as Transit Office /R&D Core (TO/RD),which permits employment uses including office,and R&D.In addition to the 100 E.Grand project,there are several other office /R&D projects within the TO/RD area currently in the entitlement process,signaling a transition from lower-intensity warehouse /storage uses,to higher-intensity employment uses. Project Description The project applicant,Alexandria Real Estate (ARE),proposes to demolish the existing buildings on site,and develop an office /R&D campus,with associated amenities,open space,and parking.The proposed project includes two new office /R&D buildings (Buildings A and B),and an eight-story (96’)parking structure containing 782 spaces.Building A is proposed as a ten-story (185’)building of approximately 309,000 square feet (sq.ft.),including a ground-floor café.Building B is proposed as an eight-story (154’)building of approximately 250,000 sq.ft,for a total project square footage of 559,000.An open space plaza is integrated into the campus between Buildings A and B,opening onto Sylvester Road.It is anticipated that the project would consistent of approximately 60%R&D /laboratory uses,and 40%office uses,consistent with other office/R&D development within the East of 101 area.The project would also provide circulation and infrastructure improvements to improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation and connectivity in the neighborhood, particularly access to the Caltrain station. The proposed site design,architectural details,and landscaping plans are all detailed in the project plan set, prepared by ZGF Architects (Exhibit B to the Associated Entitlements Exhibit). Building Architecture and Site Design The 100 E.Grand project’s architectural design is intended to create a new presence and identity along Highway 101,and serve as a gateway to the East of 101 area from the Caltrain station.The project’s architecture and site design has been designed to take advantage of the site conditions,and create a transition between the Downtown,and the new office /R&D development sites in the area surrounding the Caltrain station. The buildings'massing is shaped with a variety of angles responding to views and the site,and creating a central courtyard accessible to the public.Along all facades,a continuous carve moves up and down the façade connecting atria and terrace spaces providing visual variety.At the Level 1 (ground floor)a large,angled overhang marks the entry area connecting the street experience to a courtyard. All facades incorporate vision and spandrel curtain wall system articulated with a frit pattern and a vertical metal fin.Different glass types,frit patterns,and vertical fins accentuate the architectural form and provides variety to the façade.Where the façade recesses,a clear glazed curtain wall system is used to differentiate this zone of the façade.Accent materials include metal-wrapped columns,entryways,and warm-colored soffits.The parking garage is composed of multiple screening materials,to create visual interest and screen the cars from City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 2 of 13 powered by Legistar™216 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. view. Buildings A and B are organized around the open space courtyard,which opens up to Sylvester Road.The courtyard open space expands throughout the site,with a gateway entrance off to the site from E.Grand and Sylvester,continuing south through the site via a breezeway that extends through the ground floor of Building B.The ground floors of both buildings contain amenities,including a café,conference center,and fitness center. Service yards are located to the rear of each building, designed to be screened from view. Landscaping and Open Space Landscaping and open space features are integrated throughout the project.The project includes a landscape buffer adjacent to E.Grand Avenue,which contains a garden,and meandering pedestrian pathways,as well as a garden along the eastern façade of the parking garage.The main project courtyard is located between Buildings A and B,and it contains a variety of seating areas,recreational elements,and plantings.The courtyard also includes a green wall feature,and a water feature with recirculating water designed to reduce freeway noise. The terrace features,located throughout both buildings,contain raised planters and seating areas.A bioretention area is located west of the parking garage, adjacent to the Highway 101 off-ramp. The applicant has proposed a total landscaped area of 12.5%.Per South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)Section 20.280.004,Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Development Standards,the required minimum site landscaping is 15%.However,the applicant has proposed an Alternative Landscape Plan,per SSFMC Section 20.300.007,Landscaping.The Alternative Landscape Plan code provision allows for a reduction of the site landscaping if the applicant demonstrates that the intent of the landscape requirements can be achieved through alternative methods. As proposed,the Alternative Landscape Plan for 100 E.Grand meets the intent of the SSFMC through the following criteria (detailed in the Project Plan Set, Exhibit B to the Entitlements Resolution): ·Innovative Use of Plant Material:The 18-foot-tall western wall of the central courtyard is planted with vines to serve as green backdrop to the courtyard while aiding in noise and wind mitigation.Plant selection will consider habitat potential for birds and beneficial insects. ·Naturalistic Design Principles:Planting design references the San Francisco Bay alluvial soil landscape that once inhabited the site.Stormwater bio-filtration throughout the landscape will promote the use of wet species evocative of this ecosystem while manage site stormwater runoff. ·Integration of Landscaping and Pedestrian Facilities in a Manner that Improves Access and Incorporates Pedestrian-friendly Design:The improved streetscape of Sylvester Road introduces a safe and attractive pedestrian environment along the extent of the project where there is currently asphalt and no designated pedestrian zone.The Sylvester streetscape blends seamlessly into the adjacent publicly accessible courtyard between the two buildings.Building entries and active frontages along with programming in the courtyard have been designed to create a vibrant pedestrian space that will include outdoor cafe seating and outdoor games to enliven the pedestrian environment. ·Additional Shade Trees:Multiple shade trees have been located along all roadway edges and service drives to reduce heat island effect as well as promote a pleasurable pedestrian experience.Varied tree species within the site provide changing color and visual densities with the overall canopy providingCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 3 of 13 powered by Legistar™217 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. species within the site provide changing color and visual densities with the overall canopy providing abundant shade.Significant building terraces have been designed to incorporate raised planters and integrated benches to support smaller multi trunk trees selected to withstand the characteristic winds and salt air. Site Access and Circulation Site access is from the intersection of E.Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road.Pedestrians and cyclists arriving from the Caltrain station will use the sidewalk and bike facilities on the north side of E.Grand,cross at the E. Grand and Sylvester intersection,and enter the site from the northeast corner.There are multiple bicycle and pedestrian circulation routes through the site,with bike rooms located in both buildings and the parking garage, and bike racks provided along the bike circulation route. Passenger and service vehicles both enter the site from E.Grand and Sylvester,and passenger vehicles can access drop-off zones in front of both buildings and then the parking garage via internal circulation.Service vehicle traffic is separated from passenger vehicles,bicycles,and pedestrian traffic,and will follow Sylvester Avenue and Associated Road to access service areas on the west side of the site, via an internal service road. The project will implement right-of-way improvements designed to enhance the pedestrian environment,along project street frontages on E.Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road,including a new traffic signal and new high- visibility pedestrian crosswalks at this location.Additional pedestrian and public realm improvements include new street trees along both street frontages,street and pedestrian lighting,landscaping improvements,trash receptacles,bike racks,and seating areas.The location proximate to the Caltrain station and downtown provides an excellent opportunity to develop this site as a transit-oriented development,with an emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian connections to Caltrain and shops,services,and amenities in downtown.The applicant has also submitted a draft TDM plan to support alternate transportation modes and reduce single-occupancy car trips (discussed in detail later in this staff report). Entitlements Request The project is seeking the following entitlements: ·Conditional Use Permit for a parking reduction ·Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program ·Design Review ·Tentative Parcel Map ·Master Sign Program ·Finding of CEQA Consistency with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) The 100 E.Grand project site is within the boundaries of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 4 of 13 powered by Legistar™218 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. The 100 E.Grand project site is within the boundaries of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), adopted in 2015.The DSASP contains policy direction related to redevelopment of the Eastern Neighborhood, directly adjacent to the Caltrain station,which includes the 100 E.Grand site.The 100 E.Grand R&D project implements the policy direction in the DSASP, including the following principles and strategies: ·Guiding Principle 4:Encourage redevelopment of the Eastern Neighborhood between Gateway Boulevard,the East Grand Avenue overcrossing and the US 101 corridor as a high intensity office/R&D district. ·Guiding Principle 8:Focus increases in residential and mixed-use densities within 1/4 mile of the Caltrain Station and in areas proximate to Grand Avenue to increase patronage of Caltrain as well as Grand Avenue businesses. ·Guiding Principle 10:Encourage high-density employment. ·Guiding Principle 11:Enhance the few existing streets with a more fine-grained pattern of vehicular and bicycle/pedestrian routes to allow convenient circulation throughout the area. ·Guiding Principle 16:Improve the Eastern Neighborhood street network to provide better vehicular connections and complete pedestrian and bicycle access within the neighborhood,and from the neighborhood to the Caltrain Station and the Downtown. ·UD-13:Improve Sylvester Road to accommodate vehicular access to building and parking while also providing bicycle lanes and minimum 10-foot sidewalks.Provide improved crosswalks,including corner bulb-outs to improve pedestrian crossing experience. ·Guiding Principle 17:Throughout the Specific Plan area,provide an attractive public realm that is accessible to persons of all abilities,including improved sidewalks,streetscapes,pedestrian crossings, plazas and open spaces. ·Guiding Principle 24:Ensure new development in the Eastern Neighborhood provides a significant amount of publicly-accessible open space within the development concepts for new office,R&D,or supporting uses. ·Guiding Principle 28:Provide for a balanced mix of travel modes -including pedestrians,bicyclists, transit and automobiles. ·Guiding Principle 29: Improve access to transit, especially the Caltrain Station. The proposed high-intensity R&D development at the 100 E.Grand site directly implements the vision of the DSASP,by providing a high-quality,high-intensity transit-oriented development use adjacent to the Caltrain station.The project includes pedestrian and bicycle improvements,as well as publicly accessible open space and landscape amenities. Transit Office / R&D Core (TO/RD) District The General Plan designation and zoning district for the site is Transit Office/Research &Development Core (TO/RD). The vision and purpose of the TO/RD District is: “intended to provide a location for the highest intensity office or R&D uses.Suited to headquarters or other office type uses that do not include significant manufacturing,the sub-district offers the opportunity for locating high intensity uses in immediate proximity to the Caltrain Station.In addition, with the relocation of the Caltrain Station and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle rail City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 5 of 13 powered by Legistar™219 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. with the relocation of the Caltrain Station and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle rail undercrossing,this sub-district will provide convenient access to Grand Avenue and the surrounding areas and will support commercial revitalization.” The maximum base floor area ratio (FAR)in the TO/RD district is 2.5,and the height maximum is the maximum permitted by FAA regulations.As proposed,the project would be developed at a FAR of 2.47, consistent with the maximum base zoning,and the height of each building was determined to be consistent with FAA regulations,with a determination of no hazard to mitigation issued for all three structures.The applicant has provided a Zoning Consistency Matrix (Attachment 1 to this staff report)that illustrates project compliance with TO/RD zoning and DSASP design guidelines).The Draft 2040 General Plan and associated Zoning Ordinance would grant an East of 101 Transit Core (ETC)designation that would carry over the DSASP land use vision for the site, with an allowance for increased density and intensity. The proposed 100 E.Grand R&D project will provide a transit-oriented development that will revitalize an underutilized property;provide active street frontages and open space amenities;focus on pedestrian and bicycle linkages;and establish a high-quality design precedent in the Eastern Neighborhood of the DSASP area,consistent with the goals of the General Plan,Specific Plan,and Zoning District,and is also consistent with the Draft 2040 General Plan Update and Zoning. Parking and Loading Requirements Vehicle Parking The project is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a parking reduction.Given that the development is located in close proximity to transit and residential uses,the project’s proposed parking ratio for the employment uses (1.44 spaces /1,000 sq.ft.)is intended to be consistent with the parking ratios included in the Draft Zoning Ordinance,which have been revised to reflect transit-oriented locations,and the need to provide fewer parking spaces in order to incentivize and support alternative modes of transportation.However,since this project is going through the entitlement process prior to the updated parking requirements being adopted,a parking reduction is required. The following table outlines the proposed parking compared with the existing and updated parking requirements: Project Square Footage / Parking Proposed Current Parking Requirements / Spaces Req’d Updated (Draft) Required / Spaces Req’d 541,284 1.44/1,000 780 spaces proposed 2.0/1,000 1,028 spaces minimum 1.5/1,000 812 spaces maximum Based on these calculations,the project is requesting a parking reduction of 248 spaces (24%),which would be consistent with the updated draft parking requirements.The proposed parking ratio will ensure that the project avoids constructing excessive parking that may undermine achievement of alternate mode share and TDM goals. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 6 of 13 powered by Legistar™220 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. SSFMC Section 20.330.007(C),Downtown Parking Reductions,provides an opportunity for parking reductions with a Planning Commission review and determination that there is sufficient parking to accommodate the use. Due to the location adjacent to the Caltrain,as well as the multiple bus lines serving Downtown South San Francisco,proximity to housing,retail and services,the applicant is requesting a parking reduction,and is proposing to provide 780 parking spaces.To further support the parking reduction,the project is incorporating a variety of TDM measures intended to reduce the need for employees to drive single-occupancy vehicles cars, and to support transit,bicycle,and pedestrian modes.Staff supports the proposed parking as adequate for the transit-oriented development and finds it consistent with SSFMC requirements,and consistent with the goals for developing the DSASP area with high-intensity, transit-oriented development. Bicycle Parking The 100 E.Grand R&D project includes short-term and long-term bike parking options for employees and visitors. SSFMC Section 20.330.008 includes standards for bicycle parking: ·Long-term for commercial projects: one space per 25 required vehicle parking spaces. Based on this requirement,100 E.Grand would need to provide 41 parking spaces,based on 1,028 required parking spaces.The project is providing 132 long-term secure bike parking spaces,as well as 23 bike racks for short-term /visitor parking,located throughout the site.The project is far exceeding the number of required parking spaces, helping to support the requested parking reduction and proposed TDM plan. Loading Requirements SSFMC Section 20.330.009 establishes requirements for on-site loading spaces for new buildings.Based on a square footage of approximate 541,000,the 100 E.Grand project would be required to provide seven loading spaces for the project.SSFMC Section 20.330.009 (B)(1)includes a provision for a reduction in the number of loading spaces required,upon a finding by the Chief Planner and City Engineering that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that due to the nature of the proposed use, such loading space will not be needed. The 100 E.Grand project is proposing to include three loading spaces,and the applicant has submitted a study by American Trash Management that outlines the justification for the reduction in loading spaces (Attachment 2 to this staff report).The report finds that a project of this size and operating characteristics would have between 12 -13 commercial truck deliveries per day,which will be spread out from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.Given the number of deliveries and the wide variation in arrival times,on almost all occasions not more than three delivery vehicles will be on site at any one time.Additionally,the project’s building management team will include a loading dock manager,who will be responsible for scheduling,assigning loading locations,and limiting truck size.Staff has reviewed this justification and supports the waiver for a loading space reduction to three spaces. Transportation Demand Management Plan The 100 E.Grand R&D project is required to implement a TDM plan per SSFMC Section 20.400,as it is a non City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 7 of 13 powered by Legistar™221 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. The 100 E.Grand R&D project is required to implement a TDM plan per SSFMC Section 20.400,as it is a non -residential project expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips,and to support the requested parking reduction.The proposed TDM Plan,prepared by Silvani Transportation Consulting (Associated Entitlements Resolution,Exhibit C)outlines a range of measures designed to reduce the number of peak hour vehicle trips, auto dependency,and the need for commuting by single-occupancy vehicle for project employees and visitors. The proposed TDM plan is designed to achieve a 45%peak hour trip reduction target;this is consistent with the requirements of the existing TDM requirements for projects of a comparable FAR,and is also consistent with anticipated updates to the City’s TDM Ordinance,which will require projects such as this one to meet a 45% Alternative Mode Split (AMS). The 100 E.Grand TDM Plan assumes the entire project will be completed and fully occupied within three or four years following the start of construction.Since delivering and occupying such a large,multi-building campus will take time,during the phasing in of occupancy,the project will meet a minimum of 30%AMS.The AMS target of 45%will be achieved upon full occupancy and stabilization of the project in the aggregate. Reporting will begin after one year of full occupancy. The applicant will provide the City with annual reports regarding the efficacy of the TDM program and will adjust program components as necessary to achieve the peak hour trip reduction goal (included as a Condition of Approval, Exhibit A to the Entitlements Resolution). The proposed TDM measures are organized into four categories: ·Infrastructure (pick-up /drop-off zones,campus walkability,pedestrian links to Downtown and Caltrain,bike parking and repair station,designated carpool /EV parking and charging facilities,on-site amenities and services) ·Programs and services (shuttles,carpooling /vanpooling,guaranteed ride home,transit subsidies, mobile services and amenities that support trip reduction) ·Marketing and Information (onboarding for new hires,pre-move in planning and promotion for tenants, ongoing marketing and communications about TDM, annual promotional events) ·Leasing and reporting (on-site TDM coordinator,inclusion of TDM measures in leases,annual reporting) The TDM plan also notes that a significant portion of workers at 100 E.Grand are expected to work from home at least two or three days a week in the post COVID-environment;even some lab personnel may no longer need to be on site five days a week.Increased flex/work from home schedules greatly contribute to project trip reduction. The project’s location lends itself to successful TDM implementation,as it is a two-to four-minute walk or bike ride to the new Caltrain station and pedestrian tunnel,which connects East of 101 with Downtown.The unique location supports TDM in several distinct ways: ·Increased Caltrain service with electrification will make this mode particularly convenient for commuters along the “Caltrain spine”which traditionally represents a large percentage of life sciences City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 8 of 13 powered by Legistar™222 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. employees. ·The proximity of new residential developments in Downtown and nearby will make walking and biking to work the best alternative for many within a one-to-five-mile radius. ·Improved shuttle and bus connections at Caltrain (i.e.,100 E.Grand employees can board a shuttle to BART as well as other SamTrans bus lines. ·Enhanced bike-share availability at or near the Caltrain station will make this mode practical for local and longer distance commuters. Tentative Parcel Map As part of the overall entitlements,the applicant has submitted a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map,prepared by BKF Engineers (included in the Project Plan Set,Civil Sheets,Associated Entitlements Resolution Exhibit B), to reconfigure the existing parcel pattern into three new parcels,consistent with the proposed development.Per Section 20.280.004 of the SSFMC,the minimum lot size in the TO/RD zoning district is 10,000 sq.ft.,with a minimum lot width of 50 ft.Each of the proposed lots meets the development standards.The Engineering Division has reviewed the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map application and has included relevant conditions of approval. SUSTAINABILITY / CLIMATE ACTION PLAN The proposed project is consistent with recent sustainability regulations that have been adopted at State and local levels.Examples include Senate Bill 375,passed in 2008,which aims to create more efficient communities by providing alternatives to using single occupancy vehicles.Projects that link higher density development to transit help meet this goal.At the local level,the General Plan policies and implementing zoning for this area focus on linkages to Caltrain,other regional transit including SamTrans,and community amenities.In February 2014,the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP),which serves as South San Francisco’s greenhouse gas reduction strategy. 100 E.Grand is designed as a high-density transit-oriented development,located adjacent to Caltrain station, several bus routes and commuter shuttles,residential development,and retail and services.The building design incorporates a variety of green building features such as passive ventilation and cooling,large windows to provide natural daylight,robust insulation,high performance glazing,low-water landscaping,a selection of sustainably-produced materials,and electric vehicle charging spaces.While not required by ordinance for non- residential buildings,the project is designed with all-electric buildings,which will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the City’s Climate Action Plan goals,as well as reduce project energy costs.As currently designed,the proposed project will comply with CAP standards,and meets General Plan and zoning goals for sustainability and transit-oriented development. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board (DRB)initially reviewed the project on November 16,2021.The Board was supportive of the project,site planning and architecture.DRB requested clarifications to bicycle and pedestrian access to and throughout the site,as well as to trash storage The Board requested revisions to and a resubmittal of the landscape plan,including revisions to the landscape materials palette,to ensure that the planting will survive in the climate and provide adequate screening for the development.The applicant resubmitted the plans City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 9 of 13 powered by Legistar™223 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. survive in the climate and provide adequate screening for the development.The applicant resubmitted the plans with clarifications and updates to the landscape plan as requested,and the DRB members reviewed the updates and supported the revised landscape plan and palette.The DRB recommendations are included as Attachment 3 to this staff report. IMPACT FEES The 100 E.Grand project is subject to the City’s impact and development fees,which are used to offset the impacts of new development on City services and infrastructure.The draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A to the Entitlements Resolution) list out the relevant impact fee estimates, summarized below: ·Childcare Fee: $817,000 ·Citywide Transportation Fee: $18.9M ·Commercial Linkage Fee: $9.4M ·Public Safety Impact Fee: $1M ·Library Impact Fee: $75,000 ·Public Art Requirement: On-site, or in-lieu contribution of .5% of construction costs MASTER SIGN PROGRAM Along with project entitlements,ARE has also submitted an application for a master sign program for this project,briefly described below and included in the Master Sign Program Plan set (Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit D).The master sign program,developed by RSM Design,is intended to establish a distinctive signage vocabulary,complement the high-quality site design and architecture,and create clear wayfinding and access throughout the project. The signage throughout the project includes consistent colors, materials, and branding. Notable signage includes the following: ·Primary Monument Sign.A primary freestanding monument sign is proposed for the project entry,at the corner of E.Grand and Sylvester,serving to welcome employee and visitors to development and create a sense of arrival.The monument sign is a total of 49 square feet (sq.ft.),and is situated on a concrete base surrounded by a landscaped area.The monument sign reflects the architectural character of the proposed buildings and open spaces. ·Freestanding Tenant Identity Signs.These signs are proposed to be five feet in height and are located adjacent to building entries.These signs will contain project branding and building addresses,and also will contain identity signage for anchor tenants. ·Vehicular,Rideshare,Parking,Pedestrian Directional Signs.These freestanding directional signs are all proposed to be six feet in height,and are located at vehicular drive lanes,ride share area,and pedestrian decision points.The signs will include the project logo,parking garage directions,and the addresses that the parking serves. ·Project Identity Signage.The parking garage facades contain project identity signage,consisting of a painted logo mark wrapping the east and south facades,and a sign with dimensional letters,logo,and tagline on the western façade, facing Highway 101. ·Building Mounted Signage.Both Buildings A and B contain building mounted signage,to be used for City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 10 of 13 powered by Legistar™224 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. ·Building Mounted Signage.Both Buildings A and B contain building mounted signage,to be used for tenant identity.Letters and /or logos will be attached to the building,carefully located on the façade to align with and complement the architecture. The Design Review Board considered the Master Sign Program on May 17,2022.The Board supported the design concept,and suggested that the project identity signage on the west façade of the parking garage was too large,and out of scale with the building.The Board also requested additional details on the design and construction of the monument sign (DRB comments attached to this staff report,Attachment 3).The applicant resubmitted the sign program, and made changes to be consistent with the Board’s recommendation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 2015,the City Council certified a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)(State Clearinghouse #2013102001)(CEQA Resolution,Exhibit A).The program EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the DSASP,which established new land use,development,and urban design regulations for the area over a 20-year planning period.Since the certification of the program EIR,the City Council has certified an Addendum to the program EIR for the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning Amendments by Resolution No.31-2018 on February 28, 2018. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)provides for limited environmental review of subsequent projects under a program EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162,15168.)CEQA also provides for streamlining for projects consistent with a community plan or zoning for which an EIR was certified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183).Components of a subsequent project must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether any additional environmental analysis must be conducted.The CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this evaluation.The applicant and the City prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis (ECA)(Exhibit B to the CEQA Resolution),to examine the proposed Project regarding the need to conduct additional environmental analysis and to determine consistency with the DSASP and zoning. The ECA determined that the project qualifies for CEQA streamlining per CEQA Guidelines 15183,as it is consistent with the DSASP and TO/RD zoning,for which the DSASP EIR was previously certified.The City also used the ECA to determine whether the environmental effects of the proposed project were sufficiently analyzed under the DSASP program EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4)).The ECA demonstrates that the proposed project is within the scope of and consistent with the DSASP program EIR and addendum and would not necessitate the need for preparing a subsequent environmental document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15168. Additionally,the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21155.4,which establishes a statutory exemption from CEQA review for “employment center”projects that meet the specified requirements:a project located on a property zoned for commercial use with a FAR no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area,and is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan,for which an EIR has been certified.A transit priority area is defined per California Public City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 11 of 13 powered by Legistar™225 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. a specific plan,for which an EIR has been certified.A transit priority area is defined per California Public Resources Code Section 21099,subsection (a),as “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned,if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon in a Transportation Improvement Plan or applicable regional transportation plan.”California Public Resources Code Section 20164.3 defines “major transit stop”to include an existing rail transit station.The Project is an “employment center project”because:the site is zoned Transit Office/R&D Core,which permits commercial uses,including offices and research and development;the 100 E.Grand project proposes an FAR of just under 2.5;the project site is located within one-half mile of the City’s Caltrain station,and the project is consistent with and implements the DSASP, for which a Program EIR has been certified. The project would be subject to all relevant mitigation measures included in the DSASP EIR Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) (CEQA Resolution, Exhibit C). CONCLUSION The proposed project seeks to transform underutilized parcels adjacent to the Caltrain station into a transit- oriented,R&D development that will provide new employment opportunities,new publicly-accessible open space amenities,and improved pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain.In addition,the proposed development conforms to the vision articulated in the DSASP and the General Plan,and is consistent with the zoning standards and design guidelines of the TO/RD district. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1.Adopt a resolution making findings and a determination that the 100 E.Grand Office/R&D Project is consistent an adopted Program Environmental Impact Report /Addendum for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and,based on the based on the Environmental Consistency Analysis,would not necessitate the need for preparing a subsequent environmental document pursuant to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168,is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and is statutorily exempt from CEQA per California Public Resources Code Section 21155.4. 2.Adopt a resolution making findings and approving the entitlements request for Project P21-0087, including Use Permit (UP21-0011),Design Review (DR21-0038),Tentative Parcel Map (PM22-0001), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM21-0010),and Master Sign Program (SIGNS22-0008), subject to the draft Conditions of Approval. Attachments 1.100 E. Grand Zoning Consistency Matrix 2.Loading Spaces Study 3.Design Review Board Meeting Minutes, November 16, 2021 and May 17, 2022 Associated Resolutions and Exhibits 1.100 E. Grand CEQA Resolution (File ID#22-814) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 12 of 13 powered by Legistar™226 File #:22-813 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. A.2015 DSASP EIR (available online <https://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/doc/198023/Page1.aspx>) B.100 E. Grand Environmental Consistency Analysis i.Historical Evaluation ii.Traffic Memorandum C.DSASP Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) 2.100 E. Grand Entitlements Resolution (File ID#22-815) A.100 E. Grand Draft Conditions of Approval B.100 E. Grand Project Plan Set C.Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program D.Master Sign Program Plan Set City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 13 of 13 powered by Legistar™227 Downtown Districts Development Conformance Checklist - 100 E Grand Project Name:Project Address:APN: Zoning: Standard (per Sub‐District)DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LNC Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.)5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 Minimum Lot Width (sq. ft.)50 50 50 50 50 Minimum Lot Depth (sq. ft.)n/a n/a 80 n/a n/a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Minimum FAR 2 1.5 n/a 1.5 2 Maximum FAR 6 3 3 2.5 3 Maximum FAR with Incentive Program 8 4 3.25 (1)3.5 n/a Residential Density (units per acre; included within FAR above Minimum Density 80 14 40 n/a 40 Maximum Density 100 60 80 n/a 60 Maximum Density with Incentive Program. Does not include density bonuses allowed per Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential Density 120 (A) 80 (A) / 100 (2)(A) 100 (A) / 125 (1)(A)n/a 80 (A) Standard DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LNC Height (ft) Maximum Building Height 85 45‐65 (1)(2)65 FAA allowed 50 Minimum Ground Floor Height for non‐residential uses 15; 12 min clearance 15; 12 min clearance 15; 12 min clearance 15; 12 min clearance Maximum Finished Floor Height (residential)5 n/a 5 n/a 5 Yards (ft) Grand Avenue (east and west) Frontage n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a Pedestrian Priority Zone Street Frontage At property line or 10 feet from curb (whichever is greater)n/a At property line or 10 feet from curb (whichever is greater)n/a n/a Eastern Neighborhood Streets except Grand Avenue Frontage n/a n/a n/a 20 n/a Interior Side 0; 10 when abutting residential district 0 0; 10 when abutting residential district n/a n/a Rear 0, 10 when abutting an R district (F) 0 20 (F) 10 for the first two stories, 15 thereafter (C) Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot)100 100 90 85 90 Standard DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Standards Minimum Usable Open Space (sq. ft. per res. unit)100 100 100 Refer to Section 20.280.007(K)150 Minimum Amount of Landscaping (% of site)n/a n/a n/a 15 10 Yes Yes Yes NA NA Reference L1‐01 Layout, L3‐13 Courtyard Wall Element Public Art is being considered as a project goal to enhance the users and public awareness of their environment. Art locations are being considered for these areas for overall enjoyment and greatest visability. City of SSF - Conformance Development Checklist for Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts (SSFMC Section 20.280.004) Proposal Compliance for Project (please fill out Yes, Please stipulate how the proposal complies (ex. provide specific lot/ parcel Additional Notes/ Comments South San Francisco Municipal Code No, or NA)data, measurements, etc.) Lot, Density, and FAR Standards ‐ Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub‐Districts LCC Additional Standards 5,000 Yes Lot size is 219,751 sf 50 Yes See Civil Drawings for lot layout 80 NA n/a n/a Exclusive of structured parking n/a Exclusive of structured parking Yes FAR is 2.53, with Incentive Program 20.1 NA 40 NA n/a NA Limitations: For qualifying affordable Senior Housing projects; and, for developments on corner parcels or lots greater than one acre. Building Form and Location Standards – Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub ‐Districts LCC Additional Standards 50 Exceptions Yes 179.5' 15; 12 min clearance See above and Section 20.280.005(B)(1)Yes 20' floor to floor, 12' min. ceiling height with double‐height soffit and portion of interior lobby See above NA Yes 41.5% active frontage along E. Grand Buildilng Frontage is 20' offset due to the existing utility easement NA Yes 41.5% active frontage along E. Grand Building Frontage on Associated Road is 20' offset from propety boundary due to the Non‐ exclusive easement for access, railroad, and utility purpose. NA NA 75 See Ch. 20.040 Rules of Measurement Yes 47.5% lot coverage, see sheet G‐011A Limitations: 1. Height break would occur a minimum of 30 feet from the front of the building. 2. Corner properties may be exempt from this requirement, subject to evaluation by the decision‐making authority in the review process and consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan design guidelines. Open Space and Landscaping Standards ‐ Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub‐Districts See Supplemental Regulations 20.100.004(D)(10)Yes Reference G1‐06 Open Space Diagram and G1‐07 Alternative Landscape Narrative NA A. Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program. An increase to the maximum FAR or maximum density as referenced in Table 20.280.004‐1 may be permitted for buildings with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit through the satisfaction of a combination of the following public benefits: See below See Section 20.300.007 Landscaping Yes Supplemented by Alternative Landscape. Reference G1‐06 Open Space Diagram and G1‐07 Alternative Landscape Narrative 20.280.005 Additional Development Standards 1. To be eligible for an increase to the maximum FAR or density incentives under this subsection, the public benefits that are included as part of a development project must demonstrate a positive contribution that is above and beyond the minimum required impact fees and other requirements of the particular project. The following preferences for public benefits to the Downtown community and the City may be considered as eligible t allow increased density and FAR standards for a project pursuant to this subsection: a. Local Hire Program; d. Funding for enhanced public spaces; e. Funding for public safety facilities, community meeting rooms, child care or similar; b. Public Art; c. Funding or construction of local streetscape enhancements as identified in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; f. Tenant space for local businesses or existing businesses in need of relocation; g. Provision of green building measures over and above the applicable green building compliance threshold required pursuant to Title 15 (“Building and Construction”) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; c. Applicant shall provide an explanation as to the way in which the proposed amenities will further the City’s goals and objectives as outlined in the SSF Downtown Station Specific Plan, and conformance of the proposed project with the General Plan, Specific Plan provisions and Zoning Ordinance, and that a reasonable nexus exists between the public benefit provided and the incentive granted.NA h. Transit subsidy or other incentives for residents and/or employees; and i. Other developer proposed incentives achieving a similar public benefit. 2. For projects seeking either an increase to the maximum FAR or maximum density pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply: a. Applicant shall submit financial evaluation and analysis, information, and evidence to allow for a reasonable assessment of the value of the benefits offered relative to the incentives being sought, including the proposed public benefits as outlined above. b. Applicant shall provide an assessment of the economic and/or intrinsic value of the proposed public benefit as compared with the economic value of the proposed development incentives requested by the applicant. The City may request an independent third party review, by a qualified appraisal expert, hired by the City at the applicant’s expense, to validate the valuation submitted by the applicant. This requirement is not intended to imply a need for the applicant to provide or disclose a complete project pro forma. Only the marginal costs of the proposed public benefit and incentive are required to be disclosed in the analysis. project is pursuing LEED Gold, and is All‐Electric Page 1 228 Downtown Districts Development Conformance Checklist - 100 E Grand NA NA Yes See below NA Proposal Compliance for Project (please fill out Yes, Please stipulate how the proposal complies (ex. provide specific lot/ parcel Additional Notes/ Comments No, or NA)data, measurements, etc.) B. Heights and Building Setbacks Yes Proposed design shows 20' floor to floor from Level 1‐2, with 12' min. ceiling height, a double‐ height exterior soffit and portion of interior lobby South San Francisco Municipal Code Project Name: Project Address: APN: Zoning: Lot, Density, and FAR Standards ‐ Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub‐Districts NA NA NA Yes Setback of 20' is provided, which includes a monument sign at the corner of Sylvester and E. Grand, along with a primary building entry, plaza, and public courtyard with various amenities. NA NA Yes See above E. Residential Usable Open Space. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable open space is required per residential unit and may be provided as common or private open space, or a combination. Private areas typically consist of balconies, decks, patios, fenced yards, and other similar areas outside the residence. Common areas typically consist of landscaped areas, patios, swimming pools, barbeque areas, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements a are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the development; these can be in the form of courtyards at the ground level or terraces over parking podiums or on rooftops.NA NA NA NA F. Private Storage Space. Each residential unit shall have at least 200 cubic feet of enclosed, weather‐proofed, and lockable private storage space with a minimum horizontal dimension of four feet.NA NA H. Limitations on Curb Cuts. Curb cuts shall be minimized and located where least likely to impede pedestrian circulation. Curb cuts shall be located at least 10 feet from any intersection curb return or pedestrian crosswalk.Yes Reference Sheet L‐L‐01 I. Truck Docks, Loading, and Service Areas. Truck docks, loading areas, and service areas must be located at the rear or interior side of buildings and be screened so as not to be visible from public streets. Refer to Section 20.330.009 for specific requirements.Yes Service yards are located behind screen walls and under canopies to shield visibility from public street and courtyard Yes Interior bike parking is provided at Building A & B, as well as bike racks throughout the site 20.280.006 Supplemental Regulations—Downtown A. Required Active Frontage. Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Floor Plans: A2‐05A through A2‐09A (terrace levels) Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B; Floor Plans: A2‐03B through A2‐06B (terrace levels) At the Level 1 (ground floor) a large angled overhang marks the entry area connecting the street experience to a courtyard. Along all facades, a continunous carve moves up and down the façade connecting atria and terrace spaces. 1. Variety in Wall Plane. Exterior building walls vary in depth and/or direction. Building walls exhibit offsets, recesses, or projections with significant depth, or a repeated pattern of offsets, recesses, or projections of smalle depth. 2. Variety in Height or Roof Forms. Building height is varied so that a significant portion of the building has a noticeable change in height; or roof forms are varied over different portions of the building through changes in pitch, plane, and orientation. 3. Façade Design Incorporates Architectural Detail. The building façades incorporate details such as window trim, window recesses, cornices, belt courses, changes in material, or other design elements in an integrated composition. The use of materials, textures, and colors enhance architectural interest and emphasize details and changes in plane. Some of the architectural features of the front façade are incorporated into the rear and side elevations. Yes 41.5% active frontage along E. Grand NA NA NA 2. Pedestrian Priority Zone. Properties within the Pedestrian Priority Zone, as shown in Figure 20.280.006(A) (please refer to SSFMC), are encouraged to consider retail sales and/or eating and drinking establishment uses along the frontage of the site. Eastern Neighborhood streets besides Grand Avenue, such as Sylvester Road, are exempted from this requirement. 3. Linden Avenue in the Linden Neighborhood Center. A minimum of 65 percent of the frontage of a site along Linden Avenue in this area shall be devoted to active uses. 4. Exceptions. The Chief Planner may approve a reduction in these standards (not to exceed 25 percent of the standard) to allow for fire access, driveways, and for efficient site layout and site configuration. Exceptions beyond that are subject to Planning Commission approval. 4. Balconies, Bay Windows, and other such Projections or Recesses. The building incorporates balconies, bay windows, entry porches or other projections and recesses in a pattern that creates architectural interest across the length of the façade. This method for achieving architectural articulation is most typically found on buildings that include residential uses. NA NA B. Building Transparency and Required Openings. Exterior walls facing and within 20 feet of a front or street side property line shall include windows, doors, or other openings for at least 60 percent of the building wall area located between two and one‐half and seven feet above the level of the sidewalk. No wall may run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displays that are at least 18 inches deep. They shall not provide views into parking or vehicle circulation areas.Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B C. Architectural Articulation. Buildings shall include sufficient architectural design features to create visual interest and avoid a large‐scale, bulky or “box‐like” appearance. Different ways that this requirement may be met include, but are not limited to, those listed below; compliance with this requirement shall be evaluated by the decision‐making authority in the review process.Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B Building massings are shaped with a variety of angles responding to view and the site. A continuous recess carves across all facades, joining a series of atria and terraces. Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Floor Plans: A2‐05A through A2‐09A (terrace levels) Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B; Floor Plans: A2‐03B through A2‐06B (terrace levels) A series of terraces step and carve up the east and south facades providing variety. Dynamic angles in plan orient different portions of the façade to view and site relationships. Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Floor Plans: A2‐05A through A2‐09A (terrace levels) Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B; Floor Plans: A2‐03B through A2‐06B (terrace levels) All facades incorporate vision and spandrel curtain wall system articulated with a frit pattern and a vertical metal fin. Where the façade recesses, a clear butt glazed curtain wall system is used to differentiate this zone of the façade. Yes Yes Storefront conditions typical, blank walls in service areas do not face streets. NA E. Exterior Building Materials and Colors. Refer to the guidelines in Chapter 5 of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and consider the following: a. Private Open Space. Private open space located on the ground level (e.g., yards, decks, patios) shall have no dimension less than 10 feet. Private open space located above ground level (e.g., balconies) shall have no dimension less than six feet. b. Common Open Space. Minimum dimension of 20 feet. 1. Minimum Dimensions. 2. Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such surface may be any practicable combination of lawn, garden, flagstone, wood planking, concrete, or othe serviceable, dust‐free surfacing. Slope shall not exceed 10 percent. a. Accessibility. i. Private Open Space. The space shall be accessible to only one living unit by a doorway to a habitable room or hallway. ii. Common Open Space. The space shall be accessible to the living units on the lot. It shall be served by any stairway or other access way qualifying as an egress facility from a habitable room. 1. Grand Avenue. A minimum of 75 percent of the frontage of a site along Grand Avenue in the Downtown shall be devoted to active uses; in the Eastern Neighborhood a minimum of 35 percent of the frontage of a site along E. Grand Avenue shall be devoted to active uses. 1. Ground Floor Height. The minimum ground floor height for buildings with nonresidential uses at the ground level is 15 feet, with a minimum 12‐foot clearance from floor to ceiling. For residential buildings, a ground flo garage may be exempt from this requirement, subject to evaluation by the decision‐making authority in the review process. 2. Finished Floor Height for Residential Uses. The maximum finished floor height for ground floor residential uses is five feet above grade. 1. Along the east and west extents of the GAC sub‐district, no setback is allowed. 3. In the TO/RD sub‐district on Sylvester Road and other new roads that may be constructed, setbacks up to 20 feet are allowed. These should be used to accommodate a primary building entry plaza, seating or signage, as well as generous site landscaping. 4. Standards pertaining to other DRC and DTC sub‐districts apply as appropriate. 2. Within the Pedestrian Priority Zone, in the LNC sub‐district, and in the LCC sub‐district, buildings should be built to the property line or 15 feet from the curb, whichever is greater. J. Required Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking will be provided on‐site where public bicycle parking on sidewalks or in plaza and park spaces is not available. A reduction in short‐term bicycle parking for commercial businesses will be considered based on contribution into a consolidated public bicycle parking amenity. Refer to Section 20.330.008 for specific requirements. G. Required Parking. Parking shall be required in accordance with Chapter 20.330 for Downtown Districts. D. Corner Build Area. Buildings must be located in accordance with the required setbacks within 30 feet of every corner. Public plazas may be at the street corner provided buildings are built to the edge of the public plaza. C. Build‐to Line. Buildings shall be constructed at the required setback for at least 65 percent of linear street frontage. Build‐to‐Line criteria for locations within the sub‐districts include: City of SSF - Conformance Development Checklist for Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts (SSFMC Section 20.290.004) D. Blank Walls. Walls facing streets shall not run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displays that are at least 18 inches deep. 1. Exceptions. c. The blank wall restrictions for a project may be reduced by the Chief Planner to address operational characteristics with which providing the required windows and openings is incompatible, such as in the case of a cinema or theater. Walls of street‐facing buildings will exhibit architectural relief and detail, and/or will be screened with attractive landscaping, in such a way as to create visual interest at the pedestrian level. b. The maximum length of a blank wall may be 30 feet for retail establishments with a gross floor area of 25,000 square feet or greater. a. The maximum length of a blank wall may be 40 feet if it includes artwork approved by the City through the design review process as required by Chapter 20.480. Page 2 229 Downtown Districts Development Conformance Checklist - 100 E Grand City of SSF - Conformance Development Checklist for Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts (SSFMC Section 20.290.004) Proposal Compliance for Project (please fill out Yes, Please stipulate how the proposal complies (ex. provide specific lot/ parcel Additional Notes/ Comments South San Francisco Municipal Code Yes project is pursuing LEED Gold, and is All‐Electric Yes See material palette on A1‐06 Yes Reference Building Elevations: A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Floor Plans: A2‐01A; No, or NA)data, measurements, etc.) Yes See material palette on A1‐06 Yes See above NA Yes Reference Building Elevations: A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Floor Plans: A2‐01A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B; Floor Plans: A2‐03B through A2‐06B (terrace levels); Floor Plans: A2‐01B North and east facades are oriented toward main public ways. South façade oriented toward courtyard. Yes Reference Building Elevations: A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Floor Plans: A2‐01A and A1‐02A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B; Floor Plans: A2‐01B and A1‐02A Main building entrance is located under a large soffit adjacent to an iconic triple angled columns supporting the southeast corner of the building. This "heroic" column marks the space between the entry and the courtyard. The entry area includes a small plaza zone connecting to E Grand Ave and Sylvester Rd. Yes Reference Building Elevations: A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Floor Plans: A2‐01A Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B; Floor Plans: A2‐01B Main entry reponses to adjacent streets through large overhang and heroic column articulations. Entry doors are located in a glass vestibule that protrudes from curtain wall system emphasizing its importance. NA Yes Understood NA Yes Two entrances to parking structure NA NA NA H. Limitations on Location of Parking. NA Yes Internal access street designed as a street intersection off of Sylvester. No curb cuts located on pedestrian priority streets NA NA NA Yes Parking garage is located at the south edge of the site, away from E. Grand Yes Major pedestrian connection to site at north and east edge of garage. Garage is positioned to address future expansion south and east architecturally and for pedestrian circulation with two banks of elevators and stairs at either end. Yes Pedestrian entry at north, and vehicular entries at east and south. Designated sitewalk and crosswalks are indicated. I. Maximum Block Length. Existing block configurations shall remain intact. Blocks shall not be consolidated. Wherever possible, mid‐block pedestrian connections and alleys are encouraged especially where blocks exceed 300 feet in length c. Pedestrian entries should be located to minimize conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. b. Pedestrian entries and stairwells for parking structures should be located adjacent to public streets and along major pedestrian connections. 5. In all cases, materials located at or near ground level should be high‐quality, sturdy and visually interesting. 6. Materials must be approved by the City as part of the project review process. 1. Buildings shall be oriented to face public streets. Residential development adjacent to public spaces or connections shall be oriented facing onto the public space. 5. All ground floor residential units shall have the primary entrance, either individual or shared, facing the public street or a pedestrian connection and shall incorporate a projection (e.g., porch or stoop) or recess at least 40 square feet in area, with a minimum depth of five feet. Alternative entry designs that face the street, such as a trellis or a landscaped courtyard entry, may be approved by the Chief Planner or Design Review Board. 4. In residential mixed‐use developments, entrances to residential units shall be physically separated from the entrances to the commercial uses and clearly marked with a physical feature such as a recess or projection incorporated into the building or appropriately scaled element applied to the façade. 3. Entrances located at corners shall generally be located at a 45 degree angle to the corner and shall have a distinct architectural treatment to create interest at the intersection and facilitate pedestrian flow around the corner. Different treatments may include angled or rounded corners, arches, and other architectural elements. All building and dwelling units located in the interior of a site shall have entrances from the sidewalk that are designed as an extension of the public sidewalk and connect to a public sidewalk. 2. Building entrances shall be emphasized with small entry plazas, vertical massing, and architectural elements such as awnings, arcades, or porticos. 1. General. G. Unbundling Parking from Residential Uses. For residential condominium or other multi‐family ownership projects, parking in excess of one space per unit may be sold or rented separate from the residential unit. For apartment developments, 50 percent of the required parking may be unbundled. All spaces shall be reserved for residential tenants within the development. 1. A unified palette of materials shall be used on all sides of buildings and structured parking. 2. Use high quality, durable materials and finishes that provide a sense of permanence. 3. Give preference to sustainable materials, building systems and technologies. 4. Exterior materials may include stone, porcelain tile, brick, wood, stucco and other materials suited to commercial, mixed use, and residential construction. Project Name: Project Address: APN: Zoning: Lot, Density, and FAR Standards ‐ Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub‐Districts F. Building Orientation and Entrances. a. Parking structures should be located away from primary pedestrian walkways, unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner. 4. Parking Structures. a. Organize at‐grade garages for lower density residential development (i.e., rowhouses, townhouses) in well‐landscaped parking lanes and parking courts leading to individual garages. 3. Private or Shared Garages. a. Share access drives and cross access easements to parking facilities wherever feasible in order to minimize curb cuts and potential conflicts with pedestrians. b. Minimize the number of vehicular access points from the following streets to reduce the total number of curb cuts: i. Miller Avenue. ii. Baden Avenue. iii. Linden Avenue. c. No curb cuts shall be allowed along Grand Avenue unless no other access is feasible. 2. Surface Parking Lots. a. Locate surface parking lots away from street edges or behind buildings and provide decorative, landscaped, or other screening. b. Landscape a minimum five feet perimeter setback area around parking lots. Page 3 230 Downtown Districts Development Conformance Checklist - 100 E Grand City of SSF - Conformance Development Checklist for Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Design Guidelines Proposal Compliance for Project (please fill out Yes, Please stipulate how the proposal complies (ex.provide specific lot/parcel Additional Notes/ Comments Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Project Name:No, or NA) data, measurements, etc.) Block Size and Pattern Downtown DS‐1 Retain the block pattern that characterizes the Downtown; where particulalry long blocks exist, attempt to insert mid‐blovk pedestrian walkways NA Eastern Neighborhood DS‐2 The extent feasible, establish a new public street/walkway and block pattern with block sizes of approximately 300 feet on a side NA DS‐3 Limit block lengths to a maximum of 600 feet NA DS‐4 Where block sizes exceed approximately 300 feet, provide mid‐block pedestrian connections. Mid‐block connections may take the form of a pedestrian access way or a shared ped/emergency/services path NA DS‐5 To the extent feasible, add publicly‐accessible pathways in existing development areas where street connectivity is limited NA DS‐6 Avoid security gates on publicly‐accessible routes at all times of day NA Building Height DS‐7 Restrict building heights as indicated in Figure 5.02 per FAA DS‐8 Moderate allowable building heights in certain situations to create a comfortable environment Around parks and public open spaces to maintain a pedestrian scale and maximize daylight/sky exposure Yes Building height adjacent to courtyard is broken up by terracing and a deep soffit overhang at the main entrance Along pedestrian walkways and sidewalks to provide a comfortable pedestrian scale Yes See above Adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods, stepping down to two or three stories to provide a transition in scale NA DS‐9 Place taller buildings or building elements at corner intersections to achieve greater visibility, scale relationships, and architectural massing and interest Yes See above and reference site plans DS‐10 Vary building heights within blocks and parcels in order to provide visual interest and variety and to avoid a blocky, uniform appearance Yes Each building structure varies in height, and is further broken up by terracing which provides a cohesive and varied architectural concept for the site and pedestrian experience. DS‐11 Buildings wihtin the Pedestrina Priority Zone in the Downtown and those adjacent to public open space that exceed four stories in height should step back any additional story to maintain a comfortable scale.NA Residential buildings over three stories in height, located on residential streets or public open space, should include a stepback for higher floors.NA DS‐12 Building design should provide optimal solar access to parks and other outdoor spaces Yes Solar access to courtyard maximized by stepping both buildings back along the east edge of Building Setbacks DS‐13 Site buildings to reinforce the street edge or corner by maximizing building frontage along the street. Building setbacks will vary by street type Yes Building A aligns with the setback along E. Grand, accentuating the street space DS‐14 For Grand Avenue and other pedestrian‐friendly retail areas, locate the primary building façade at the property line. Yes Primary façade of Building A along E. Grand, with main building entrance situated at intersection. Future entrance at E. Grand included in design, depending on future redevelopment of surrounding area. Exceptions to this rule are allowed and encoruaged to emphasize the retail zone and widen the sidewalk.Yes See above DS‐15 On non‐pedestrian retail streets, allow for greater setbacks where the ground‐floor use is residential NA DS‐16 A small portion of the building façade may be stepped back beyond the setback. This allows entry courts, public plazas, and building articulation at the ground level Yes See above Yes Building A aligns with the setback along E. Grand, accentuating the street space Yes DS‐17 Maintain neighborhood and street character by locating residential uses across the street from one another where possible NA DS‐18 Limit curb cuts to minimize pedestrian‐vehicular conflicts Yes Internal access street designed as a street intersection off of Sylvester. No curb cuts located on pedestrian priority streets Building Design Yes Building A aligns with the setback along E. Grand, accentuating the street space Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B Main building entrance is located under a large soffit adjacent to an iconic triple angled columns supporting the southeast corner of the building. This "heroic" column marks the space between the entry and the courtyard. The entry area includes a small plaza zone connecting to E Grand Ave and Sylvester Rd. NA Building Massing and Articulation Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B A series of terraces step and carve up the east and south facades providing variety. Dynamic angles in plan orient different portions of the façade to view and site relationships. Yes Reference Site Plans: A1.02A To help mitigate wind and acoustical noise from highway 101, a tall wall with landscape features will be located between Buildings A and B on the west side of the courtyard. DS‐19 Reduce the apparent bulk of a building by breaking it into smaller masses longitudinally and vertically Level 1 (Ground floor) has floor to ceiling glazing in public areas with 20' Yes Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B Reference Building Elevations: A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Floor Plan: A2‐11A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B; Floor Plan: A2‐11B A 20' continuous screen wall will be located around entire perimeter of roof. All mechanical and other equipment will be screened. Building Orientation, Entries, and Facades DS‐25 Screen mechanical and other equipment from sight per the Zoning Code DS‐29 Enhance building entries and the adjoining pedestrian realm with plazas and landscaping For retail development, orient multiple store entries to the to the plaza in addiiton to street‐side entrances Utilize outdoor space for cafes or other outdoor retail uses DS‐30 Design the floor‐to‐ceiling height of the first floor to be greater than that of upper floors to accommodate ground‐floor retail space where permitted DS‐31 Include features that add depth, shadow and architectural interest, such as balconies, recesses, cornices, bay windows, and step‐backs at upper floors, consistent with the building's style and scaled for pedestrians Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Reference G1‐03 Pedestrain Access Diagram At Level 1 (Ground floor), buildings have breezeways and overhangs with facades and entrances set back. Yes See above All walls at grade facing public are vision glazing or metal panel. Yes Main entrances to buildings face courtyard and Sylvester Yes See above Ground level public‐facing and open space facing façade is all vision Yes See above Main building entrance is located under a large soffit adjacent to an iconic triple angled columns supporting the southeast corner of the building. This "heroic" column marks the space between the entry and the courtyard. The entry area includes a small plaza zone connecting to E Grand Ave and Sylvester Rd. Yes All building entrances accessible via ample walkways throughout Yes Reference L1‐01 Layout, L1‐21 Illustrative, L4‐04 Courtyard Elevation NA Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; NA NA NA Residential Buildings NA DS‐24 Throughout the Downtown and Eastern Neighborhood, create a largely continuous street wall to define the space of the street DS‐23 Transition building heights at the edges of districts wehre the nearby uses are of a lower scale, avoiding an abrupt transition in height and bulk DS‐22 Reinforce street corners with changes in architectural massing and height DS‐21 Accentuate important downtown and Eastern Neighborhood gateways and edges in the plan area with architectural design DS‐20 Consider the impacts of shade and wind on open spaces, pedestrian corridors and retail streets in the massing and articulation of building facades Locate outdoor spaces where there will be good protection from wind DS‐26 Ensure that the primary facades and entrance areas of all buildings face the street, open space, or other pedestrian‐orientated circulation areas DS‐27 Encourage windows and storefronts at the street level and ground floor with clear, non‐reflective glazing DS‐28 Emphasize building entries with small entry plazas, vertical massing, and architectural elements such as awnings, arcades, or porticos Design entries so thaty they are clearly identifiable from the street Provide a walkway leading from the street to the building entrance if not located direclty off the sidewalk DS‐32 Limit blank walls along pedestrian‐friendly streets DS‐33 Encourage provision of residential units that directly address the street edge through front doors, porches or patios, in addition to upper units that will be accessed from central lobbies DS‐34 On non‐retail streets, maintain a setback from the sidewalk or a slightly raised ground floor height to ensure residential privacy for ground floor units Building Design Guidelines for Specific Building Types DS‐35 Use balconies, stoops, windows, and courtyards to provide architectural interest DS‐36 For residential development facing onto local residential streets or public open space, use lower‐scale residential forms such as townhomes up to three stories in height at the street as a scale transition Page 4 231 Downtown Districts Development Conformance Checklist - 100 E Grand NA NA NA NA Yes Building footprint aligns with setbacks and site constraints. Instead of a front yard, there is a public courtyard between Building A and B. Yes Reference Site plan: A1‐01 Yes See above NA NA Office/R&D Buildings DS‐43 Orient primary building entrances to the street Secondary entrances may be from the side and/or rear DS‐37 Step higher floors back to moderate building scale in proximity to lower scale neighborhoods DS‐38 Provide clearly articulated residential building entries at the street DS‐39 Minimize amount of building façade dedicated to parking entries and minimize curb cuts DS‐40 Internalize parking away from building edges Building edges should accommodate entries, lobbies, retail or other active uses rather than blank walls DS‐41 Employ variation in scale and form for residential development, allowing for both pedestrian and larger‐scaled massing DS‐42 Site buildings along streets, sidewalks and lanes rather than set back behind large landscaped front yards Page 5 232 Downtown Districts Development Conformance Checklist - 100 E Grand Proposal Compliance for Project (please fill out Yes, Please stipulate how the proposal complies (ex.provide specific lot/parcel Additional Notes/ Comments Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Project Name:No, or NA) data, measurements, etc.) Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B Glass design to provide energy code requirements. Glass have low reflectivity to provide as much transparency into the buildings. Yes Yes, Yes Parking Garage proposed at south side of site Yes Yes Yes Yes Project is pursuing LEED Gold and Fitwel Certification Yes See above; included in effort is a life cycle analysis with optimized concrete specifications Yes Buildings' energy efficiency is modeled per T24 Building Materials Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B Yes Reference G1‐03 Pedestrain Access Diagram, L1‐01 Layout Plan, L3‐01 Site Elevation Open Space areas shown and labeled on G1‐03 as "Gateway" zone connecting Grand and Sylvester intersection to a continuous sidewalk. "Courtyard" dirrectly connects to the "Gateway" and "Plaza" zone to provide a continuous open space from sidewalk to building entries to Parking Garage as a composite larger open space area. Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B Level 1 (Ground floor) has floor to ceiling glazing in public areas for maximum transparency. Buildings have two story tall spaces and glazing in key locations such as entries. Yes Reference Renderings on A1‐03 thru A1‐05 Accent materials include metal‐wrapped columns, entryways, and warm‐ colored soffits. Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B At Level 1 (Ground floor), buildings have overhangs with these facades set back protecting from the sun and weather. Glare wil be minimal. Glazing in this area is also clear and low reflectivity. Yes Reference Building Elevations: Building A A3‐11A, A3‐12A and A3‐13A; Building B A3‐11B, A3‐12B and A3‐13B Different glass types, frit patterns, and vertical fins accentuate the architectural form and provides variety to the façade. Yes Reference L1‐01 , L1‐21 (shaded) zones, L3‐01 Building A Elevation Building A shown in drawings to have a partially covered outdoor space south and east ajoining the Courtyard space. These locations provide main entries and some outdoor dinning and seating areas for sun and inclament weather. Yes Reference G1‐03 Pedestrain Access Diagram, L4‐13 Sylvester Street Section Pedestrian Access Diagram and Sylvester Section included as total public space provision‐ see calculations Yes Reference L1‐01 Layout, Courtyard shown in Layout plans illustrates planned outdoor dinning for a portion of the overall space. Building Entries shown in Red arrows planned for Courtyard connections. Yes Reference G1‐03 Pedestrain Access Diagram , G1‐06 Open Space Diagram. A1‐01 Site Plan with Courtyard In accodance with Eastern Neighborhood generous 12' sidewalk connecting to Grand Intersection via Sylvester and large courtyard are accessible and visable from Grand Ave (public way). Yes Reference L1‐01 Layout, C3.00 Site Grading Pedestrian connections have been provided between all sidewalk and courtyard/plaza areas‐ all walking surfaces to be less than 4% slope grade differences to avoid accessable obstructions and meet all ADA guidelines. Reference L1‐01 Layout, L1‐21 Illustrative, L4‐04 Courtyard Elevation Dimensions for the overal Courtyard space are roughly 100'x200' which include vegetated planters. This area is +/‐ 20,000sqft, comparable to other public outdoor plaza and squares. Yes Reference L1‐01 Layout, L3‐13 Courtyard Wall Element Public Art is being considered as a project goal to enhance the users and public awareness of their environment. Art locations are being considered for these areas for overall enjoyment and greatest visability. NA Non‐residential ‐ NA NA Current plans do not include pervious paving materials for paving adjacent ot parking or city streets. Adjacent Landscape areas are the dominant pervious zone spereated via concrete or other structures. NA NA Pending selected final materials, maufacturers use fly‐ash or iron‐ore slag as part of their concrete mixes, selections TBD. Local materials are always considdered as priority for project material resources and reduced shipping . Yes Reference L2‐01 Plant materials to be native and adaptive native species to reduce and meet low to medium water use. Planting soils to be either raised and improved to retain and support landscape species selection Parking General Parking Guidelines DS‐48 Use high‐quality, durable architectural materials and finishes that provide a sense of permanence. DS‐49 Materials should express their true properties. Use of high‐quality, authentic materials is encouraged. DS‐50 To minimize the overall environmental impact of development, give preferences to sustainable materials, buildings systems, and technologies. DS‐51 Materials fabricated through energy‐intensive processes are discouraged. Concrete with reduced cement content and high recycled content metals are preferred. DS‐52 Materials that improve building envelope performance through insulation values and thermal mass are encouraged. DS‐44 On site parking should be provided at the rear of the site, preferable in a structure, but screened from the street No parking at the front of buildings DS‐47 Program active uses such as lobbies, retail, conference rooms, or similar spaces at the ground floor long the primary façade to provide visual interest to pedestrians DS‐46 Utilize architecturla elements such as recesses, awnings, colonnades, and pronounced entrances to provide visual interest and variation on major facades DS‐45 Parking access should be via the minimum feasible curb cuts or from nearby lanes or side streets City of SSF - Conformance Development Checklist for Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Design Guidelines DS‐56 Avoid highly reflective surfaces and materials that can cause heat or glare for pedestrians. DS‐57 Employ color to differentiate between building elements and to moderate the scale of buildings. DS‐58 In the Eastern Neighborhood encourage new development to provide usable open space, which should be visible and accessible from the street or other public way. DS‐69 Include sustainable landscape design as an element of development per the Zoning Code. DS‐68 Use of sustainable surface materials for paving, such as reclaimed pavers, locally produced materials, or concrete and asphalt with fly ash content is encouraged. DS‐67 Use of water pervious materials for parking areas, driveways and pathways to the extent such that they do not cause damage to public streets or other infrastructure is encouraged. DS‐66 For residential uses, provide private and semi‐private open space per the Zoning Code. DS‐65 Public art should be considered as part of open space improvements. DS‐64 The dimension of a plaza, courtyard, or mid‐block pedestrian connection should be large enough to feel comfortable. DS‐63 Open space from one block may be combined with open space required for an adjacent block in order to create a larger single open space area. DS‐62 A portion of the open space may be for outdoor dining or building entrances. DS‐61 Pedestrian rights‐of‐way can contribute to the public open space provisions. DS‐60 Downtown building‐related plaza or courtyard open spaces may adjoin and be partially covered by the building above. DS‐59 Minimize the grade differential between an open space or plaza area and the adjoining sidewalk. Site Open Space and Landscape DS‐53 Glazing should be as clear as possible and non‐reflective to provide transparency and visibility while meeting energy and daylighting performance requirements. DS‐54 Glazing should be concentrated at key locations such as ground floors and entries to create a welcoming environment and to make visible people and activities. DS‐55 Employ accent materials such as natural stone at the ground level to add texture, color, and visual interest at the pedestrian level along all pedestrian corridors. Page 6 233 Downtown Districts Development Conformance Checklist - 100 E Grand DS‐70 Share access drives and cross access easements to parking facilities wherever feasible in order to minimize curb cuts and potential conflicts with pedestrians. DS‐71 Minimize the number of vehicle access points from the following streets to reduce the total number of curb cuts: Miller Avenue Baden Avenue Linden Avenue DS‐72 No curb cuts shall be allowed along the following pedestrian priority streets, unless no other access is feasible: Grand Avenue in the Downtown and Eastern Neighborhood DS‐73 Provide adequate bicycle parking stalls per the Circulation and Parking chapter of this Specific Plan DS‐74 Ensure that bicycle parking is secure and weather‐protected Yes Reference L1‐01 NA NA Yes Reference L1‐01 Internal access street designed as a street intersection off of Sylvester. No curb cuts located on pedestrian priority streets Yes Reference L1‐11 and L1‐12 We are providing required secured short and long term bicycle parking on Yes Bicycle parking located at north of garage within a secured area, adjacent to break room. NA NA NA NA NA NA Yes Reference Parking Garage Elevations: A3‐11G The parking garage is clad in an open, perforated metal screen system with a composition that complements the buildings. Yes Reference Parking Garage Elevations: A3‐11G The parking garage cladding features a stepping composition of perforated panels with metal fins in contrast to an even metal screen of expanded metal mesh. These two panels are set off the concrete structure while at the ground floor vertical white picket is set in tight to the structure creating a floating effect. Yes Reference Parking Garage Elevations: A3‐11G L1‐01 and L1‐14 Parking garage exterior screen elemens are made of highly durable, powder‐coated metal. Structure is concrete. Yes Garage is located at the south edge of the site Yes Reference Parking Garage Elevations: A3‐11G Yes See above Yes Canopy overhangs provided at entrances to Garage Yes Major pedestrian connection to site at north and east edge of garage. Garage is positioned to address future expansion south and east architecturally and for pedestrian circulation with two banks of elevators and stairs at either end. Yes Reference Parking Garage Elevations: A3‐11G Level 1 (Ground floor) of parking garage structure has canopies at major entrances/exits for both pedestrians and vehicles. A sidewalk with landscape surround all publicly accessible facades. No, or NA DS‐75 Locate surface parking lots away from street edges or behind buildings and provide decorative, landscaped or other screening. DS‐78 Accommodate pedestrians and bicycle traffic with pedestrian‐only pathways and bicycle facilities through parking areas. Enhance these areas with trees and architectural elements such as trellises and awnings. DS‐77 Landscape a minimum five foot perimeter setback area around parking lots. DS‐76 For surface parking areas, provide a ratio of 1:3 trees per parking space on the perimeter of the lot, and 1:5 trees per parking space on interior stalls, whenever possible. Surface Parking Lot Guidelines Adjacent to public streets and along major pedestrian connections. To ensure that they are visually open and free of visual obstruction to promote a feeling of security and comfort. To minimize conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. DS‐79 Garage‐access lanes should be well‐landscaped and display the character of small urban street. Where feasible, planter beds with trees or potted plants should be located between garage doors and adjacent to porches. DS‐80 Organize at‐grade garages for lower‐density residential development in well‐landscaped parking lanes and parking courts leading to individual garages. DS‐81 Where possible, lcoate parking structures away from primary pedestrian walkways. DS‐82 When a parking structure faces a street, design an attractive façade that screens cars and does not express a sloped floor structure. DS‐83 Create visual interest and reduce the mass of parking structures through the use of: Variation in the dimension and proportion of openings of the façade. Decorative screens, railings, and trellis elements of durable , high‐quality materials. Base materials and designs that are similar to surrounding buildings on site to enhance the visual interest of the structure at the ground level. Awnings, arcades, trellises, or porticos along street‐facing facades and pedestrian connections. Active ground‐floor uses within parking structures are encouraged throughout the plan area and required along pedestrian‐friendly retail streets. DS‐84 Locate and design pedestrian entries and stairwells for parking structures: As identifying architectural elements. Parking Structure Guidelines Private or Shared Garage Guidelines Page 7 234 1900 Powell Street, Suite 220 Emeryville, CA 94608 (800) 488-7274 Toll Free USA (415) 292-5400 (415) 292-5410 Fax www.trashmanage.com Background: We are requesting an adjustment to the loading space requirements for this life science building project with a potential cafeteria. Building A is a 9-story building with ~300,000 GSF of office space. Building B is an 8-story building with ~265,000 GSF of office space.  
 Under the above ordinance, the project will require a total of 7 loading bays. However, the City also provides an option for the Chief Planner and City Engineer to adjust the required spaces based on the nature san requirements of the proposed project.   Loading Area Alexandria Real Estate 100 E. Grand Avenue St South San Francisco Loading Analysis and Variance Request © American Trash Management, Inc. 2022 Page of Wednesday, February 23, 202214 235 1900 Powell Street, Suite 220 Emeryville, CA 94608 (800) 488-7274 Toll Free USA (415) 292-5400 (415) 292-5410 Fax www.trashmanage.com Logistic Requirements: The City of South San Francisco loading requirements are established in Chapter 20.330.009 On Site Loading. Below are the pertinent portions of these regulations: A. Loading Spaces Required. Every new building, and every building enlarged by more than 5,000 square feet that is to be occupied by a manufacturing establishment, storage facility, warehouse facility, retail store, eating and drinking, wholesale store, market, hotel, hospital, mortuary, laundry, dry-cleaning establishment, or other use similarly requiring the receipt or distribution by vehicles or trucks of material or merchandise shall provide off-street loading and unloading areas as follows. Such on-site loading space shall be maintained during the existence of the building or use that it is required to serve. B. Reduction in Number of Loading Spaces Required. The loading space requirement may be waived upon a finding by the Chief Planner and City Engineer that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that due to the nature of the proposed use, such loading space will not be needed. C. Minimum Size. Each on-site loading space required by this chapter shall not be less than 12 feet wide, 50 feet long, and 14 feet high, exclusive of driveways for ingress and egress, maneuvering areas and setbacks. The minimum size requirement may be modified upon a finding by the Chief Planner and City Engineer that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that due to the nature of the proposed use, such size will not be needed. Square Footage Required Loading Spaces 150,001 - 230,000 4 230,001 1 per additional 100,000 square feet of portion thereof Total required for this development 7.34999 © American Trash Management, Inc. 2022 Page of Wednesday, February 23, 202224 236 1900 Powell Street, Suite 220 Emeryville, CA 94608 (800) 488-7274 Toll Free USA (415) 292-5400 (415) 292-5410 Fax www.trashmanage.com Support for Adjusting the Number of Truck Loading Spaces American Trash Management, Inc., (ATM) has determined loading space requirements for similar office projects. To make this determination, ATM uses the following truck delivery model, which assumes significant food-related operations from the potential cafeteria plus the standard steady-stream of daily truck deliveries from Amazon, UPS, FedEx, etc. The model is below: Delivery En+ty Truck Size Es+mated Time to Offload (minutes) Frequency of Deliveries PER WEEK Projected minutes PER DAY Sysco Tractor Trailer 45 2 18 Grocery Tractor Trailer 45 2 18 Baked Goods Box Truck 15 2 6 Specialty Produce Truck 30 4 24 Meat Products Truck 30 2 12 Food CooperaAve Truck 20 2 8 UNFI Truck 15 2 12.5 Specialty Food Truck 15 4 10 Baked Goods Van 10 4 8 Family Farm Truck 10 2 4 Family Farm Truck 15 2 6 Knife Shapening Van 15 1 3 Total Minutes Per Day 129.5 Delivery En+ty Truck Size Es+mated Time to Offload (minutes) Frequency of Deliveries PER DAY Projected minutes PER DAY Package Delivery Truck or Van 20 7 140 Total Delivery MINUTES Per Day 269.5 Total Delivery HOURS Per Day 4 PROJECTED DELIVERIES PER DAY 12.8 PROJECTED DELIVERIES PER HOUR:1.6 © American Trash Management, Inc. 2022 Page of Wednesday, February 23, 202234 237 1900 Powell Street, Suite 220 Emeryville, CA 94608 (800) 488-7274 Toll Free USA (415) 292-5400 (415) 292-5410 Fax www.trashmanage.com The model projects between 12 - 13 commercial truck deliveries per day, which will be spread out from 7AM to 3PM. Given the number of deliveries and the wide variation in arrival times, on almost all occasions not more than three delivery vehicles will be on site at any one time. A building of this size and complexity will require that the building management include a “Loading Dock Manager. This person will be responsible for the management of the building's loading dock and will inform tenants of the limitations and conditions on the use of the loading docks. They will schedule, assign loading location and limit truck size. For this reason, we are requesting a variance from Chief Planner and City Engineer to adjust the required spaces to three (3). Along with making this adjustment, we also recommend that two loading spaces be approved to accommodate two 30’ long box trucks (SU-30s) and one 40’ long tractor-trailer (WB-40). Please take this analysis into consideration to appeal the requirement. Thank you, Ana Zarate Project Manager American Trash Management, Inc. 1900 Powell Street, Suite 220 Emeryville, CA 94608 Direct: 1-510-607-7603Truck Deliveries0 1 2 2 3 7AM 8Am 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM Delivery Truck Spread Use Gross SF Number of Bays Vehicle Size Recommendations Office 565,000 3 SU-30 WB-40 If a full-service cafeteria is anticipated, it is recommended that the site accommodates at minimum one larger style vehicle (WB-40). © American Trash Management, Inc. 2022 Page of Wednesday, February 23, 202244 238 239 240 241 242 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-814 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5a. Resolution making findings and a determination that the environmental effects of the proposed office /R&D project at 100 East Grand Avenue (“Project”)were sufficiently analyzed under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR)pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Section 15168,and that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines 15183,and that the proposed project is statutorily exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 WHEREAS,the applicant has proposed construction of two office and R&D buildings consisting of approximately 559,000 sq.ft.,a parking structure containing 782 spaces,open spaces,landscaping,amenity uses,and circulation improvements (“Project”)on the property located at 100 East Grand Avenue (APNs 015031120,015031130,015031160,015031020)of approximately 5.5 acres (referred to as “Project Site”)in the City; and WHEREAS,the applicant seeks the following entitlements for Project P21-0087,to be considered by the Planning Commission by separate resolution:(Use Permit (UP21-0011),Design Review (DR21-0038), Tentative Parcel Map (PM22-0001),Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM21-0010),and Master Sign Program (SIGNS22-0008); and WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “Project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)on January 28,2015 (State Clearinghouse number 2013102001)in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP); and WHERAS,the City Council certified an Addendum to the program EIR for the DSASP for the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning Amendments by Resolution No. 31-2018 on February 28, 2018; and WHEREAS,the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”)on January 28, 2015 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project’s economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits; and WHEREAS,the City Council certified an Addendum to the program EIR for the DSASP for the Downtown City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™243 File #:22-814 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5a. WHEREAS,the City Council certified an Addendum to the program EIR for the DSASP for the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning Amendments by Resolution No. 31-2018 on February 28, 2018; and WHEREAS,the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 as it is a qualified employment project; and WHEREAS,the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,as it is consistent with the General Plan and the DSASP and would have no environmental impacts that would be peculiar to the Project or Project Site; and WHEREAS,the City and applicant prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and an Environmental Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (c)(4)that concluded that even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above-listed exemption,in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15168,the Project is within the scope of the DSASP and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP EIR certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required; and WHEREAS,on October 6,2022,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; 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,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.) (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000,et seq.);the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations;the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Addendum,the Environmental Consistency Analysis,including all appendices thereto;all site plans,and all reports,minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed October 6,2022 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code Sections 21080(e)and 21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS 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 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™244 File #:22-814 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5a. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR (Exhibit A),Environmental Consistency Analysis (Exhibit B),and DSASP EIR Mitigation,Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)(Exhibit C)are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner, Tony Rozzi. CEQA Findings 1.For the reasons stated in this Resolution,the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 as the Project is consistent with a Community Plan,General Plan or Zoning because as supported by the findings of the Environmental Consistency Analysis: a.The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing DSASP zoning, Specific Plan, and General Plan policies for which the DSASP Program EIR was certified. b.There are no project-specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or the Project Site. c.There are no project-specific impacts,which the DSASP Program EIR failed to analyze as significant effects. d.There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the DSASP Program EIR failed to evaluate. e.There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the DSASP Program EIR 2.For the reasons stated in this Resolution,there is not substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that approval of the Project will result in significant environmental effects beyond those adequately evaluated and addressed by the DSASP Program EIR,nor would the Project require any new mitigation measures and therefore the Project is within the scope of the DSASP Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because: 1.The Project does not propose substantial changes to the DSASP Project,which will require major revisions of the DSASP Program EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b.No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the DSASP Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the DSASP Program EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™245 File #:22-814 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5a. involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; c.No new information of substantial importance,which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the DSASP Program EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: i.The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the DSASP Program EIR; ii.Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; iii.Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project,but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or iv.Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the DSASP Program EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment,but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 3.For reasons stated in this Resolution,the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 as it is a qualified employment center project as defined by SB 375 (2008), and meets the following criteria: a.The project is proposed within a transit priority area,as it is within one-half mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain station which is an existing major transit stop; and b.The project implements and is consistent with the DSASP,which was approved pursuant to a certified Program EIR; and c.The project is located on a property zoned for commercial use and is proposed for a FAR of no less than .75,as the project site is zoned as TO/RD,which permits office and R&D uses,and the project is proposed to be developed at an FAR of just under 2.5. 4.The Planning Commission finds that the Project is statutorily and categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,and Public Resources Code Section 21155.4.The Planning Commission also finds that the Project falls within the environmental parameters analyzed in the DSASP City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™246 File #:22-814 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5a. Commission also finds that the Project falls within the environmental parameters analyzed in the DSASP EIR and subsequent 2018 Addendum.The Planning Commission further finds that the Project is within the scope of the DSASP pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP Program EIR and 2018 Addendum certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required by the Project.The Planning Commission finds that the Project implements the policies of the DSASP,and the Environmental Consistency Analysis determined that the Project would not result in any new impacts not adequately evaluated and were addressed by the DSASP Program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and 2018 Addendum. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and a determination that the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR)pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168,and that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and Public Resources Code Section 21155.4. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ******* City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™247 Exhibit A 2015 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR https://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/doc/198023/Page1.aspx 248 1 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CHECKLIST TO THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN A. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: 100 East Grand Avenue Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 3. Contact Person(s) and Phone Numbers: Terezia Nemeth ARE-100 E Grand, LLC 415-554-8847 4. Project Location: 100 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of South San Francisco (“City”) approved the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”) in February 2015, following the City’s certification of an Environmental Impact Report (“DSASP EIR”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The DSASP EIR analyzed the impacts of 1,435 residential units, 511,780 square feet of commercial business space, 21,250 square feet of industrial space, 268,800 square feet of commercial retail space, and 1,185,000 square feet of office and research and development space. (DSASP, p. 3.9; Draft EIR, p. 3-13.) As of the date hereof, no office / R&D development contemplated under the DSASP has been approved and/or constructed pursuant to the DSASP. ARE-100 E Grand, LLC (“ARE”) ground leases an approximately 5.5 acre site located at 100 East Grand Avenue (the “Project Site”), within the DSASP Boundary. The Project Site is zoned Transit Office/R&D Core, which permits uses including offices and research and development (“R&D”) at a base floor area ratio (“FAR”) of 1.5 to 2.5, increasing up to 3.5 with an incentive program providing community benefits. ARE proposes to demolish the existing industrial buildings and improvements on the Project Site and develop an R&D campus with parking (the “Project”). The Project would include two new office/R&D buildings, A and B, and an 8-story parking structure with 782 parking spaces. Building A would be a 10- story office/R&D building of approximately 300,000 square feet with a café of approximately 8,800 square feet. Building B would be an 8-story office/R&D building of approximately 250,000 square feet. It is anticipated that the Project would consist of approximately 60 percent R&D laboratory uses and 40 percent office uses. It also would provide needed infrastructure improvements along Sylvester Road and East Grand Avenue to better incorporate more convenient circulation in the Eastern Neighborhood. ARE has applied for the following City approvals for the Project: • Design Review • TDM Plan • Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 249 2 • Conditional Use Permit for reduced parking The City is the Lead Agency for review of the proposed Project under CEQA and is responsible for determining whether any further environmental review of the Project is required by CEQA in connection with the current applications, and if so, for determining the scope of such review. CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 21155.4 OVERVIEW AND APPLICABILITY California Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 establishes a statutory exemption from CEQA review for “employment center” projects that meet specified requirements. Employment Center Project For purposes of this exemption, an “employment center project” is defined per California Public Resources Code Section 21099, subsection (a)(1), as a project located on a property zoned for commercial use with a FAR no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area. A transit priority area is defined per California Public Resources Code Section 21099, subsection (a), as “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon in a Transportation Improvement Plan or applicable regional transportation plan.” California Public Resources Code Section 20164.3 defines “major transit stop” to include an existing rail transit station. The Project is an “employment center project” because: the Property is zoned Transit Office/R&D Core, which permits commercial uses, including offices and research and development; the Project proposes an FAR of 2.5; and the Property is located within one- half mile of the City’s CalTrain station. Specific Plan Consistency California Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 requires that the project be consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified. The DSASP guides development in portions of the City within a 1/2-mile radius of the Caltrain Station. (DSASP, p. 1.1.) The City certified the EIR for the DSASP in 2014. As described below, the Project is consistent with the DSASP. DSASP EIR Development Capacity The DSASP EIR analyzed the impacts of 511,780 square feet of commercial business space, 21,250 square feet of industrial space, 268,800 square feet of commercial retail space, and 1,185,000 square feet of office and research and development space. (DSASP, p. 3.9; Draft EIR, p. 3-13.) As of the date hereof, no office / R&D development has been approved and/or constructed pursuant to the DSASP. The DSASP EIR concluded that implementation of the DSASP would have significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of air quality, cultural resources, noise, and traffic/transportation. All other impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. The Project would be within the development capacity analyzed in the DSASP EIR. DSASP Eastern Neighborhood Area The Project Site is within the “Eastern Neighborhood” designation of the DSASP, which is a “higher density area” for “[o]ffice and R&D uses,” two uses that are “most suitable here at significant densities.” 250 3 (DSASP, p. 2.8.) In addition, “large scale development [is] suitable here.” (Id.) The DSASP provides for the Eastern Neighborhood to increase development opportunities consistent with East of 101 trends, provide significant office/R&D employment opportunities in close proximity to Downtown and the Caltrain Station, and create a unique employment neighborhood based on the walkable development pattern of the Downtown. (DSASP, p. 2.8.) The Project is the type of large-scale and higher-density development that the DSASP envisions in the Eastern Neighborhood. The Project would provide significant office/R&D employment opportunities close to transit and Downtown. DSASP Land Use The DSASP designates the Eastern Neighborhood as an area “highly suitable . . . for high-density employment” including “a more urban, corporate office format[.]” (DSASP, p. 3.7.) Relevant guiding principles include: • Guiding Principle 10: Encourage high-density employment. • Guiding Principal 11: Enhance the few existing streets with a more fine-grained pattern of vehicular and bicycle/pedestrian routes to allow convenient circulation throughout the area. • Guiding Principle 12: Provide a direct connection from the planned pedestrian and bicycle underpass of the tracks through the northern part of the area along Grand Avenue to allow station drop-off and shuttle pick-ups as well as direct bicycle and pedestrian access to the station and to Downtown. • Guiding Principle 13: Allow retail uses along Grand Avenue to provide amenities for the office population and a strong visual and physical linkage to the Downtown to the west. The DSASP Land Use Plan designates the Property as “Transit Office/R&D Core.” (DSASP, Fig. 3.01.) This urban employment district is to be characterized by a “walkable street pattern” and “connect[ivity] to the Downtown[.]” (DSASP, p. 3.8.) Taller buildings are appropriate here, and the area lends itself to “corporate office, hotels, and other major facilities” due to its high visibility. (Id.) Development intensity is permitted from 1.5 to 2.5 FAR, but FAR of up to 3.5 is allowed with the provision of incentives. (Id.; DSASP, Table 3.01.) Guiding Principle 16 indicates that the Eastern Neighborhood street network should be improved to provide better vehicular connections and complete pedestrian and bicycle access. (DSASP, p. 3.18.) The DSASP also indicates that Sylvester Road will be improved to provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle access. (Id.; DSASP, Fig. 3.15.) Guiding Principles 25 and 26 require an improvement of sidewalks and adjoining open spaces to create attractive pedestrian environments as well as a street tree plan. (DSASP, p. 3.35.) Finally, Guiding Principle 24 requires new development to provide a significant amount of publicly accessible open space within the development concepts for new office, R&D, or supporting uses. (DSASP, p. 3.32.) The Project would be consistent with the DSASP land use designation and Guiding Principles. The proposed higher-density office/R&D development would provide the type of employment anticipated within the Eastern Neighborhood. It also would provide needed infrastructure improvements along Sylvester Road and East Grand Avenue to better incorporate more convenient circulation in the Eastern Neighborhood. In addition, the Project would activate over a third of the public-facing frontage along 251 4 East Grand Avenue with a café occupying the corner near the intersection with Sylvester Road that would provide amenities for the office population. This café, visible from the intersection, would help to activate the pedestrian frontage and create a linkage to Downtown. The office/R&D development proposed by the Project is consistent with the DSASP’s “Transit Office/R&D Core” Land Use Plan designation. In addition, the proposed eight and 10-story Project buildings are consistent with the plan for major corporate facilities and taller buildings due to the high visibility of the area. The proposed Project FAR would be within the maximum permitted base FAR of 2.5. The Project is consistent with the DSASP’s goals for an enhanced street network for better vehicular connections and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access along East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road. The café, lobby, and courtyard facing Sylvester Road and East Grand Avenue will be a convenient place for employees to gather en route to the Caltrain Station. A secure bicycle storage facility with lockers, showers, and changing facilities also will be located in Building A, accessed off of the central courtyard. The courtyard between Buildings A and B would serve as an attractive publicly-accessible open space area for pedestrians. DSASP Circulation Within the Eastern Neighborhood area, the DSASP describes East Grand Avenue as a “Main Street” and Sylvester Road as a “Major Vehicular Street”. (DSASP, pp. 4.2–4.3.) As a Main Street, East Grand Avenue would be the centerpiece of the Pedestrian Priority Zone prioritizing vehicle access for local businesses but also calming traffic through design features. (DSASP, p. 4.2.) As a Major Vehicular Street, Sylvester Road must be compatible with active nearby uses with wider sidewalks, transit improvements, or bicycle facilities where feasible. (DSASP, p. 4.2.) The Project would be consistent with the DSASP’s planned circulation updates for East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road and would provide needed infrastructure improvements along Sylvester Road (between East Grand Avenue and the proposed Access Road) to better incorporate more convenient circulation in the Eastern Neighborhood. The Project would provide better connections to the Caltrain Station and Downtown by providing a pedestrian crossing at East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road, provide an internal circulation route, have access for bike riders through the pedestrian sidewalks, and provide for a secure bicycle storage facility, showers, and changing facilities. DSASP Design Within the Eastern Neighborhood, the DSASP provides that block patterns should limit block lengths to 600 feet and where they exceed 300 feet provide mid-block pedestrian connections in the form of a pedestrian access way or a shared pedestrian/emergency/services path. (DSASP, p. 5.2.) New development is encouraged to provide useable open space, which should be visible and accessible from the street or other public way. (DSASP, p. 5.14.) The DSASP provides that building heights in the Eastern Neighborhood will be greatest in close proximity to the Caltrain Station. Generally, however, building heights in the Eastern Neighborhood area are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration. (DSASP, Fig. 5.02.) 252 5 DSASP Guiding Principle 49 requires buildings in the Eastern Neighborhood to have minimal setbacks and active ground floor uses to create an attractive pedestrian environment. (DSASP, p. 5.6.) In this way, new development will have a more urban and visually interesting character and will be located adjoining the public environment of streets and walkways. (Id.) The DSASP provides that buildings will be sited along streets and sidewalks and not behind landscaped front yards; on-site parking should be provided at the rear of the site, preferably in a structure, but screened from the street; parking access should be from minimum feasible curb cuts or from nearby lanes or side streets; architectural elements should be utilized to provide visual interest and variation on major facades; and active uses, such as lobbies, retail, conference rooms, or similar spaces, should be used on the ground floor to provide visual interest to pedestrians. (DSASP, p. 5.12.) In particular, parking structures should be located away from primary pedestrian walkways and create visual interest and reduction of mass through varied dimensions and proportions, and decorative elements. (DSASP, p. 5.17.) The Project would be consistent with the DSASP design principles. Under existing conditions, block length of the Project Site is approximately 457 feet East-to-West and 759 feet North-to-South. East-west access through the site is not possible due to the US 101 ROW bordering the entire west side of the Project Site. Due to safety, there can be no pedestrian access to that ROW nor a crossing from the northwest corner of the site to the west. The Project would result in construction of paved interior pathways and sidewalks accessible from East Grand Avenue, Sylvester Road, and Associated Road, breaking up the existing longer blocks around the Project perimeter and allowing for easy pedestrian and cyclist access to and movement through the Project site. The Project would also provide a visible courtyard in between Buildings A and B directly off of the sidewalk along Sylvester Road, allowing for mid-block pedestrian access to useable open space. Further, the Project would provide taller building heights near the Caltrain Station and be consistent with the applicable height regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Project buildings along Sylvester Road would have a zero-foot setback from the sidewalk, activating the environment for nearby pedestrians. There would be no sidewalk along E. Grand Avenue due to pedestrian safety concerns stemming from the Highway 101 offramp at the northwest corner of the Project site. However, the Project building along E. Grand Avenue would be set back approximately 34 feet from the curb to accommodate a utility easement and would be well landscaped to maintain an attractive environment in the area. Additionally, the current conditions of E. Grand Ave. prohibit safe pedestrian crossing at the uncontrolled intersection of E. Grand Ave. and the Hwy 101 off-ramp, and while improvements are planned for East Grand Avenue and the Hwy 101 off-ramp intersection as part of the City’s East Access Study, the final design and implementation timeframe is unknown at this time. To safely address the current condition, the project provides a service pathway to access building service areas and egress doors, and utilities within the right-of-way. Conceived in consultation with The City Planning Department, the pathway, along with an extensive landscape is designed to discourage pedestrians from walking towards the uncontrolled intersection, while maintaining an attractive street frontage. Should the outcomes of the East Access Study enable safe pedestrian crossing at the E. Grand/Hwy 101 off-ramp intersection, the Project frontage could accommodate the City’s sidewalk condition consistent with the DSASP. Additionally, the Project building has been designed to incorporate a future entrance directly onto E. Grand Avenue to further activate the street frontage. The Building A entrance, café, and lobby uses would activate the ground floor and would be visible from the East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road intersection. The Building B conference center, accessed from inside of the lobby, would be visible from Sylvester Road. The on-site parking structure would be located 253 6 near the rear of the Project Site, away from pedestrian walkways on Sylvester Road, and have access via two curb cuts. Architecture of the buildings will provide for variation and visual interest; and ground floor space will be activated with entrances, lobbies, café, conference center uses to provide visual interest from streets, sidewalks, and courtyard spaces. DSASP Utilities and Public Services The stormwater provisions of the DSASP require projects to implement best practice stormwater management and treatment improvements to support existing and new development; such improvements must meet or exceed state and regional requirements. (DSASP, pp. 6.2, 6.4.) The DSASP also requires inclusion of water-conserving features, irrigation, and other measures in new construction and also utilization of low water use, native, or other appropriate plantings. (DSASP, p. 6.7.) Regarding schools, police services, fire protection, and parks and recreation, the DSASP requires continued monitoring, and in certain instances funding, to ensure that adequate public services are maintained for the growth envisioned in the plan. (DSASP, pp. 6.8–6.11.) The DSASP also requires continued work with property owners in the Eastern Neighborhood to provide useable open spaces along East Grand Avenue, in dedicated parks or in publicly accessible portions of development sites. (DSASP, p. 6.11.) Consistent with the DSASP, the Project would implement stormwater management and treatment improvements best practices that would meet or exceed state and regional requirements. The Project also would include water-conserving features, irrigation, and appropriate plantings for water conservation. The Project would provide funding in the form of development impact fees to enhance and/or expand public services. The courtyard proposed by the Project allows for a publicly accessible portion of the development adjacent to the Sylvester Avenue pedestrian sidewalk. In sum, the Project is consistent with the DSASP and, as described herein, within the scope of the DSASP EIR. Consistency with Sustainable Communities Strategy California Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 requires that the project be consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specific for the project area in a sustainable communities strategy that the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) has determined will achieve greenhouse gas (“GHG”) reduction targets. On June 25, 2018, CARB issued Executive Order G- 18-047 accepting the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) and Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) finding that Plan Bay Area 2040 would achieve GHG reductions targets. On October 21, 2021, ABAG and MTC approved Plan Bay Area 2050, but it has not yet been approved by CARB. As shown in Tables 1 and 2 below, the Project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in both Plan Bay Area 2040 and Plan Bay Area 2050. Plan Bay Area 2040 concentrates development within transit priority areas and priority development areas. As noted above, the Project is located within a transit priority area. (Plan Bay Area 2040, Map 4.4.) Plan Bay Area 2050 concentrates development within growth geographies, which are areas used to guide 254 7 where growth in housing and jobs would be focused over the next 30 years. (Plan Bay Area 2050, p. 20.) The Property is within a Transit-Rich Area, a growth geography in which at least 50 percent of the area is within one-half mile of an existing rail station, a bus stop with peak service frequency of 15 minutes or less, or a planned rail station. (Plan Bay Area 2050, pp. 20, 21.) 255 8 Table 1. Consistency of Project with Plan Bay Area 2040 Category Strategy Project Consistency Climate Protection Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions Consistent. The Project would implement a TDM program and is designed to meet a target of 45 percent of peak hour trips being made by non-single occupant vehicle modes. The Project TDM program may include, but is not limited to, the following measures: • Infrastructure o Pick-up/drop-off zones adjacent to main entries of Buildings A & B o Intra-campus walkability o Pedestrian connections to both Downtown and Caltrain Station o Secure, indoor bike parking o Sufficient bicycle and auto parking o Designated parking and charging facilities for carpools, carshares, electric and accessible vans and vehicles o On-site amenities to support trip reduction, such as food service, health and wellness, and small meeting/social spaces • Programs and Services o Shuttles (to local ferries and BART) o Carpooling and vanpooling o Guaranteed ride home o Transit subsidies and/or pre-tax payroll programs o Mobile services that support trip reduction, such as food trucks and possibly pop-ups • Marketing and Information Regarding Project Site TDM Measures o Onboarding for new hires with information about all transportation options o Pre-move in planning and promotion with new tenants with presentations and demonstrations for employees o Ongoing marketing of programs on-site o Ongoing marketing of programs through tenant websites, e-communications o Annual promotional events for campus employees 256 9 • Leasing and Reporting o On-site employee transportation coordinator o Inclusion of TDM measures in leases o Annual survey o Annual reporting to City o Triennial reporting demonstrating TDM program efficacy or description of additional trip reduction measures to TDM ordinance Proximity to the newly designed and expanded Caltrain Station and pedestrian tunnel to Downtown and new residential development uniquely advantage the Project Site to benefit from the TDM program. This, in addition to the proximity of the Project to shuttle stops from BART and the emergence of e-scooters and e-bikes with longer ranges particularly from origins within Downtown with new housing, will reduce mobile source emissions from Project operations. Adequate Housing House the region’s population Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the proposed Project. Healthy and Safe Communities Reduce adverse health impacts Consistent. Furthermore, the Project would use Tier 4 construction equipment for the majority of Project construction activities, which reduces the health impact on the community. The Project’s location close to transit and the proposed TDM program would reduce the health impact from mobile sources. Project emergency generators would be subject to BAAQMD permitting and require compliance with applicable regulations. In addition, the project is located over 1,000 feet from the nearest residence and 2,000 feet from the nearest daycare. Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Direct development within urban footprint Consistent. The proposed Project is redevelopment of an underutilized site in the urban footprint. Equitable Access Decrease share of lower-income households’ budgets spent on housing and transportation Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the proposed Project. Increase share of affordable housing Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the proposed Project. Do not increase share of households at risk of displacement Consistent. The proposed Project would include the demolition of existing industrial buildings. The Project would not result in displacement of existing housing. 257 10 Economic Vitality Increase share of jobs accessible in congested conditions Consistent. The proposed Project would collocate jobs adjacent to Downtown, where more housing is being developed. Increase jobs in middle-wage industries Consistent. The proposed Project would add an approximately 9,000 square foot café, as well as providing a variety of maintenance, security, and property operation job opportunities, increasing middle-wage jobs. Reduce per-capita delay on freight network Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the proposed Project. Transportation System Effectiveness Increase non-auto mode share Consistent. The Project would develop office and R&D space near existing residential, office, commercial, and light manufacturing uses, reducing the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. The Project would also implement a TDM program that is designed to meet the target of 45 percent of peak hour trips being made by non-single occupant vehicle modes. See above for a summary of potential TDM measures. Reduce vehicle operating and maintenance costs due to pavement conditions Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project. Reduce per-rider transit delay due to aged infrastructure Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project. The Project would include improved intersections, shared use lanes, improved pedestrian connections and improved roadways within the project limits that would benefit transit. 258 11 Table 2. Consistency of Project with Plan Bay Area 2050 Category Strategy Project Consistency Housing Strategies Protect and Preserve Affordable Housing Further strengthen renter protections beyond state law Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as it would not develop housing. Preserve existing affordable housing Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project. The Project would include the demolition of existing industrial buildings. The Project would not result in displacement of existing housing. Spur Housing Production for Residents of All Income Levels Allow a greater mix of housing densities and types in Growth Geographies Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as the Project would not develop housing. Build adequate affordable housing to ensure homes for all Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as the Project would not develop housing. Integrate affordable housing into all major housing projects Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as the Project would not develop housing. Transform aging malls and office parks into neighborhoods Consistent. The Project would demolish aging industrial buildings and would better connect through infrastructure improvements the Project Site to Downtown. Create Inclusive Communities Provide targeted mortgage, rental and small business assistance to Equity Priority Communities Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as it requires Municipal action. Accelerate reuse of public and community-owned land for mixed-income housing Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as the Project does not utilize any public or community-owned land and it would not develop housing. Economic Strategies Improve Economic Mobility Implement a statewide universal basic income Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as it requires statewide action. Expand job training and incubator programs Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as it requires municipal action. 259 12 Invest in high-speed internet in underserved low-income communities Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as it requires municipal action. Shift the Location of Jobs Allow greater commercial densities in Growth Geographies Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as it requires municipal action. The proposed would increase office/R&D density on the Project Site, which is within a Growth Geography. Provide incentives to employers to shift jobs to housing-rich areas well served by transit Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project; however, the proposed Project would co-locate jobs in proximity to the Caltrain Station and Downtown, where new housing is being built. Retain and invest in key industrial lands Consistent. The Project would develop R&D uses on land designated for such use. Transportation Strategies Maintain and Optimize the Existing System Restore, operate and maintain the existing system Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project. However, the Project would include improved intersections, shared use lanes, improved pedestrian connections and improved roadways within the project limits that would benefit roadways, pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems. Support community-led transportation enhancements in Equity Priority Communities. Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the proposed Project. However, the Project would include improved intersections, shared use lanes, improved pedestrian connections and improved roadways within the project limits that would enhance transportation in the community. Enable a seamless mobility experience Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as it requires coordination among the regions existing transit agencies. 260 13 Reform regional transit fare policy Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as it requires coordination among the regions existing transit agencies. Implement per-mile tolling on congested freeways with transit alternatives Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as it requires regional/Caltrans action. Improve interchanges and address highway bottlenecks Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project. The Project would implement TDM programs and would include improved intersections, shared use lanes, improved pedestrian connections and improved roadways within the project limits that would benefit transportation and decrease single-occupancy commuter vehicles. Advance other regional programs and local priorities Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the proposed Project. The Project would include improved intersections, shared use lanes, improved pedestrian connections and improved roadways within the project limits, which would help fulfill local transportation priorities. Create Healthy and Safe Streets Build a Complete Streets network Consistent. The proposed Project would enhance streets to promote walking, biking, and other micro-mobility by improving biking and walking networks and providing bicycle amenities. Advance regional Vision Zero policy through street design and reduced speeds Consistent. The Project would comply with City of South San Francisco requirements in support of Vision Zero. Build a Next-Generation Transit Network Enhance local transit frequency, capacity and reliability Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the proposed Project; however, the project will participate in the existing County run shuttles as well as the areawide East 101 District Shuttle program operated by Genentech and funded by private developments in the area. 261 14 Expand and modernize the regional rail network Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as it requires regional and state level action. Build an integrated regional express lanes and express bus network Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the proposed Project as it requires regional and Caltrans action. Environmental Strategies Reduce Risks from Hazards Adapt to sea level rise Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the proposed Project as it requires regional and municipal action. As part of the Project design, building finished floor elevations would meet City of South San Francisco code. Provide means-based financial support to retrofit existing residential buildings Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as the Project does not include retrofit of any existing buildings. Fund energy upgrades to enable carbon neutrality in all existing commercial and public buildings Not applicable. The Project is new construction and would not convert any existing buildings. The Project would replace older, less efficient buildings with new efficient buildings. Expand Access to Parks and Open Space Maintain urban growth boundaries Consistent. The Project would be constructed within an incorporated city on a site currently developed with urban uses. Protect and manage high-value conservation lands Not applicable. This action is not directly applicable to the Project as the Project is not located in high-value conservation lands. Modernize and expand parks, trails and recreation facilities Consistent. The Project would include a publicly accessible open space for employees, visitors, and the surrounding neighborhood. Reduce Climate Emissions Expand commute trip reduction programs at major employers Consistent. The Project would implement trip reduction programs as part of the TDM program. See above regarding potential TDM measures. Expand clean vehicle initiatives Consistent. The Project would provide designated parking and charging facilities for electric vehicles. 262 15 Expand transportation demand management initiatives Consistent. The proposed Project would implement TDM programs that is designed to meet a target of 45 percent alternative mode usage. 263 16 Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21155.4, further environmental review of projects that meet the foregoing statutory criteria is required only if any of the events specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 have occurred. Public Resources Code Section 21166 requires further environmental review when: • Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the EIR; • Substantial changes occur in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR; or • New information becomes available that was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 further clarify the implementation of Public Resources Code Section 21166. Guidelines Section 15162 establishes that a subsequent EIR is not required unless: • Substantial changes are proposed in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new or substantially more severe environmental impacts; • Substantial changes occur in the circumstances under which the project us undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new or substantially more severe environmental impacts; or • New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified shows: o The project will have new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. o Mitigation measures or alternatives that (i) previously were found infeasible are in fact feasible or (ii) are considerably different that those identified in the EIR, would substantially reduce environmental impacts, but the project proponent declines to adopt them. The California Supreme Court explained these limits on redundant subsequent CEQA review in Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937, 950: Once a project has been subject to environmental review and received approval, Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines 15162 limit the circumstances under which a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared. These limitations are designed to balance CEQA’s central purpose of promoting consideration of the environmental consequences of public decisions with interests of finality and efficiency. USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166 WITH THE DSASP EIR As noted above, the City is required to evaluate the Project under Public Resources Code Section 21166 with respect to the DSASP EIR. This environmental consistency checklist (“Checklist”) uses the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist modified for use in the context of Public Resources Code Section 21166. In other words, the Checklist addresses each of the Appendix G topic areas, but instead of asking whether there would be impacts in the first instance, the Checklist asks whether there would be new or substantially more severe impacts, or mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce impacts, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Guidelines Section 15162. ANALYSIS 264 17 The information and analysis presented in the accompanying Checklist demonstrates that no further environmental review is required for the Project because it is within the scope of the DSASP EIR and none of the events specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred since the certification of the DSASP EIR. 265 18 Aesthetics Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternatives that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Aesthetics - Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No No No N/A No b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No No No N/A No c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No No No N/A No d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No No No N/A No Discussion: SB 743, enacted in 2013, added Chapter 2.7 to the Public Resources Code and exempts from environmental consideration aesthetic impacts of an employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area. Because the Project is an employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area, aesthetic impacts of the Project are not considered significant impacts, and the discussion of aesthetics that follows is for informational purposes only. 266 19 The DSASP EIR indicated that the study area does not include any panoramic view of scenic resources and that implementation of the DSASP would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.1-9–10.) Implementation of the proposed DSASP project would not substantially damage scenic resources, the impact for which would be less than significant with no mitigation required. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.1-10.) Further, implementation of the DSASP would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.1-13.) No new sources of substantial light or glare would result from implementation of the DSASP and no further analysis was required in the EIR. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.1-8.) Cumulative impacts on scenic vistas and scenic vistas within a state scenic highway and visual character and quality all would be less than significant. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.1-13–14.) Analysis of the Project The Project proposes building heights—8 to 10 stories—that are consistent with DSASP land use designations applicable to the Project Site. Consistent with the conclusions of the DSASP EIR, implementation of the DSASP through the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. As anticipated by the DSASP EIR, the Project would have the potential to include sources of light and glare, such as security lighting or new glass panels on building structures. The Project would replace existing buildings that also include lighting and glass. The surrounding area, however, currently is developed with similar land uses. The Project, therefore, would not result in a substantial net increase in nighttime lighting or daytime glare sources. In addition, the City Municipal Code includes multiple building and construction regulations and zoning requirements intended to minimize localized light and glare impacts. (See e.g., SSFMC § 20.300.010.G.) The Project would comply with the DSASP Performance Standards, which require that all new pedestrian light fixtures be designed to focus light onto sidewalks and to minimize light spillover into adjacent upper level building windows or into the night sky. The Project therefore will not have any adverse impacts on scenic views, will not degrade scenic resources, and will not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, the Project would not adversely affect the visual quality and aesthetics of the Project Site. The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR analysis and would not result in any aesthetic impacts not analyzed in the DSASP EIR. Given that the Project would remain consistent with all established City standards and will adhere to established restrictions, guidelines, standards, policies, and criteria, the Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic resources as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce aesthetics impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to aesthetics exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 267 20 Agricultural Resources Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstanc es that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alter natives that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No No No N/A No b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No No No N/A No 268 21 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No No No N/A No d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No No No N/A No e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR indicated that the environmental impacts related to agricultural resources were not considered significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 1-2.) The DSASP EIR study area is located in an urbanized area of San Mateo County and is currently developed with commercial, industrial, and residential uses. (DSASP EIR, p. 5-1.) The DSASP EIR indicated that the area has not been designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; no agricultural uses or related operations are present in the study area or its vicinity; and that the area is not zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the DSASP EIR found that there would be no impact on agricultural resources as a result of implementation of the DSASP. Analysis of the Project The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR’s analysis. The Project will be constructed on a Project Site that is currently developed with and surrounded by industrial uses. As such, the Project would not result in any agricultural resources impacts. The Project also would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to agricultural resources as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to the DSASP EIR, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce agricultural resources impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information 269 22 related to agricultural resources exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. Air Quality Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternatives that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No No No N/A No b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? No No No Yes No c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No No No Yes No d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people? No No No Yes No Discussion: The DSASP EIR indicated that implementation of the DSASP has the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-12.) Although implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-2 would reduce this impact, it would not be reduced to a 270 23 less-than-significant level. MM4.2-2 requires project-specific implementation of recommended BAAQMD operational mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significance criteria. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-21.) The recommended measures include, but are not limited to, increasing on-street parking fees; daily parking charges for employees; providing a parking “cash-out” incentive for employees who use alternative transportation to commute; providing subsidized or free transit passes to employees; encouraging alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuting; and providing a ridesharing program. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.2-21–22.) Notwithstanding this mitigation measure, the DSASP EIR concluded that, this impact would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.2-14–15.) The DSASP EIR found that implementation of the DSASP would result in construction air pollutant emissions. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-16.) The DSASP EIR’s estimate of construction emissions indicated that development allowed under the proposed project would result in significant emissions of ROGs and NOx during construction and that a potentially significant impact would occur. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-17.) Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-1 has the potential to reduce construction emissions. MM4.2-1 requires implementation of the BAAQMD Basic and Additional Construction Mitigation Measures as necessary for individual projects to reduce construction emissions to below significance thresholds. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-17.) The recommended measures include, but are not limited to, watering for dust control, limiting onsite speeds, requiring low-VOC coatings, and using construction equipment and trucks with Best Available Control Technology for NOx and PM. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-18.) Implementation of the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures would reduce construction emissions of ROG but not NOx to below significance criteria. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation, construction emissions would be a significant and unavoidable impact. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-22.) The DSASP EIR found that implementation of the DSASP would result in operational air pollutant emissions from area and vehicular sources. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.2-16, -18.) Area sources of air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project include fuel combustion emissions from space and water heating, fuel combustion from landscape maintenance equipment, and ROG emissions from periodic repainting of interior and exterior surfaces. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.2-19–20.) Implementation of the DSASP would not result in significant ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, and PM2.5 emissions because emissions of NOx and CO would be reduced at the planning horizon of the plan compared to existing conditions, and emissions of ROG and PM2.5 would not exceed the significant thresholds. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-20.) The DSAP EIR found that implementation of the DSASP would result in a level of PM10 emissions that would exceed the significance thresholds. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.2-20–21.) Mitigation measure MM4.2-2 requires compliance with BAAQMD operational mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significant criteria. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-22.) Even with implementation of MM4.2-2, however, the DSASP EIR concluded that operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable impacts since the mitigation measure cannot guarantee that emissions would be lessened to below a significance level. (Id.) In addition, implementation of the DSASP would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution with respect to conflicts with air quality plans since the proposed project has the potential to hinder implementation of the Clean Air Plan. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-28.) Also, the construction and operation of the DSASP has the potential to exceed significance criteria for criteria pollutants; therefore, the DSASP would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a potentially significant cumulative impact associated with criteria pollutants. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-29.) The DSASP, in combination with other cumulative projects in the region, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact associated with sensitive receptors. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.2-29–30.) Finally, the DSASP, in combination with other 271 24 cumulative projects, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact associated with objectional odors. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-30.) The DSASP EIR also found that implementation of the DSASP would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-22.) Although considered a potentially significant impact, implementation of mitigation measures MM4.2-3 and MM4.2-4 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-24–25.) Mitigation measures MM4.2-3 requires health risk assessments for development of projects that would introduce new sensitive receptors in the study area within the siting distance for certain uses. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-25.) Mitigation measure MM4.2-4 requires health risk assessments before approval of any project that includes potential sources of TAC emissions that are not subject to a BAAQMD permit and in close proximity to a sensitive receptor. The Project would not result in the siting of new sensitive land uses in close proximity to TAC sources and does not include potential sources of TAC emissions that are not subject to a BAAQMD permit and in close proximity to a sensitive receptor (the Project is located over 1,000 feet from the nearest existing sensitive receptor). Therefore, an HRA is not required. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-26.) Finally, implementation of the DSASP would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-27–28.) This is considered a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-6 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (Id.) Mitigation measure MM4.2-6 would require the demonstration of implementation of best management practices to minimize odors before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new industrial land uses identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a typical source of odors. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-28.) Analysis of the Project The Project is consistent with the analysis in the DSASP EIR. Since the circulation of the DSASP EIR, BAAQMD has adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan (“CAP”), which updates the 2010 CAP. As with the 2010 CAP, the 2017 CAP is designed to limit emissions of reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere. Consistency with the CAP can be determined if a project: 1) supports the goals of the CAP; 2) includes applicable control measures from the CAP; and 3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the CAP. The primary goals of the CAP are to: attain air quality standards; reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and reduce GHG emissions and protect climate. The control strategies of the CAP include measures in the following categories: stationary source measures, transportation measures, energy measures, building measures, agricultural measures, natural and working lands measures, waste management measures, water measures, and super-GHG pollutants measures. Construction of the Project would comply with mitigation measures MM4.2-1 and MM4.2-2 contained in the DSASP EIR. Further, construction technologies have improved and regulations for construction equipment emissions have become more stringent since 2014, so construction-related equipment emissions would likely be less than those disclosed in the DSASP EIR. In addition, operational mobile source impacts would be reduced through implementation of a TDM program, which, as discussed in the transportation impacts analysis in this Checklist, has been highly successful in nearby developments reducing trips. Even with these mitigation measures, however, it is anticipated that the Project would exceed BAAQMD thresholds for operational and construction emissions, and as a result would be inconsistent with the 2017 CAP, resulting in the same significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the DSASP EIR with respect to inconsistency with the CAP’s goals and operational and construction air quality emissions. 272 25 The Project does not include uses that would emit substantial pollutant concentrations that would significantly impact sensitive receptors. New diesel emergency back-up generators for the office/R&D buildings will be required as a safety requirement and to provide backup power for laboratories. These generators would be required to obtain permits from BAAQMD and to comply with applicable regulations. Because the operation of such generators is expected to be limited to emergencies, emissions of criteria air pollutants from anticipated Project emergency generator operations are expected to be minimal and regulated by the BAAQMD. The DSASP EIR concludes that emissions sources that require a BAAQMD permit would not result in a substantial increase in risk of exposure to TAC emissions. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-24.) Thus, the Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR’s conclusions and it would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. R&D uses in the Project would not emit objectionable odors and would conform to all applicable air quality regulations. Thus, the Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR’s conclusions that operational odor impacts would be less than significant. Further, because the Project will conform to an aggressive TDM program that will substantially reduce vehicle trips, the Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to air quality. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR’s conclusion regarding a potentially significant cumulative impact associated with criteria pollutants. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.2-29.) The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce air quality impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to air quality exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 273 26 Biological Resources Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternati ves that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No No No N/A No b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No No No N/A No c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No No No N/A No 274 27 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No No No N/A No e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No No No N/A No f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR indicated that the environmental impacts related to biological resources were not considered significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 1-2.) The DSASP EIR indicated that the study area is currently developed with residential, commercial, and office uses, and that there are no large open spaces in the project area. (DSASP EIR, p. 5-1.) The study area is not located in an area that supports biological resources. (Id.) Construction and development associated with implementation of the DSASP EIR would not occur within an area containing habitat that supports biological resources. (DSASP EIR, p. 5-2.) Further, there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat plan that is applicable to the study area. (Id.) The DSASP EIR indicated that landscaping vegetation within the study area could provide potential nesting habitat for migrating birds, but that access to and use of native wildlife nursery sites would not be substantially interrupted by the proposed project. (DSASP EIR, p. 5-2.) Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR’s analysis. The Project will be constructed on a Project Site that is currently developed with and surrounded by industrial uses. Further, for any trees that are planned to be removed for Project development, the Project will comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”), Ch. 13.30) with respect to the existing landscaping trees that must be removed to allow for the Project. Tree and vegetation removal is not expected to occur as part of the Project. However, any tree or vegetation removal that might occur will be completed in compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”), Ch. 13.30) and California Fish and Game Code provisions (including sections 3503, 275 28 3513, and/or 3800) protective of nesting birds. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR’s conclusion that access to and use of native wildlife nursey sites will not be substantially interrupted. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in any biological resources impacts that were not previously analyzed, and would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to biological resources as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Proposed Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce biological resources impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to biological resources exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 276 29 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternatives that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? CULTURAL RESOURCES/TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Guidelines § 15064.5? No No No Yes No b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Guidelines § 15064.5? No No No Yes No c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No No No N/A No 277 30 d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR indicated that implementation of the DSASP could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Guidelines Section 15064.5. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.3-11.) Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-1 would require a qualified professional to conduct site-specific historical resource evaluations for future developments within the study area that would demolish or otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 45 years old or older or would otherwise affect their historic setting. (Id.) This impact would remain significant due to the potential for future physical demolition of a historical resource. (Id.) Development projects under the DSASP are required through mitigation measures MM4.3-2 through MM4.3-4, if applicable, to conduct preconstruction surveys of previously undisturbed soils, to retain an archaeologist to document any cultural resources within the development area; require that earth-moving activities be halted if an archaeological resource is discovered; and require that all construction personnel 278 31 receive environmental awareness training. (DSASP, p. 4.3-13.) Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. (Id.) Compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would protect unknown and previously unidentified human remains, and impacts related to unknown human remains would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.3-15.) Finally, the DSASP EIR does not identify any significant tribal cultural resources within the DSASP area. Analysis of Project The Project will be constructed on a portion of the Project Site that is currently developed. Before development of the existing 100 East Grand Avenue building, the Project Site was developed with surface parking, access roads, and industrial uses, and so was already a disturbed site. The area thus is developed and has been disturbed through multiple stages of development. The existing buildings on the Project Site are more than 50 years old. Consistent with DSASP mitigation measure MM4.3-1, the applicant retained a historic resource professional to conduct a site-specific historical resource evaluation of the existing buildings on the Project Site (Attachment A to this analysis). The historic resource professional confirmed that the existing buildings are not historic and that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. In addition, the Project will implement MM4.3-3 and MM4.3-4, which require that earth-moving activities be halted if an archeological resource is discovered and that all construction personnel receive environmental awareness training. Regarding tribal cultural resources, there are no known tribal cultural resources beyond what is anticipated as an archeological resource; therefore, impacts on any unknown tribal cultural resources would be equally reduced to less than significant by implementing the mitigation measures for unknown archeological resources introduced above. As such, the Project would not result in any cultural, historical, or tribal resources impacts that were not previously analyzed, and would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to cultural, historical, or tribal resources as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. In the event a cultural or historical resource is discovered during Project construction, compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) and Guidelines Section 15126.4(c) will be implemented, which require avoidance of the resource, preservation of the resource in place, or, if preservation in place is not feasible, the excavation and analysis of the “scientifically consequential information from or about the resource.” Regarding tribal resources, compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) would help the City, in coordination with a California Native American tribe, better understand and analyze whether a resource should be listed as a historical resource, and whether any impacts to that resource would be significant. Compliance with existing laws regarding impacts to cultural or tribal resources will ensure that impacts remain less than significant. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce cultural resources or tribal cultural resources impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to cultural resources or tribal cultural resources exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 279 32 Energy Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternati ves that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? ENERGY - Would the Project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? No No No Yes No b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No No No Yes No Discussion: The DSASP EIR found that the DSASP is consistent with the City’s General Plan Public Facilities Element because, although future development under the DSASP could include the expansion of energy infrastructure, electricity demand generated by future development projects could be supplied without the need for additional construction or expansion of energy facilities beyond that which was previously planned. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-52.) Therefore, DSASP EIR found that the DSASPwould not conflict with the applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the City’s General Plan Public Facilities Element. The DSASP EIR stated that implementation of the DSASP would not require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact. (DSASP EIR, 4.11-53–54.) Even though the DSASP would increase the use of electricity within the study area, the DSASP would also be required to comply with the energy conservation measures contained in Title 24, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for the operation of any buildings constructed as part of the Specific Plan. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.11-53–54.) Electricity and natural gas are currently provided to the project site by PG&E. South San Francisco also has partnered with Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), a Community Choice Aggregation, which allows the purchase of electricity from renewable sources through PG&E infrastructure. PG&E confirmed that existing energy supplies and infrastructure would be adequate to serve the DSASP. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-54.) In addition, the natural gas demand projected for the DSASP would not exceed available or planned supply, and new infrastructure for natural gas would not be required to serve the study area. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-55.) Finally, cumulative energy impacts would be less than significant since PG&E is able to meet future projected demands, and an action plan has been identified to address energy issues on a broader scale. 280 33 (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-55–56.) Also, the cumulative impact related to the supply of natural gas and to the need for additional or expanded facilities is less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 5.11-56.) Analysis of Project The Project would have an incremental increase in the demand on utilities and services, such as nonrenewable energy resources, for construction and operation of the Project. The Project Site’s current building and other buildings in the vicinity are being served by existing utility capacities. Further, PG&E infrastructure already is present on the Project Site. The Project Site is already subject to all applicable federal, state, and local energy standards and efficiency regulations. In addition, because the Project is both within the DSASP EIR plan area boundary and within development assumed by the DSASP EIR, Project demand would be within what was projected for the DSASP EIR. The Project would not result in a new or substantially increased significant impact with respect to energy consumption. Although the Project would be anticipated to generate some additional energy demand, the Project would continue to be consistent with all applicable energy standards. Buildings anticipated when the DSASP EIR was adopted in 2014 would have been constructed under the 2013 version of Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards). There have since been two updates, with each update resulting in more energy efficient buildings. The California Energy Commission estimated that non-residential buildings constructed to meet the 2019 Title 24 standards would use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades compared to buildings constructed to meet 2016 Title 24, and likely even more energy savings compared to the 2013 Title 24 standards assumed in the DSASP EIR analysis. (See https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf.) In addition, the Project is proposed to meet the standards for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) Gold certification, which encourages the construction of energy and resource-efficient buildings. In sum, the Project would achieve efficient energy usage through compliance with revised Title 24 requirements, LEED Gold standards, and energy efficiency design features. Therefore, the Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Further, due to the Project Site’s proximity to the Caltrain station and that the Project would implement a TDM program, the Project would not increase transportation energy use from employees or other visitors to the Project Site and may actually reduce vehicle trips relative to existing uses on the Site. Because the Project is being developed in an urban area that is already served by existing utilities and transit services, and that the Project would be developed to achieve efficient energy usage, the Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to energy. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce energy impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to energy demand exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 281 34 Geology and Soils Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternati ves that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the Project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No No No N/A No i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No No No N/A No ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No No No N/A No iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No No No N/A No iv) Landslides? No No No N/A No b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No No No N/A No c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No No No N/A No d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No No No N/A No 282 35 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No No No N/A No f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR determined that there would be a less-than-significant impact on geology and soils as a result of implementation of the proposed project. (DSASP EIR, pp. 1-2, 5-4.) No known active or potentially active faults traverse the study area and the study area is not subject to a substantial risk of surface fault ruptures. (DSASP EIR, p. 5-2.) Despite this, portions of the study area are located in areas potentially subject to extremely high or very high levels of ground shaking. (DSASP EIR, p. 5-3.) The structural design of any proposed buildings must adhere to state and City building code standards, such as the California Building Code (“CBC”), which defines minimum acceptable levels of risk and safety. (Id.) In addition, all construction activities would comply with CBC Chapter 18, regulating grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. (Id.) Development would also be required to comply with a NPDES general permit for construction activities, requiring construction site erosion and sedimentation control best management practices to be implemented. (Id.) Finally, the DSASP EIR found that implementation of the DSASP could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, which is considered a potentially significant impact. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.3-14.) The DSASP EIR found that implementation of mitigation measures MM4.3-5 and MM4.3-6 would reduce this impact to less than significant. (Id.) Mitigation measure MM4.3-5 requires a project applicant to retain a professional paleontologist to determine if the project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature before any earth-disturbing activities that could encounter undisturbed soils. (Id.) Mitigation measure MM4.3-6 requires construction to stop within 100 feet of the find and notification of the City should paleontological resources or unique geologic features be identified at a particular site during project construction. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.3-15.) Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR analysis. The Project would continue to comply with California Building Code standards and the recommendations of a Geotechnical Engineer and would conform to structural design plans. With respect to paleontological resources or unique geologic features, implementation of mitigation measures MM4.3-5 and MM4.3-6, which require the retaining of a professional paleontologist to determine if the Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature and the ceasing of construction activities if such paleontological resources or unique geologic features are identified at the site during construction, respectively, would reduce this impact to less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.3-14.) The Project will implement mitigation measures MM4.3-5 and MM4.3-6. With respect to cumulative geology and soils impacts, the Project would be one of numerous sites anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment 283 36 in the vicinity and would contribute to a cumulative increase in sites facing these impacts. However, each new development, including the Project, must comply with state, regional, and local laws concerning erosion control and storm water pollution. As such, the Project-specific contribution would be reduced through applicable measures and would be less than cumulatively considerable. The Proposed Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce geology and soils impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to geology and soils exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 284 37 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternatives that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? No No No Yes No b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No No No Yes No Discussion: The DSASP EIR determined that construction emissions within the study area are not cumulatively considerable if development incorporates the BAAQMD recommended BMPs and is consistent with the General Plan policies and the City’s Climate Action Plan (“City CAP”) policies regarding construction. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.4-20.) The City CAP demonstrates how the City will reduce GHG emissions in conjunction with other State requirements. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.4-17.) In addition, the DSASP EIR noted that the City CAP is more stringent than BAAQMD thresholds, and if a project was able to meet the City CAP requirements, the project will not hinder the region’s ability to meet AB 32 goals. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.4-21.) Regarding cumulative construction impacts, the DSASP EIR states that implementation of the General Plan and City CAP policies, along with mitigation measure MM4.4-1, which requires incorporation of most recent BMPs for GHGs as indicated by BAAQMD, would reduce the impact to less than cumulatively significant level. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.4-22–23.) In addition, incorporation of the General Plan and City CAP policies would reduce the generation of waste from construction activities and reduce the emission of GHGs associated with waste disposal and decomposition. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.4-23.) Regarding cumulative operational impacts, the DSASP EIR concluded that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed DSASP emissions would meet the City CAP threshold of 3.08 MT CO2e per service population by 2035. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.4-24.) MM4.4-2 through MM4.4-10 concerns expanding public and private transit programs, smart parking policies, expansion of alternative-fuel vehicles, reducing emissions of off-road vehicles, maximizing energy efficient in built environment through standards and the plan review process, addressing heat island issues, promoting energy information sharing and education, energy reduction, and water reduction, respectively. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.4-24–26.) With implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-2 through MM4.4-10, this cumulative impact would be less than significant. (Id.) 285 38 Moreover, the DSASP EIR indicated that VMT generated under the DSASP could further or hinder the region’s ability to achieve SB 375 targets. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.4-26.) With implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-1 through MM4.4-10, however, this potentially significant cumulative impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.4-27.) Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with the analysis in the DSASP EIR. The Project will incorporate the BAAQMD recommended BMPs, would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and City CAP policies regarding construction, and will implement mitigation measures MM4.4-1 through MM4.4-10, which incorporate the applicable measures from the City CAP, to reduce any GHG impacts anticipated from implementation of the Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. The Proposed Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce air quality impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to air quality exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 286 39 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstanc es that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Informatio n Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternativ es that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No No No N/A No b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No No No N/A No c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No No No N/A No d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No No No N/A No 287 40 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No No No N/A No f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No No No N/A No g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR concluded that there would be no impact with regard to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of implementation of the DSASP. (DSASP EIR, pp. 1-2, 5-6.) Particularly, safety procedures for the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials are mandated by the federal, state, and local laws and regulations (including RCRA and the California Waste Control Law), and principles prescribed by the US Department of Homeland Security and Cal OSHA. These safety procedures, laws, regulations, and principles would reduce the risks to employees, visitors, or the nearby public resulting from the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials to less-than-significant levels. (DSASP EIR, p. 5-4.) As described in the DSASP EIR, there are several open and closed hazardous materials cases within the DSASP area. The DSASP EIR concluded that redevelopment and development activities would be required to comply with all applicable regulations for remediation of hazards, and that compliance with those legal requirements would reduce related impacts to less-than-significant levels. (DSASP EIR at p. 5-5.) The study area is located approximately 0.75 mile north of the San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”). The study area is located outside of all airport Safety Compatibility Zones; however, the study area is located within Airport Influence Area B of SFO and is subject to FAA notification requirements. (DSASP EIR, p. 5-5.) 288 41 Finally, the study area is currently urbanized and intensified development would not introduce new land uses to the study area that would physically interfere with emergency response. (Id.) Analysis of the Project The Project is consistent with the analysis in the DSASP EIR. Excavation and earth moving work for the Project would comply with Cal-EPA, Cal/OSHA, and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, as applicable, and with dust suppression and other procedures as required by applicable laws and regulations. There is no current environmental agency oversight for the 100 E Grand portion of the Project site. Previous environmental investigations at 105 Associated Road identified Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil vapor and shallow groundwater, primarily on the northeastern side of 105 Associated Road and beneath the northeastern portion of the building at 105 Associated Road. The contamination likely resulted from historical incidental surficial releases of chemicals related to former on-site operations and improper storage of chemicals by occupants and/or the adjacent business operations. 105 Associated Road is under a voluntary oversight agreement with the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH), and in 2017 a soil vapor extraction system was installed underneath the building at 105 Associated Road to mitigate potential vapor intrusion concerns. Soil characteristics and relatively low groundwater concentrations indicate that active groundwater remediation is not warranted (and would be unlikely to be effective). The extent of VOCs has been characterized, vapor intrusion measures appear to appropriately protect occupants at 105 Associated Road, and no active remediation is warranted under the current land use. Aside from routine monitoring, SMCDEH has no other requests for investigation or remediation at the site under the current land use. 105 Associated Road will remain under the jurisdiction of SMCDEH pursuant to the voluntary oversight agreement with the agency, and the applicant would be required to comply with any regulatory orders or requirements imposed by SMCDEH related to hazard remediation. Therefore, consistent with the analysis in the DSASP EIR, the project would be required to comply with regulatory requirements related to hazard remediation that would address any potential impacts related to soil and groundwater contamination. With respect to airport-related safety hazard, the Project Site is located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport but is outside of all airport Safety Compatibility Zones. The DSASP area is located within Airport Influence Area B and is subject to Federal Aviation Administration notification requirements. (See SFO ALUCP, Exhibit IV 10.) Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project vicinity, consistent with the analysis of the DSASP EIR. The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the DSASP and found it consistent with the ALUCP. Because the Project is consistent with the DSASP, further Airport Land Use Commission review is not required. With respect to cumulative hazardous impacts, the Project would be one of numerous sites in the vicinity that are anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment and would contribute to a cumulative increase in the number of sites that could include handling of hazardous materials. However, each new development, including the Project, must comply with state, regional, and local laws concerning hazardous materials. As the Project will not handle or use any hazardous substances (other than ordinary office supplies and cleaning products) and will comply with all applicable laws pertaining to hazardous substances and hazard remediation, the Project-specific contribution to the cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable. 289 42 The Proposed Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce hazards and hazardous materials impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to hazards and hazardous materials exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 290 43 Hydrology and Water Quality Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantiall y More Severe Impacts? New Circumstanc es that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Informatio n Indicating New or Substantiall y More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternativ es that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No No No N/A No b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No No No N/A No c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: No No No N/A No i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; No No No N/A No ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would No No No N/A No 291 44 result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or No No No N/A No iv) impede or redirect flood flows? No No No N/A No d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No No No N/A No e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR concluded that there would be a less-than-significant impact on hydrology and water quality as a result of implementation of the proposed project. (DSASP EIR, pp. 1-2, 5-7.) Redevelopment under the DSASP would require new drainage structures and localized on-site storm drain systems. No additional stormwater would need to be accommodated in existing stormwater drainage facilities since no additional stormwater runoff would be created. (DSASP EIR, p. 5-6.) The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. (Id.) Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR’s analysis. The existing Project Site consists of primarily impervious surfaces. The Project would be developed on an impervious portion of the Project Site that is developed and would not result in an increase in impervious surface. Given that the Project Site has been previously developed, the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge as a result of increased impervious surfaces and would not substantially decrease the amount of rainwater recharged to the groundwater at the Project Site. The Project would not alter drainage patterns at the Project Site and the runoff from the Project can be accommodated by the existing system. The Project will continue to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements intended to protect water quality. The Project will implement water quality Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) for stormwater runoff and also would implement the Project 292 45 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) pursuant to the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (“NPDES”), as required by law. The Project would not result in any hydrology and water quality impacts that were not previously analyzed, and would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce hydrology and water quality impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to hydrology and water quality exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 293 46 Land Use and Planning Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantiall y More Severe Impacts? New Circumstanc es that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Informatio n Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternativ es that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Land Use and Planning - Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? No No No N/A No b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR found that the DSASP does not include barriers or changes to the circulation system that would physically divide an existing neighborhood, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact related to physically dividing an established community, and no further analysis of the issue was required. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.5-10.) The DSASP EIR also found that the DSASP is not subject to any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (Id.) Although implementation of the DSASP entailed adopting new standards and permitting land uses not previously allowed within the study area, the DSASP would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.5-11.) Regarding cumulative impacts, the DSASP EIR found that the DSASP would be consistent with the broad vision and policies of the City General Plan, the City Zoning Ordinance, and the community vision for the Downtown area. Therefore, there would be no conflicts with adopted plans and policies resulting from future development within the study area as a result of the DSASP and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. 294 47 Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with the analysis under the DSASP EIR. The Project remains consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The density of development of the Project is less than the maximum FAR allowed on the Project Site. The Project would not result in any land use or planning impacts not analyzed in the DSASP EIR. The Project would not result in physically dividing an established community, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to land use as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce land use and planning impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to land use and planning exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 295 48 Mineral Resources Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternati ves that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Mineral Resources - Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No No No N/A No b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR concluded that the study area is not known to have any mineral resources that may be of value to the region or the state, including as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. (DSASP EIR, p. 5-7.) Therefore, no impact on mineral resources would occur, and further analysis is not required. (Id.) Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR analysis. The Project will be constructed on a portion of the Project Site that is currently developed. As noted above, no mineral resources of value have been identified at the Project Site and the Project Site has not been identified as a locally important mineral recovery site. As such, the Project would not result in any mineral resources impacts not previously analyzed, and would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to mineral resources as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce mineral resources impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to mineral resources exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 296 49 Noise Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantiall y More Severe Impacts? New Circumstanc es that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Informatio n Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternativ es that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Noise - Would the Project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No No No Yes No b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No No No Yes No c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR found that implementation of the DSASP has the potential to expose new development to stationary sources of noise and transportation noise levels that exceed the City’s normally acceptable compatibility standards. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.6-17.) This is considered a potentially significant 297 50 impact, but with implementation of mitigation measures MM4.6-1 through MM4.6-3, it would be reduced to less than significant. (Id.) Mitigation measure MM4.6-1 requires for non-residential development the submittal of a design plan for the project demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the exterior noise level limits for a designated receiving land use category. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.6-17.) Mitigation measure MM4.6-2 requires for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise levels exceed 70dBA CNEL an acoustical analysis to determine appropriate noise reduction measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced to be below 70 dBA CNEL in most circumstances. (Id.) Mitigation measure MM4.6-3 requires an acoustical analysis to ensure interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources shall be below 45 dBA CNEL for multifamily residences and residential units. (Id.) Additionally, DSASP EIR found that there is the potential for construction to occur within 25 feet of existing sensitive receptors, which is considered a potentially significant impact related to groundborne noise levels and vibration. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.6-18.) But with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.6-4, this impact would be reduced to less than significant. (Id.) Mitigation measure MM4.6-4 requires the construction contractor to implement measures during construction, including notifying all residential units and nonresidential tenants within 115 feet of the construction site to inform them of the start date and duration of the vibration-generating activities, locating stationary sources far from off-site receptors, and prohibiting trucks from idling along streets serving the construction site. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.6-19.) The DSASP EIR also indicated that the DSASP has the potential to locate new land uses within the applicable screening distance of light-rail and freight lines. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.6-19.) New development that is proposed within the screening distances would require further analysis to determine vibration- sensitive impacts. (Id.) Although this is considered a potentially significant impact, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.6-5 would reduce this impact to less than significant. (Id.) Mitigation measure MM4.6-5 would implement the current Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.6-19.) Regarding roadway noise, besides noise barriers and installation of noise walls, there are no other mitigation measures available to reduce roadway noise besides limiting/reducing residential or consumer traffic, which would contradict the TOD goals of the DSASP. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.6-21.) Because no certain feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (Id.) Future construction under the DSASP is required to comply with all applicable City ordinances, including limits on construction hours. Therefore, the DSASP EIR found that impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Finally, with incorporation of applicable mitigation measures MM4.6-1, MM4.6-2, and MM4.6-3, the DSASP EIR found that the cumulative impact from operational noise sources would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.6-22.) Cumulative roadway noise would remain significant and unavoidable, and the project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to roadway noise, while the cumulative impact from excessive groundborne vibration would be less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.6-23.) 298 51 Analysis of the Project Consistent with the analysis in the DSASP EIR, construction noise related to development of Project would be of a commercially reasonable duration (two to three year) and would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (SSFMC, Chapter 8.32). Under SSFMC Section 8.32.050(d), construction activities are exempted from the City’s Noise Ordinance if they occur between the hours of 8:00 am to 8:00 pm on weekdays, 9:00 am to 8:00 pm on Saturdays, and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sundays and holidays, or as authorized by the construction permit. The City’s Municipal Code further provides that construction is generally permissible between the hours of 7 am and 7pm on weekdays, 9am and 8pm on Saturdays, and 10 am and 6 pm on Sundays, and the Project’s construction permit is anticipated to allow construction within these time periods. Consistent with the DSASP EIR’s analysis of construction noise impacts, construction noise that occurs during these hours is outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside of evening and early morning hours and time periods where residents are most sensitive to exterior noise. Project construction would occur within these time periods and would not significantly affect any sensitive receptors, the closest of which is located at least 1,000 feet from the Project Site. Noise impacts resulting from Project construction therefore falls within the scope of the DSASP EIR’s analysis, and., the Project would not generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels from the use of construction equipment. Project traffic noise will be no worse than that analyzed under the DSASP EIR. The Project also will implement a comprehensive TDM program that promotes use of public transit, ridesharing, and bicycle transportation options, thereby reducing traffic-related noise. Noise from mechanical equipment would comply with applicable City standards and so would be less than significant, consistent with the DSASP EIR analysis. Also, the DSASP area is located approximately 0.75 miles from SFO. Due to distance and the orientation of the airport runways, the DSASP area is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of SFO. A noise level of below 65 dBA during working hours for commercial uses is acceptable pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code. (SSFMC, Table 8.32.030.) Under foreseeable conditions, therefore, the Project Site will be exposed to a CNEL of less than 65 dBA since the project site is not within the 65dBA noise contour. Given that construction and operation of the Project would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (SSFMC, Chapter 8.32) and applicable mitigation measures MM4.6-1, -2, -4, and -5, the Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to noise as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Proposed Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce noise impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to noise exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 299 52 Population and Housing Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantiall y More Severe Impacts? New Circumstanc es that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Informatio n Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternativ es that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Population and Housing - Would the Project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No No No N/A No b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR indicated that the DSASP would be consistent with all governing documents and policies regulating the City and would not exceed the build-out estimated population of the amended General Plan; therefore, the impact of direct population growth would be less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.7-11.) The DSASP EIR indicated that the DSASPwould not result in indirect growth due to extension of infrastructure and the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. (Id.) Because most new development would occur on commercial or vacant sites, the DSASPwould not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing units necessitating construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.7-12.) Finally, regarding cumulative impacts, population growth would remain consistent with regional and county population growth rates and the cumulative impact on the displacement of housing or people would be less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.7-13.) 300 53 Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR. The Project would remain consistent with the permitted FAR allowed under the General Plan and the zoning, and therefore, would not induce any population and housing impacts not previously analyzed. The amount of new uses within the Project would fall within the total development evaluated under the DSASP EIR. The Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to population and housing as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Proposed Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce the population and housing impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to population and housing exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 301 54 Public Services Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternati ves that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Public Services - Would the Project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: No No No N/A No i) Fire protection? No No No N/A No ii) Police protection? No No No N/A No iii) Schools? No No No N/A No iv) Parks? No No No N/A No v) Other public facilities? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR indicated that implementation of the DSASP would not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, or in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection and emergency response. Therefore, this would be a less-than- significant impact. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.8-8.) Compliance with Municipal Code requirements and payment of Public Safety Impact Fees would ensure that this impact remains less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.8-9.) As for cumulative public services impacts, the DSASP EIR found that the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts on fire services, police protection, schools, and libraries would not be cumulatively considerable with compliance with Municipal Code requirements and payment of the Public Safety Impact Fee. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.8-9.) Therefore, this would also be a less-than-significant cumulative impact. 302 55 Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR analysis. The Project would be within the total development evaluated under the DSASP EIR. The Project will pay applicable impact fees intended to mitigate the impacts of new development on public services. These include the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee (SSFMC § 8.67), Childcare Impact Fee (SSFMC § 20.310), Library Impact Fee (SSF Resolution 121-2020), Public Safety Impact Fee (SSF Resolution 123-2020), School District Fee, Citywide Transportation Fee (SSF Resolution 120-2020), Commercial Linkage Fee (SSFMC § 8.69), East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee (Resolution 97-2002), and Sewer Capacity Charge (Resolution 56-2017). As such, the Project would not result in any public services impacts not previously analyzed, and would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to public services as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Proposed Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce the public services impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to public services exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 303 56 Recreation Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternati ves that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Recreation - Would the Project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No No No N/A No b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR indicated that implementation of the DSASP would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. This impact would be less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.9-8.) Adherence to the existing land dedication and in-lieu fee requirements and applicable 1990 and 1997 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan regulations, addressing specific deficiencies in park and recreational opportunities, as well as the on-site open space requirements established in the DSASP would ensure that parks and open space are acquired, developed, improved, and expanded as future residential projects are constructed. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.9-9.) Additionally, the DSASP EIR found that the cumulative impact to existing parks and recreational facilities would also be less than significant and the DSASP’s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.9-11.) Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR analysis. The Project would be within the total development evaluated under the DSASP EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant increase in use of parks and recreational facilities beyond that anticipated in the DSASP EIR and construction of new parks and recreational facilities would not be required. As such, the Project would not result in any recreation impacts not previously analyzed, and would not result in a new or substantially 304 57 more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to recreational facilities as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce the recreation impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to recreation exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 305 58 Transportation and Circulation Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternati ves that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Transportation and Circulation - Would the Project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No No No Yes No b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No No No Yes No c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No No No N/A No d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR indicated that implementation of the DSASP would result in the addition of project traffic to intersection #1 (Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue), #10 (Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard), #12 (Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue), #15 (South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard), #16 (US-101 Northbound/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/South Airport Boulevard) but that implementation of mitigation measures MM4.10-1, MM4.10-3, MM4.10-4, MM4.10-6, MM4.10-7 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level for AM peak hour travel, but not for PM peak hour travel for #10 or queuing at #15. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.10-61, 62.) In addition, the DSASP EIR found that impacts to public transit facilities would be less than significant since implementation of the DSASP is intended to increase transit access and use, and will be accompanied by future investments in transit service and expanded services in the study area. (DSASP, p. 4.10-63.) The DSASP EIR indicated that the impact to pedestrian facilities would be significant and unavoidable at identified intersections (#6, #9, #12, #14, and #15) by potentially increasing crossing distances for pedestrians, creating greater pedestrian exposure, and increasing delay for pedestrians. (DSASP EIR, pp. 4.10-63, 64.) Further, pedestrian and bicycle impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would alter existing facilities with a negative impact on pedestrians or is inconsistent with adopted plans and programs. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.10-64.) 306 59 The DSASP EIR found that the proposed roadway improvements would not include design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses that would increase hazards in the study area. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.10-41.) Additionally, emergency vehicles would be able to use the roadways surrounding the project site and through the project site, maintaining emergency access. (Id.) Therefore, the DSASP would result in no impacts related to design hazards or emergency access vehicles. (Id.) Analysis of Project With regard to the transportation analysis, the DSASP EIR used Level of Service, (“LOS”) methodology to evaluate whether implementation of the DSASP is likely to cause automobile delay at intersections and congestion on nearby individual highway segments to exceed LOS thresholds. SB 743, enacted in 2013, changed how lead agencies evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA. Starting on July 1, 2020, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 directs agencies to utilize vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”), which measures the amount and distance of auto travel attributable to a project, as the primary metric for measuring transportation impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, projects within one-half mile of a major transit stop generally are presumed to cause a less than significant transportation VMT impact. The State Office of Planning and Research has suggested that this presumption might not be appropriate for projects with an FAR of less than .75, projects that provide parking in excess of City requirements, or projects that are inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). State Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. For projects consistent with an EIR prepared prior to the new requirements for VMT analysis, CEQA permits reliance on the prior analysis. Because the Project is consistent with the uses and densities analyzed in the DSASP EIR, the Project would not have any new or substantially more severe LOS impacts, nor be a new or substantially more severe contribution to cumulatively significant LOS impacts, than analyzed in the DSASP EIR. In any case, however, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), the Project is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. The Project is within one-half mile of an existing major transit stop (i.e., the South San Francisco Caltrain Station) and, as detailed in the Project Description above, has a FAR greater than .75 and is consistent with the SCS. In addition, the Project would not provide parking in excess of City requirements. The Project would utilize the existing roadways in the vicinity. The Project design would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency access, as well as fire protection and security. Additionally, the City has implemented a Public Safety Impact Fee (Resolution 97-2012), which the Project would pay. This fee is intended to fund improvements in infrastructure or public services brought about by new development to ensure adequate emergency access. The Project therefore would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to previously identified significant impacts beyond what was evaluated in the DSASP EIR because of its adjacency to the Caltrain Station (less-than-significant VMT presumption) and compliance with all applicable City codes and regulations regarding roadways and emergency access. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce the transportation and circulation impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to transportation and circulation exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. A project traffic study prepared by Kittelson and Associates is attached, for reference and in support of this ECA. 307 60 Utilities and Service Systems Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternati ves that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Utilities and Service Systems - Would the Project: a) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No No No N/A No b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No No No N/A No c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No No No N/A No d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No No No N/A No e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No No No N/A No 308 61 Discussion: The DSASP EIR indicated that the City is served by Cal Water, which obtains water from a purchasing agreement with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”). SFPUC, in turn, is supplied by local surface water sources and from its own groundwater sources. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-21.) Cal Water prepared a Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”) for the DSASP pursuant to Water Code sections 10910 et seq. The DSASP WSA identified deficiencies in the City’s water supplies during dry years and concluded that the City could achieve demand reductions necessary to address dry year deficiencies through implementation of its water shortage contingency plan to balance demand against curtailed supplies. The DSASP EIR states that water demand generated with implementation of the DSASP combined with demand generated by the current population is within the water demand projects in the WSA for the DSASP. (Id.) The WSA concluded under normal year conditions that Cal Water would have sufficient capacity to meet the water demands of the DSASP project without compromising existing demands. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-23.) Further, SB x7-7 (the Water Conservation Act of 2009) calls for reducing demand by 10 percent conservation per capita in 2015 and 20 percent by 2020. (Id.) Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve DSASP development from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would not be necessary, which would be a less-than-significant impact. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-21.) Additionally, the DSASP EIR concluded that no more water treatment facilities are required to meet water demands associated with the implementation of the DSASP and the DSASP would not require the construction or expansion of water treatment facilities. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-24.) Further, cumulative development would have adequate water supplies with existing entitlements and would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-28.) The DSASP EIR found that implementation of the DSASP would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Board, which would be a less-than-significant impact. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-40.) Although implementation of the DSASP would require additional wastewater to be treated, it would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. (Id.) As for cumulative wastewater impacts, the DSASP EIR anticipated that cumulative development would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment system and all wastewater would be treated adequately. Therefore, the impact of cumulative development on wastewater treatment would be less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-42.) Finally, the DSASP EIR found that the increase in solid waste generated under the DSASP would be sufficiently served by the MRF/TS and the Ox Mountain Landfill and the impact would be less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-48.) Further, cumulative impacts associated with solid waste in the study area would be considered less than significant. (DSASP EIR, p. 4.11-49.) Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR analysis. The Project is within the development anticipated by the DSASP and is not expected to substantially increase impacts on the City and other service providers to provide water supply, wastewater, stormwater drainage, solid waste, and energy services. The Project is within the scope of and consistent with the project analyzed in the DSASP WSA, and there have been (1) no changes in the project that would result in a substantial increase in water demand, and (2) no changes in circumstances or conditions substantially affecting the City’s ability to provide sufficient water supplies to the project. There is also no significant new information indicating the project would result in water supply impacts more severe than those identified in the DSASP EIR. The Project’s water supply impacts were therefore already addressed in the DSASP WSA and EIR, and a Project-specific WSA 309 62 is not required. The DSASP WSA concluded the City could achieve demand reductions necessary to address dry year supply deficiencies through implementation of its water shortage contingency plan, and there have been no changes in circumstances or conditions substantially affecting the City’s ability to provide sufficient water supplies to the Project. There is also no significant new information that has become available since the DSASP WSA was prepared that was not known and that could not have been known at that time. The City’s water supplies are insufficient during dry years to satisfy the demands of the Project in addition to existing and planned future uses, thereby requiring the City to implement its water shortage contingency plan to achieve necessary demand reductions. In addition, the Project would comply with the requirements of the model water efficient landscape ordinance (“WELO”), as required by City Code Chapter 20.300.007. In particular, the Project: • will utilize low-water-using plants for 100 percent of the plant area; • will not utilize turf for the landscape area or in parkways; • will group plants by hydrozones; • provide at least 4 cubic yards of compost per 1,000 sq. ft. to a depth of 6 inches; • provide at least 3 inches of mulch on exposed soil surfaces; • use automatic irrigation controllers that use evapotranspiration or soil moisture sensor data and a rain sensor; • use irrigation controllers that will not lose programming data when power source is interrupted; • provide that the irrigation system will include pressure regulators; • include manual shut-off valves near the connection to the water supply; • document that all sprinkler heads in the landscape distribute uniformity low quarter of 0.65 or higher; • provide that areas less than 10 feet must be irrigated with subsurface irrigation; and • separate irrigation submeters for landscape areas greater than or equal to 1,000 sq. ft. Regarding wastewater, the Project would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as well as all applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the San Francisco Bay Area RWQCB. The City would maintain local sewer lines and perform upgrades on an as-needed basis. Also, the Project would pay the City’s Sewer Capacity Charge and the East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee. It is anticipated that the increased flows from development under the DSASP, including this Project, would not result in required upgrades to the reclamation plants and the Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR analysis. Regarding stormwater, each project is required to submit documentation consistent with the State and County Water Pollution Prevent Programs requirements, which are peer reviewed by the Water Quality Division of the City’s Department of Public Works. Further, the DSASP EIR concluded that no significant increase in stormwater runoff was anticipated to be created by projects within the DSASP. The Project is consistent with the DSASP EIR analysis. Finally, the Project would comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and land fill capacity exists for future DSASP buildout. Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City is regulated by the City’s SSFMC, particularly Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. Under the SSFMC, future development would be required to have its solid waste and recyclable materials collected by the Scavenger Company. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and, therefore, is consistent with the DSASP EIR analysis. Therefore, the Project is not expected to generate a significant impact to utility services and is consistent with the conclusions of the DSASP EIR. 310 63 The Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to utilities and service systems as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce the utilities and service systems impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to utilities and service systems exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 311 64 Wildfire Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternatives that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Wildfire - If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No No No N/A No b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No No No N/A No c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No No No N/A No d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?? No No No N/A No Discussion: Wildfire-related risks were not examined within the DSASP EIR. The DSASP area is not within a state responsibility area or within lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. 312 65 Analysis of the Project The Project Site is not within a state responsibility area or within lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The Project Site is located in an urban environment and is not expected to generate any wildfire impacts. The Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts related to wildfire as compared to the conclusions reached in the DSASP EIR. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce the wildfire impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information related to wildfire exists that meet the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. 313 66 Mandatory Findings of Significance Issues Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Do the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? Any New Mitigation Measures/Alternatives that would Substantially Reduce Impacts? Mandatory Findings of Significance - a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No No No N/A No b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No No No N/A No c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No No No N/A No Discussion: The DSASP EIR determined that implementation of the DSASP would have the following significant and unavoidable impacts: 314 67 • Air Quality—implementation would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Cultural Resources—implementation could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Guidelines Section 15064.5; • Noise—implementation would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • Traffic/Transportation—implementation of the DSASP would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system; implementation of the DSASP would add traffic greater than 1 percent to the freeway segment volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F on two northbound segments and one southbound segment of US-101 and would add traffic greater than 1 percent to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F under No Project Conditions for one northbound segment and two southbound segments, resulting in a significant project contribution under Existing Plus Project Conditions; implementation of the DSASP would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system under Cumulative Plus Project conditions; implementation of the DSASP would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system under Cumulative Plus Project conditions for two intersections; implementation of the DSASP would add traffic greater than 1 percent to the freeway segment volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F on one northbound segment of US-101 and would add traffic greater than 1 percent of the freeway segment volume to a segment already operating at LOS F under No Project Conditions on five northbound segments and five southbound segments of US-101 under cumulative conditions; implementation of the DSASP would add traffic greater than 1 percent of the freeway ramp volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F for one southbound US-101 ramp during the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions. Analysis of Project The Project is consistent with this DSASP EIR analysis. With respect to transportation, because the Project is consistent with the uses and densities analyzed in the DSASP EIR, the Project would not have any new or substantially more severe LOS impacts, nor be a new or substantially more severe contribution to cumulatively significant LOS impacts, than analyzed in the DSASP EIR. As noted in the discussion of Transportation above, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 now directs agencies to utilize vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”), which measures the amount and distance of auto travel attributable to a project, as the primary metric for measuring transportation impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 the Project is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact due to its location within one-half mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. As noted above, the Project would have an FAR greater than 0.75 FAR, would not provide parking in excess of City requirements, and would be consistent with the SCS. Further, the Project would not contribute to the significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources identified in the DSASP EIR because a historic consultant evaluated and determined that the on-site buildings, although greater than 50 years old, are not historic and that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. In regards to mandatory findings of significance, as indicated above, the Project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 315 68 community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Further, the Project would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. The potential cumulative impacts of the Project have been considered for each environmental topic evaluated above. The Project is not anticipated to have any cumulatively considerable impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the DSASP EIR. The Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed in the EIR, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce the impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, and no new information exists that meets the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162. CONCLUSION Based on the findings and information contained in the adopted DSASP EIR, the analysis above, and the CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the Project will not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental effects than identified in the DSASP EIR, there are no new or substantially different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce the impacts identified in the DSASP EIR, no new information related to the impacts identified in the DSASP EIR exists that meets the thresholds of Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Guidelines Section 15162, and the potential environmental effects of the Project have been adequately addressed in the DSASP EIR. Therefore, this Checklist is appropriate under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and no further environmental review of the Project is required. Attachments: 1. Historical Resources Evaluation 2. Traffic Study Memorandum 316 Technical Memorandum The proposed research & development (R&D) facility is to be located at 100 E Grand Avenue in South San Francisco, CA. The proposed project is referred to as the Project in this memorandum. The Project site is bounded by Sylvester Road to the east, E Grand Avenue to the north, Associated Road to the south and the Highway 101 northbound off ramp to the west. Figure 1 details a site vicinity map, and Figure 2 shows the current site plan. The development is planned to comprise 2 buildings, both provide office space for R&D uses. Several R&D sites, including Genentech’s large biotech campus on the San Francisco Bay, already exist on the East Side. This memorandum documents the findings of a transportation study to assess the potential effects of the proposed development, including the site visit observations, site plan and document review, travel demand and trip distribution, and operational analysis. This Project is located very close to the proposed South San Francisco Caltrain Station Eastern Access project. This study is based on the recommendations from the Eastern Access Study. This memorandum does not include TDM measures. An independent proposed TDM plan is provided by Silvani Transportation Consulting. Figure 1: 100 East Grand Site Vicinity 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505 Oakland, CA 94612 P 510.839.1742 March 30, 2022 Project# 26750 To: Thomas Bennett ZGF Architects LLP Suite 200 1223 SW Washington Street Portland, OR 97205 From: Zifeng (Lilian) Wu, T.E. & Alec Donowitz RE: South San Francisco: 100 East Grand – Traffic Study Memorandum 317 March 30, 2022 Page 2 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Field Observations Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 2: 100 East Grand Site Plan FIELD OBSERVATIONS Kittelson conducted a field visit on September 29th, 2021, to observe existing traffic patterns at the project site during both the AM and PM peak hour. The observations were impacted by Covid-19 and an on-going construction on the triangular island at the intersection of Highway 101 northbound off-ramp / Poletti Way and E Grand Avenue. Therefore, could represent a lower than typical traffic condition. VEHICLE TRAFFIC • Eastbound is the heavy movement along E Grand Avenue. Fewer than ten vehicles were observed on Sylvester Road during a 15-minute interval during the peak hour. • No off-ramp queues were observed at East Grand Avenue. • The meter for the Highway 101 on-ramp from Grand Avenue was not on during the observed peak hours. • During the peak 15-minute intervals, eastbound queues at the intersection of Grand Avenue and E Grand Avenue spilled back along E Grand Avenue beyond Sylvester Road for more than one cycle. However, this queue did not extend to the Highway 101 northbound off-ramp at E Grand Avenue. FREIGHT TRAFFIC & SHUTTLES • Approximately 6% of the eastbound through traffic are heavy vehicles on E Grand Avenue. 318 March 30, 2022 Page 3 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Project Trip Generation Kittelson & Associates, Inc. • Employer shuttles were observed traveling eastbound on E Grand Avenue. BICYCLES • There is no existing bicycle lane on E. Grand Avenue and no bicycles were observed during the peak hours. PEDESTRIANS • Sidewalks and pedestrian signals are present along both the north and south side of E. Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue providing a pedestrian connection to the existing South San Francisco Caltrain Station located off Dubuque Avenue. However, there is no sidewalk along the western side of Sylvester Road and the sidewalk along the eastern side is mostly occupied by parked trucks or vehicles. • Very low pedestrian volumes were observed on E Grand Avenue with two pedestrians observed during the AM peak hour and three during the PM peak hour. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Table 1 summarizes the proposed land use based on a review of the development plan dated 9/22/2021 and confirmation on the proposed size of the café based on an email from ZGF Architects dated 10/12/2021. Table 1 also shows the estimated size of the existing light industrial buildings based on the dimensions measured using Google Maps. Table 1: Proposed and Existing Lane Uses Land Use Size Units Proposed Building A Research & Development Center 250.430 1000 SF Café (Fast Casual Restaurant) 8.871 1000 SF Proposed Building B1 Research & Development Center 206.292 1000 SF Existing Building – 100 E Grand Avenue General Light Industrial 70.375 1000 SF Existing Building – 105 Associated Road General Light Industrial 29.735 1000 SF Note: 1 – Building B includes a conference center of 10,515 square feet, planned for the ground floor. This conference center is considered as part of the R&D land use. Trip generation was estimated for both the proposed project and the existing land use at the project location to estimate the net new trips for future build conditions. The trip generation of the existing land use at the project location was estimated based on the average trip rates as published in the Institute of Transportation (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Average trip generation rates were selected over the regression formula because of the limited sample size or the R-square lower than 0.75 for the regression formula as documented in the ITE Manual. Based on a review of available land use code categories, ITE land use code 110: “General Light Industrial” was deemed the most applicable 319 March 30, 2022 Page 4 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Project Trip Generation Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for both buildings located on the project site. Table 2 summarizes the resulting ITE-based trip generation estimate. Table 2: ITE Trip Generation for Existing Land Use Site Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out 100 E Grand & 105 Associated 74 65 9 65 9 56 The trip generation potential of the proposed R&D facility was based on the average trip rates as published in Institute of Transportation (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, for ITE land use code 760: “Research & Development Center”. The developer has also proposed a café within Building A. After reviewing available land uses, ITE land use code 930: “Fast Casual Restaurant” was deemed most applicable. Table 3 and Table 4 summarize the resulting ITE-based trip generation estimate for Buildings A and B, respectively. Table 3: ITE Trip Generation for Project Building A Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Avg. Trip Gen. Rate Total In Out Avg. Trip Gen. Rate Total In Out Research & Development Center 1.03 258 212 46 0.98 245 39 206 Fast Casual Restaurant 1.43 13 7 6 12.55 111 61 50 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition Table 4: ITE Trip Estimate for Project Building B Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Avg. Trip Gen. Rate Total In Out Avg. Trip Gen. Rate Total In Out Research & Development Center 1.03 202 166 36 0.98 192 31 161 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition In consideration of the mixed-use nature of the proposed café and R&D offices, the initial trip generation was reduced to account for internal trips based on the internal capture rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Additionally, the estimated trips generated by the café were reduced to account for pass-by trips as it is a retail location located near to a transit station. Because pass-by trip reduction rates are not available for ITE land use code 930: “Fast Casual Restaurant,” the PM peak hour pass-by reduction rate for ITE land use code 932: “High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant” was applied to both the AM and PM peak hour trip estimates. The pass-by reduction, internal capture reduction, and resulting net new vehicle trips generated by the proposed project are summarized in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, upon build-out, the proposed development is estimated to generate a total of 387 new weekday AM peak hour trips (314 inbound/73 outbound) and 398 new weekday PM peak hour trips (78 inbound/320 outbound). 320 March 30, 2022 Page 5 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Vehicle Trip Distribution Kittelson & Associates, Inc. The trip generation estimate as detailed in Table 5 was carried forward for the following traffic volume development and operational analyses. Table 5: Total ITE Trip Generation Estimate for Project Total Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Initial ITE Trip Generation Research & Development Center 460 378 82 437 70 367 Restaurant 13 7 6 111 61 50 Internal Capture 1.69% for AM Peak 8.76% for PM Peak External Trips Research & Development Center 456 376 80 413 60 353 Restaurant 9 5 4 87 47 40 Pass-by Trip 43% applied to Restaurant for both AM and PM1 Trip Generation after Considering Internal Trips and Pass-by Trips Research & Development Center 456 376 80 413 60 353 Restaurant 5 3 2 50 27 23 Total 461 379 82 463 87 376 Existing Trip Credit General Light Industrial 74 65 9 65 9 56 Net New Trip Total Net New Vehicle Trips 387 314 73 398 78 320 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition 1 - Based on survey data for Land use 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant during PM peak hour. It’s assumed the same percentage can be applied for AM peak hour. No data is available for 930 Fast Casual Restaurant. VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION This section summarizes the distribution of net new vehicle trips to vehicle movements at the three study intersections which included: 1. US 101 off-ramp/ Poletti Way and E Grand Avenue 2. Sylvester Road and E Grand Avenue 3. Grand Avenue and E Grand Avenue The inbound net new trips were first distributed to the vehicle movements comprising volumes entering Sylvester Road at the Sylvester Road & East Grand Avenue intersection (Intersection 2) since the Project is accessed off Sylvester Road. At the same intersection, the outbound net new trips were distributed to the southbound movements. The volumes at the other two intersections were then distributed proportionally based on turning movement proportions from the 2040 volumes provided by Fehr & Peers1. The volume distributions were only done for the AM and PM peak hours because this is the most critical analysis period serving high in- 1 This is a project for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Eastern Access Study dated on October, 2021. 321 March 30, 2022 Page 6 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Site Plan Review Kittelson & Associates, Inc. bound traffic through US 101 off-ramp and only the AM baseline volumes were available. The resulting project net new trips at the three study intersections are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Net New Trip Distribution at Study Intersections U.S. 101 off-ramp @ E Grand Ave E Grand Ave @ Sylvester Rd E Grand Ave @ Grand Ave AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SITE PLAN REVIEW This section details the findings of a site plan review for the proposed project. Topics covered include passenger loading demand and circulation. Passenger Loading Demand Passenger loading demand is estimated for the proposed project to evaluate whether adequate space to accommodate curbside passenger loading is provided. The extent of curbside space needed to accommodate this demand is based on the trip generation rates and the passenger loading demand methodology outlined in the City of San Francisco Guidelines. The City of South San Francisco doesn't have standards for passenger loading demand. We adopted the methodology in San Francisco Guidelines which would represent a more conservative requirement for estimating the loading demand. Table 6 presents the estimated demand of passenger loading spaces for the project. Building A and B each requires one loading space to meet the peak hour loading demand. The proposed project would provide three loading spaces for Building A and two loading spaces for Building B, sufficient to meet the passenger loading demand. 322 March 30, 2022 Page 7 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Site Plan Review Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Table 6: Passenger Loading Demand (Peak Hour) Land Use Size (1,000 sq ft) Person Trips (P)1 Loading Mode Type % (L)2 Average Stop Duration (D)3 (minutes) Peak Hour Loading Trips Peak Hour Loading Demand (Spaces)4 Office - Building A 250.430 351 7.30% 1 26 0.4 Café - Building A 8.871 240 5.50% 1 13 0.2 Office - Building B 206.292 289 7.30% 1 21 0.4 Source: Kittelson, 2021; San Francisco TIA Guidelines, San Francisco Planning Department. Assumptions: 1 – person trip generation rates were based on urban high density from SF TIA Guidelines Appendix F, Table 1. 2 – SF TIA Guidelines Appendix F, Table 4. 3 – Loading/unloading durations are typically shorter than 1 minute based on previous local studies. 4 – Loading demand (spaces per hour) = peak hour loading trips / (average duration * 60 minute) Circulation Plan Based on the circulation plan provided by ZGF dated on September 21, 2021, the proposed project will provide adequate pedestrian access and service access for freight trucks in addition to vehicular access. The circulation plan is attached as Appendix A. Key findings from this assessment are summarized in this section. Note that there are on-going discussions regarding the circulation needs for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Eastern Access Study; there might be additional circulation improvements needed for this Project to meet the needs of Eastern Access. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS The current recommendations of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Eastern Access Study include: • Redesign and signalize East Grand/Poletti/US-101 Offramp and East Grand/Sylvester intersections to improve pedestrian connections • Widen sidewalks on East Grand Avenue, Poletti Way, and Sylvester Road To meet these recommendations, this Project will provide pedestrian access within the project limit, including: • Internal circulation path through courtyard, plaza, and Building B drop-offs and parking with building entrances. • Partially re-build Sylvester including the sidewalks (i.e., in front of the Buildings A and B). BICYCLE ACCESS • Bike riders can access the site through the pedestrian sidewalks. The project would provide a total of 132 long-term bike parking stalls including 63 for Building A and 69 for Building B. In addition, the project will provide 23 bike racks throughout the site. This is higher than the bicycle parking requirements per zoning section 220.330.008 of 79 short-term bike racks (10% of vehicular parking stalls) and 16 long-term bike stalls (1 per 50 vehicular stalls). 323 March 30, 2022 Page 8 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Operational analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc. SERVICE ACCESS • The project will provide shared loading dock between Buildings A and B with additional service yard on the southwest corner of Building B. • Service trucks access by Sylvester Road and Associated Road. • Kittelson reviewed the truck turn templates for a WB-40, SU30, and a Front Load Truck as these vehicles enter and exit the site. All three trucks were able to navigate through the site without obstruction. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Based on the HCM 6th methodology, intersection analyses were performed at the three study intersections using PTV’s Vistro 2022 software. A total of four scenarios were assessed for both the AM and PM peak hours. These scenarios included: 1. Scenario 1: 2019 existing 2. Scenario 2: 2040 Eastern Access Study without-project 3. Scenario 3: 2040 Eastern Access Study with-project 4. Scenario 4: 2040 Eastern Access Study with-Project & improvements Both Scenario 3 and 4 were performed using the 2040 East Access Study with-project traffic volumes. Scenario 3 is the same concept geometry and signal timing as provided by Eastern Access Study Project team. Scenario 4 is with Kittelson’s recommended signal timing improvements to improve the operational performance for the three study intersections. The existing volumes were developed based on the following data sources: • 2019 counts at E Grand Avenue & Grand Avenue • 2019 PeMS counts at US 101 off-ramp • Streetlight data for 2019 weekday averages, provided by the City of South San Francisco • Turning movements proportions based on the 2040 East Access Study The 2040 without-project volumes were developed based on the 2040 with-project volume data from Caltrain Station East Access Study provided by Fehr & Peers. The 2040 with-project volume data reflects the City’s land use forecasts for the area buildout as of fall 2021, including the project at 100 E Grand Ave. Therefore, the 2040 without-project volumes are developed by extracting the project volume from the with-project volumes. SCENARIO 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS (2019) The existing conditions scenario features the existing geometry and intersection controls present at the three study intersections along East Grand Avenue. Existing traffic volumes were estimated through: • Westbound and eastbound peak hour volumes on E. Grand Avenue were determined using 2019 counts at E Grand Avenue & Grand Avenue (Intersection 3) and distributed to the other two intersections based 324 March 30, 2022 Page 9 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Operational analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc. on the turning movement proportions from Streetlight data or the 2040 volumes from the East Access Study. • The US 101 off-ramp volume is controlled by the corresponding PeMS counts on the same day as the available 2019 counts for Intersection 1 and distributed to the left-turn and through movements based on the turning movement proportions that are consistent with the 2040 volumes from the East Access Study. The resulting volumes used in the analysis for Scenario 1 are shown in Figure 4. Details on the count data and volume estimation process are included in Appendix B. Figure 4: Study Intersections Configuration and Volumes – Existing Conditions U.S. 101 off-ramp @ E Grand Ave E Grand Ave @ Sylvester Rd E Grand Ave @ Grand Ave AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SCENARIO 2: EAST ACCESS STUDY WITHOUT PROJECT Fehr & Peers provided the 2040 volumes based on their analysis for the city’s General Plan which included the proposed Project at 100 E Grand Avenue. The volumes for this without-project scenario were calculated using the provided 2040 volumes minus the trip generation for the Project. This scenario analyzes the concept geometry, intersection control, and signal timing provided by Fehr & Peers, the same as the recommended scenario from East Access Study. Note that signal timing is only provided for 325 March 30, 2022 Page 10 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Operational analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc. AM pea hour. Kittelson optimized the splits for PM peak hour. Compared to existing conditions, this scenario includes the following improvements: • The following two study intersections were upgraded from stop control to full signalization: o US 101 off-ramp & E Grand Ave o E Grand Ave and Sylvester Rd. • One northbound right-turn lane was added on the US 101 off-ramp resulting in two right-turn lanes and one through lane. • One eastbound through lane was added at Sylvester Rd. and E. Grand Avenue. To accommodate the anticipated high pedestrian and bike volumes at US 101 off-ramp and E Grand Ave, the proposed signal timing for 2040 includes an exclusive pedestrian phase for this intersection. However, due to the limitation of Synchro based HCM 6th methodology on exclusive pedestrian phases, the Sychro file received from East Access Study, dated on October 18, 2021, didn’t reflect the exclusive pedestrian phase’s impact on signal operation performance correctly. Pedestrian and bicycle volumes at US 101 off-ramp and E Grand Ave is estimated to be 340 pedestrian and 200 bicycles during the peak hour based on the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Eastern Access Study report dated on October 2021. This study uses the most updated Vistro 2022 software to perform operational analysis considering the impact of the proposed exclusive pedestrian phase using the HCM 6th Edition methods. Detailed analysis reports can be found in Appendix C – Operational Analysis Output Sheets. Another note on the provided signal timing is the proposed pedestrian phase at E Grand Ave and Grand Ave includes a dummy westbound leg. This is kept for Scenario 2’s analysis. 326 March 30, 2022 Page 11 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Operational analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 5: Study Intersections Configurations Volumes – East Access Study Scenario U.S. 101 off-ramp @ E Grand Ave E Grand Ave @ Sylvester Rd E Grand Ave @ Grand Ave 1) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Note: 1) Confirmed with Fehr & Peers, the westbound with 1 vehicle is a dummy leg to code in the pedestrian phase, not a proposed geometry change for the future. 327 March 30, 2022 Page 12 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Operational analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc. SCENARIO 3: EAST ACCESS STUDY WITH PROJECT This scenario is the recommended East Access Study scenario with concept geometry, intersection control, signal timing, and volumes provided by Fehr & Peers. The volumes Include all 2040 growth under the General Plan (including the 100 E Grand Project) but excludes the 121 E Grand project. The geometry and signal timing are the same as in Scenario 2. Figure 6 shows the volumes used in analyzing this scenario. Figure 6: Study Intersections Volumes – East Access Study Scenario: plus Project U.S. 101 off-ramp @ E Grand Ave E Grand Ave @ Sylvester Rd E Grand Ave @ Grand Ave 1) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Note: Confirmed with Fehr & Peers, the westbound with 0 vehicle is a dummy leg to code in the pedestrian phase, not a proposed geometry change for the future. SCENARIO 4: EAST ACCESS STUDY WITH PROJECT WITH IMPROVEMENTS With the same volumes as shown in Figure 6, this scenario includes improved signal timing to better serve the project and reduce intersection delay. Details of this scenario are included in Appendix C but highlights include: • At US 101 off-ramp/ Poletti Way and E Grand Avenue o For the scope of this study, it is assumed the cycle lengths need to stay consistent with the Eastern Access Study because the three study intersections are part of a larger group of coordinated intersections studied by Eastern Access Study. Therefore, signal timing modifications were limited at this intersection and there was little improvement. o If the cycle length can be increased, the LOS can be improved to LOS D or better. But this will potentially change other coordinated signal timings beyond the three study intersections. • At Sylvester Rd. and E Grand Avenue, the intersection performance can be improved to a LOS C for AM peak hour and D for PM peak hour, by allocating more green times to the northbound, eastbound left-turn, and westbound left-turn movements. 328 March 30, 2022 Page 13 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Operational analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc. • At E Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue, the pedestrian phase setting was changed to be concurrent with vehicle phases, rather than adding a dummy phase as in Scenario 2 and 3. Therefore, we removed the westbound dummy leg as shown in Figure 6 for this intersection. RESULT SUMMARY Table 7 compares the results for all the four scenarios. Detailed reports on intersection configurations, volumes, and LOS analysis are included in Appendix C. Table 7: Intersection Operational Analysis Results Scenarios Control Type Intersection/ Movements Delay (sec/veh) AM (PM) LOS AM (PM) Scenario 1: Existing Conditions 1 US 101 off-ramp/ Poletti Way and E Grand Ave Stop WBR (WBR) 11.0 (8.6) B (A) Sylvester Rd. and E Grand Ave. Stop SBL (NBL) 16.0 (12.6) C (B) E Grand Ave. and Grand Ave. Signal Intersection 20.9 (13.2) C (B) Scenario 2: 2040 East Access Study Scenario without Project 2 US 101 off-ramp/ Poletti Way and E Grand Ave Signal Intersection 65.1 (12.6) E (B) Sylvester Rd. and E Grand Ave. Signal Intersection 19.8 (26.9) B (C) E Grand Ave. and Grand Ave. Signal Intersection 71.4 (243.3) E (F) Scenario 3: 2040 East Access Scenario with Project 2 US 101 off-ramp/ Poletti Way and E Grand Ave Signal Intersection 66.1 (12.8) E (B) Sylvester Rd. and E Grand Ave. Signal Intersection 78.9 (47.0) E (F) E Grand Ave. and Grand Ave. Signal Intersection 94.7 (302.9) F (F) Scenario 4: Improved Scenario 3 2 (2040 East Access Scenario with Project) US 101 off-ramp/ Poletti Way and E Grand Ave Signal Intersection 66.0 (12.8) E (B) Sylvester Rd. and E Grand Ave. Signal Intersection 32.2 (47.0) C (D) E Grand Ave. and Grand Ave. Signal Intersection 39.6 (68.2) D (E) Note: 1 – For stop-controlled intersections, the LOS for the worst movements is reported. 2 – Eastern Access Study doesn’t study PM peak hour scenario; the signal timing used for Scenario 2&3 PM in this study is optimized based on volumes. All three intersections operate at LOS at or better than C under existing conditions. Future scenarios are expected to experience more congestion given the volume increases. The with-project Scenario 3 results in much higher delays than the without-project Scenario 2. The PM delays at E Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue is especially high, which is because the signal timing was not optimized for PM peak hour. Under Scenario 4, signal timing is adjusted at each intersection to optimize the operational operations in terms of LOS. Given the assumed cycle lengths based on East Access study, the study intersections can be expected to operate at or better than LOS E. Additional findings regarding queues are summarized in Table 8: 329 March 30, 2022 Page 14 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Summary of findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. • There are potentially queueing problems during the 2040 AM peak hour when the 95th percentile vehicle queue at US 101 off-ramp/Poletti Way/E Grand Ave are expected to extend up to 1,030 feet and spill back to the freeway mainline. This finding is consistent with the findings from Eastern Access Study. And Scenario 2: without-project is expected have a similar queuing issue on the US 101 off-ramp. • Signal timing improvements in Scenario 4 was able to reduce the queue length on the eastbound at E Grand Ave and Grand Ave, but can’t solve the queueing problems at Sylvester Rd. • The project access through the Sylvester Road northbound is expected to have a long queue during the PM peak hour. Table 8 Queue Lengths Results Comparison for Scenario 2: without-Project and Scenario 4: with-Project Intersection Critical Approach Scenario 2: 95th Queue Length (ft) AM (PM) Scenario 4: 95th Queue Length (ft) AM (PM) Storage Length (ft) US 101 off-ramp/ Poletti Way and E Grand Ave NB 1,021 (50) 1,030 (50) 900 Sylvester Rd. and E Grand Ave. WB 242 (254) 495 (450) 208 Sylvester Rd. and E Grand Ave. NB 290 (357) 398 (775) 800 E Grand Ave. and Grand Ave. EB 1,456 (2,936) 665 (956) 400 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The proposed project would provide sufficient transportation access to pedestrians/bikes, service trucks, and private vehicles. The provided passenger loading spaces are sufficient to serve passenger drop-off/pick-up activities. The operational analyses show that the net new trips generated by the proposed project will increase the average delays at intersection Sylvester and E Grand Ave, resulting in a LOS D in the PM peak hour. The US 101 off-ramp and E Grand Ave is expected to maintain the same LOS for with and without project volumes. The intersection at Grand Ave and E Grand Ave is expected to experience heavy volume increases on Grand Ave in 2040. With the signal timing in Scenario 4, the performance can be improved to a LOS D during the AM peak hour and a LOS E during the PM peak hour. There are potentially queueing problems during the 2040 AM peak hour. This is consistent with the findings from Eastern Access Study. The project access through the Sylvester Road northbound is expected to have a long queue during the PM peak hour 330 March 30, 2022 Page 15 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand APPENDIX A – Circulation Plan Kittelson & Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A – CIRCULATION PLAN 331 March 30, 2022 Page 16 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Appendix B - Counts & Existing Volumes Kittelson & Associates, Inc. APPENDIX B - COUNTS & EXISTING VOLUMES 332 March 30, 2022 Page 17 South San Francisco: 100 East Grand Appendix C - Operational Analysis Output Sheets Kittelson & Associates, Inc. APPENDIX C - OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OUTPUT SHEETS 333 446 17th Street #302 Oakland CA 94612 510.418.0285 mhulbert@earthlink.net April 6, 2022 100 E. GRAND AVE. & 105 ASSOCIATED RD., SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resources Evaluation This report provides an historical evaluation of two properties and buildings located at the above addresses. The purpose of this evaluation effort is to determine if the subject properties and their buildings do or do not qualify as historic resources under the California Register of Historical Resources criteria as per the California Environmental Quality Act. This evaluation effort is based on site visits to record the subject buildings and their setting; the collection and review of applicable records, including historic maps, newspapers and telephone directories; building permit and deed research at the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County, respectively; along with supplemental historical and architectural research. The first of the subject properties, 100 E. Grand Ave. (APN 015-031-020), is located on and fronts the south side of E. Grand Ave., directly east of the Bayshore Freeway and the South San Francisco Caltrain station and railway, at the juncture of Industrial Ave., and with a secondary road, Sylvester Rd., at its east side. This 2-acre property houses a tall 1-story light industrial building. The building and its property are also associated and adjoined with a second parcel directly south (lot #16) that is a paved surface lot for access, parking, storage and loading, without built resources, so that parcel is not specifically addressed herein. At the northwest corner of subject lot #2 is a small parcel (lot #1) and building that are not associated, so that property is also not addressed herein. The second of the subject properties, at 105 Associated Rd. (APN 015-031-120), is located south of and in the same block as 100 E. Grand Ave., on the west end and north side of Associated Rd. (which, like Sylvester Rd., is an easement rather than dedicated street). The 105 Associated Rd. parcel is just under 1 acre, also houses a tall 1-story light industrial building and, likewise, has a second open, paved parcel at its north side (lot #13) with a leg that extends down the east side of 105 Associated, providing access to both lots as well as the 2 adjoining properties to the east. As there are no built resources on lot #13, that parcel is again not further addressed herein other than to note that these four parcels are contiguous, with the 2 subject building lots separated by the 2 open lots (figs.1-4). Evaluation Summary In sum, the extant buildings at 100 E. Grand Ave. and 105 Associated Rd., South San Francisco, are common light industrial/warehouse structures of tilt-up concrete wall construction with wood bow- trussed roofs. Their ubiquity is in evidence throughout the immediate vicinity, where there are a number of other, nearly matching mid-20th century buildings of the same type and construction. Beyond, such resource types are found throughout the region’s industrial zones. In this case, there was and is no architectural or artistic enhancement in the original or present buildings. Their designs were utilitarian and expedient. Based on empirical as well as historical evidence, the subject building designs are without historical design or construction distinction. Additionally, there are no associated events of any potential historical importance because no individual discoveries, innovations or inventions of importance are identifiably associated, nor is there any direct association between this mid-20th century development and any person or persons of potential historical importance. Consequently, as further detailed herein and per the California 334 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P2 Register evaluation criteria, the properties and buildings at 100 E. Grand Ave. and 105 Associated Rd. do not have any potential, individually or collectively, for a finding of historical significance. Summary History The still future South San Francisco was first mapped in 1881 when the subject land was then in lot 3 of the Land of Charles Lux (fig.5). In addition to his land acquisition talent, Lux was a butcher in the livestock and meat packing industry serving nearby San Francisco from his lands.1 A 1920 land map next shows the land divisions of South San Francisco, when the subject spot of land lies within a smaller subdivision under the ownership of the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company (fig.6).2 At that time, Grand Ave. was named Swift Ave. and which was the namesake of the director of that company, Gustavus W. Swift. Chicago based Swift & Co. succeeded Lux both in the land acquisition and meat industries. While the subject and adjoining parcels were as yet undeveloped and while there is not a subsequently recorded map specific to this block, the 1950 Sanborn maps are otherwise salient because they show the surrounding context, including the incomplete construction progress of the directly adjacent freeway and which, as the 1950 map starkly illustrates, had by 1950 reached just south of Grand Avenue.3 So, the development of 100 E. Grand, 105 Associated Rd. and their immediate neighbors was assuredly related to the new freeway, which was directly adjacent as well as open by the time the 100 E. Grand Ave. and 105 Associated Rd. buildings were completed in 1954 and 1955, respectively. The 1950 Sanborns also depicted the heavy industry that then largely occupied the lands of South San Francisco east of the highway and railway, just prior to the initial development of the subject parcel and its block. The most dominant, Bethlehem Steel, filled the site between E. Grand and Butler avenues (the latter, today’s Oyster Point Blvd.) on both sides of the railroad tracks and Industrial Avenue. Another as yet dominant industry was the meat packing facilities and stock yards of Swift & Co., Lux’s successor, whose facilities and yards then stood on both sides of E. Grand at Allerton Ave. (along with an associated property with a group of South San Francisco Land & Improvement Co. dwellings). In 1950, other surviving heavy industries were metal welders, refiners, foundries and recyclers (Thermit; Wildberg Bros.; U.S. Pipe), paint and coating manufacturers (W.P. Fuller; Du Pont De Nemours), along with another meat packing facility (Armour). Those heavy industrial uses were not unique to the post-World War II period as many were extant in the 1920 Map of South San Francisco, when Swift & Co. of Chicago was, in their SSF location, the Western Meat Company. The heavy industries that survived into the 1950s were clearly illustrated in the 1920 map (fig.7). 1 See, for example, “History of South San Francisco” @ https://www.californiahistorian.com/south_san_francisco (accessed March 2022). 2 Map of South San Francisco San Mateo County, California, 1920 @https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/59028?ln=en#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=7209%2C6406%2C4901 %2C2628 (accessed March 2022). 3 Digital Sanborn Maps, South San Francisco, Apr.1925-Sept.1950, sheets 1, 17-19, 21-27 @ https://digitalsanbornmaps-proquest- com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/browse_maps/5/863/3677/3928/61253?accountid=35117 335 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P3 Based on general deed research, it is understood that the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Co. sold the subject and directly adjoining properties to their respective and subsequent owners post-WWII. Re: 100 E. Grand Ave., per record drawings, in 1953, thus at the time of the extant building’s initial design and construction, the landowner was Josephine A. Sargent, a resident of Oakland, who in turn leased and, upon its completion in March 1954, sold the site to the Spice Islands Co., which spice company undertook the design, construction and occupancy of the original building and where they were first listed in the 1954 San Mateo County directory. That original 1954 building was some two-thirds of the existing building, as its western one-third was added in 1956, also for Spice Islands Co., who thereafter remained at this location until 1973, following which the Spice Islands plant was located on nearby Allerton Ave. Thereafter, again per permit records, 100 E. Grand’s next identifiable owner was Harvey Rifkin/Rifkin Investment Co., San Francisco, who in 1978 subdivided the building into five tenant spaces and also proposed a new building in the rear lot, yet which was evidently not built. The next permit iteration, dated April 1983 and under Rifkin’s ownership, again showed proposed improvements to the rear lot, including a new building and new access from the south via Associated Rd. However, like the 1978 plan, there is no evidence those proposed improvements were even started. Permit-wise, lastly, a 1997 permit showed the building under a single user, Perini Van & Storage, and which plans illustrated overall exterior alterations, including new site work, landscaping, doors, windows, awnings and signage. The 105 Associated Rd. building was permitted and constructed in 1955 for the Morris Manufacturing Co., who designed and manufactured store fixtures and cabinets. Permit records listed the landowner as Eugene A. Mignacco. Like the 100 E. Grand parcel, Mignacco was deeded the property by the Associated Construction and Engineering Company just prior to development. The Morris Co. operated at this location until c1970, when the building was identified in permit records as vacant. The Stanley Sales Co. next occupied the building in 1976, when the Mignacco family retained ownership. In 1978, per a Certificate of Occupancy for the Palm Distributing Co., the San Francisco Spice Co. (no found association to Spice Islands Co.) were then listed as the owner of 105 Associated Rd., which ownership was reiterated in a 1982 permit for alterations for Faulkner Enterprises, an auto sales tenant. In that period, per permit related correspondence, the S.F. Spice Co. was located in Orinda California and its owner was Ken W. Vinnicombe. While each of the adjoining parcels on the subject block have not been specifically researched, it is evident that Associated Construction and Engineering Co., a partnership founded in 1952, consolidated the parcels between E. Grand Ave. (north), the railroad spur (south), the east line of Sylvester Rd. and the freeway to the west, for industrial development. From permit records specific to the property at 170 Sylvester, a 1954 plot plan labeled “Associated Construction and Engineering Co. Industrial Development,” is the only found illustration of the consolidated ownership of a portion of this block, while that plan illustrated a different arrangement of parcels and, in part, internal roads (fig.8). The Spice Island building and parcels were also indicated therein as a separate development. As noted, the 2 roads that pass through and serve these parcels are easements, not dedicated streets, and Associated Rd. is evidently eponymous of its developers. A 1988 San Mateo County map delineated another road, Baker Rd., that paralleled Sylvester within the eastern leg of lot 13, and which name was again internally related, in that case to the building owners of parcels #14-15, the Alan Baker Co., who still occupy 160 Sylvester Rd. (fig.9). 336 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P4 Setting The subject site is urban industrial. Freeway 101 and Caltrain pass immediately to the west, the former with a directly adjacent exit ramp, the latter the directly adjacent South San Francisco station. The San Francisco International Airport is also located nearby, to the south, so the vicinity is deeply marked by modes of transportation. Today, on the east side of the freeway and railway, where heavy industry that likewise capitalized on transportation connections once predominated, facilities largely servicing light industrial and technological science industrial uses are located (though there are a mix of other uses, including retail and hotel, with a hotel directly north of 100 E. Grand Ave.). Today bound by the 101 Freeway and Caltrain railway (west), E. Grand Ave. (north), the SPRR railroad right-of-way (south) and the PG&E substation parcel (east), the portion of the block on which 100 E. Grand and 105 Associated stand was, in 1920, mapped as a single parcel (#25). Since its development in the early 1950s into the early 1960s, former lot #25 has housed light manufacturing and warehouse uses on each of its twelve parcels. Each of the existing eleven buildings relate as mid-20th century light-industrial building types, while most are also visibly related for their shared tilt- up concrete construction method. Moreover, like the subject buildings, as summarized below, most others to the west of Sylvester Rd. were constructed by Associated Construction & Engineering, yet without common property owners or users. Thus, despite appearances, each was independently developed, in the following order and, where identifiable, for and by the following property owners and contractors: date address property owner user contractor 1954 100 E. Grand Josephine A. Sargent Spice Islands Co. Associated Construction 170 Associated -- Coleman Co. Associated Construction 1955 105 Associated E. A. Mignacco Morris Mfg. Co. Associated Construction 160-170 Sylvester -- Mueller Brass Works Associated Construction 1956 180 Sylvester Alan Baker Power Products Inc. Arthur W. Baum 1957 129 Sylvester Demartini Trust Thermoid Co. Associated Construction 145 Sylvester Capital Trust J.H. Coffman Co. Associated Construction 1963 101 Associated Arthur Rude, Sr. Paragon Wax Associated Construction Summary Description 100 E. Grand Ave. (figs.11-19) Like its building, the subject site is trapezoidal, its angled west side aligned with the freeway off ramp. An approximately 36 foot deep by 42 foot wide independent parcel notches into the subject site’s northwest corner. Less that notch, the subject 2 acre parcel measures 315 feet at the front, 240 feet at its east side, its rear 379 feet and its angled west side 216 feet (fig.10). Standing at the southwest corner of E. Grand Ave. and Sylvester Rd., the building fronts on both yet primarily on E. Grand. At that front is a shallow strip with parking and loading areas and a landscaped space at the entry way at the left (east) of front. Its angled west side wall directly abuts the northward offramp from the Bayshore Freeway (101) to E. Grand. At its east side, on Sylvester Rd., a row of angled parking separates the exterior building wall from the road – though the parking and road are an easement so are not physically separable. Behind, to the south, the building faces a related, open paved lot on a separate parcel. As noted above, this existing light-industrial warehouse was constructed in two parts, yet altogether of tilt-up concrete walls with wood bow-trussed and cap-sheeted roofs. 337 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P5 The 1954 structure was engineered by Jennings & McClure Structural Engineers, San Francisco, and constructed by Associated Construction & Engineering Co., also of San Francisco. Its plan is 220 feet wide (east-west) by 228 feet deep and its exterior walls are 20 feet high, above which the bowed roofs are partly visible. There is an arrangement of metal framed windows at the northeast corner and a canopied front entry door where offices were and are located. Frontward, there are 5 loading openings with industrial metal loading doors in 3 and metal frame storefronts in 2, plus 2 egress doors. There are 2 more loading doors at the east side along with another egress door, several additional windows and another loading door at the rear. The trapezoidal 1956 addition – angled at the west side, setback at the front (north) to clear a pump station on an independent parcel, its rear wall in line with the original building wall – measures 80 feet wide at the front, 209 feet deep, 112 feet wide at the rear, its exterior walls again 20 feet high. Its openings are limited to a loading and an egress door at the front (north), and a pair of loading doors and another egress door at the rear. As also summarized above, the building exteriors were altered in 1997. Those permit plans indicated the exterior removal of original industrial steel doors and windows – which, aside from the concrete, were the only other exterior material in the wall assembly. 105 Associated Rd. (figs.20-24) The 105 Associated Rd. site is again trapezoidal, with an angled west side property line along the freeway off ramp and with a small toe extending southward at the end of Associated Rd. at the site’s southwestern corner. Its 175.5 foot deep by 170 foot wide by 20 foot tall building largely fills the site yet is setback at the south to align with the north edge of the road and has a narrow and angled setback at its west side. The structure has 4 painted, tilt-up concrete walls with a bow-trussed roof in 3 segments. The front entry is at the southeast corner, where there is a canopied entrance flanked by windows and with additional windows at the east side of that front building corner. The entry door and side lites appear to be aluminum, as are the sets of windows, which are divided into 3 large vertical lites. The south, east and north exterior walls each have central loading door opening with industrial metal doors, the west side with another loading door at its south end. There are also several flush metal egress doors at the south and east walls. Other than permit applications for interior alterations, no original or subsequent plans for this building are on record and there are no recorded exterior alteration permits. Nonetheless, the existing doors and windows at the southeast corner have evidently replaced the originals, which would have been industrial steel. A range of structural plates visible at the exterior appear to have also been added. Associated Persons Individuals associated with the subject properties and buildings include the following. The earliest property owner of the 19th century ranch and wet lands of which the future 100 E. Grand Ave. and 105 Associated Rd. were miniscule spots, and whose lands became the bulk of future South San Francisco, was Charles Lux (1823-1887). The subsequent property owner of the peninsular industrial lands of South San Francisco was G. F. Swift and who, like Lux, was in the meat industry, yet out of Chicago. Circa 1890, Swift & Co. expanded their industrial meat enterprise to the west coast and, specifically, to the former Lux lands in South San Francisco, where they operated stock yards and meat packing facilities on Swift Ave. 338 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P6 (future E. Grand) under the name Western Meat Co. Swift’s surrounding and extensive industrial and wetlands were held and marketed under the South San Francisco Land & Improvement Co., whose holdings included the then undeveloped subject and surrounding plots. Per deed records, the South San Francisco Land & Improvement Co. sold off their holdings over the course of the early-to-mid 20th century, including the subject block. As noted above, at the time of their development, the owners of the 100 E. Grand and 105 Associated parcels were Josephine A. Sargent and Eugene A. Mignacco, respectively, both of whom were speculative investors. Re: 100 E. Grand, the 1954 building and its 1956 addition were constructed for the Spice Islands Co., which company was founded in 1941, in San Francisco, by Frederic H. Johnson (1892-1977). As its name implies, Johnson’s company produced and distributed culinary spices. Under new leadership since the early 1960s, Spice Island Co. maintained their plant at 100 E. Grand Ave. until 1973, when they relocated the plant to nearby 345 Allerton Rd., prior to which their executive offices were relocated to San Francisco and where they remained until 1978. The 105 Associated Rd. building was developed for the Morris Manufacturing Co., about which no specific historical information has, at this juncture, been located. Subsequently, the building owner was K. W. Vinnicombe and the S. F. Spice Co. who, in the late-1970s and 1980s, did not occupy the building but leased it to various entities. Builders & Engineers The contractor of both original buildings was Associated Construction & Engineering Co., an industrial building contracting and engineering partnership formed in March of 1952 by 4 partners: William H. Acheson, John L. Chapman, Ralph A. Skoog and Earl E. Swanson; and who operated until c1976. Associated was located in San Francisco until 1959, when they relocated to Beacon St. in South San Francisco. An early advertisement – prior to the formal partnership – promoted Associated’s experience with industrial steel structures.4 Yet, their expertise evidently included concrete tilt-up construction, which Associated did not invent, as the method dates to much earlier in the century.5 Nor were they unique in deploying tilt-up construction, as it was then widely deployed by other contractors throughout the Bay Area. One such builder was Carl Holvick & Co., who erected numerous tilt-up industrial buildings on the San Francisco peninsula.6 No architect was involved in the original building designs. Rather, they were engineered by Jennings & McClure. Whereas an architect, C. S. Moyer, was engaged for the 1956 addition to 100 E. Grand, as was another contractor, A. L. Holmes & Son. In each case, no additional information of any historical import has been found. Historic Contexts The development context of the subject and adjoining blocks is directly situated in the post-World War II, American suburbanization and transportation period, which context also embodied the large- scale suburban and urbanization of agricultural lands. This development context was far-ranging in 4 San Francisco Examiner; Nov. 7, 1951; p24 (accessed March 2022). 5 See, for example, “The History of Tilt-Up Construction; Over 100 years of innovation” https://tilt-up.org/tilt- uptoday/2006/04/01/the-history-of-tca/ and “Tilt-Up Construction: The Past, The Present, And The Future” @https://tiltwall.ca/blog/tilt-up-construction-the-past-the-present-and-the-future/ (accessed March 2022). 6 “Holvick, Carl - 1913-2003.” SF Chronicle, Sat. Aug.2, 2003 @ http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/HOLVICK-Carl- 2562862.php (accessed Mar.2022). Note: The referenced 1961 new article has not been located. 339 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P7 the post-war period throughout the region, including the towns and cities of the San Francisco Peninsula, each of which then experienced extensive new development, including adaptation of agricultural properties and extensive infill of wetlands. Given the period of development, the subject resource also relates to and is thus situated in the context of mid-20th century, commercial and industrial design and construction. Based on directly applicable historic contexts, for example, San Jose’s modern context statement and the City of San Francisco’s, architecturally, the most applicable style is the Midcentury Modern.7 As documented in San Francisco’s context, characteristics of the style include: • Cantilevered roofs and overhangs • The use of bright or contrasting colors • Projecting eaves • Canted windows • Projecting boxes that frame the upper stories • Stucco siding • Spandrel glass • Large expanses of windows • Flat or shed roof forms • Vertical corrugated siding • Stacked roman brick cladding • And, occasionally, vertical wood siding. • New technology and materials, such as plastic laminates, spandrel glass, and anodized metal sheaths. While these characteristics are most applicable to architecturally designed resources, the overall characterization is applicable toward gauging the character of built resources from the mid-20th century period. Evaluation The subject parcels and buildings have not previously been evaluated for historic resource eligibility. The City of South San Francisco has a range of sites that the City has identified as historic and are mapped and listed on the South San Francisco Historic Sites (fig.24) and Historic Marker Program.8 While some of those sites are located in the industrial lands east of the freeway, the subject properties are not listed thereon, there are no sites within the subject or surrounding blocks, nor (per an over-the-counter review with SSF Planning) is there any evidence of more current or ongoing historical evaluations or designations. Additionally, no historical records for the subject properties are available at the State’s California Historic Resource Information System, as neither the subject property nor any nearby properties are listed on the State’s current Built Environment Resource Database (BERD).9 In order to address the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specific to historic resources, the current effort has been requested and is intended to provide such historic resource evaluation. 7 Mary Brown, San Francisco City and County Planning Department. San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement, September 30, 2010. 8 Historic Marker Program @https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/1802/636344246018530000. 9 BERD @https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338 (accessed March-April 2022). 340 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P8 To be eligible for listing on the California Register, a resource must be historically significant at the local, state or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria, each of which is iterated and followed with a summary evaluation statement specific to the 2 subject resources. 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. In their post-WWII development context, there is no potential historical significance associated with these light manufacturing and warehousing uses or buildings, which generally fit a far- ranging post-war commercial development pattern. No individual companies, discoveries, innovations, inventions or products of importance are identifiably associated with either of these properties. As there is no evidence, individually or collectively, of any historic events directly associated with the subject properties, the properties and buildings at 100 E. Grand Ave. and 105 Associated Rd. do not meet CR criterion 1. 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. The earliest property owner of the then ranch and wet lands, of which the future, subject sites were miniscule pieces, and whose lands became the bulk of South San Francisco, was Charles Lux (1823-1887). While an evidently important person in 19th century local and state history, Lux has no direct or applicable association to the mid-20th century commercial development on his former lands. The subsequent property owner of large portions of the peninsular industrial lands of South San Francisco was G. F. Swift and who, like Lux, was in the real estate and meat industries, though Swift was out of Chicago. Swift’s surrounding and extensive industrial and wet lands were held and marketed under the South San Francisco Land & Improvement Co., whose holdings included the then undeveloped subject and surrounding plots. Again, whatever historical importance G. F. Swift and, by extension, Swift & Co. and the South San Francisco Land & Improvement Co. may have, there is again no direct association to the existing, mid-20th century development on the subject or surrounding parcels. In the early 1950s, at the time of its first development, the 100 Grand Ave. property owner was Josephine A. Sargent of Oakland. Sargent leased the subject parcel for its original development and sold it upon development, so her association to the extant building was as an investor. There is also no evidence to suggest that Sargent has any potential historic importance. Likewise, the property owner at the time of the development of 105 Associated Rd., E. A. Mignacco, leased that parcel for development for investment purposes. Based on concurrent research by this researcher, Mignacco had other and similar industrial property investments in San Carlos. There is again no evidence that Mignacco has any potential historic importance. Additionally, the existing 100 E. Grand Ave. building was constructed for the Spice Islands Co., which company was founded in 1941, in San Francisco, by Frederic H. Johnson (1892-1977). Aside from Johnson’s association to his spice production company, he does not have any identifiable historic interest. And, lastly, the extant 105 Associated Rd. building was built for the 341 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P9 Morris Manufacturing Co., about whom the lack of available information confirms their lack of historic importance. Consequently, as no persons of historic importance have direct association to either 100 E. Grand Ave. or 105 Associated Rd., the subject resources do not meet CR criterion 2. 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. The subject buildings are generic, light-industrial, tilt-up concrete structures. These buildings lack any distinction in terms of mid-20th century design and construction, as there are no inventive, unique, prototypical or distinctive design forms, building systems or materials. Rather, such light industrial buildings exhibit utilitarian and expeditious design and construction. Additionally, the primary doors and windows of both original building exteriors, which are their only elements other than the flat concrete walls, have been substantially altered. Further, the original engineers (Jennings & McClure) and contractor (Associated Construction and Engineering Co.) have no identified historic importance. Lastly, while the subject buildings indirectly relate to surrounding, mid-20th century light- industrial development, there is no evidence of any planning or design interrelationships as each of these utilitarian buildings was developed individually and expediently (figs.25-27). As the subject buildings do not embody any design or construction distinction in terms of type, period, region or methods; as they are not works of any historically important architect, engineer, designer or builder; nor do they possess any artistic values; the extant buildings at 100 E. Grand Ave. and 105 Associate Rd. are not individually or collectively eligible for the CR under CR Criterion 3. 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the Nation. The subject properties and buildings have not yielded and do not appear to have the potential to yield any important historic information beyond the present historical record (prehistory is outside the scope of this historical effort). Thus, relative to the subject of this evaluation – potential historic resources – the subject resources have not yielded and have no identifiable potential to yield important historical information, so do not meet CR Criterion 4. Conclusion While additional historical research is always possible – in-depth search of the variously associated companies, for example – further details would not alter the unequivocal conclusion of this evaluation effort, which is that the subject properties and buildings have no potential historical or cultural importance. It is also clear that the removal and replacement of these buildings has no potential to affect any presently identified resources of historical interest in the vicinity – of which there are none within visual range of the subject property. Nor does there appear to be any nearby potential historic resources or, specifically, a group of resources that could comprise an historic district. Re: the latter, 342 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P10 the one and most applicable example is the group of light industrial buildings on the subject block. However, as noted, while this group of buildings are related by their shared building type and construction method, there is no evidence of any overall planned design. Such utilitarian resource types and their construction methods are also ubiquitous rather than unique. In conclusion, the extant properties and buildings at 100 E. Grand Ave. and 105 Associated Rd. do not meet any applicable criteria so are not eligible for the California Register. This conclusion is also plainly visible, as none of the subject and adjacent light industrial buildings, individually and collectively, suggest or present noteworthy uses, designs or construction. Signed: Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect attached: Figs.1-27 (pp.11-21); MH professional qualifications (3pp.) 343 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P11 Fig.1 – 100 E. Grand Ave. /105 Associated Rd. (circled) - Location aerial (Google Earth 2021, north is up) Fig.2 – 100 E. Grand (yellow)/105 Associated (blue) - Location aerial (Google Earth 2021, north is up) E. GRAND AVE. SPRR 101 FREEWAY CALTRAIN ALLERTON AVE. OYSTER PT. BLVD. E. GRAND AVE. GATEWAY BLVD. 101 FREEWAY E. GRAND AVE. CALTRAIN SPRR DOWNTOWN SSF SAN FRANCISCO BAY SYLVESTER RD. PG&E INDUSTRIAL AVE. ASSOCIATED RD. 100 105 100 105 344 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P12 Fig.3 – 100 E. Grand/105 Associated (highlighted) - Site aerial (Google Earth 2021, north is up) E. GRAND AVE. SYLVESTER RD. FWY. 101 OFFRAMP CALTRAIN ASSOCIATED RD. 100 E. GRAND AVE. 105 ASSOCIATED RD. 345 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P13 Fig.4 – 100 E. Grand/105 Associated - Assessor’s parcel map (incl. parking lot parcels - north is up) Fig.5 – 100 E. Grand/105 Associated (circled, approx.) - 1881 map (from San Mateo County Assessor) 346 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P14 Fig.6 – 100 E. Grand/105 Associated (highlighted, approx.) - from 1920 Map of South San Francisco (from digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu) Fig.7 – 100 E. Grand/105 Associated (circled, approx.) - from 1920 Map of South San Francisco (from digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu) 347 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P15 Fig.8 – 100 E. Grand/105 Associated (approx.) - from 1954 plot plan Fig.9 – 100 E. Grand/105 Associated - from 1988 San Mateo County map Fig.10 – 100 E. Grand/105 Associated (arrow) - from South San Francisco Historic Sites map, c1989 (colored dots indicate historic sites/markers) 348 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P16 Fig.11 – 100 E. Grand/105 Associated - 1953 property survey, E. Grand Ave. at top - from City of SSF permit records Fig.12 – 100 E. Grand Ave. - Front (north) of 1953 building (figs.12-27, MH 2022) Fig.13 – 100 E. Grand Ave. - Front (north) of 1953 building (center and left) w/1956 addition (right) 349 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P17 Fig.14 – 100 E. Grand Ave. - Front (north) of 1956 addition (northbound freeway offramp at right) Fig.15 – 100 E. Grand Ave. - West side along freeway offramp (looking southward) Fig.16 – 100 E. Grand Ave. - East side along Sylvester Rd. (looking southward) 350 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P18 Fig.17 – 100 E. Grand Ave. - Rear (south) and east side from Sylvester Rd. (looking northward) Fig.18 – 100 E. Grand Ave. - Rear (looking westward) Fig.19 – 100 E. Grand Ave. – Rear, from lot #13 (looking north) 351 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P19 Fig.20 – 105 Associated Rd. – Front (south) Fig.21 – 105 Associated Rd. – East side (and neighboring building), looking north Fig.22 – 105 Associated Rd. – East side, looking southwest 352 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P20 Fig.23 – 105 Associated Rd. – Part east side and north side, looking west Fig.24 – 105 Associated Rd. – Lot at north side, looking northwest Fig.25 – 160-170 Sylvester Rd. 353 100 E. GRAND & 105 ASSOCIATED, SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 040622 – P21 Fig.26 – 180 Sylvester Rd. Fig.27 – 170 Associated Rd. 354 446 17th Street #302 Oakland 94612 510 418 0285 mhulbert@earthlink.net Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect With thirty-five-plus years of professional preservation experience – including, since 2002, as an independent historical and cultural resources consultant with offices in Oakland – I have been privileged to work on many important historical projects as a preservation consultant, planner, architect and author. The range of my work includes: • Preservation and rehabilitation consultation to property owners, project sponsors and their project teams; • The preparation of historic structures reports, landscape reports, and preservation plans; • Cultural and historical resources evaluation and consultation specific to local, state and national jurisdic- tional criteria; • Historic preservation tax credit applications. My professional qualifications exceed the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in the fields of History, Historic Architecture and Architecture; I am listed by the State of California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as a CEQA qualified historical architect and historic preservation consultant; additionally hold a Certificate in Architectural Conservation from UNESCO's International Centre for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in Rome, Italy; and have been a registered California Architect since 1989. Professional Experience 2002- Mark Hulbert Preservation Architecture, Oakland, CA 1998-2002 Associate/Preservation Architect, C David Robinson Architects, San Francisco 1990-1998 Architectural Conservator/Preservation Architect, Page & Turnbull, San Francisco 1986-1989 Architect, Michael Rex Associates, Sausalito, CA 1984-1985 Architecture & Preservation, Buttrick, White & Burtis, NY, NY 1982-1984 Retail Planning, Architectural & Industrial Design, Milton Glaser, NY, NY 1981-1982 Architecture & Preservation, William A. Hall & Associates, NY, NY Professional Education International Centre for the Conservation of Cultural Property, Rome, Italy; ARC, 1996. North Carolina State University School of Design, Raleigh, NC: B-Env.Des.-Arch., 1980-81. Boston Architectural Center, Boston, MA; 1979-1980 Mercer College, Trenton, NJ: A. Arch., 1977-1979 Professional Registration Certificate, Architectural Conservation, ICCROM, 1996 California Architect C 21014, 1989 Selected Preservation & Rehabilitation Project Experience Pier 70/20th Street Historic Buildings (1886-1945), San Francisco Mare Island Sentry Houses, Mare Island, Vallejo Tomales Town Hall, Tomales Napa Post Office (William Corlett, 1933), Napa Sherwin Factory (The Austin Co., 1920-1938), 1450 Sherwin Ave. Emeryville Winehaven (1875-1924), Richmond Hawk Hill/Battery Construction 129, Marin Headlands, GGNRA Oakland Auditorium (John J. Donovan, 1914), Oakland La Bahia Hotel/Casa del Rey (William C. Hays, 1926), Santa Cruz 355 MHPA – QUALIFICATIONS – P2 Selected Preservation & Rehabilitation Project Experience-cont. BPR Hotel/Petaluma Silk Mill (C. Havens, 1892; Brainerd Jones, 1922), Petaluma Borreo Building (1877), Napa Eschol/Trefethen Winery Building (Hamden McIntyre, 1886), Napa The Marshall Houses (C.M. Cook, 1900; Cunningham Bros., 1903), Berkeley Archer Hotel/1212-1221 First Street (1929), Napa Phoenix Lake Log Cabin (1893-94), Marin Municipal Water District Cardiff House (1864), UC Santa Cruz Mill Valley Lumber Co. (c1892-1926), Mill Valley Gamble Building (c1850), Big Oak Flat Buildings 45 and 223, Mare Island Saint Mary’s College (John J. Donovan, 1928; Milton T. Pfleuger, 1960), Moraga Marin County Civic Center Chambers (Frank Lloyd Wright, 1962), Marin County Filbert Street Cottages (1906-1946), San Francisco Shattuck Hotel (Benjamin McDougal, 1909-14; Walter Ratcliff, Jr., 1927), Berkeley The Valhalla (1893), Sausalito Hacienda De Las Flores (1916-17), Moraga Demmel Boathouse, Inverness Petaluma & Santa Rosa Railroad Trestle (1922), Petaluma Highland Hospital (Henry H. Meyers Arch., Howard Gilkey Landscape Arch., 1926), Oakland Claremont Branch Library (James Plachek, 1924), Berkeley Richmond Civic Center (Pflueger & Pflueger Arch., H. Leland Vaughan Landscape Arch., 1948), Richmond San Joaquin Experimental Range (1934), Madera County Ford Assembly Building (Albert Kahn, 1929), Richmond Clark Kerr Campus Buildings and Landscape (Alfred Eichler, 1930-1950), UC Berkeley Building 165/Baylink Ferry, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo Chi Theta Chi House (W. Corlett, 1935-1950), Stanford Municipal Boathouse (John G. Howard, 1907), Oakland Los Gatos High School Theatre (William Weeks, c1925), Los Gatos Marshall General Store/Hog Island Oyster Co., Marshall Cryer Ranch, Hayward Kingman Hall (Drysdale & Thomson, 1914), Berkeley YWCA (Julia Morgan, 1914), Oakland Studio One Arts Center, Oakland William Colby House (Julia Morgan, 1905), Berkeley Keeler Residence (Bernard Maybeck, 1902), Berkeley SummerHill Historic Homes, (904-932 Bryant St., 264-270 Channing Way), Palo Alto Edwards Stadium, UC Berkeley Pier 40, San Francisco Boudrow Residence (Julius Krafft, 1881), Berkeley Heritage Theatre/Campbell High School Auditorium (William Weeks, 1925), Campbell The Cliff House (Reid Bros., 1909), San Francisco Lucie Stern Community Theater (Birge Clark, c1921), Palo Alto Hearst Memorial Mining Building (John G. Howard, 1907), University of California, Berkeley Geary Theater (Bliss & Faville, 1910), San Francisco Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Bakewell & Brown, 1922; Bliss&Faville, 1925), San Francisco California State Office Building (Bliss & Faville, c1930), San Francisco 356 MHPA – QUALIFICATIONS – P3 Selected Historical Resource and Project Evaluations Sausalito Yacht Club Mallard Point, Belvedere CA Capitol Annex, Sacramento The Lab, Berkeley 170 Bridge Rd., Hillsborough Dwight/Milvia Properties, Berkeley Alexandria, San Carlos 2526 Hawthorne, Berkeley Hayward Plunge, Hayward 12/14 Onyx Street, Larkspur 2115 Broadway, Oakland Ladera Winery, Angwin Kennedy Park House, Napa Cambrian Park Plaza, San Jose Stanford Financial Square, Palo Alto Trefethen Winery, Napa County Sausalito City Hall, Sausalito Point Reyes Lodge, Olema Saint Mary’s College, Moraga 94th & International, Oakland 1212-1222 First Street, Napa 1945 Broadway, Oakland Demmel Boathouse, Inverness Mill Valley Lumber Co., Mill Valley 450 Hayes Street, San Francisco 565 Throckmorton Avenue, Mill Valley The Valhalla, Sausalito 167 Lovell Avenue, Mill Valley Wheeler Plaza, San Carlos 1538 3rd Street, Napa 1501 Third Street, Napa 94th & International, Oakland 136 Ord Street, San Francisco University/Shattuck Properties, Berkeley 466 Missouri Street, San Francisco Lick Mansion, Santa Clara 352 Richland Ave., San Francisco 1531 Oak Park Blvd., Pleasant Hill 12 Laurel Way, Kentfield St. Matthew School, San Mateo 2 Glenwood Avenue, Ross Claremont Branch Library, Berkeley Horseshoe Hill Ranch, Bolinas Menlo Park Fire Station 2, East Palo Alto Yolanda-Hurd Ranch, Danville 2222 Third Street, Berkeley Laurel Ranch, Clayton 401 Taylor Blvd., Pleasant Hill 350 Bella Vista, Belvedere Fire Station 66, Richmond Masonic Homes, Union City 280 Divisadero Ave., San Francisco 660 Bridgeway Blvd., Sausalito 24829 Palomares Road, Castro Valley Richmond Public Library, Richmond San Antonio Hills Neighborhood, Oakland 30935 Vallejo Street, Union City 1 Culloden Park Road, San Rafael 1500 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley 2600 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley St. Brigids Church, San Francisco 2255 Lyon Street, San Francisco 216 Corte Madera Avenue, Mill Valley Armstrong School Building, Berkeley First Congregational Church, San Francisco 412 Monte Vista Avenue, Oakland 1849 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco Booker T. Washington Center, San Francisco SF Boys & Girls Club, San Francisco 430 Main & 429 Beale Street, San Francisco Town & Country Village, Palo Alto Winters Building, Richmond 3900 Adeline Street, Emeryville 323 University Avenue, Palo Alto Spring Estate, Berkeley 5924-30 Foothill Blvd., Oakland Mazda Lamp Works, Oakland 461 Baker Street, San Francisco Berkland Baptist Church, Oakland Pier 40, San Francisco 1505 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley Harrison Street Properties, San Francisco 2121 Allston Way/Magnus Museum, Berkeley 45 Lansing Street, San Francisco 401 Alice & 420 Third Streets, Oakland Pier 23, San Francisco 1919 Market Street, Oakland 230 BayPlace, Oakland Terminal One, Richmond Saratoga Lanes, San Jose Macdonald Avenue, Richmond Clayburgh Building, San Francisco 357 11-1 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.1 Introduction South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11.1 INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2013102001 identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the proposed project in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, recreation, and transportation/traffic. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically, the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by City of South San Francisco staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the proposed Plan. Monitoring will consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation or by field observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. 11.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Table 11-1 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix) identifies the mitigation measures by resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation, monitoring activity, timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor, together with date of verification. 358 11-2 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party AIR QUALITY MM4.2-1 Construction emissions for all future development under the Specific Plan shall be quantified prior to the start of construction. For projects where construction emissions are anticipated to exceed the most recent City-adopted thresholds, in addition to the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, construction activities shall implement the BAAQMD Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significance criteria. Mitigation reductions shall be quantified prior to the start of construction to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project emissions. The Additional Construction Mitigation Measures include the following: 1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. 3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. 4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12- inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent. 9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. 10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent California ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment Verification of construction plan Prior to issuance of grading permit Developer Department of Economic and Community Development 359 11-3 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. 11. Use low-ROG coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). 12. All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. 13. All contractors shall use equipment that meets California ARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. MM4.2-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for future development projects under the Specific Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of recommended BAAQMD operational mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significance criteria. Operational emissions and mitigation reductions will be quantified prior to issuance of the building permit to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project emissions. The recommended measures include, but are not limited to, any of the following: 1. Increase on-street parking fees. 2. Daily parking charge for employees. 3. Provide a parking “cash-out” incentive for employees who use alternative transportation to commute. 4. Provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees. 5. Encourage alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuting. 6. Provide a ridesharing program. Verification of construction plan Prior to issuance of grading permit Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.2-3 Siting Sensitive Receptors near Potential TAC Source. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional for development of a project that would introduce new sensitive receptors in the study area within the siting distance for any use listed in ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced here as Table 4.2-11 [Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]). Sensitive receptors include day care centers, schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential homes, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an HRA has been completed and approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If a potentially significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate measures to reduce the potential health risk to below a significant level or the sensitive receptor shall be sited in another location. Preparation and approval of Health Risk Assessment Prior to issuance of grading permit Developer Department of Economic and Community Development 360 11-4 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party Table 4.2-11 Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Source Category Advisory Recommendations Freeways and High- Traffic Roads Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. Distribution Centers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week) Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points. Rail Yards Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. Within 1 mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches. Ports Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks. Refineries Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks. Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater. Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines consult with the local air district. Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations. 361 11-5 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005). These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposures addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as much as 80% with the recommended separation. The relative risk for these categories varies greatly. To determine the actual risk near a particular facility, a site-specific analysis would be required. Risk from diesel PM will decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in. These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing facilities may not be readily available and are not designed to substitute for more specific information if it exists. The recommended distances take into account other factors in addition to the available health risk data. Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses. This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known problems like dry cleaners using perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable preventative actions. 362 11-6 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party MM4.2-4 Siting of New Toxic Air Contaminant Sources Near Sensitive Receptors. Prior to approval of any project that includes potential sources of significant TAC emissions that is not subject to a BAAQMD permit, that is proposed in a close proximity to a sensitive receptor, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional. The land uses listed in ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced above as Table 4.2-11 [Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]), shall be considered potentially significant sources of TAC emissions. Such a proposed project will be considered in close proximity to a sensitive receptor if it would be located within the siting distance outline for the use in Table 1-1 of the ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Sensitive receptors include day care centers, schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential homes, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an HRA has been completed and approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If a potentially significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate measures to reduce the potential health risk to below a significant level, or the proposed facility shall be sited in another location. Preparation and approval of Health Risk Assessment Prior to issuance of first building permit Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.2-5 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new industrial land uses identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a typical source of odors, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of best management practices to minimize odors. Best management practices vary by industrial type. In all cases, exhaust vents should be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. Best management practices recommended by the BAAQMD in the CEQA Guidelines shall be implemented as applicable, and may include the following: ■ Vapor Recovery Systems ■ Injection of masking odorants into process streams ■ Thermal oxidation ■ Carbon absorption ■ Scrubbers ■ Catalytic oxidation Verification of implementation of best management practices to control odors Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy Developer Department of Economic and Community Development 363 11-7 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party CULTURAL RESOURCES MM4.3-1 Prior to development activities that would demolish or otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 45 years old or older, the project applicant shall retain a cultural resource professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History to determine if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The investigation shall include, as determined appropriate by the cultural resource professional and the City of South San Francisco, the appropriate archival research, including, if necessary, an updated records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System and a pedestrian survey of the proposed development area to determine if any significant historic-period resources would be adversely affected by the proposed development. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical report or memorandum that identifies and evaluates any historical resources within the development area and includes recommendations and methods for eliminating or reducing impacts on historical resources. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval. As determined necessary by the City, environmental documentation (e.g., CEQA documentation) prepared for future development within the project site shall reference or incorporate the findings and recommendations of the technical report or memorandum. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for eliminating or reducing impacts on historical resources identified in the technical report or memorandum. Historic resource evaluation and report Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development 364 11-8 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party MM4.3-2 Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could encounter previously undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a City approved archaeologist to determine if the project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The results of the cultural resources investigation shall be documented in a technical report or memorandum that identifies and evaluates any archaeological resources within the development area and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding impacts on archaeological resources or reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing impacts on archaeological resources identified in the technical report or memorandum. Projects under the Specific Plan that would not encounter previously undisturbed soils and would therefore not be required to retain an archaeologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the City through the appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth- disturbing activities. Projects that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed soils) shall comply with mitigation measure MM4.3-3. Archaeological resource evaluation and report Prior to issuance of first building permit Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.3-3 If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are discovered during any project-related earth- disturbing activities (including projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils), all earth- disturbing activity within 100 feet of the find shall be halted and the City of South San Francisco shall be notified. The project applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than- significant level through methods determined adequate by the archaeologist as approved by the City. Cessation of construction activities and archaeological investigation Ongoing during construction Developer/contractor Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.3-4 Prior to start of construction, all construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing activities and the supervision of such activities will undergo worker environmental awareness training. The archaeological resources training components will be presented by a City- approved cultural resources consultant. The training will describe the types of archaeological resources that may be found in the proposed study area and how to recognize such resources; the protocols to be followed if archaeological resources are found, including communication protocols; and the laws relevant to the protection of archaeological resources and the associated penalties for breaking these laws. Additionally, prior to construction, City-approved archaeological resources consultants will meet with the applicant’s grading and excavation contractors to provide comments and suggestions concerning monitoring plans and to discuss excavation and grading plans. Verification of worker environmental awareness training Prior to commencement of construction activities Developer/contractor Department of Economic and Community Development 365 11-9 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party MM4.3-5 Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could encounter undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist to determine if the project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical report or memorandum that identifies the paleontological sensitivity of the development area and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding or reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level for paleontological resources or unique geologic features. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City for approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing impacts on paleontological resources or unique geologic features identified in the technical report or memorandum. Projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils and would therefore not be required to retain a paleontologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the City through the appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth- disturbing activities. Projects that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed soils) shall comply with mitigation measure MM4.3-6. Paleontological investigation and report Prior to issuance of first building permit Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.3-6 Should paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) or unique geologic features be identified at a particular site during project construction, construction shall cease within 100 feet of the find and the City of South San Francisco shall be notified. The project applicant shall retain a City approved paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods determined adequate by the paleontologist, and as approved by the City. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of South San Francisco staff shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, applicable regulations, policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., monitoring and/or data recovery) shall be instituted. Cessation of construction and paleontological investigation Ongoing during construction Developer/contractor Department of Economic and Community Development 366 11-10 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MM4.4-1 All construction projects shall incorporate, to the greatest extent feasible, the most recent Best Management Practices for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as indicated by the BAAQMD.1 Best Management Practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction may include, but are not limited to: ■ Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet ■ Using local building materials of at least 10 percent ■ Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials Verification of GHG best management practices Prior to issuance of first building permit Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.4-2 Support Expansion of Public and Private Transit Programs to Reduce Employee Commutes (1.2). Employers within the study area shall subscribe to the South San Francisco TDM Ordinance such that a minimum of 25 percent of all employees are included. The South San Francisco TDM Ordinance requires that all nonresidential developments producing 100 average trips per day or more meet a 28 percent non-drive-alone peak hour requirement with fees assessed for noncompliance. Verification of compliance with TDM ordinance Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.4-3 Reduce Dependence on Autos through Smart Parking Policies (1.3). This measure would implement Smart Parking Policies, such as shared parking, to reduce available parking by 10 percent. Implementation of Smart Parking Policies Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.4-4 Expand the Use of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles (2.1). Nonresidential and residential land uses can encourage the use of alternative-fueled vehicles by providing charging stations. In support of this measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 60 electric vehicle chargers are installed within nonresidential land uses and within the residential units electric charging capabilities are available for a minimum of 200 vehicles. Verification of inclusion of charging stations Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.4-5 Reduce Emissions from Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment (2.2). In support of this measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 25 percent of all lawnmowers and leaf blowers acquired/used within the study area would be electric. This requires that there be sufficient electrical outlets outside of all residential and nonresidential units to encourage the use of non-gas-fueled lawn maintenance equipment. Verification of electrical plans Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development 1 Above BMPs are subject to change over time. Bay Area Air Quality Management District will post updates to this list at www.baaqmd.gov. 367 11-11 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party MM4.4-6 Maximize Energy Efficiency in the Built Environment through Standards and the Plan Review Process (3.1). All new development within the study area shall, at a minimum, comply with the CALGreen Tier 1 standards and exceed 2013 Title 24 by a minimum of 10 percent. Verification of compliance Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.4-7 Address Heat Island Issues and Expand the Urban Forest (3.4). At a minimum, 322,000 square feet of all new nonresidential development and 75 new residential units shall address heat island effect issues by using high albedo surfaces and technologies identified in the voluntary CALGreen Standards. This is in addition to the requirements of all new development to plant trees in accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 13.30 with placement used to maximize building shading. Verification of compliance Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.4-8 Promote Energy Information Sharing and Educate the Community about Energy- Efficient Behaviors and Construction (3.5). Develop as part of the Specific Plan an educational information packet that will be distributed to residential and nonresidential land owners. These information packets shall detail potential behavioral changes that can be instituted to save energy, such as unplugging appliances, air-drying clothes, and daylighting strategies. Verification of compliance Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.4-9 Energy Reduction (4.1). In addition to complying with MM4.4-6, the development within the study area shall include the use of solar panels such that a minimum of 35,000 square feet of nonresidential land use roof space is converted to solar panels, 205 residential units are equipped with solar hot water heaters, and the electricity of an additional 75 dwelling units is offset by solar panel arrays associated with the new residential development. Verification of compliance Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.4-10 Water Reduction (6.1). Nonresidential and residential land uses shall reduce per capita water consumption by 40 gallons per day. Measures to be implemented to reduce water consumption may include, but are not limited to: ■ Limiting turf area in commercial and multi-family projects ■ Restricting hours of irrigation to between 3:00 AM and 2 hours after sunrise (suggestion to be included in the energy information saving package) ■ Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors ■ Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants ■ Installing drip irrigation systems ■ Reducing impervious surfaces ■ Installing high-efficiency, water-saving appliances Verification of compliance Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development 368 11-12 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party NOISE MM4.6-1 HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Prior to the approval of building permits for non-residential development, the applicant shall submit a design plan for the project demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the exterior noise level limits for a designated receiving land use category as specified in Noise Ordinance Section 8.32.030. Noise control measures may include, but are not limited to, the selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical louvers. Verification of compliance Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.6-2 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Nonresidential Development. Prior to the approval of building permits for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise level exceeds 70 dBA CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to determine appropriate noise reduction measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced to be below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by the City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that will be implemented to ensure exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Measures that may be implemented to ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to, setbacks to separate the proposed nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or construction of noise barriers on site. Completion and approval of acoustical analysis Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development 369 11-13 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party MM4.6-3 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Multifamily Residences. Prior to the approval of building permits for the following uses, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources shall be below 45 dBA CNEL: ■ Multifamily residences where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL or where noise contours identified in the General Plan Noise Element project a CNEL between 65 and 70 dBA ■ Multifamily residential units that are located within the same building as commercial development ■ Multifamily residential units located near a structure requiring an HVAC system ■ Building plans shall be available during design review and shall demonstrate the accurate calculation of noise attenuation for habitable rooms. For these areas, it may be necessary for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, based on the results of the interior acoustical analysis, the design for buildings in these areas may need to include a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed. Additionally, for new multifamily residences on properties where train horns and railroad crossing warning signals are audible, the acoustical analysis shall ensure that interior noise levels during crossing events do not exceed the Interior Noise Standards in Noise Ordinance Section 8.32.040. Completion and approval of acoustical analysis Plan check Developer Department of Economic and Community Development MM4.6-4 Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction: a. The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibration-generating construction activities. b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site receptors as possible. c. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site. Verification of compliance Prior to issuance of first building permit Developer/contractor Department of Economic and Community Development 370 11-14 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party MM4.6-5 Rail Line Groundborne Vibration. Implement the current FTA and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration- sensitive equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (residences and buildings where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) within 155 feet of the rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA and FRA guidelines prior to obtaining a building permit. Vibration control measures deemed appropriate by the site-specific groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and 75 VdB respectively for Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by the project applicant and approved by the City prior to receiving a building permit. Completion and approval of groundborne vibration analysis Prior to issuance of first building permit Developer Department of Economic and Community Development TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC MM4.10-1 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at #1 Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue. This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. Completion of timing adjustment Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-2 Convert one westbound through lane to a second westbound left-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-3 Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-4 Add a southbound left-turn pocket by removing existing parking and retime and optimize the traffic signal at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue to reallocate green time to better serve future volumes. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works 371 11-15 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party MM4.10-5 Modify the westbound approach to add a left-turn pocket, modifying the approach to include three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane, and optimize the traffic signal at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future volumes. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-6 Include an additional westbound through lane, add a second southbound right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future traffic volumes. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-7 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce queuing at the southbound right-turn movement. This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D and with acceptable queue lengths during the PM peak hour. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-8 intentionally omitted 2MM4.10-9 Repurpose the eastbound and westbound approaches to include one left-turn pocket and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue. This lane modification would not require any additional right-of-way. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-10 A signal timing adjustment to optimize cycle length and redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at this intersection. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-11 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at this intersection. This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour. 2 Mitigation measures MM4.10-9 through MM4.10-19 were not renumbered in the Final EIR to account for the elimination of MM4.10-8 since publication of the DEIR. 372 11-16 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party MM4.10-12 Construct an additional northbound right-turn lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. MM4.10-13 Convert the westbound approach to include one left-turn lane and one through-right shared lane. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-14 Modify the eastbound and westbound approach to each have one left-turn pocket and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-15 Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket, one through lane, and one right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce vehicle delay at the intersection, and improve operations at #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-16 Retime and optimize the traffic signals at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-17 Construct an additional westbound left-turn lane, provide a northbound right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works MM4.10-18 Construct an additional northbound left-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at So. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works 373 11-17 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party MM4.10-19 Modify the eastbound approach to include two left-turn lanes, one through-left shared lane, and one right-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at US-101 NB/So. Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/So. Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future volumes. Completion of street improvements Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for project triggering unacceptable delay Developer Department of Public Works 374 11-18 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 375 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-815 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5b. Resolution making findings and approving the entitlements request for the 100 East Grand R&D Project, Project P21-0087,including Use Permit (UP21-0011),Design Review (DR21-0038),Tentative Parcel Map (PM22-0001),Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM21-0010),and Master Sign Program (SIGNS22 -0008), subject to the draft Conditions of Approval. WHEREAS,the applicant has proposed construction of two office and R&D buildings consisting of approximately 559,000 sq.ft.,a parking structure containing 782 spaces,open spaces,landscaping,amenity uses,and circulation improvements (“Project”)on the property located at 100 East Grand Avenue (APNs 015031120,015031130,015031160,015031020)of approximately 5.5 acres (referred to as “Project Site”)in the City; and WHEREAS,the applicant seeks the following entitlements for Project P21-0087,to be considered by the Planning Commission:(Use Permit (UP21-0011),Design Review (DR21-0038),Tentative Parcel Map (PM22- 0001),Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM21-0010),and Master Sign Program (SIGNS22-0008); and WHEREAS,the proposed Project is located within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”)area; and WHEREAS,the proposed Project is located within the Transit Office/Research and Development Core (TO/RD) Zoning District; and WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “Project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)on January 28,2015 (State Clearinghouse number 2013102001)in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP); and WHERAS,the City Council certified an Addendum to the program EIR for the DSASP for the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning Amendments by Resolution No. 31-2018 on February 28, 2018; and WHEREAS,the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”)on January 28, 2015 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant environmental impactsCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 1 of 8 powered by Legistar™376 File #:22-815 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5b. significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project’s economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits; and WHEREAS,the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 as it is a qualified employment project; and WHEREAS,the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,as it is consistent with the General Plan,DSASP,and zoning,and would have no environmental impacts that would be peculiar to the Project or Project Site; and WHEREAS,the City and applicant prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and an Environmental Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (c)(4)that concluded that even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above-listed exemption,in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15162,the Project is within the scope of the DSASP and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP EIR certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required; and WHEREAS,the Design Review Board reviewed the Project on November 16,2021 and May 17,2022,and recommended approval of the Project with the incorporation of recommended design and landscape changes, WHEREAS,on October 6,2022,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR)and 2018 Addendum pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15162 and by separate resolution,finds that the proposed Project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and Public Resources Code Section 21155.4. 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,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.) (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000,et seq.);the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations;the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Addendum,the Environmental Consistency Analysis,including all appendices thereto;Plan set prepared by ZGF Architects, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map prepared by BKF Engineers,Draft TDM Program prepared by Silvani Transportation Consultants,Master Sign Program prepared by RSM Design,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed October 6,2022 meeting;and City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 2 of 8 powered by Legistar™377 File #:22-815 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5b. public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed October 6,2022 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code Sections 21080(e)and 21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the Draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A),the Plan Set (Exhibit B),the Draft Transportation Demand Management Program (Exhibit C)and the Master Sign Program (Exhibit D)each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution,as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner, Tony Rozzi. Conditional Use Permit Findings 1.The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the TO/RD Zoning District.The Project meets or exceeds all the general development standards of the TO/RD Zone District. 2.The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and DSASP by creating a high-intensity office/R&D project that includes commercial and employment uses and emphasizes ground-floor activation,pedestrian and bicycle improvements,connections to transit that implements the goals of the General Plan,provides a well-articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan,and is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and articulation. 3.The proposed Project will not be adverse to the public health,safety,or general welfare of the community,nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements,because the proposed use is consistent with the approved uses in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.The Project proposes high- density office/R&D use located in the City’s TO/RD District,which is intended for this type of use,and would be redeveloping underutilized parcels that are proximate to transit,retail,service,and residential uses.The General Plan has analyzed this type of use and concluded that such mixed uses are not adverse to the public health,safety,or welfare.As the proposed Project is consistent with other high-intensity City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 3 of 8 powered by Legistar™378 File #:22-815 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5b. the public health,safety,or welfare.As the proposed Project is consistent with other high-intensity office/R&D uses in the TO/RD District and surrounding area,approval of the Project will not be detrimental to nearby properties.Further,the proposed use is well-suited to the site,and would improve the property for surrounding users and the City. 4.The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance,with the exception of the parking requirements.The stated exceptions are permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance.The proposed Project is located in the TO/RD Zoning District and, meets the minimum standards and requirements for that district. The exception for the number of parking spaces is allowable under the City’s Municipal Code Section 20.330.006(D), and warranted based on the following findings: a.Special conditions exist because the site is adjacent to the South San Francisco Caltrain station, several SamTrans bus lines,commuter shuttles,and is located proximate to residential neighborhoods and commercial services in the Downtown. b.The proposed parking standard will be adequate for the proposed use because of the offered alternative solutions for providing and managing parking.The Project is required to implement a TDM Program on an on-going basis over the life of the project with a required alternative mode shift of 45%.The TDM requirements applicable to the Project,the fact that similar reduced standards have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several large developments in the City,including both commercial and biotech campuses,and the location proximate to high-quality transit all support a reduced parking standard.The project will be providing parking in keeping with the proposed parking requirements in the Draft 2040 General Plan Update and associated Zoning Code,which is establishing updated parking standards that serve to support and promote the TDM program. c.The reduced parking rate reinforces the overall efforts of the City’s General Plan,DSASP,and the TDM Ordinance,which encourage reduced parking standards as an effective tool in encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. d.The parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area as no on-street parking City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 4 of 8 powered by Legistar™379 File #:22-815 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5b. detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area as no on-street parking is permitted on any of the immediately adjacent streets.As described above,there is ample evidence to support the proposed parking reduction,and there is added concern that an overabundance of parking could have a negative effect on the goals and objectives of the City’s TDM efforts since an oversupply of parking would serve as a disincentive to alternative modes of transportation. 5.The design,location,size,and operating characteristics of the proposed Project are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the Project proposes high- intensity office/R&D use in the TO/RD District, which is specifically intended for such uses. 6.The proposed Project complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning district and the use in question and has been vetted and recommended for approval by the City’s Design Review Board at its meetings of November 16, 2021 and May 17, 2022. 7.The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed,as the commercial and employments uses will benefit from being located in close proximity to the South San Francisco Caltrain station,SamTrans bus lines and commuter shuttles,surrounding residential,retail and services uses in the Downtown area to the west of the site,and pedestrian and bicycle amenities.The size and development is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land use and zoning standards.Access to the site via existing roadways is sufficient as the project is within a built-out urban environment,utilities are provided on-site or proposed for minor upgrades,and no physical constraints such as topography or lack of facilities exists that would prevent suitable development. 8.The Project is categorically and statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,and Public Resources Code Section 21155.4.In addition,the City prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168(c)(4)and 15162,which concluded that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR certified by City Council nor would any new mitigation be required. Design Review Findings 1.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a high-intensity employment project which will provide a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented environment with sustainability elements incorporated. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 5 of 8 powered by Legistar™380 File #:22-815 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5b. 2.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan because the proposed high-intensity development is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the TO/RD land use designation by developing new employment units within close proximity to the Caltrain Station and within the East of 101 area, and by activating the streetscape on East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road. 3.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Design Guidelines, as evaluated in the Zoning Ordinance Compliance analysis for the Project. 4.The Project is consistent with the Use Permit for the reasons stated in the section above. 5.The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria because the Project has been evaluated by the Design Review Board on November 16,2021 and May 17,2022 and found to be consistent with each of the eight criteria set forth in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (Design Review Criteria). Transportation Demand Management Plan Findings 1.The project’s proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the project,considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project’s location proximate to the South San Francisco Caltrain station and multiple SamTrans bus lines and commuter shuttles,and adjacency to residential and retail/service uses,and reduced on-site parking that will encourage alternative transportation modes and reduce single occupant vehicle use. 2.The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target 45%alternative mode use established for the project will be achieved and maintained.Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan,which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 6 of 8 powered by Legistar™381 File #:22-815 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5b. Tentative Parcel Map Findings 1.The proposed vesting tentative parcel map,prepared by BKF Engineers including the proposed designs and improvements,is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area because the tentative map would facilitate the development of a transit-oriented high-intensity office/R&D project which would implement the goals of the area. 2.The proposed vesting tentative parcel map is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. 3.The vesting tentative parcel map complies and meets all the requirements of Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (“Subdivisions”) and with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. 4.The Project site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed,as the employment will be located on underutilized parcels on E Grand Ave which calls for high intensity office/R&D uses in immediate proximity to the Caltrain Station. 5.The vesting tentative parcel map is consistent with the analysis included in the DSASP EIR and Environmental Consistency Analysis for the 100 E.Grand Project,and the approval of this vesting tentative map would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects,nor does the vesting tentative parcel map constitute a change in the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review. 6.The design and improvements of the vesting tentative parcel map are not in conflict with any existing public easements. 7.The property is located in a developed,urban setting,and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract,on open space easement,a conservation easement,or an agricultural conservation easement.The surrounding land uses and resulting parcels would not support agricultural uses;the resulting parcels would result in commercial development not incidental to commercial agricultural use of the land. Master Sign Program Findings 1.The proposed signs are compatible in style and character with the buildings to which the signs are to be attached,any surrounding structures and any adjoining signage on the site because the proposed signs were designed to be in keeping with the architectural design of the buildings, using similar materials and colors; 2.The Master Sign Program contains standards for all wayfinding and identification signage for the site. Any future tenants will be provided with adequate opportunities to construct,erect or maintain a sign for City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 7 of 8 powered by Legistar™382 File #:22-815 Agenda Date:10/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:5b. Any future tenants will be provided with adequate opportunities to construct,erect or maintain a sign for identification; and 3.The Master Sign Program includes the installation of wayfinding and identification signage for the entire site that will improve both pedestrian and vehicular circulation and emergency vehicle access. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and approves the entitlements request for the 100 E. Grand R&D project (P21-0087,Use Permit UP21-0011,Design Review DR21-0038,Tentative Parcel Map PM22-0001,Transportation Demand Management Plan TDM21-0010,and Master Sign Program SIGNS22- 0008. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ******* City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/3/2022Page 8 of 8 powered by Legistar™383 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 1 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P21-0087: UP21-0011, DR21-0038, TDM21-0010, SIGNS22-0008, EIR21-0003 100 E GRAND AVE R&D PROJECT (As recommended by City Staff on October 6, 2022) The term “applicant”, “developer”, “project owner” or “project sponsor” used hereinafter shall have the same meaning- the applicant for the 100 E. Grand Avenue project or the property/project owner if different from applicant. A.Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: General 1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Divisions standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects, as amended, attached to this document. 2. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared by ZGF Architects, dated July 14, 2022 and approved by Planning Commission in association with P21-0087 as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner. 3. The construction drawings shall comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval, including the plans prepared by ZGF Architects, dated July 14, 2022. 4. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 5.Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 6. Any modification to the approved plans shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012 (“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. All exterior design modifications, including any and all utilities, shall be presented to the Chief Planner for a determination. 7.The Final Parcel Map shall comply with all applicable requirements of SSFMC Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (Zoning Ordinance), to be reviewed and filed by the Engineering Division. 384 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 2 Construction 8. 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. 9. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 10. During construction, the applicant shall provide parking for construction workers within the project parking structure when the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal provide written approval. Design Review / Site Planning 11. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall. Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility locations, stand-pipes, equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. The rooftop mechanical screening was approved by the Design Review Board at its November 16, 2021 meeting. 12. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the City’s Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with SSFMC Section 20.300.007, Landscaping. 13. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans demonstrating compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO), if applicable. a. Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO. b. Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the performance measures required by the MWELO. c.For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the City, upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system 14. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall submit interim and final phasing plans and minor modifications to interim and final phasing plans for review and approval by the Chief Planner, City Engineer and Chief Building Official. 385 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 3 15. 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. 16.The applicant shall install three-inch diameter, PVC conduit along the project frontage, in the right-of-way, if any trenching is to take place, for the purpose of future fiber installation. Conduit shall have a pull rope or tape. A #8 stranded trace wire will be installed in the conduit or other trace wire system approved by the City. 17.All landscaping installed within the public right-of-way by the property owner shall be maintained by the property owner. 18.Prior to receiving certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install street furniture, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks along the project sidewalk frontages. The Planning Division shall review and approve all street furniture, trash receptacles and bicycle rack options during the Building Permit process. 19.Demolition of any existing structures on site will require demolition permits. 20. Prior to proceeding with exterior construction, the applicant shall provide a full-scale mockup of a section of exterior wall that shows the cladding materials and finishes, windows, trim, and any other architectural features of the building to fully illustrate building fenestration, subject to site inspection and approval by Planning Division staff. 21. 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. 22. Applicant shall comply with the South San Fire Department Project Review Conditions regarding required secondary remote emergency vehicle access easement and shall provide proof of all applicable and required recordation with the County of San Mateo prior to issuance of any building or grading permits related to the proposed development. Transportation / Parking 23. 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. 24. The applicant has submitted a draft Proposed TDM Plan, prepared by Silvani Transportation Consulting. 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 for review and approval by the Chief Planner. 386 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 4 a.The Final TDM Plan shall include all mandatory elements included in the Ordinance and shall substantially reflect the Preliminary TDM Plan prepared by Silvani Transportation Consulting. The Plan shall be designed to ultimately achieve a goal of 45% alternative mode usage by employees within the Project. The TDM Plan assumes the entire Project will be completed and fully occupied within three or four years of initial construction. Since delivering and occupying such a large, multi- building campus will take time, during the phasing in of occupancy, the Project will meet a minimum of 30% AMS. The AMS target of 45% will be achieved upon full occupancy and stabilization of the Project in the aggregate. Reporting will begin after one year of full occupancy. b. The Final TDM Plan shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring, including annual surveys. The initial annual survey will be submitted one (1) year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy. Surveys in the initial years shall indicate project occupancy. After full occupancy and stabilization of the Project has been achieved, surveys either: (1) state that the applicable property has achieved 45% alternative mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not achieved the 45% alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the TDM goal of 45% alternative mode usage. c. The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM Program on an annual basis. The annual monitoring fee is $1,848.00 and is updated by the City Council on an annual basis. The monitoring fee for the Project’s first year of operation is due to the City prior to the project receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. d.The Final TDM plan shall be subject to review by the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments. The Project Sponsor shall ensure compliance with the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program Land Use Implementation Policy (C/CAG TDM Policy). Specifically, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that the measures identified in the approved C/CAG TDM Checklist are implemented over the life of the project, and that the property owner and tenants acknowledge the requirement to participate in the periodic monitoring and reporting requirements identified in the C/CAG TDM Policy. Accordingly, it is recommended that the property owner and/or developer clearly identify these TDM provisions and responsibilities in any sales and/or lease or sublease transactions. 25.All parking areas are to be maintained free and clear of litter and storage and shall remain clear for parking at all times. No outdoor storage of materials is allowed. 387 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 5 Master Sign Program 26. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the approved plans prepared by RSM Design, dated April 4, 2022, as approved by the Planning Commission in association with SIGNS22-0008, as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Chief Planner. 27. The total sign area for all signs included in the Master Sign Program shall not exceed the square footage as indicated in the Planning Commission approved plans. Sign area shall be calculated by blocking or boxing around the outside edge of the proposed signage, including the logo. 28.All tenants shall be made aware of the requirements of the Master Sign Program in leases. Environmental Mitigation Measures / CEQA 29.The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) EIR. 30. Applicant shall provide 100% Low-Impact Development for C.3 stormwater treatment on-site. All stormwater runoff shall be treated prior to discharge to the City Right-of-Way or City storm drain system. Sizing and design shall conform to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program design templates and technical guidance and be approved by the Water Quality Control Plant. Exemptions from C.3 requirements must be demonstrated based on the exemptions and exclusions allowed by the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. Applicant shall maintain all treatment measures required by the project and enter into a Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement with the City. Climate Action Plan 31.Prior to issuance of any building permits for vertical construction, the developer shall include in the development plans the following Climate Action Plan requirements, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee: a. Electric Vehicle Charging Installations Measure 2.1, Action 5: Require new large- scale nonresidential developments to provide conduit for future electric vehicle charging installations, and encourage the installation of conduits or electric vehicle charging stations for all new development. b. Heat Island Reductions Measure 3.4, Action 1: Encourage the use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the voluntary CALGreen standards. 388 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 6 c.Alternative Energy Facilities Measure 4.1, Action 2: Require the construction of any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more, to comply with one of the following standards: i. Meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity needs with on-site renewable energy sources. To calculate 50% of building electricity needs for the new conditioned space, the applicant shall calculate building electricity use as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Total electricity use shall include total use for the new conditioned space excluding process energy. ii.Participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity use. Building electricity use shall be calculated using the method identified above. iii.Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency requirements by 20% or more. For additions to existing development of 5,000 square feet or more, CALGreen Tier 2 shall be calculated as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Existing building space already permitted shall not be subject to CALGreen Tier 2 requirements. d. Solar Wiring Installation Measure 4.1, Action 3: Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar. e. Water Demand Reduction Measure 6.1, Action 2: Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following: i.Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features ii.Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise iii. Install irrigation controllers with rains sensors iv.Landscape with native, water-efficient plants v.Install drip irrigation systems vi. Reduce impervious surfaces to the maximum extent practical Impact / Development Fees **Fees are subject to annual adjustment and will be calculated based on the fee in effect at the time that the payment of the fee is due. The fees included in these Conditions of Approval are estimates, based on the fees in place at the time of project approval. Any applicable fee credits will be applied, and fees will be calculated subject to any vested rights.** 32.Childcare Fee for Non-Residential. Prior to final inspection for residential uses, and prior to issuance of a building permit for non-residential uses in accordance with South San 389 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 7 Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.310. This fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2022, the childcare impact fee estimate for the project is: Office/R&D Childcare Fee: $1.51/sf x 541,284sf = $817,338.84 33. Park Fees. Prior to final inspection for residential uses, and prior to issuance of a building permit for non-residential uses, the applicant shall pay the Parkland Acquisition Fee and Parkland Construction Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.67. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2022 the park fee estimate for the project is: Office/R&D: $3.54sf x 541,284sf = $ 1,916,145.36 34.Citywide Transportation Fee. Prior to final inspection for residential uses, and prior to issuance of a building permit for non-residential uses, the applicant shall pay applicable transportation impact fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.73. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2022 the citywide transportation impact fee estimate for the project is: Office/R&D: $34.85/sf x 541,284sf = $18,863,747.40 35.Commercial Linkage fee. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable commercial linkage fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.69, based on the current fee for each applicable land use category. The fee shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2022 the commercial linkage fee estimate for the project is: Office/R&D: $17.38/sf x 541,284sf = $9,407,515.92 36.Public Safety Impact Fee. Prior to final inspection for residential uses, and prior to issuance of a building permit for non-residential uses, the applicant shall pay applicable Public Safety Impact Fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.75. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2022 the public safety impact fee estimate for the project is: Office/R&D: $1.31/sf x 541,284sf= $1,017,353.25 37. Library Impact Fee. Prior to final inspection for residential uses and prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for non-residential uses in the development, the applicant shall pay applicable Library Impact Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.74. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2022, the library impact fee estimate for the 390 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 8 project is: Office/R&D: $0.14/sf x 541,284= $75,779.76 38. Public Art Requirement. All non-residential development is subject to the Public Art Requirement, per South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76. The public art requirement for this project shall be satisfied by providing qualifying public art, as defined in South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 and reviewed and approved by the Cultural Arts Commission or designee, with a value equal to not less than 1% of construction costs for acquisition and installation of public art on the project site; or electing to make a public art contribution payment in an amount not less than 0.5% of construction costs into the public art fund. The in-lieu contribution payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Division contact: Adena Friedman, Principal Planner, adena.friedman@ssf.net 391 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 9 B.Fire Department requirements shall be as follows: 1. Projects shall be designed in compliance with established regulations adopted by the City of South San Francisco affecting or related to structures, processes, premises and safeguards regarding the following: a.The hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials or devices. b. Conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises. c.Fire hazards in the structure(s) or on the premises from occupancy or operation. d. Matters related to the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of the fire suppression or alarm systems. e.Conditions affecting the safety of fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. 2. Fire service features for buildings, structures and premises shall comply with all City adopted building standards, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Building Standards and South San Francisco City Code. 3. Permit(s) shall be required as set forth in adopted California Building Code (CBC) Section 105, California Residential Code (CRC) Section R105 and California Fire Code (CFC) Sections 105.6 and 105.7. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional. Where special conditions exist, the code official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional. a. Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on suitable material. Electronic media documents shall be submitted. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of adopted codes and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the code official. b. Shop drawings for the fire protection system(s) shall be submitted directly to the Fire Department to indicate conformance with adopted codes and the construction documents and shall be approved prior to the start of system installation. Shop drawings shall contain all information as required by the referenced installation standards in Chapter 9. c.The construction documents shall show in sufficient detail the location, construction, size, and character of all portions of the means of egress including the path of the exit discharge to the public way in compliance with the provisions of adopted codes. In other than occupancies in Groups R-2, R-3, and R-2.1, the construction documents 392 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 10 shall designate the number of occupants to be accommodated on every floor, and in all rooms and spaces. d.The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The code official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan where the application for permit is for alteration or repair or where otherwise warranted. e.Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access roads and construction documents, hydraulic calculations and material specifications for fire hydrant, fire protection or detection systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. 4.Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except where approved alternative methods of protection are provided. 5. For the purposes of prescribing minimum safeguards for construction, alteration, and demolition operations to provide reasonable safety to life and property from fire during such operations. building, facilities, and premises in the course of construction, alteration or demolition, including those in underground locations shall be in compliance with CFC Chapter 33 and NFPA 241. Applicant is advised that the following Fire Department Specific Conditions apply to this project: 6. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved illuminated or other approved means of address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabetic letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Character size and stroke shall be in accordance with CFC Section 505.1.1 through 505.1.2. Where required by the fire code official, address identification shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response in accordance with this code and CFC Section 505.1.3. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way or when determined by the fire code official, a monument, pole, or other approved illuminated sign or other approved means shall be used to identify the structure(s). Address identification shall be maintained. 393 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 11 7. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises on which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction, in accordance with CFC Section 507, Appendices B & C. a.Fire-flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings and facilities shall be determined by adopted CFC Appendix B. b.Fire hydrant systems shall comply with adopted CFC Section 507.5.1 through 507.5.8 and Appendix C. 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with CFC Section 503 and Appendix D. a.Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. i.Traffic calming measures (bollards, speed bumps, humps, undulations, etc.) are not approved as a part of this review and require specific approval from the Fire Department. ii.Should a security gate be planned to serve the facility, the gate shall be equipped with a Knox Company key operated electric gate release switch. During a power failure, gate shall release for manual operation OR be equipped with standby power or connected to the building emergency panel. In addition to sending the request to exit signal to the gate operator, the magnetic detection loop (when activated) shall prohibit the gate from closing upon fire apparatus. b.Commercial and industrial developments with buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height or 62,000 square feet shall have not fewer than two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. c. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with CFC D105. For purposes of this requirement, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. One or more of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet and not greater than 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire long-side of the building or as approved by the fire 394 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 12 code official. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. There shall be no architectural features, projections or obstructions that would limit the articulation of the aerial apparatus. d.Required Fire Department access roads shall be signed “No Parking – Fire Lane” per current Fire Department standards and California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500. e.A Fire Department key box shall be provided on the front of each structure for access to fire protection equipment within the building. 9. The provisions of the adopted CFC shall specify where fire protection and life safety systems are required and shall apply to the design, installation, inspection, operation, testing and maintenance of all fire protection systems. a.Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in adopted CFC Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.20. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing buildings and structures shall be provided in locations described in adopted CFC Section 903.6. i.Structure will be required to be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 1. If required Fire Department Connection (FDC) for the sprinkler and/or standpipe systems shall be located on the street side of the structure or facing approved fire apparatus access roadway fully visible and recognizable from the street, and within 100 feet an approved fire hydrant. b.Structure will be required to install a standpipe system in the building. i.Not less than one standpipe shall be provided for use during construction. Such standpipes shall be installed prior to construction exceeding 40 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. Such standpipes shall be provided with fire department hose connections at floor-level locations adjacent to stairways as construction progresses, such standpipes shall be extended to within one floor of the highest point of construction having secured decking or flooring. 10. A change of occupancy shall not be made unless the use or occupancy is made to comply with the requirements of the City adopted California Fire Code and the California Existing Building Code. Where approved by the fire code official, a change of occupancy shall be permitted without complying with the all requirements of this code and the California Existing Building Code, provided that the new or proposed use or occupancy is determined to be less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use or occupancy. 11. The following are a list of deferred plan submittal items that are required by the Fire Department - additional items may be called out based on subsequent permit reviews: a.Private Underground Fire Main b. Standpipe System 395 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 13 c.Fire Sprinkler System d.Fire Alarm/Fire Sprinkler Monitoring System e.Fire Pump (to be determined) f.Emergency Responder Radio System (to be determined) g.Gates and barricades across fire apparatus access roads (to be determined) Fire Prevention contact: Ian Hardage, Fire Marshal (650) 829-6645 396 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 14 C.Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: Below are the conditions that apply to the subject permit. 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 an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable 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 an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of ROW improvements for deposit amount calculation. 2.A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 3.A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to grading. Otherwise, hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 4.The Applicant shall 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. 5.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 payment prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 6. An Encroachment 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. 397 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 15 7. The Applicant shall confirm that any existing groundwater monitoring wells on the project site have been properly closed and/or relocated as necessary as approved by the County or State Regulators in charge. Plan Submittal 8. The Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets; Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan, Horizontal Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Detail Sheet(s), Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that clearly states the amount of cut and fill required to grade the project. The Grading Plans shall include the following plans: Cover, Notes, Existing Conditions, Grading Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Stormwater Control Plan, and Erosion Control Plan. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for all proposed work within the City right-of-way and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the Encroachment Permit. Applicant shall prepare a separate Public Improvement Plan set that shall only include the scope of work within with City right-of-way (with reference to the on-site plans) consisting of the following plans: Civil Plans, Landscape Plans, and Joint Trench Plans. 11. 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 amount. The submittal of the bonds is required prior to the execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 12. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. Mapping and Agreements 398 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 16 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall apply for City approval and record a Parcel Map to dedicate the required public easements, to show all existing easements to remain, all existing easements to be abandoned or quit claimed, and to reconfigure the existing four parcels into three parcels such that the proposed new building structures do not straddle the property lines. 14. The Applicant’s Parcel Map shall include the abandonment of the existing 46’wide Public Roadway and Utility Right-of-Way and a portion of the 20’ wide Public Easement for Sanitary and Storm Sewer Purposes on Sylvester Road and the dedication of a new 46’ Public Access and Utility Easement on Sylvester Road from the East Grand Avenue Right-of-Way to the southern limits of the Access Road intersection. 15. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City an Emergency Vehicle Access Easement along the Access / Service Road alignment to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. 16. The Applicant shall dedicate a 12’ wide Public Utility Easement on the portion of the Access Road south of the proposed Parking Garage. 17. All required public easement dedications to the City on the project site shall be established via a Parcel Map for the property. Said Parcel Map shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 18. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of any mapping application. 19. Prior to the approval of any Public Improvement Encroachment 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. a. 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. b. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property, and all stormwater treatment measures and the landscaping/street trees in the Public right-of-way 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. 399 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 17 20.Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees required for any mapping application prior to review. Right-of-Way 21.Prior to building permit issuance and prior to any work within the City Right-of-Way, the Applicant shall obtain a Public Improvement Permit from the Engineering Division. 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. 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.The Applicant shall construct new curb, gutter, and sidewalk, along the Sylvester Road frontage of the project site. 24.The Applicant shall perform base repairs and provide a 2-inch grind and overlay (edge of pavement to edge of pavement) of the asphalt concrete pavement on the property’s frontages on East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road. 25.Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet current City standards current to the time of Encroachment Permit approval. 26.The Applicant shall reconstruct the existing curb and gutter along the East Grand Avenue frontage of the subject property. The alignment of the new curb and gutter shall accommodate the future street width of East Grand Avenue as depicted in the City’s East Access Study. 27.The Applicant shall increase the radius of the curb return at the southeast corner of the Highway-101 off-ramp as depicted in the City’s East Access Study, to the extent feasible. 28.Prior to final occupancy, the Applicant shall install the following improvements as depicted in the City’s East Access study. These improvements shall be installed by the Applicant or by another entity, other than the City, with the Applicant’s coordination and fair share contribution as determined between the parties. a.The Applicant shall install a new traffic signal at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road/Hotel Driveway. The new traffic signal shall be hardwire interconnected to the existing traffic signal at East Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue. The 400 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 18 lane approaches for eastbound and westbound on East Grand Avenue shall be configured as depicted in the City’s East Access Study. b. The Applicant shall install new high-visibility pedestrian crosswalks at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road including two crosswalks crossing East Grand Avenue. The crosswalks shall include new ADA accessible pedestrian curb ramps on each end of the crosswalks. 29. The Applicant shall install pedestrian lighting along the project sidewalk frontages on East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road. 30. The Applicant shall install streetlights along the project street frontages on East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road. The light poles and fixtures shall be ornamental streetlights to match City Standards. 31. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the project 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 subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 32. The Applicant shall install street trees, landscaping, and irrigation system on the public right- of-way. Applicant shall ensure the proposed trees and planting locations do not interfere with existing Public Utility Easements and new underground utilities The Applicant shall include root barrier measures to prevent the sidewalk from uplift. 33. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work on East Grand Avenue and Sylvester Road and/or any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. 34. 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. 35. The project shall not include any permanent structural supports (retaining walls, tiebacks, etc.) within the ROW. City Engineer approval is required for any temporary structural supports within the ROW. Any temporary structural supports shall be removed after construction. 36. Any work within the public sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian routes shall require 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 401 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 19 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. Stormwater 37. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a storm drainage and hydraulic study for the fully improved development analyzing existing conditions and post-development conditions. The study shall confirm that the proposed development will meet the goal of reducing peak runoff by 15% based on a 25-year, 5-minute design storm for each drainage basin. Methods for reducing stormwater flow shall include stormwater storage on-site if necessary. The study shall also evaluate the capacity of each new storm drain installed as part of the development. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the site. The study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 38. On-site and off-site storm drainage conveyance systems shall be designed to accommodate the 10-year design storm. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of 10 minutes. 39. Hydraulic Grade lines shall not be less than 1 foot from the ground surface. 40. Runoff Coefficients used for hydraulic calculations shall be as follows: a. Parks and open areas—0.35 b. Residential areas—0.50 c. Multiple dwelling areas—0.65 d. Commercial and paved areas—0.95 41. 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. 42. All off-site drainage facilities required by the City Engineer to accommodate the runoff from the subdivision shall be provided by the Applicant at no cost to the City. 43. 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. 44. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff shall not be surface drained into surrounding private property or public streets. 45. Existing on-site drains that are not adequately sized to accommodate run-off from the fully developed property and upstream drainage basin shall be improved as required by the 402 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 20 Applicant’s civil engineering consultant’s plans and specifications as approved by the City Engineer. These on-site improvement shall be installed at no cost to the City. 46. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or other manager for the property owners in the area. Sanitary Sewer 47. The Applicant shall upsize the existing 6-inch public sanitary sewer main on Sylvester Road as follows: • to a 10-inch pipe from the manhole on East Grand Avenue to the manhole at the Access Road entrance. • to an 8-inch sanitary sewer main from the manhole at the Access Road entrance to 169 feet south of the Access Road entrance. 48. Applicant shall video inspect the sanitary sewer mains along the project frontage to the nearest manholes upstream and downstream of the project point of connection both prior to construction and post construction. Video must be submitted to City Engineering for review as part of the improvement plans submittal and shall confirm the number of existing sewer laterals serving the site that must be abandoned. 49. The Applicant shall abandon all existing private sewer laterals from the project site connected to the public sanitary sewer system. The number of sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be shown on the plans and shall be confirmed by the review of a video inspection of the private sanitary sewer main. 50. The Applicant shall install the new sewer lateral to City Standards including a cleanout in the sidewalk and a new wye connection at the main. Lateral sizes of 8-inch or larger require a manhole connection at the City sewer main. 51. Sanitary Sewer plan shall show all existing and proposed utilities. Be sure to provide minimum horizontal and vertical clearances for all existing and proposed utilities. Also include all existing and proposed manhole, catch basin and pipe invert elevations. 52. All utility crossings shall be potholed, verified and shown on the plans prior to the building permit submittal. 53. The on-site sanitary sewer system/plumbing shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, as amended and adopted by the City, and in accordance with the requirements of the South San Francisco Building Division. 54. 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. 403 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 21 55. The on-site sanitary sewer system 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 other manager for the property owners in the area. Dry Utilities 56. The Applicant shall underground the existing overhead utilities along the project frontage on Sylvester Road. The Applicant shall also underground the existing overhead utilities along the I-101 frontage of the development site from East Grand Avenue to the southern limits of the development site. The joint trench for said undergrounding shall include one 3-inch spare conduit with pull boxes and pull rope for future City fiber optics facilities. 57. All electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground within the property being developed and to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility vault. Pull boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed within pedestrian walkway areas. Domestic Water 58. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service (Calwater) for all water- related issues. All water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of the Calwater. 59. The Applicant shall relocate the water main on the Sylvester Road frontage of the project site. The size of the relocated water main shall be at least 10 inches as approved by Calwater 60. The Applicant shall relocate curb and sidewalk to accommodate the East Grand Avenue curb location and wider corner radius as identified in the City’s East Access Study to the extent feasible. The Applicant shall remove the existing fence and install a new fence along the property line of the Calwater pump station at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and the I- 101 off-ramp. The fence shall include a person gate and service vehicle gate with driveway apron as approved by Calwater. The design of the fence shall be of rod iron or other approved ornamental material as approved by the City and Calwater. 61. The Applicant shall install a private fire water system with fire hydrants at the locations specified by the Fire Marshal. Installation shall be in accordance with City Standards as administered by the Fire Marshal. On-site Improvements 62. Internal driveways shall be a minimum of 15’ wide for one-way travel and 25’ wide of for areas subject to two-way travel. One-way travel lanes within the site shall be clearly posted and marked appropriately. 63. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 404 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 22 64. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Division, the Applicant shall require its Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to certify that it conforms to the approved site plan and that there is positive drainage away from the exterior of the building. The Applicant shall make any modifications to the grading, drainage, or other improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans. 65. 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. 66. 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. 67. Any monument signs to be installed for the project shall be located completely on private property and shall not encroach into the City’s right-of-way. The applicant shall ensure that placement of the monument signs do not obstruct clear lines of sight for vehicles entering or exiting the site. Grading 68. 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. 69. During grading operations, 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. 70. 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 by project construction. 71. 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. 72. 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. 405 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 23 73. 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. 74. 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. Engineering Impact Fees 75. The Applicant shall pay the following Fees prior to receiving a Building Permit for the subject project, subject to any applicable credits and vested rights: a) The Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 71-84. b) The Citywide Transportation Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 120-2020. The East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 97-2002 Engineering contact: Jason Hallare, Senior Engineer, Jason.hallare@ssf.net 406 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 24 D) Police Department requirements shall be as follows: 1. All construction must conform to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48.070 Minimum security standards for non-residential buildings, (Ord. 1477 § 1C, 2013; Ord. 1166 § 1, 1995). 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. See possible samples below. Acceptable: Unacceptable: 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. 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 and/or a gate, to prevent access to those areas where a person could conceal themselves and/or loiter in said area. The fencing and/or gate shall be at least six feet tall and constructed in a manner that makes it difficult to climb. The fencing and/or gate shall be roughly flush with the lowest step to provide 407 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 25 maximum access restriction to the area to the side or of underneath the stairs. Please see below examples. 6. Any exterior bicycle racks installed shall be of an inverted “U” design, or other design that allows two different locking points on each bicycle. 7. Any publicly accessible benches shall be of a design that prevents persons from lying on them, such as a center railing. 8. Any publicly accessible power outlets shall be of a design that prevents their access or use during those hours the business is normally closed. 9. Any publicly accessible raised edge surfaces, such as retaining walls, concrete benches, handrails, or railings, shall be of a design that prevents or discourages skateboard use on those surfaces. 10. The mature height of all shrubbery adjacent to public street frontages and rights-of-way 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 (Entrances/Exits, Elevator Lobbies, and coverage of parking areas to the satisfaction of the Police Department) • Bicycle storage area • Main lobby of building 408 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 26 • Loading docks The Police Department requires acknowledgement of these comments to include specific locations in the plans where the applicable change requests have been made. The Police Department reserves the right to review and comment upon the submission of revised and updated plans. For questions concerning this project, please contact the Planning Sergeant at (650) 877-8927 or at planningsergeant@ssf.net. Police Department contact: Sergeant Mike Toscano (650) 877-8927 409 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 27 E) Water Quality Control Plant requirements shall be as follows: 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 ATTACHED 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. 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 (roof, canopy) and contained (wall/fence). If food prep to be involved, 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. 410 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 28 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. Do not plan for or install Garbage Disposal(s). 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 $1,181,989.91, 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. 18. Drains in parking garage 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 Regulated Projects Guide at https://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment for guidance). The following items will be required and C.3 compliance will be determined by the City’s consultant, WC-3; 21. Applicant shall provide 100% Low-Impact Development for C.3 stormwater treatment for all of the project’s impervious areas. In-lieu of on-site treatment, applicants seeking Special Project Status exemption to Low Impact Development for C.3 treatment may install LID treatment within the Right-of-Way. If Applicant chooses to treat any of their Project’s impervious areas within the ROW, Applicant shall size the treatment measures to treat both the Project’s impervious areas and the ROW. The ROW area to be treated shall be from the property line to the street centerline or crown whichever is a greater distance along the entire project frontage. Sizing and design shall conform to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program design templates and technical guidance and be approved by the Water Quality Control Plant and the Engineering 411 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 29 Division. Applicant shall maintain all treatment measures required by the project and enter into a Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement with the City. 22. Completed required 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. Use required forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient Forms can also be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment A completed copy must also be emailed to andrew.wemmer @ssf.net 23. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development. 24. Submit flow calculations and related math for LID. 25. Complete required Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreements. Use required 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. 26. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 27. 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. 412 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 30 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. 28. A SWPPP must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in effect all year long. 29. A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Please have applicant contact Andrew Wemmer at Water Quality Control with any questions at (650) 829-3840 or Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net. 413 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 31 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MIXED USE, AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Entitlement and Permit Status 1. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two (2) years of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on that date, subject to any extensions provided under the Subdivision Map Act or other applicable law. A one-year permit extension may be granted in accordance with provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (Common Procedures). 2. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a duly authorized representative files a signed acceptance form, prior to the issuance of a building permit, stating that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the conditions of the permit. 3. The permit shall be subject to revocation if the project is not operated in compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. Minor changes or deviations from the conditions of approval of the permit may be approved by the Chief Planner and major changes require approval of the Planning Commission, or final approval body of the City, per SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (Common Procedures). 5. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall authorize, require or permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances specifically named therein. 6. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City’s Building Division. 7. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the affected City Departments and Planning and Building Divisions prior to occupancy of any building. Any request for temporary power for testing equipment will be issued only upon substantial completion of the development. Lighting, Signs, and Trash Areas 8. All exterior lights shall be installed in such a manner that is consistent with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards), and there shall be no illumination on adjacent properties or streets which might be considered either objectionable by adjacent property owners or hazardous to motorists. 9. No additional signs, flags, pennants or banners shall be installed or erected on the site without prior approval, as required by SSFMC Chapter 20.360 (Signs). 10. Adequate trash areas shall be provided as required by SSFMC 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 11. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. If being installed in a food 414 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 32 service facility the drain must be connected to a grease interceptor prior to the connection to the sanitary sewer. Landscaping, Construction, & Utilities 12. The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce to a minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation. 13. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 14. All sewerage and waste disposal shall be only by means of an approved sanitary system. 15. Prior to any on-site grading, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. 16. All existing utility lines, underground cable conduits and structures which are not proposed to be removed shall be shown on the improvement plans and their disposition noted. 17. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be maintained in fully operable condition at all times, and which complies with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 18. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained weed free. 19. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to develop. 20. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner. Parking Areas, Screening, & Drainage 21. All ducting for air conditioning, heating, blower systems, accessory mechanisms and all other forms of mechanical or electrical equipment which are placed on or adjacent to the building shall be screened from public view, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 22. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping areas shall be kept free of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site, structures, paving, landscaping, light standards, pavement markings and all other facilities shall be permanently maintained. 23. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, and turn-around areas must drain and be plumbed to the sanitary sewer. 24. The onsite stormwater catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 415 100 E. Grand Conditions of Approval Page 33 Public Safety 25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, “Minimum Building Security Standards” Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. 26. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code, “Fire Code” Ordinance. The Fire Department reserves the right to make additional safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. 27. All fire sprinkler test and/or drain lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. Revised March 2013 416 100 EAST GRAND FINAL PLANNING SUBMISSION JULY 14, 2022 417 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 11:23:14 AMG0-01 P25596.02 SHEET INDEX SHEET INDEX TR0.7 FRONT LOAD TRUCK STUDY CONTINUED ● TR0.6 FRONT LOAD SERVICE & BIN STAGING PLAN ● TR0.5 ROLL-OFF TRUCK STUDY ● TR0.4 SU30 STUDY ● TR0.3 WB40 STUDY ● TR0.2 ROLL-OFF COMPACTOR SECTION VIEWS AND DETAILS ● A4 - 12B SECTIONS ● ● TR0.1 TRASH ROOM ● A4 - 11B SECTIONS ● ● A3 - 13B ELEVATIONS ● ●TRASH A3 - 12B ELEVATIONS ● ● A3 - 11B ELEVATIONS ● ● S1 - 02 SIGN SCHEDULE ● ● A2 - 09B PLAN, ROOF ● ● S1 - 01 SITE SIGNAGE PLAN ● ● A2 - 08B PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 8 ● ● A2 - 07B PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 7 ● ●SIGNAGE A2 - 06B PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 6 ● ● A2 - 05B PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 5 ● ● LE - 01 SITE LIGHTING PLAN ● A2 - 04B PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 4 ● ● A2 - 03B PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 3 ● ●LIGHTING A2 - 02B PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 2 ● ● A2 - 01B PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 1 ● ● L4 - 14 LANDSCAPE ENLARGED SECTIONS - PLAZA, SERVICE & ACCESS ROADS ● L4 - 13 LANDSCAPE ENLARGED SECTIONS - SYLVESTER ROAD ● BUILDING B L4 - 12 LANDSCAPE ENLARGED SECTIONS - SERVICE YARD & COURTYARD ● ● L4 - 11 LANDSCAPE ENLARGED SECTIONS - ACCESS ROAD & E GRAND AVE ● ● A4 - 12A SECTIONS ● ● L4 - 02 LANDSCAPE E - W SECTION ● ● A4 - 11A SECTIONS ● ● L4 - 01 LANDSCAPE N - S SECTION ● ● A3 - 13A ELEVATIONS ● ● L3 - 14 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - OFFRAMP WALL WEST ● A3 - 12A ELEVATIONS ● ● L3 - 13 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - COURTYARD WALL EAST ● A3 - 11A ELEVATIONS ● ● L3 - 12 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - SCREEN WALLS EAST ● ● A2 - 11A PLAN, ROOF ● ● L3 - 11 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - GARAGE EAST ● ● A2 - 10A PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 10 ● ● L3 - 03 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - OVERALL WEST ● ● A2 - 09A PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 9 ● ● L3 - 02 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - OVERALL NORTH ● ● A2 - 08A PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 8 ● ● L3 - 01 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - OVERALL EAST ● ● A2 - 07A PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 7 ● ● L2 - 02 LANDSCAPE MATERIAL PALETTE ● ● A2 - 06A PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 6 ● ● L2 - 01 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE ● ● A2 - 05A PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 5 ● ● L2 - 00 WELO PLANTING DIAGRAM ● A2 - 04A PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 4 ● ● L1 - 23 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE TERRACE PLAN ● ● A2 - 03A PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 3 ● ● L1 - 22 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN - SOUTH ● ● A2 - 02A PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 2 ● ● L1 - 21 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN - NORTH ● ● A2 - 01A PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 1 ● ● L1 - 13 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE TERRACE PLAN ● ● L1 - 12 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN - SOUTH ● ● BUILDING A L1 - 11 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN - NORTH ● ● L1 - 02 LANDSCAPE ROOF PLANS ● ● L1 - 01 LANDSCAPE SITE PLANS ● ● A1 - 06 MATERIAL PALETTE & DESIGNATIONS ● ● A1 - 05 RENDERING - HIGHWAY VIEW LOOKING NORTH ● ●LANDSCAPE A1 - 04 RENDERING - AERIAL AT SYLVESTER RD ● ● A1 - 03 RENDERING - STREET VIEW ALONG E GRAND AVE ● ● C5 - 00 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ● ● A1 - 02 SITE SECTIONS ● ● C4 - 00 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN ● ● A1 - 01 SITE PLANS ● ● C3 - 00 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN ● ● C2 - 00 PARCELIZATION PLAN ● ● SITE C1 - 00 SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS ● ● C0 - 00 TITLE SHEET, LEGEND, AND ABBREVIATIONS ● ● G1 - 09 FIRE ACCESS EXHIBIT ● ● G1 - 08 BUILDING HEIGHTS ● ●CIVIL G1 - 07 ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE ● ● G1 - 06 OPEN SPACE PLAN DIAGRAM ● ● A4 - 12G SECTIONS ● ● G1 - 05 SERVICE ACCESS ● A4 - 11G SECTIONS ● ● G1 - 04 VEHICLE ACCESS ● ● A3 - 11G ELEVATIONS ● ● G1 - 03 PEDESTRIAN ACESS ● ● A2 - 09G PLAN, CANOPY ● ● G1 - 02 SITE CONDITIONS ● ● A2 - 08G PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 8 ● ● G1 - 01 EXISTING PHOTOS ● ● A2 - 07G PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 7 ● ● G0 - 12G OPENESS CALCULATION - PG ● ● A2 - 06G PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 6 ● ● G0 - 11G PLANNING ANALYSIS - PG ● ● A2 - 05G PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 5 ● ● G0 - 11B PLANNING ANALYSIS ● ● A2 - 04G PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 4 ● ● G0 - 11A PLANNING ANALYSIS ● ● A2 - 03G PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 3 ● ● G0 - 02 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ● ● A2 - 02G PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 2 ● ● G0 - 01 SHEET INDEX ● ● A2 - 01G PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 1 ● ● GENERAL PARKING GARAGE NUMBER NAME 09/24/2021 01/21/2022NUMBER NAME 09/24/2021 01/21/2022418 SHEET METAL HOLLOW METAL ALUMINUM METAL LATH AND PLASTER GLAZING WOOD SHIM CONTINUOUS WOOD BLOCKING FIREPROOFING ALUMINUM STEEL EARTH SAND POROUS CONCRETE, POURED CONCRETE, MASONRY CONCRETE, PRECAST BRICK VENEER GYPSUM WALLBOARD HARDBOARD PLYWOOD WOOD, INSULATION, FIBERGLASS BATT CARPET INSULATION, MINERAL ROCK WOOL INSULATION, EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE INSULATION, POLYISOCYANURATE EXTERIOR SHEATHING STONE-SLAB RUBBER 1 DRAWING TITLE 1/8" = 1'-0"A2.01 G 1 1 A7.01 1 2 3 4 A3.01 1 1 A4.01 DRAWING IDENTIFICATION SHEET IDENTIFICATION DRAWING TITLE EXTERIOR ELEVATION DRAWING IDENTIFICATION SHEET IDENTIFICATION DRAWING IDENTIFICATION SHEET IDENTIFICATION DIRECTION VIEWED DIRECTION VIEWED SECTION REFERENCE DETAIL REFERENCE DRAWING IDENTIFICATION SHEET IDENTIFICATION INTERIOR ELEVATION SHEET IDENTIFICATION DIRECTION VIEWED WITH DRAWING IDENTIFICATION 1 GRID/COLUMN LINE0' -0"ELEVATION LEVEL DATUM LEVEL IDENTIFICATION LEVEL ELEVATION GLASS TYPE TAG ROOM TAG ROOM NAME IDENTIFICATION ROOM NUMBER IDENTIFICATION REVISION TAG 1/ A101 MATCH LINE SHEET IDENTIFICATION 1/ A101 EQUIPMENT TAG B31.15 CASEWORK TAG DIMENSION TO FACE OF: -PARTITION ASSEMBLY -EDGE OF DOOR OPENING -EDGE OF OTHER ASSEMBLY -WORK POINT INDICATED ON DETAILS -CENTERLINE AS SHOWN AND/OR WHERE NOTED -GLASSDIM PTEL +100'-0"EL +100'-4" SLAB ELEVATION DIFFERENCE 101 NAME GRID REFERENCE SPOT ELEVATION REFERENCE NORTH ARROW 0'1'2'4' GRAPHIC SCALE A2.01 1 A3.11 1 A3.21 1 BUILDING SECTION WALL SECTION DRAWING IDENTIFICATION SHEET IDENTIFICATION DIRECTION VIEWED 1 A4.01 SIM SITE &AND @ AT ADJ ADJACENT AESS ARCHITECTURAL EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL AFF ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ALUM ALUMINUM APPROX APPROXIMATELY ARCH ARCHITECTURAL BD BOARD BLDG BUILDING B.O.BOTTOM OF CENTERLINE CF/OI CONTRACTOR FURNISHED / OWNER INSTALLED CJ CONTROL JOINT CLG CEILING CLR CLEAR CG CORNER GUARD CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE CONT CONTINUOUS COORD COORDINATE CUH CABINET UNIT HEATER DET DETAIL DF DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIA DIAMETER DIM DIMENSION DN DOWN DWG DRAWING EA EACH EL ELEVATION ELEC ELECTRICAL EJ EXPANSION JOINT ELEV ELEVATOR EQ EQUAL EQUIP EQUIPMENT EXIST EXISTING EXT EXTERIOR FD FLOOR DRAIN FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER FEC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FF FINISH FLOOR FHC FIRE HOSE CABINET FIN FINISH FLR FLOOR F.O.FACE OF FT FEET/FOOT GA GAUGE GALV GALVANIZED GL GLAZING GYP GYPSUM CL HM HOLLOW METAL HORIZ HORIZONTAL HR HOUR HT HEIGHT INCL INCLUDED INSUL INSULATION INT INTERIOR JT JOINT LAV LAVATORY MAX MAXIMUM MECH MECHANICAL MFR MANUFACTURER MIN MINIMUM MISC MISCELLANEOUS MO MASONRY OPENING MTD MOUNTED MTL METAL NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NO NUMBER NOM NOMINAL NTS NOT TO SCALE OC ON CENTER OD OVERFLOW DRAIN OF/CI OWNER FURNISHED / CONTRACTOR INSTALLED OF/OI OWNER FURNISHED / OWNER INSTALLED OH OVERHEAD OPP OPPOSITE PTD PAINTED R RADIUS RCP REFLECTED CEILING PLAN RD ROOF DRAIN REINF REINFORCING REQD REQUIRED RM ROOM RO ROUGH OPENING SCHED SCHEDULE SF SQUARE FOOT SIM SIMILAR SPEC SPECIFICATIONS SQ SQUARE SS STAINLESS STEEL STL STEEL STRUCT STRUCTURAL T.O.TOP OF TYP TYPICAL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE UL UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES VERT VERTICAL VIF VERIFY IN FIELD W/WITH W/O WITHOUT WD WOOD 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 10:18:45 AMG0-02 P25596.02 AS SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS MATERIALS SYMBOLS LOCATION MAPABBREVIATIONS CIVIL ENGINEERING BKF ENGINEERS 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 380 Oakland, CA 94612 T 925.396.7751 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORELL I ELSESSER ENGINEERS 160 Pine Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415.837.0700 MECHANICAL, PLUMBING UMI 2185 Oakland Road, San Jose, CA 95131 T 408.232.9000 ACOUSTICS VENEKLASEN ASSOCIATES 1650 Borel Place, Suite 234 San Mateo, CA 94402 T 310.450.1733 LEED, FITWEL ATELIER TEN 443 Tehama Street, 1st Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 T 415.351.2100 ext. 102 ENVELOPE MORRISON HERSHFIELD 5100 S Macadam Avenue, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97239 T 503.924.2518 FACADE PERMASTEELISA 2060 Centre Pointe Blvd, Suite 10, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 T 651.905.1515 LIGHTING PRITCHARD PECK 389 Clementina Street San Francisco, CA 94103 T 415.326.8839 CODE CODE UNLIMITED 13515 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, OR 97005 T 503.488.5651 PARKING GARAGE CLARK PACIFIC 710 Riverpoint Court, Suite 100, West Sacramento, CA 95605 T 916.371.0305 JOINT TRENCH POWER SYSTEMS DESIGN 1853 Bonanza Street, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 T 925.933.8485 WIND MODELING CPP 7365 Greendale Road Windsor, CO 80550 T 970.227.1462 WASTE MANAGEMENT AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT 1900 Powell Street, Suite 890 Emeryville, CA 94608 T 415.292.5401 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION SYSKA HENNESSY GROUP 425 California Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 T 415.288.9061 FACADE ACCESS SRS SAFETY SERVICES PO Box 237 Tracy, CA 95378 T 925.383.7716 ELECTRICAL, TELECOM, SECURITY DECKER ELECTRIC 1282 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 T 415.552.1622 RANDALL LAMB 4757 Palm Ave, La Mesa, CA 91941 T 619.713.5700 BRANDING, WAYFINDING RSM DESIGN 160 Avenida Cabrillo San Clemente, CA 92672 T 949.492.9479 ext. 109 CONSULTANTS 419 2,000 SF ACTIVE FRONTAGE 4,816 SF TOTAL FRONTAGE 2,743 SF Exterior Area Gross Building Area 889 SF 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/19/2022 8:42:25 PMG0-11A P25596.02 AH AS PLANNING ANALYSIS 4 3PARKING COUNT 2 AREA CALCULATIONS SSF MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 20.040.008, DETERMINING FLOOR AREA 1 PLANNING ANALYSIS FLOOR AREA IS THE SUM OF THE GROSS HORIZONTAL AREAS OF ALL FLOORS OF A BUILDING. CALCULATIONS FACTOR IN SUBSECTIONS A-C OF CODE. SSF MUNICIPAL CODE, TABLE 20.280.004, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MINIMUM FAR MAXIMUM FAR MAXIMUM FAR WITH INCENTIVE SSF MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 20.280.007(K), MINIMAL OPEN SPACE 1.5 2.5 3.5 EXCLUSIVE OF STRUCTURED PARKING EXCLUSIVE OF STRUCTURED PARKING MINIMUM OF 5% OF LOT RESERVED FOR OPEN SPACE. SEE SHEET G1-06 FOR OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM SSF MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 20.280.006, SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 35% OF FRONTAGE ALONG E. GRAND AVE. TO BE ACTIVE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA, SSF PROPOSED FAR (20.040.009) SITE AREA BUILDING A SF BUILDING B SF PARKING GARAGE 2.47 296,827 SF 219,751 SF 296,827 SF 244,457 SF N/A AREA PLANS (SSF HATCHED) GSF LEVEL 1 29,198 LEVEL 2 29,720 LEVEL 3 37,083 LEVEL 4 37,086 LEVEL 5 36,997 LEVEL 6 35,787 LEVEL 7 34,338 LEVEL 8 33,368 LEVEL 9 31,903 LEVEL 10 32,617 ROOF 32,640 Grand total 370,738 SSF 25,706 26,041 33,352 33,351 32,089 30,327 29,083 27,204 26,446 28,888 4,340 296,827 EXCLUDED AREA PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SSF) GROSS BUILDING AREA LEGEND (EXCLUDED) 6,976 3,679 3,731 3,735 4,909 5,461 5,255 6,164 5,456 3,729 28,301 77,395 PARKING RATIOS: BASED ON SSF AREA AND ZONING SECTION 20.330.007 2 STALLS PER 1000 SF 25% PARKING REDUCTION WITH TRANSIT PROXIMITY: 1.5 STALLS PER 1000 SF SHALL BE PROVIDED. 1.5 STALLS PER 1000 SF = (296,827 SF + 244,457 SF) / (1000/1.5) = 812 STALLS NEEDED VEHICULAR PARKING PROVIDED: 780 PARKING STALLS INCLUDED IN DEDICATED PARKING STRUCTURE. ( 780 / 297 + 245) = 1.44 STALLS PER 1,000 SF(32 UNDER*) BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER ZONING SECTION 20.330.008 SHORT-TERM: 10% VEHICULAR PARKING STALLS = 78 BIKE RACKS NEEDED LONG-TERM: 1 PER 50 VEHICULAR STALLS = 780 x 2% = 16 BIKE STALLS NEEDED 94 TOTAL BIKE PARKING NEEDED BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED: LONG-TERM: 63 BIKE STALLS WITHIN BUILDING A (SEE A2-01A) 69 BIKE STALLS WITHIN BUILDING B (SEE A2-01B) 132 TOTAL LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING 23 BIKE RACKS THROUGHOUT SITE 155 GRAND TOTAL BICYCLE PARKING (61 OVER*) *PARKING INTENT IS TO SHOW AMPLE BICYCLE PARKING TO SATISFY THE OVERALL SITE PARKING REQUIREMENT TO MEET 1.5 PARKING RATIO. IN ADDITION, 14 FUTURE BIKE STALLS SHOWN WITHIN PARKING GARAGE. SEE SHEET G0-11 E GRAND FRONTAGE DIAGRAM - N. ELEVATION 41.5%ACTIVE FRONTAGE PROPOSED, AT GRADE: LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 9 LEVEL 10 ROOF LEVEL 3 SSF MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 20.040.010, DETERMINING LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE SITE AREA BUILDING A FOOTPRINT BUILDING B FOOTPRINT PARKING GARAGE FOOTPRINT 47.5 % 219,751 SF 36,083 SF 35,031 SF 33,280 SF 104,395 SF / 219,751 = 47.5% 05/10/22 (TOTAL SF) / SITE AREA = FAR 541,284 SFTOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 420 UP UP Exterior Area Gross Building Area EXCLUDED AREA PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SSF) GROSS BUILDING AREA LEGEND 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/19/2022 8:40:26 PMG0-11B P25596.02 Checker AS PLANNING ANALYSIS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 8 ROOF 4 3PARKING COUNT 2 AREA CALCULATIONS SSF MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 20.040.008, DETERMINING FLOOR AREA 1 ZONING ANALYSIS FLOOR AREA IS THE SUM OF THE GROSS HORIZONTAL AREAS OF ALL FLOORS OF A BUILDING. CALCULATIONS FACTOR IN SUBSECTIONS A-C OF CODE. PROPOSED FLOOR AREA, SSF 244,457 SF AREA PLANS (SSF HATCHED) SEE BUILDING A PACKAGE GSF t o tank 158 LEVEL 1 31,455 LEVEL 2 34,537 LEVEL 3 36,864 LEVEL 4 35,661 LEVEL 5 34,537 LEVEL 6 32,296 LEVEL 7 33,219 LEVEL 8 33,643 ROOF 33,646 Grand total 306,016 SSF 158 27,907 31,592 32,538 31,007 27,967 28,337 29,924 30,348 4,681 244,457 (EXCLUDED) 3,548 2,945 4,326 4,654 6,570 3,959 3,295 3,295 28,965 61,558 2,000 SF ACTIVE FRONTAGE 4,816 SF TOTAL FRONTAGE SSF MUNICIPAL CODE, TABLE 20.280.004, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MINIMUM FAR MAXIMUM FAR MAXIMUM FAR WITH INCENTIVE SSF MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 20.280.007(K), MINIMAL OPEN SPACE 1.5 2.5 3.5 EXCLUSIVE OF STRUCTURED PARKING EXCLUSIVE OF STRUCTURED PARKING MINIMUM OF 5% OF LOT RESERVED FOR OPEN SPACE. SEE SHEET G1-06 FOR OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM SSF MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 20.280.006, SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 35% OF FRONTAGE ALONG E. GRAND AVE. TO BE ACTIVE PROPOSED FAR (20.040.009) SITE AREA BUILDING A SF BUILDING B SF PARKING GARAGE 2.47 219,751 SF 296,827 SF 244,457 SF N/A SEE SHEET G0-11 E GRAND FRONTAGE DIAGRAM - N. ELEVATION 41.5%ACTIVE FRONTAGE PROPOSED, AT GRADE: SSF MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 20.040.010, DETERMINING LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE SITE AREA BUILDING A FOOTPRINT BUILDING B FOOTPRINT PARKING GARAGE FOOTPRINT 47.5 % 219,751 SF 36,083 SF 35,031 SF 33,280 SF 104,395 SF / 219,751 = 47.5% 05/10/22 (TOTAL SF) / SITE AREA = FAR 541,284 SFTOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 421 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:10:51 PMG0-11G P25596.02 RC MdG PLANNING ANALYSIS 50,000 SF ALLOWABLE 15'-0" PROVIDED (ONE 8'-0" OPENING AT NORTHEAST CORNER, ONE 3'-6" OPENING AT SOUTH EAST CORNER, ONE 3'-6" OPENING AT SOUTH WEST CORNER > 2.8' = OK 780 15.6 16 2.67 93.6 100 14 BIKES 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 3 3 EV-VA EV-A 31 4 17 14 14 14 14 14 9 100 13 3 49 105 101 314.60 310.50 549.06 780 325.74 25 83 90 86 90 90 89 90 643 PRIMARY PRECAST STRUCTURAL FRAME RATING: PRECAST DOUBLE TEE: 1 HOUR MIN. PRECAST COLUMN: 1 HOUR MIN. PRECAST BEAM: 1 HOUR MIN. PRECAST FLOOR PLANK: 1 HOUR MIN. Ratings of precast concrete elements are based on CBC Chapter 722, with 1.5" rebar cover, typ. 422 LEVEL 1 16' -8" LEVEL 2 28' -4" 112211310 LEVEL 3 38' -6" LEVEL 4 48' -8" LEVEL 5 58' -10" LEVEL 6 69' -0" LEVEL 7 79' -2" LEVEL 8 89' -4" 45678910.7 TOP OF ELEV. 107' -4" 137 SF 103 SF 75 SF 209 SF 113 SF 113 SF 167 SF 143 SF 171 SF 98 SF96 SF 81 SF 167 SF 143 SF 14' - 1 1/2"16' - 5"24' - 4"20' - 10"24' - 4"10' - 4"24' - 4"7' - 5"13' - 5"24' - 4"24' - 10"14' - 6" 171 SF 171 SF 171 SF 171 SF 171 SF 22 SF53 SF 27 SF 102 SF 72 SF 53 SF 40 SF 145 SF 117 SF 143 SF 143 SF 143 SF 143 SF 143 SF 167 SF 167 SF 167 SF 167 SF 190 SF 113 SF 113 SF 113 SF 98 SF 98 SF 98 SF 98 SF 98 SF 120 SF 96 SF 96 SF 96 SF 96 SF 96 SF 117 SF 50 SF 32 SF 97 SF 117 SF 24 SF 20 SF 68 SF 92 SF 147 SF 22 SF 147 SF 22 SF53 SF102 SF53 SF145 SF 24 SF 20 SF 68 SF 92 SF 147 SF 22 SF53 SF102 SF53 SF145 SF 24 SF 20 SF 68 SF 92 SF 147 SF 22 SF53 SF102 SF53 SF145 SF 24 SF 20 SF 68 SF 92 SF 147 SF 22 SF53 SF102 SF53 SF145 SF 24 SF 20 SF 68 SF 92 SF 147 SF 169 SF 73 SF LEVEL 1 16' -8" LEVEL 2 28' -4" A CA.2 B LEVEL 3 38' -6" LEVEL 4 48' -8" LEVEL 5 58' -10" LEVEL 6 69' -0" LEVEL 7 79' -2" LEVEL 8 89' -4" TOP OF ELEV. 107' -4" 89 SF 67 SF 145 SF 119 SF 119 SF66 SF 191 SF21 SF92 SF 73 SF 3' - 0" 9' - 6 1/2"11' - 10 1/2"13' - 8"17' - 4"10' - 8" 73 SF 73 SF 73 SF 73 SF 73 SF 66 SF 66 SF 66 SF 66 SF 191 SF 191 SF 119 SF 92 SF 92 SF 92 SF 92 SF 92 SF 112 SF LEVEL 1 16' -8" LEVEL 2 28' -4" 1 12211310 LEVEL 3 38' -6" LEVEL 4 48' -8" LEVEL 5 58' -10" LEVEL 6 69' -0" LEVEL 7 79' -2" LEVEL 8 89' -4" 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.7 208 SF 190 SF 40 SF 101 SF 54 SF 146 SF 208 SF 52 SF 90 SF 42 SF 42 SF 171 SF 58 SF 42 SF 171 SF 143 SF167 SF100 SF 8' - 6"6' - 0"24' - 10"24' - 4"10' - 11"9' - 11"23' - 2"24' - 10"6' - 2"24' - 4"20' - 10"24' - 4"10' - 4" 100 SF 100 SF 58 SF 58 SF 171 SF 171 SF 171 SF 171 SF 171 SF 167 SF 167 SF 167 SF 167 SF 167 SF 143 SF 143 SF 143 SF 143 SF 143 SF 134 SF 145 SF 117 SF 53 SF 102 SF 74 SF 53 SF 22 SF 167 SF 171 SF 171 SF 171 SF 171 SF 171 SF 9 SF 50 SF 37 SF 93 SF 36 SF 23 SF 20 SF 66 SF 91 SF 146 SF 102 SF 53 SF 22 SF66 SF 91 SF 146 SF 102 SF 53 SF 22 SF66 SF 91 SF 146 SF 102 SF 53 SF 22 SF66 SF 91 SF 146 SF 102 SF 53 SF 22 SF66 SF 91 SF 146 SF 53 SF 145 SF 23 SF 145 SF 23 SF 145 SF 23 SF 145 SF 23 SF 145 SF 23 SF 53 SF 20 SF 53 SF 20 SF 53 SF 20 SF 53 SF 20 SF 53 SF 20 SF LEVEL 1 16' -8" LEVEL 2 28' -4" ACA.2B LEVEL 3 38' -6" LEVEL 4 48' -8" LEVEL 5 58' -10" LEVEL 6 69' -0" LEVEL 7 79' -2" LEVEL 8 89' -4" TOP OF ELEV. 107' -4" 175 SF 253 SF 207 SF130 SF 18' - 8"30' - 4" 130 SF 130 SF 130 SF 130 SF 130 SF 207 SF 207 SF 207 SF 207 SF 207 SF 112 SF 92 SF 92 SF 92 SF 92 SF 92 SF 92 SF 13' - 8" 42% OPEN 68% OPEN 100% OPEN *OPEN AREAS SHOWN IN TABLE ARE REDUCED AND ADJUSTED FOR EXTERIOR SCREENING 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:11:16 PMG0-12G P25596.02 RC MdG OPENNESS CALCULATION 1" = 20'-0"G0-12G 1 VENTILATION ELEVATION EAST 1" = 20'-0"G0-12G 2 VENTILATION ELEVATION NORTH 1" = 20'-0"G0-12G 3 VENTILATION ELEVATION WEST 1" = 20'-0"G0-12G 4 VENTILATION ELEVATION SOUTH OPENING CALCULATIONS* LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 7 LEVEL PERIMETER LENGTH HEIGHT PER TIER TOTAL PERIMETER AREA REQUIRED OPENING LENGTH (40% OF TOTAL PERIMETER TIER)OPENING LENGTH PROVIDED REQUIRED OPENING AREA (20% OF TOTAL PERIMETER AREA)OPENING AREA PROVIDED 776 FT 776 FT 776 FT 776 FT 776 FT 776 FT 776 FT 11'-8" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 9056 SF 7890 SF 7890 SF 7890 SF 7890 SF 7890 SF 7890 SF 310'-4" 310'-4" 310'-4" 310'-4" 310'-4" 310'-4" 310'-4" 514'-0" 543'-10" 543'-10" 543'-10" 557'-5" 557'-5" 550'-11" 1811 SF 1578 SF 1578 SF 1578 SF 1578 SF 1578 SF 1578 SF 2792 SF 1654 SF 1612 SF 1582 SF 1612 SF 1582 SF 1611 SF 423 GEHCB D F I1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 8:48:44 PMG1-01 P25596.02 EXISTING PHOTOS 12" = 1'-0"G1-01 2 EXISTING PHOTOS KEY - Planning 424 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 8:48:00 PMG1-02 P25596.02 SITE LOCATION AND CONTEXT 425 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 6:43:08 PMG1-03 P25596.02 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS 426 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 6:43:50 PMG1-04 P25596.02 VEHICLE AND SERVICE ACCESS 427 T LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORKBUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING B PARKING GARAGE OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-districts TO/RD Zone 20.280.007.K MIN 5% OF LOT FOR USABLE OPEN SPACE 20.280.004-3 MIN 15% OF SITE FOR LANDSCAPING CALCULATION METHOD 1 SITE BOUNDARY (ARE-LEASED PROPERTIES) 219,750 SF USABLE OPEN SPACE AREA: 26,287 SF (12.0 %) LANDSCAPING AREA : 26,444 SF (12.0 %) CALCULATION METHOD 2 ADJUSTED SITE BOUNDARY (WITHOUT VEHICLE ACCESS ROADS AND EASEMENTS) : 185,844 SF USABLE OPEN SPACE AREA: 26,287 SF (14.1 %) LANDSCAPING AREA : 23,314 SF (12.5 %) EC C D E E ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN (20.300.007.D.2) The following approach to the project's landscape design is to demonstrate that the intent of the City landscape requirements are achieved through an Alternate Landscape Plan in lieu of meeting the required 15% landscape site coverage. Please refer to the G-series plan sheets for the landscape calculation approach. The principles and design criteria described below is organized by criteria listed in the Alternative Landscape Plan requirement. A. Innovative Use of Plant Material: The 18 foot tall western wall of the courtyard is planted with vines to serve as green backdrop to the courtyard while aiding in noise and wind mitigation. Plant selection will consider habitat potential for birds and beneficial insects. C. Naturalistic Design Principles: Planting design references the San Francisco Bay alluvial soil landscape that once inhabited the site. Stormwater bio-filtration throughout the landscape will promote the use of wet species evocative of this ecosystem while manage site stormwater runoff. D. Integration of Landscaping and Pedestrian Facilities in a Manner that Improves Access of Incorporates Pedestrian-friendly Design: The improved streetscape of Sylvester Road introduces a safe and attractive pedestrian environment along the extent of the project where there is currently asphalt and no designated pedestrian zone. The Sylvester streetscape blends seamlessly into the adjacent publicly accessible courtyard between the two buildings. Building entries and active frontages along with programming in the courtyard have been designed to create a vibrant pedestrian space that will include outdoor cafe seating and outdoor games to enliven the pedestrian environment. E. Additional Shade Trees: Multiple shade trees have been located along all roadway edges and service drives to reduce heat island effect as well as promote a pleasurable pedestrian experience. Varied tree species within the site provide changing color and visual densities with the overall canopy providing abundant shade. Significant Building terraces have been designed to incorporate raised planters and integrated benches to support smaller multi trunk trees selected to withstand the characteristic winds and salt air. TREE INTERCEPTOR (C3.4.1 Tree Preservation/Planting and Interceptor Tree Credit from San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program 2020 ) 40 Evergreen Trees x 200sf = 8,000 SF 28 Deciduous Trees x 100 sf = 2,800 SF IN TOTAL +/- 10,800 SF NOTE: Over +/- 5500 SF might be considered as stormwater treatment credits in SF. E D E D E A C LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT IN PUBLIC R.O.W (NOT PART OF CALCULATION)108' - 8"204' - 5"229' - 5"32' - 5" 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 6:42:03 PMG1-06 P25596.02 OPEN SPACE PLAN DIAGRAM 1" = 40'-0"G1-06 1 SITE LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATION 428 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 6:46:38 PMG1-07 P25596.02 ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN (20.300.007.D.2) The following approach to the project's landscape design is to demonstrate that the intent of the City landscape requirements are achieved through an Alternate Landscape Plan in lieu of meeting the required 15% landscape site coverage. Please refer to the G-series plan sheets for the landscape calculation approach. The principles and design criteria described below is organized by criteria listed in the Alternative Landscape Plan requirement. A. Innovative Use of Plant Material: The 18 foot tall western wall of the courtyard is planted with vines to serve as green backdrop to the courtyard while aiding in noise and wind mitigation. Plant selection will consider habitat potential for birds and beneficial insects. C. Naturalistic Design Principles: Planting design references the San Francisco Bay alluvial soil landscape that once inhabited the site. Stormwater bio-filtration throughout the landscape will promote the use of wet species evocative of this ecosystem while manage site stormwater runoff. D. Integration of Landscaping and Pedestrian Facilities in a Manner that Improves Access of Incorporates Pedestrian-friendly Design: The improved streetscape of Sylvester Road introduces a safe and attractive pedestrian environment along the extent of the project where there is currently asphalt and no designated pedestrian zone. The Sylvester streetscape blends seamlessly into the adjacent publicly accessible courtyard between the two buildings. Building entries and active frontages along with programming in the courtyard have been designed to create a vibrant pedestrian space that will include outdoor cafe seating and outdoor games to enliven the pedestrian environment. E. Additional Shade Trees: Multiple shade trees have been located along all roadway edges and service drives to reduce heat island effect as well as promote a pleasurable pedestrian experience. Varied tree species within the site provide changing color and visual densities with the overall canopy providing abundant shade. Significant Building terraces have been designed to incorporate raised planters and integrated benches to support smaller multi trunk trees selected to withstand the characteristic winds and salt air. C. Naturalistic Design Principles D. Integration of Landscaping and Pedestrian Facilities in a Manner that Improves Access of Incorporates Pedestrian-friendly Design E. Additional Shade Trees A. Innovative Use of Plant Material: 429 17' - 6"BUILDING A185' - 0"BUILDING B154' - 0"PARKING GARAGE96' - 0"SEA LEVEL BUILDING A SEE AERONAUTICAL STUDY DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ISSUED 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 17 feet site elevation (SE) 185 feet above ground level (AGL) 202 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) BUILDING B SEE AERONAUTICAL STUDY DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ISSUED 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 17 feet site elevation (SE) 154 feet above ground level (AGL) 171 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) PARKING GARAGE AERONAUTICAL STUDY DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION EXPECTED ISSUE 1 NOVEMBER 2021 17 feet site elevation (SE) 96 feet above ground level (AGL) 113 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)18' - 0"MINIMUM GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT: 15' FLOOR TO FLOOR, 12' CLEAR REQUIRED 18' FLOOR TO FLOOR, 15' CLEAR PROVIDED 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 9:35:20 PMG1-08 P25596.02 BUILDING HEIGHTS 1" = 30'-0"G1-08 1 BUILDING HEIGHTS 430 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 9:35:23 PMG1-09 P25596.02 BKF FIRE ACCESS EXHIBIT 431 T BUILDING A (10 STORIES) BUILDING B (8 STORIES) PARKING GARAGE (8 STORIES) EAST GRAND AVENUE SYLVESTER ROAD101 BAYSHORE FREEWAY EXIT RAMPASSOCIATED ROAD BAKER STREETSERVICE YARD A SERVICE YARD B 3 A1-02 A1-01 2 A1-01 3 SERVICE DRIVE147' - 2"315' - 10"261' - 5"129' - 1" 20.280.004 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK = 0' PROVIDED FRONT SETBACK = 20'-0", DUE TO 20' STORM/SANITARY EASEMENT BUILDING ABOVE 2 A1-02 1 A1-02 CALWATER PUMP STATION BLDG B32' - 0"BLDG B 46' - 2" BLDG B 29' - 4"BLDG B44' - 6"PG16' - 2"B L D G A 6' - 0 " PG 39' - 0"PG21' - 2"PG 46' - 11" S-3 S-3S-3 S-3 S-3 S-21 S-3 S-3 S-3 S-22 Y-14 S-9S-9 129' - 1" BLDG A 5' - 2"BLDG A20' - 0"14' - 8"EASEMENT 46' - 0" EASEMENT 20' - 0" BLDG A 47' - 6"BLDG B36' - 3"PG 46' - 11" EASEMENT 40' - 0"BLDG A31' - 11"S-23 S-23 S-3 BLDG A44' - 2"FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE MEASURED TO CENTER LINE OF ADJACENT PUBLIC WAY FIRE SEPARATION >40'-0" EXISTING (1 STORY) EXISTING (1 STORY) TRASH COMPACTOR RECYCLING COMPACTOR CANOPY ABOVE BUILDING ABOVE CHEMICAL STORAGE LOCKERS (7) (FUTURE) TENANT GENERATOR (FUTURE) BLDG A GENERATOR LOADINGMPOE LN2 TANK (FUTURE)20' H CONCRETE FOUNTAIN WALL MAIN ELEC ?SERVICE DRIVE10' - 0" WB-40 45' - 0" WB-30 30' - 0"12' - 0"FIRE HYDRANT STAIR 3 FIRE COMMAND CENTER PUMP CHEMICAL STORAGE LOCKERS (8) (FUTURE) TENANT GENERATOR (FUTURE)BLDG B GENERATOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS SERVICE DRIVE1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 4:30:50 PMA1-01 P25596.02 SITE PLANS 1" = 40'-0"A1-01 1 SITE PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0"A1-01 2 SERVICE YARD A 1/16" = 1'-0"A1-01 3 SERVICE YARD B LEGEND - ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN PROPERTY LINE S-3 FIRE HYDRANT S-9 PAD MOUNTED INTERUPTER S-21 TRANSFORMER ON PAD S-22 MONUMENT SIGN S-23 NONSTRUCTURAL BIORETENTION AREA. SEE CIVIL Y-14 LN2 TANK (FUTURE) CR Card Reader KB Knox Box (Fire #8e: A Fire Department key box shall be provided on the front of each structure for access to fire protection equipment within the building.") CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR KB KB KB KB ALTERNATE: ROLLED CURB WITHWIDENED SIDEWALK FACE OF CURB 432 BUILDING A (10 STORIES) BUILDING B (8 STORIES) PARKING GARAGE (8 STORIES) E GRAND AVE ASSOCIATED RD SERVICE YARD A SERVICE YARD B E GRAND AVE SYLVESTER RD 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 4:31:17 PMA1-02 P25596.02 SITE SECTIONS 1" = 30'-0"A1-02 3 SITE SECTION 1" = 40'-0"A1-02 1 SITE SECTION AT BUILDING A 1" = 40'-0"A1-02 2 SITE SECTION AT BUILDING B A B PG 2 21 FIRE WATER TANK FIRE WATER TANK 433 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 4:31:17 PMA1-03 P25596.02 RENDERING - STREET VIEW ALONG E GRAND AVE 434 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 4:31:17 PMA1-04 P25596.02 RENDERING - AERIAL AT SYLVESTER RD 435 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 4:31:18 PMA1-05 P25596.02 RENDERING - HIGHWAY VIEW LOOKING NORTH 436 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:03:58 AMA1-06 P25596.02 MATERIAL PALETTE & DESIGNATIONS 437 UP UP B C E G F 98765342 1 D 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' PLUMBING SERVICE CORRIDOR CAFE (FUTURE) MAILFIRE CMD CENTERELEV LOBBY PUMP FSAE LOBBY CAFE BACK OF HOUSE (FUTURE)MPOE STAIR 3 M RESTROOMW LOCKERS M LOCKERS W RESTROOMRESTROOM EXIT PASSAGEWAY ELECN SHOWER N RESTROOM MDF SHOP BREAK STORAGEOFFICE JAN MAIN ELEC 21' - 0"3' - 3" 17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 9.0°30' - 6"26' - 3" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3"STAIR 1VEST OFFICE STORAGECHANGING VEST VEST BICYCLE LACTATION VEST 3' - 3" 3' - 0 1/2" 22' - 9"3' - 3" BUILDING ABOVE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION __________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________ 1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:26:58 AMA2-01A P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 1 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-01A 1 LEVEL 1, OVERALL 438 UP UP UP DN UP B C E G F 98765342 1 D 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' (FUTURE) STAIR 2STAIR 1TR ELECSTAIR 3 N RESTROOM JAN W RESTROOM M RESTROOM FSAE LOBBY ELEV LOBBY 21' - 0"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 21' - 0"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 9.0°30' - 6"30' - 6"26' - 3"26' - 3" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3" VEST VESTVEST 2' - 6"22' - 9"3' - 3"3' - 3"BUILDING ABOVE __________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:27:00 AMA2-02A P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 2 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-02A 1 LEVEL 2, OVERALL 439 UP DN DN UP UP UP B C E G F 98765342 1 D 10 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' H (FUTURE) STAIR 3 FSAE LOBBY JAN STAIR 1N RESTROOM M RESTROOM W RESTROOM TR ELEC STAIR 2 ELEV LOBBY 21' - 0"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 5' - 3" 9.0°30' - 6"26' - 3" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3" VESTVEST VEST 22' - 9"14' - 0"9.0°5' - 3"__________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________ 1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:27:02 AMA2-03A P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 3 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-03A 1 LEVEL 3, OVERALL 440 DN UP DN UP DN UP B C E G F 98765342 1 D 10 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' H (FUTURE) FSAE LOBBY JAN STAIR 3 STAIR 1N RESTROOM M RESTROOM W RESTROOM TR ELEC STAIR 2 ELEV LOBBY 21' - 0"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 5' - 3" 9.0°30' - 6"26' - 3" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3" VEST VEST VEST 22' - 9" 14' - 0"27' - 7"1 3 2 .0 ° __________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________ 1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:27:04 AMA2-04A P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 4 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-04A 1 LEVEL 4, OVERALL 441 DN UP DN UP DN UP B C E G F 98765342 1 D 10 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' H FSAE LOBBY (FUTURE)STAIR 1STAIR 3 TR N RESTROOM JAN M RESTROOM W RESTROOM TERRACE 5 ELEC STAIR 2 ELEV LOBBY 21' - 0"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 5' - 3" 9.0°30' - 6"26' - 3" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3" VEST VEST VEST 22' - 9" 14' - 0" __________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________ 1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:27:05 AMA2-05A P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 5 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-05A 1 LEVEL 5, OVERALL 442 DN UP DN UP DN UP B C E G F 98765342 1 D 10 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' H STAIR 3 FSAE LOBBY STAIR 1TR N RESTROOM W RESTROOM M RESTROOM ELEV LOBBY JAN TERRACE BELOW ELEC STAIR 2 TERRACE 6 (FUTURE) 21' - 0"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 5' - 3" 9.0°30' - 6"26' - 3" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3" VEST VESTVEST 22' - 9" 14' - 0" __________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________ 1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:27:07 AMA2-06A P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 6 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-06A 1 LEVEL 6, OVERALL 443 DN UP DN UP DN UP B C E G 98765342 1 D 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' H TERRACE 7B ELECSTAIR 3 TERRACE 7ASTAIR 1TR N RESTROOM M RESTROOM W RESTROOM JAN TERRACE BELOW FSAE LOBBY TERRACE BELOW STAIR 2 ELEV LOBBY (FUTURE) 21' - 0"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 4' - 6" 9.0°30' - 6"26' - 3" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3" VEST VESTVEST 22' - 9" __________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________ 1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:27:09 AMA2-07A P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 7 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-07A 1 LEVEL 7, OVERALL 444 DN UP DN UP DN UP B C E G F 98765342 1 D 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' H (FUTURE) TERRACE 8A STAIR 3 STAIR 1TR FSAE LOBBY N. RESTROOM JAN M RESTROOM W RESTROOM TERRACE 8B TERRACE 8C MID-DOOR TERRACE BELOW TERRACE BELOW ELEC VEST ELEV LOBBY SKY GARDEN 21' - 0"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 12' - 11 215/256" 9.0°30' - 6"26' - 3" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3" EDGE OF FLOOR ABOVE STAIR 2VEST VEST 22' - 9"5' - 8 63/64"__________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________ 1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:27:11 AMA2-08A P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 8 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-08A 1 LEVEL 8, OVERALL 445 DN UP DN UP DN UP B C E G F 98765342 1 D 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' H TERRACE 9 STAIR 3 JAN M RESTROOM (FUTURE) TR ELEC N RESTROOM W RESTROOM TERRACE BELOW TERRACE BELOW OPEN TO BELOW TERRACE BELOW FSAE LOBBY OPEN TO BELOW STAIR 2STAIR 1ELEV LOBBY 21' - 0"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 12' - 11 215/256" 9.0°30' - 6"26' - 3" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3" VEST VEST VEST 3' - 3"5' - 3"5' - 8 63/64"__________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________ 1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:27:13 AMA2-09A P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 9 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-09A 1 LEVEL 9, OVERALL 446 DN UP DN DN B C E G F 98765342 1 D 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' H STAIR 3 STAIR 1(FUTURE) TR FSAE LOBBY N RESTROOM JAN W RESTROOM M RESTROOMELEC VEST ELEV LOBBY 21' - 0"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 9.0° 12' - 11 215/256" 9.0°30' - 6"26' - 3" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3" STAIR 2 VEST VEST 22' - 9"5' - 8 63/64"__________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:27:14 AMA2-10A P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 10 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-10A 1 LEVEL 10, OVERALL 447 F/S F/S DN B C E G F 98765342 1 D 1.5 8.52.5 7.5 __________ A3-11A 1 __________ A3-13A 1 __________ A3-12A 1 A' H ELEV MACH ELEC TR FSAE LOBBY MECHANICAL 9.0°9.0°9.0° STAIR 3 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 15' - 9" 15' - 9" 26' - 3"17' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0"30' - 6"21' - 0" 26' - 3"1/ A2.21E1/ A2.21WBUILDING BELOW __________ A3-13A 2 1 A4-11A __________ 2 A4-12A __________1 A4-12A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 9:27:18 AMA2-11A P25596.02 PLAN, ROOF A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-11A 1 ROOF PLAN 448 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 159' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" LEVEL 9 128' - 6" LEVEL 10 144' - 0" 8 7 6 5 34 210 1.58.5 2.57.5 T O ROOF SCREEN 179' - 6"20' - 0" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6"179' - 6"20' - 0"CWA MD1 CWA CWB FUTURE NORTH ENTRY AT INFLECTION IN FACADE MP3 MP3 LV1 EXTENT OF ACOUSTIC GLAZING CWG SITE WALL / GATE GR1 ELEVATOR OVERRUN MP1 2 A4-12A __________1 A4-12A __________ 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 7:24:29 AMA3-11A P25596.02 Checker Author ELEVATIONS A B PG 1 1/16" = 1'-0"A3-11A 1 ELEVATION, EXTERIOR - NORTH 449 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 159' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" LEVEL 9 128' - 6" LEVEL 10 144' - 0" 8765342 101.5 8.52.5 7.5 T O ROOF SCREEN 179' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"MP2 CWA CWB GR1 CWA CWB CWG MP3 MP3 MP3 MP3 LV1 EXTENT OF ACOUSTIC GLAZING 29' - 5"20' - 0"ELEVATOR OVERRUN PT1 2 A4-12A __________1 A4-12A __________ 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 4:52:25 PMA3-12A P25596.02 Checker Author ELEVATIONS A B PG 1 1/16" = 1'-0"A3-12A 1 ELEVATION, EXTERIOR - SOUTH 450 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 159' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" LEVEL 9 128' - 6" LEVEL 10 144' - 0" B C E GFD T O ROOF SCREEN 179' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"CWA CWB CW-A CWB CWC MP3 MP3 MP3 LV1 EXTENT OF ACOUSTIC GLAZING 20' - 0"179' - 6"ELEVATOR OVERRUN MP1 1 A4-11A __________ A LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 159' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" LEVEL 9 128' - 6" LEVEL 10 144' - 0" BCEGFD T O ROOF SCREEN 179' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"MP2 CWA CWB CWA CWB CWB CWA CWG MP3 MP3 MP3 LV1 MD1 ELEVATOR OVERRUN 20' - 0"1 A4-11A __________ A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 7:22:30 AMA3-13A P25596.02 Checker Author ELEVATIONS A B PG2 11/16" = 1'-0"A3-13A 1 ELEVATION, EXTERIOR - WEST 1/16" = 1'-0"A3-13A 2 ELEVATION, EXTERIOR - EAST 451 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 159' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" LEVEL 9 128' - 6" LEVEL 10 144' - 0" 8765342 101.5 8.52.5 7.5 T O ROOF SCREEN 179' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"140 MAIN ELEC 135 BREAK 20' - 0"179' - 6"1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 4:53:39 PMA4-11A P25596.02 CA SECTIONS A B PG 1 1/16" = 1'-0"A4-11A 1 SECTION, EAST-WEST 452 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 159' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" LEVEL 9 128' - 6" LEVEL 10 144' - 0" BCEGFD T O ROOF SCREEN 179' - 6"20' - 0"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"A LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 159' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" LEVEL 9 128' - 6" LEVEL 10 144' - 0" BCEGFD T O ROOF SCREEN 179' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"31' - 0"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"20' - 0"A 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 4:53:45 PMA4-12A P25596.02 Checker CA SECTIONS A B PG 211/16" = 1'-0"A4-12A 2 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION ALONG GRIDLINE 9 - MAIN LOBBY 1/16" = 1'-0"A4-12A 1 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION AT TERRACES 453 UP UP 11 A3-11B 2 A3-13B 3 A3-13B 1 A3-12B 1 K J L P N M O 1098543261 9.54.5 LOADING BOH LOBBYFIRE COMMAND CENTER MPOE STAIR 3PUMP FITNESS CENTER (FUTURE) W RESTROOM M RESTROOM N RESTROOM JAN MDF ELEC ? STOR BUILDING ABOVE BUILDING ABOVE WALK-OFF MAT VEST 31' - 4" 31' - 8" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 63' - 0" 31' - 6" 38' - 0"17' - 0"30' - 0"17' - 0"25' - 3"31' - 6"26' - 3"25' - 0"3' - 3"3' - 3"9.00° MAIN ELEC BICYCLES EMER ELEC WALK-OFF MAT STAIR 1 TR MAILW LOCKER ROOM M LOCKER ROOM VEST N SHOWER VEST N RESTROOM LACTATION PLUMBING CONFERENCE CENTER (FUTURE) (FUTURE) MAIN LOBBY VEST ELEV LOBBYVEST 2' - 6"9.00° 30' - 7 1/4" 3' - 3" 1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:27:55 PMA2-01B P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 1 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-01B 1 PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 1 454 UP UPUP UP 11 A3-11B 2 A3-13B 3 A3-13B 1 A3-12B 1 K J L P N M O 1098543261 9.54.5STAIR 3TR ELEC BOH LOBBY(FUTURE) ELEV LOBBY 5' - 3" VEST STAIR 2 31' - 4" 31' - 8" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 63' - 0" 31' - 6" 38' - 0" 25' - 0"17' - 0"30' - 0"17' - 0"25' - 3"31' - 6"26' - 3"30' - 8"5' - 3"5' - 3" 5' - 3"5' - 3"9.00° 5' - 3"5' - 3"VEST N RESTROOM N RESTROOM W RESTROOM M RESTROOMVESTSTAIR 1 1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:12:46 PMA2-02B P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 2 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-02B 1 PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 2 455 UPUP UP 11 A3-11B 2 A3-13B 3 A3-13B 1 A3-12B 1 K J L P N M O 1098543261 9.54.5 W RESTROOM STAIR 1 VEST TERRACE 3 M RESTROOMBOH LOBBYTR STOR N RESTROOM JAN STAIR 2 5' - 3"STAIR 331' - 4" 31' - 8" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 63' - 0" 31' - 6" 38' - 0" 25' - 0"17' - 0"30' - 0"17' - 0"25' - 3"31' - 6"26' - 3"30' - 8"5' - 3"5' - 3"5' - 3"9.00° 5' - 3"5' - 3"ELEC VEST VEST ELEV LOBBY (FUTURE) 1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:12:48 PMA2-03B P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 3 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-03B 1 PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 3 456 UP UP 11 A3-11B 2 A3-13B 3 A3-13B 1 A3-12B 1 K J L P N M O 1098543261 9.54.5 STAIR 1BOH LOBBYW RESTROOM M RESTROOM STAIR 3TERRACE BELOW TR STOR N RESTROOM JAN 5' - 3" VEST STAIR 2 31' - 4" 31' - 8" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 63' - 0" 31' - 6" 38' - 0" 25' - 0"17' - 0"30' - 0"17' - 0"25' - 3"31' - 6"26' - 3"30' - 8"5' - 3"5' - 3"5' - 3"9.00° 5' - 3"5' - 3"ELEC VEST VEST ELEV LOBBY (FUTURE) 9.00° 1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:12:50 PMA2-04B P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 4 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-04B 1 PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 4 457 UP UP A3-11B 2 A3-13B 3 A3-13B 1 A3-12B 1 K J L P N M O 1098543261 9.54.5 W RESTROOM STAIR 1 STAIR 3TERRACE 5 TERRACE BELOW M RESTROOMBOH LOBBYTR JAN N RESTROOM STOR STAIR 2 MID-DOOR VEST 31' - 4" 31' - 8" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 63' - 0" 31' - 6"17' - 0"30' - 0"17' - 0"25' - 3"31' - 6"26' - 3"30' - 8"5' - 3"5' - 3"9.00° 5' - 3"5' - 3"ELEC VEST 9.00° ELEV LOBBY (FUTURE) VEST 14' - 2" 1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:12:51 PMA2-05B P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 5 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-05B 1 PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 5 458 UP UP A3-11B 2 A3-13B 3 A3-13B 1 A3-12B 1 K J L P N M O 1098543261 9.54.5 STAIR 1BOH LOBBYW RESTROOM STAIR 3OPEN TO BELOW TERRACE BELOW M RESTROOM ELEC TR STOR N RESTROOM JAN EDGE OF FLOOR ABOVE STAIR 2 VEST 17' - 0"30' - 0"17' - 0"25' - 3"30' - 8" 9.00° 5' - 3" 9.00° 31' - 4" 31' - 8" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 63' - 0" 31' - 6" 14' - 2"5' - 3"5' - 3"VEST ELEV LOBBY VEST (FUTURE) 1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:12:53 PMA2-06B P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 6 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-06B 1 PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 6 459 UP UP A3-11B 2 A3-13B 3 A3-13B 1 A3-12B 1 K J L P N M O 1098543261 9.54.5 (FUTURE)BOH LOBBYW RESTROOM STAIR 3OPEN TO BELOW M RESTROOM ELEC TR STOR N RESTROOM JANSTAIR 2 VEST 31' - 4" 31' - 8" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 63' - 0" 31' - 6" 38' - 0"17' - 0"30' - 0"17' - 0"25' - 3"31' - 6"26' - 3"30' - 8"5' - 3"9.00° 5' - 3" 14' - 2" 9.00°5' - 3"5' - 3"VEST ELEV LOBBY VEST STAIR 1 1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:12:54 PMA2-07B P25596.02 Checker AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 7 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-07B 1 PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 7 460 UP UP A3-11B 2 A3-13B 3 A3-13B 1 A3-12B 1 K J L P N M O 1098543261 9.54.5 (FUTURE)BOH LOBBYW RESTROOM STAIR 3M RESTROOM ELEC TR STOR N RESTROOM JAN VEST STAIR 2 31' - 4" 31' - 8" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 63' - 0" 31' - 6" 38' - 0"17' - 0"30' - 0"17' - 0"25' - 3"30' - 8" 9.00° 5' - 3" 14' - 2"5' - 3"5' - 3"VEST VEST STAIR 1ELEV LOBBY1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:12:56 PMA2-08B P25596.02 AH, AS AA PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 8 A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-08B 1 PLAN, FLOOR - LEVEL 8 461 F/S F/S SDSDSDSDSDSDUP A3-11B 2 A3-13B 3 A3-13B 1 A3-12B 1 K J L P N M O 1098543261 9.54.5 TR ELECELEV MACHBOH LOBBYMECHANICALSTAIR 2 ELEV OVERRUNELEV OVERRUN1/ A2.20W1/ A2.19E31' - 4" 31' - 8" 31' - 6" 31' - 6" 63' - 0" 31' - 6" 38' - 0"17' - 0"30' - 0"17' - 0"25' - 3"30' - 8" 9.00° 5' - 3"5' - 3"5' - 3"SHAFT BELOW VEST 1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:13:03 PMA2-09B P25596.02 Checker Author PLAN, ROOF A B PG 1/16" = 1'-0"A2-09B 1 PLAN, ROOF 462 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 128' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" T O ROOF SCREEN 148' - 6" 11 20' - 0" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 15' - 6" 20' - 0"148' - 6"CWA CWB CWA CWG CWB MP1 PT 1 MP3 LV1 EXTENT OF ACOUSTIC GLAZING BREEZEWAY MP3 ELEVATOR OVERRUN 10 9 8 5 4 3 26 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:15:05 PMA3-11B P25596.02 Checker Author ELEVATIONS A B PG 1 1/16" = 1'-0"A3-11B 2 ELEVATION, EXTERIOR - NORTH 463 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 128' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" T O ROOF SCREEN 148' - 6" 11 148' - 6"CWA CWA CWB CWG MD1 MP3 MP3 MP3 20' - 0"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"MP3SITEWALL / GATE EXTENT OF ACOUSTIC GLAZING ELEVATOR OVERRUN BREEZEWAY MP3 109854326 1 A4-12B 2 A4-12B 7 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:16:00 PMA3-12B P25596.02 Checker Author ELEVATIONS A B PG 1 1/16" = 1'-0"A3-12B 1 ELEVATION, EXTERIOR - SOUTH 464 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 128' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" T O ROOF SCREEN 148' - 6"20' - 0"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"CWA CWA CWB CWA CWA PT1 PT1 CWB CWB MP3 LV1 EXTENT OF ACOUSTIC GLAZING 148' - 6"ELEVATOR OVERRUN KJ L PNMO 1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 128' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" T O ROOF SCREEN 148' - 6"20' - 0"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"148' - 6"CWA CWA CWB CWA CWA CWG CWG CWG MD1 MP3 MP3 LV1 ELEVATOR OVERRUN K JLPNMO 1 A4-11B 2 A4-11B 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:17:10 PMA3-13B P25596.02 Checker Author ELEVATIONS A B PG1 21/16" = 1'-0"A3-13B 3 ELEVATION, EXTERIOR - WEST 1/16" = 1'-0"A3-13B 1 ELEVATION, EXTERIOR - EAST 465 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 128' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" T O ROOF SCREEN 148' - 6" 11109854326 20' - 0"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"148' - 6"102 ELEV LOBBY 120 MDF 116 STOR117 BOH LOBBY 7 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 128' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" T O ROOF SCREEN 148' - 6" 11109854326 20' - 0"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"124 FITNESS CENTER (FUTURE) 517 TERRACE 5 516 MID-DOOR 7 148' - 6"1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:17:26 PMA4-11B P25596.02 Checker CA SECTIONS A B PG 1 2 1/16" = 1'-0"A4-11B 1 EAST-WEST SECTION AT GRIDLINE K-L 1/16" = 1'-0"A4-11B 2 EAST-WEST SECTION AT GRIDLINE M-N 466 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 128' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" T O ROOF SCREEN 148' - 6" KJ L PNMO 20' - 0"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"148' - 6"LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 20' - 0" LEVEL 3 35' - 6" LEVEL 4 51' - 0" ROOF 128' - 6" LEVEL 5 66' - 6" LEVEL 6 82' - 0" LEVEL 7 97' - 6" LEVEL 8 113' - 0" T O ROOF SCREEN 148' - 6" KJ L NM 20' - 0"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6"20' - 0"148' - 6"1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 5:19:10 PMA4-12B P25596.02 Checker CA SECTIONS A B PG1 21/16" = 1'-0"A4-12B 1 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION AT GRIDLINE 2-3 1/16" = 1'-0"A4-12B 2 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION AT GRIDLINE 7-8 467 TUP DN UP 1 1 A A 12 12 C C A.2 A.2 2 2 11 11 3 3 10 10 B B 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10.7 10.7 9.01%RAMP UP @ 12.96%RAMP UP @ 6.52% 9.01%RAMP UP @ 12.96%RAMP UP @ 6.52% 17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"FIRE PUMP ROOMTELECOM ROOM UTILITY ROOM BIKE STORAGE (14 BIKES) RESTROOMBREAK ROOM MAIN ELECTRICAL ROOM UTILITY ROOM TELECOM ROOM ELEV 1 ELEV 2 STAIR 1 ELEV 3 STAIR 2 CANOPY ABOVE CANOPY ABOVE 6 6 7'-6"8'-6"12'-0"5'-0"9'-0"3'-1"9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"29'-8"5'-0"9'-0"4'-1"9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"5 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 42'-6" 7 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 59'-6" 34'-10"9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"4'-0"12'-0"5'-0"9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"9'-0"8'-0"9'-0"2'-0"8'-6"6'-6"10'-7"3'-0"10'-7"16'-10"18'-0" DRIVE AISLE 25'-0"18'-0" SAND OIL INTERCEPTOR; SPD SAND OIL INTERCEPTOR; SPD 18'-0" DRIVE AISLE 25'-0"18'-0"18'-0"DRIVE AISLE25'-0"18'-0"2'-0"18'-0"DRIVE AISLE25'-0"18'-0"33'-10"9'-0"8'-0"6 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 51'-0" 5 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 42'-6" MOST REMOTE POINT COMMON PATH OF TRAVEL = 30'-6"<100' TOTAL PATH OF TRAVEL MOST REMOTE POINT: 234' < 400' TOTAL PATH OF TRAVEL MOST REMOTE POINT: 216' < 400' ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL COMMON PATH OF TRAVEL = 30'-6"<100' 1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 4 A3-11G 2 A3-11G 1 A3-11G 3 A3-11G 34 35TYP TYP TYP 34 35 TYP TYP 35 34TYP 3534 TYP TYP 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:08:05 PMA2-01G P25596.02 RC MdG GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0"A2-01G 1 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 1 PRECAST COLUMN - SEE PRECAST PLANS 2 PRECAST BEAM - SEE PRECAST PLANS 3 PRECAST SPANDREL / P.H.M.F. - SEE PRECAST PLANS 4 PRECAST DOUBLE TEE - SEE PRECAST PLANS 6 PRECAST SHEARWALL - SEE PRECAST PLANS 34 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 35 BOLLARD N468 UP DN DNUP 1 1 A A 12 12 C C A.2 A.2 2 2 11 11 3 3 10 10 B B 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10.7 10.7 RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% 17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0" TELECOM ROOM ELEC ROOM ELEV 1 ELEV 2 STAIR 1 ELEV 3 STAIR 2 6 62'-0"8'-6"8'-6"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"3 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 25' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6"3 STALLS @ 10' - 0" EA = 30' - 0"8'-6"2'-0"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6" 13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6"12 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 102'-0"4'-0"18' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"4" RAMP 78' - 8"13' - 0" RAMP 78' - 8"4" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"18' - 0"6"8'-6"4'-6"6"4'-3" 1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 4 A3-11G 2 A3-11G 1 A3-11G 3 A3-11G 34 35 TYP TYP TYP 34 35 TYP 35 34 TYP TYP 3534 TYP TYP 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:08:07 PMA2-02G P25596.02 RC MdG SECOND LEVEL PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0"A2-02G 1 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 1 PRECAST COLUMN - SEE PRECAST PLANS 2 PRECAST BEAM - SEE PRECAST PLANS 3 PRECAST SPANDREL / P.H.M.F. - SEE PRECAST PLANS 4 PRECAST DOUBLE TEE - SEE PRECAST PLANS 6 PRECAST SHEARWALL - SEE PRECAST PLANS 34 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 35 BOLLARD N469 DNUP DNUP 1 1 A A 12 12 C C A.2 A.2 2 2 11 11 3 3 10 10 B B 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10.7 10.7 RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% A6.01 2 A6.02 2 17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0" ELEC ROOMTELECOM ROOM ELEV 1 ELEV 2 STAIR 1 ELEV 3 STAIR 2 6 618' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"4" RAMP 78' - 8"13' - 0" RAMP 78' - 8"4" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"18' - 0" 3 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 25' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6"4 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 34' - 0"2'-0"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6" 13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6"2'-0"8'-6"8'-6"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"12 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 102'-0"6"8'-6"6"4'-3"4'-3"9'-0"1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 4 A3-11G 2 A3-11G 1 A3-11G 3 A3-11G 34 35 TYP TYP TYP 34 35 TYP 35 34 TYP TYP 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:08:09 PMA2-03G P25596.02 RC MdG THIRD LEVEL PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0"A2-03G 1 LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 1 PRECAST COLUMN - SEE PRECAST PLANS 2 PRECAST BEAM - SEE PRECAST PLANS 3 PRECAST SPANDREL / P.H.M.F. - SEE PRECAST PLANS 4 PRECAST DOUBLE TEE - SEE PRECAST PLANS 6 PRECAST SHEARWALL - SEE PRECAST PLANS 34 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 35 BOLLARD N470 DNUP DNUP 1 1 A A 12 12 C C A.2 A.2 2 2 11 11 3 3 10 10 B B 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10.7 10.7 RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% A6.01 2 17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0" A6.02 2 TELECOM ROOM ELEC ROOMA2.02 2 A2.02 3 ELEV 1 ELEV 2 STAIR 1 ELEV 3 STAIR 2 6 618' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"4" RAMP 78' - 8"13' - 0" RAMP 78' - 8"4" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"18' - 0" CLR 16' - 0" 3 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 25' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"4 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 34' - 0"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6" 13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"8'-6"8'-6"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"2'-0"12 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 102'-0" 9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"6"8'-6"6"4'-3"4'-3"9'-0"1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 4 A3-11G 2 A3-11G 1 A3-11G 3 A3-11G 34 35 TYP TYP TYP 34 35 TYP 35 34 TYP TYP 3534 TYP TYP 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:08:10 PMA2-04G P25596.02 RC MdG FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0"A2-04G 1 LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 1 PRECAST COLUMN - SEE PRECAST PLANS 2 PRECAST BEAM - SEE PRECAST PLANS 3 PRECAST SPANDREL / P.H.M.F. - SEE PRECAST PLANS 4 PRECAST DOUBLE TEE - SEE PRECAST PLANS 6 PRECAST SHEARWALL - SEE PRECAST PLANS 34 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 35 BOLLARD N471 DNUP DNUP 1 1 A A 12 12 C C A.2 A.2 2 2 11 11 3 3 10 10 B B 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10.7 10.7 RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% A6.01 2 17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0" A6.02 2 TELECOM ROOM ELEC ROOM A2.02 4 ELEV 1 ELEV 2 STAIR 1 ELEV 3 STAIR 2 6 618' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"4" RAMP 78' - 8"13' - 0" RAMP 78' - 8"4" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"18' - 0" 3 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 25' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6"4 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 34' - 0"2'-0"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6" 13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6"2'-0"8'-6"8'-6"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"12 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 102'-0"6"8'-6"6"4'-3"4'-3"9'-0"1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 4 A3-11G 2 A3-11G 1 A3-11G 3 A3-11G 34 35 TYP TYP TYP 34 35 TYP 35 34 TYP TYP 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:08:12 PMA2-05G P25596.02 RC MdG FIFTH LEVEL PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0"A2-05G 1 LEVEL 5 PLAN KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 1 PRECAST COLUMN - SEE PRECAST PLANS 2 PRECAST BEAM - SEE PRECAST PLANS 3 PRECAST SPANDREL / P.H.M.F. - SEE PRECAST PLANS 4 PRECAST DOUBLE TEE - SEE PRECAST PLANS 6 PRECAST SHEARWALL - SEE PRECAST PLANS 34 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 35 BOLLARD N472 DNUP DNUP 1 1 A A 12 12 C C A.2 A.2 2 2 11 11 3 3 10 10 B B 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10.7 10.7 RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% A6.01 2 17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0" A6.02 2 ELEC ROOMA1.04 1 A1.04 1 TELECOM ROOM ELEV 1 ELEV 2 STAIR 1 ELEV 3 STAIR 2 6 618' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"4" RAMP 78' - 8"13' - 0" RAMP 78' - 8"4" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"18' - 0" 3 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 25' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6"4 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 34' - 0"2'-0"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6" 13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6"2'-0"8'-6"8'-6"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"12 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 102'-0"6"8'-6"6"4'-3"4'-3"9'-0"1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 4 A3-11G 2 A3-11G 1 A3-11G 3 A3-11G 34 35 TYP TYP TYP 34 35 TYP 35 34 TYP TYP 3534 TYP TYP 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:08:13 PMA2-06G P25596.02 RC MdG SIXTH LEVEL PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0"A2-06G 1 LEVEL 6 FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 1 PRECAST COLUMN - SEE PRECAST PLANS 2 PRECAST BEAM - SEE PRECAST PLANS 3 PRECAST SPANDREL / P.H.M.F. - SEE PRECAST PLANS 4 PRECAST DOUBLE TEE - SEE PRECAST PLANS 6 PRECAST SHEARWALL - SEE PRECAST PLANS 34 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 35 BOLLARD N473 DNUP DNUP 1 1 A A 12 12 C C A.2 A.2 2 2 11 11 3 3 10 10 B B 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10.7 10.7 RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% ECC ECC 17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0" TELECOM ROOM ELEC ROOM A1.05 1 ELEV 1 ELEV 2 STAIR 1 ELEV 3 STAIR 2 6 618' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"4" RAMP 78' - 8"13' - 0" RAMP 78' - 8"4" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"18' - 0" 3 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 25' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6" 9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6"4 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 34' - 0"2'-0"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6" 13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6"2'-0"8'-6"8'-6"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"12 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 102'-0" 12 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 102'-0"6"6"4'-3"4'-3"9'-0"17'-0" 1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 4 A3-11G 2 A3-11G 1 A3-11G 3 A3-11G 34 35 TYP TYP TYP 34 35 TYP 35 34 TYP TYP 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:08:15 PMA2-07G P25596.02 RC MdG SEVENTH LEVEL PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0"A2-07G 1 LEVEL 7 FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 1 PRECAST COLUMN - SEE PRECAST PLANS 2 PRECAST BEAM - SEE PRECAST PLANS 3 PRECAST SPANDREL / P.H.M.F. - SEE PRECAST PLANS 4 PRECAST DOUBLE TEE - SEE PRECAST PLANS 6 PRECAST SHEARWALL - SEE PRECAST PLANS 34 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 35 BOLLARD N474 DN DN 1 1 A A 12 12 C C A.2 A.2 2 2 11 11 3 3 10 10 B B 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10.7 10.7 RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP UP @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% RAMP DN @ 6.52% 17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0" ELEV 1 ELEV 2 STAIR 1 ELEV 3 STAIR 2 6 6 WIND SCREEN WIND SCREEN18' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0"DRIVE AISLE25' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"4" RAMP 78' - 8"13' - 0" RAMP 78' - 8"4" DRIVE AISLE 25' - 0"18' - 0" 3 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 25' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6" 9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"4'-0"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6" 13 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 110'-6" 9 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 76'-6"2'-0"8'-6"8'-6"5 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 42' - 6"11 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 93'-6" 12 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 102'-0"6"6"4'-3"4'-3"4 STALLS @ 8' - 6" EA = 34' - 0"7'-0"12'-0" MOST REMOTE POINT COMMON PATH OF TRAVEL = 30'-6"<100' TOTAL PATH OF TRAVEL MOST REMOTE POINT: 234' < 400' COMMON PATH OF TRAVEL = 30'-6"<100' 1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 4 A3-11G 2 A3-11G 1 A3-11G 3 A3-11G 34 35 TYP TYP TYP 34 35 TYP 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:08:16 PMA2-08G P25596.02 RC MdG EIGHTH (ROOF) LEVEL PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0"A2-08G 1 LEVEL 8 FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 1 PRECAST COLUMN - SEE PRECAST PLANS 2 PRECAST BEAM - SEE PRECAST PLANS 3 PRECAST SPANDREL / P.H.M.F. - SEE PRECAST PLANS 4 PRECAST DOUBLE TEE - SEE PRECAST PLANS 6 PRECAST SHEARWALL - SEE PRECAST PLANS 34 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 35 BOLLARD N475 DN 1 1 A A 12 12 C C A.2 A.2 2 2 11 11 3 3 10 10 B B 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10.7 10.7 17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"15' - 8"47' - 4"63' - 0"126' - 0"17' - 6"27' - 6"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"13' - 0"27' - 0"23' - 6"27' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 5"17' - 6" 258' - 0" PV PANELS STRUCTURAL SUPPORT TO BE 1 HOUR RATED 1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 4 A3-11G 2 A3-11G 1 A3-11G 3 A3-11G 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:08:19 PMA2-09G P25596.02 RC MdG CANOPY PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0"A2-09G 1 CANOPY PLAN KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 1 PRECAST COLUMN - SEE PRECAST PLANS 2 PRECAST BEAM - SEE PRECAST PLANS 3 PRECAST SPANDREL / P.H.M.F. - SEE PRECAST PLANS 4 PRECAST DOUBLE TEE - SEE PRECAST PLANS 6 PRECAST SHEARWALL - SEE PRECAST PLANS 34 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 35 BOLLARD N476 1. REF: A1-06 FOR MATERIAL DESIGNATIONS 2.THE PV PANELS AND SUBSTRUCTURE FOR THEM ON ROOFTOP OF PARKING GARAGE ARE OUTSIDE SCOPE WORK LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 11' - 8" LEVEL 3 21' - 10" LEVEL 4 32' - 0" LEVEL 5 42' - 2" 12345679 LEVEL 6 52' - 4" LEVEL 7 62' - 6" 1011 81210.7 11' - 8" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2"MP4 MP5 MP6 MP-6 LEVEL 8 72' - 8" MP5 SERVICE YARD WALL REF LANDSCAPE T.O. WALL 84' - 10" T.O. PARAPET 90' - 8"12' - 2"OPEN TO BEYOND LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 11' - 8" LEVEL 3 21' - 10" LEVEL 4 32' - 0" LEVEL 5 42' - 2" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 LEVEL 6 52' - 4" LEVEL 7 62' - 6" 10 118 1210.7 11' - 8" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2"MP4 MP5 MP6 LEVEL 8 72' - 8" SERVICE YARD WALL, REF LANDSCAPE T.O. WALL 84' - 10" T.O. PARAPET 90' - 8" MP5 12' - 2"CHAIN LINK FENCE LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 11' - 8" LEVEL 3 21' - 10" LEVEL 4 32' - 0" LEVEL 5 42' - 2" CB LEVEL 6 52' - 4" LEVEL 7 62' - 6" A 11' - 8" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 10' - 2" 12' - 2" MP4 MP6 MP5 LEVEL 8 72' - 8" MP5 T.O. WALL 84' - 10" T.O. PARAPET 90' - 8" CHAIN LINK FENCE LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 11' - 8" LEVEL 3 21' - 10" LEVEL 4 32' - 0" LEVEL 5 42' - 2" C B LEVEL 6 52' - 4" LEVEL 7 62' - 6" A 12' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"11' - 8"MP4 MP5 MP6 LEVEL 8 72' - 8" MP5 SITE FENCE, REF LANDSCAPE T.O. WALL 84' - 10" T.O. PARAPET 90' - 8" OPEN TO BEYOND BOLLARD 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 5:53:01 PMA3-11G P25596.02 AS HZ ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES 1/16" = 1'-0"A3-11G 4 EAST ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3-11G 3 WEST ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3-11G 2 NORTH ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3-11G 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A B PG3 1 42 477 1. 7' CLEARANCE REQUIRED PER CBC 406.2.2 2. 98" CLEARANCE REQUIRED PER CBC 11B-502.5 3. KEYNOTES SEE SHEET A1.01 NOTES: LEVEL 1 16' -8" LEVEL 2 28' -4" 1 12211310 LEVEL 3 38' -6" LEVEL 4 48' -8" LEVEL 5 58' -10" LEVEL 6 69' -0" LEVEL 7 79' -2" LEVEL 8 89' -4" 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.7 TOP OF ELEV. 107' -4"18' - 0"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"11' - 8"SEE NOTE 28' - 8"SEE NOTE 17' - 2" TYP2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G LEVEL 1 16' -8" LEVEL 2 28' -4" ACA.2B LEVEL 3 38' -6" LEVEL 4 48' -8" LEVEL 5 58' -10" LEVEL 6 69' -0" LEVEL 7 79' -2" LEVEL 8 89' -4" TOP OF ELEV. 107' -4" 1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 18' - 0"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"11' - 8"6 WIND SCREEN SEE NOTE 28'-8"SEE NOTE 17'-2" TYP1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:10:39 PMA4-11G P25596.02 RC MdG BUILDING SECTIONS 3/32" = 1'-0"A4-11G 1 BUILDING SECTION A - EAST RAMP 3/32" = 1'-0"A4-11G 2 BUILDING SECTION B - NORTH 478 1. 7' CLEARANCE REQUIRED PER CBC 406.2.2 2. 98" CLEARANCE REQUIRED PER CBC 11B-502.5 3. KEYNOTES SEE SHEET A1.01 NOTES: LEVEL 1 16' -8" LEVEL 2 28' -4" 1 12211310 LEVEL 3 38' -6" LEVEL 4 48' -8" LEVEL 5 58' -10" LEVEL 6 69' -0" LEVEL 7 79' -2" LEVEL 8 89' -4" 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.7 TOP OF ELEV. 107' -4" 2 A4-11G 2 A4-11G 2 A4-12G 2 A4-12G 18' - 0"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"11' - 8"6 6 SEE NOTE 28'-8"SEE NOTE 17'-2" TYPLEVEL 1 16' -8" LEVEL 2 28' -4" A CA.2 B LEVEL 3 38' -6" LEVEL 4 48' -8" LEVEL 5 58' -10" LEVEL 6 69' -0" LEVEL 7 79' -2" LEVEL 8 89' -4" TOP OF ELEV. 107' -4" 1 A4-11G 1 A4-11G 18' - 0"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"11' - 8"6 SEE NOTE 28'-8"SEE NOTE 17'-2" TYP1 A4-12G 1 A4-12G 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/19/2022 3:10:48 PMA4-12G P25596.02 RC MdG BUILDING SECTIONS 3/32" = 1'-0"A4-12G 1 BUILDING SECTION C - WEST RAMP 3/32" = 1'-0"A4-12G 2 BUILDING SECTION D - SOUTH 479 11AACC11J1110APARKINGGARAGEBUILDINGBBUILDINGBBUILDINGASYLVESTER ROADEAST GRAND AVENUE ASSOCIATED ROAD US-101 HIGHWAYLANDS OF BAKERPROPERTIES(E) 160 SYLVESTER ROADLANDS OF ARUDEJR LLCPRM & NRH LLC(E) 101 & 108ASSOCIATED ROADLANDS OF HHP(E) 170 ASSOCIATEDROADCALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE PUMP STATION(NOT A PART)LANDS OFBAKERPROPERTIES(E) 180SYLVESTERROADLANDS OF HHP(E) 150ASSOCIATED ROADLANDS OF HHP(E) 175 SYLVESTER ROADLANDS OF HHP(E) 145 SYLVESTER ROADLANDS OF HHP(E) 129 SYLVESTERROADLANDS OF HHP(E) 120 EAST GRANDAVENUE100 EAST GRANDVESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP100 EAST GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIALOCATION MAPNTSABBREVIATIONSSYMBOL DESCRIPTIONPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTGAS LINECABLE LINEELECTRICAL LINEJOINT TRENCH LINESTORM DRAIN LINEUNTREATED STORM DRAIN LINETREATED STORM DRAIN LINESTORM DRAIN FORCE MAINSANITARY SEWERDOMESTIC WATER LINEFIRE WATER LINEBIORETENTION AREAMANHOLE (MH)STORM DRAIN INLET (SDI)CLEANOUT (CO)WATER VALVE (WV)WATER METER (WM)FIRE HYDRANT (FH)JOINT POLEGUY WIREGAS VALVEACBLDGBWC&GCBCOMMCONCCTVDIDWEBEMHEPFDCFFFHFLGBGMGNDGVINVJPJBLGMHPBPIVPLNTSDSDDISDMHSDCOSLBSSCOSSMHSTMSWTCTBTGTELTRTSBUBUVVCWMWVASPHALT CONCRETEBUILDINGBACK OF WALKCURB AND GUTTERCATCH BASINCOMMUNICATIONCONCRETECABLE TELEVISIONDROP INLETDRIVEWAYELECTRICAL BOXELECTRICAL MANHOLEEDGE OF PAVEMENTFIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONFINISHED FLOORFIRE HYDRANTFLOWLINEGRADE BREAKGAS METERGROUND (NATURAL)GAS VALVEINVERTJOINT POLEJUNCTION BOXLIP OF GUTTERMANHOLEPULL BOXPOST-INDICATOR VALVEPLANTERSTORM DRAINSTORM DRAIN INLET/OUTLETSTORM DRAIN MANHOLESTORM DRAIN CLEANOUTSTRT LIGHTING BOXSANITARY SEWER CLEANOUTSANITARY SEWER MANHOLESTEAMSIDEWALKTOP OF CURBTELEPHONE BOXTOP OF GRATETELEPHONETREETRAFFIC SIGNAL BOXUTILITY BOXUTILITY VAULTWATER MAINWATER VALVESYMBOL DESCRIPTIONTHE BEARING OF NORTH 88°57'16” WEST ALONG THE FORMER CENTERLINE OF EAST GRAND AVENUEBETWEEN MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD JUNE 19, 1988, IN BOOK10 OF LLS MAPS AT PAGES 88 THROUGH 90, WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY.ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1988, DERIVED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONAND BASED ON NAD83(2011), EPOCH 2017.50, ELLIPSOID HEIGHTS AS PUBLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIASPATIAL REFERENCE CENTER AND THE NGS GEOID MODEL 18.BENCHMARKBASIS OF BEARINGS1. OWNER/DEVELOPER: ALEXANDRIA REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, INC.1700 OWENS STREET, SUITE 590SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94158(415) 321-38082. CIVIL ENGINEER: BKF ENGINEERS300 FRANK OGAWA PLAZA, SUITE 380OAKLAND, CA 94612TEL (510) 899-73003. PROJECT ADDRESS:100 EAST GRAND AVENUE & 105 ASSOCIATED ROAD4. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:015-031-016, 015-031-020, 015-031-120, 015-031-1305. NUMBER OF PROPOSED PARCELS:36. EXISTING LAND USE:COMMERCIAL BUILDING7. PROPOSED LAND USE:COMMERCIAL BUILDING8. EXISTING ZONING:TO/RD9. PROPOSED ZONING:TO/RD10. GROSS ACREAGE:5.0± ACRES11. ESTIMATED AREA OF LAND DISTURBANCE:5.0± ACRES12. EXISTING NUMBER OF BUILDINGS:213. NUMBER OF BUILDINGS REMOVED:214. PROPOSED NUMBER OF BUILDINGS:215. PROPOSED NUMBER OF PARKING GARAGES:116. FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION:ZONE X - PER FEMA MAP NO. 06081C0044F,EFFECTIVE APRIL 5, 201917. UTILITIES:WATER SUPPLY:CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY (CAL WATER)FIRE PROTECTION:CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOSEWAGE DISPOSAL:CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOSTORM DRAIN:CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOGAS & ELECTRIC:PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC (PGE)TELEPHONE:AT&TCABLE TELEVISION:COMCASTPROJECT SUMMARYEXISTINGPROPOSEDVICINITY MAPNTSLOCATION MAPNTSPROJECTSITENUMBER SHEET DESCRIPTION1C0.00TITLE SHEET, LEGEND, AND ABBREVIATIONS2C1.00SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS3C2.00PARCELIZATION PLAN4C3.00PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN5C4.00PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN6C5.00PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANSHEET INDEXBKF ENGINEERS300 FRANK OGAWA PLAZASUITE 380OAKLAND, CA 94612(510) 899-7300www.bkf.com1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:C20210231Checked By:KW & JWDrawn By:ACDrawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080VESTING TENTATIVEPARCEL MAPTITLE SHEET,LEGEND, ANDABBREVIATIONSC0.00PROJECT SITE05/10/22480 LANDS OFPROLOGIS USLV NEWCA 2, LLC2016-083620 OR(PARCEL TWO, 2015-056504)LANDS OFPROLOGIS USLVNEWCA 2, LLC2016-083620 OR(PARCEL THREE, 2015-056504)LANDS OF PROLOGIS USLV NEWCA 2, LLC2016-083620 OR(PARCEL ONE, 2015-056504)(E) 100 EAST GRAND AVENUETO BE REMOVEDLANDS OF PROLOGIS USLV NEWCA 2, LLCPARCEL I,2016-083620 ORLANDS OF PROLOGIS USLV NEWCA 2, LLCPARCEL I2015-056505 ORLANDS OF PROLOGIS USLV NEWCA 2, LLC2015-056506 OR(E) 175 SYLVESTER ROADLANDS OF S W SYLVESTER, INC.97-079126 OR(E) 129 SYLVESTER ROADLANDS OFBAKER PROPERTIESAPN 015-031-150LANDS OF H H PAPN 015-031-100 LANDS OF ARUDEJR, LLC2012-074536 ORLANDS OFBAKER PROPERTIESAPN 015-031-140LANDS OF BERKO'S KITCHEN, L.P.96-011731 OR(E) 120 EAST GRAND AVENUEASSOCIATED ROAD50' R.O.W. EAST GRAND AVENUE 88' R.O.W.(E) 160 SYLVESTER RD(NOT A PART)(E) 180 SYLVESTER RD(NOT A PART)(E) 105 ASSOCIATED RDTO BE REMOVED(E) 101 & 108ASSOCIATED RD US-101 HIGHWAYCALIFORNIA WATER SERVICEPUMP STATION(NOT A PART)(E) 170 ASSOCIATED RD SYLVESTER ROAD46' R.O.W.LANDS OF JONES2015-043267 OR(E) 145 SYLVESTER ROADLEGEND:NOTES:BKF ENGINEERS300 FRANK OGAWA PLAZASUITE 380OAKLAND, CA 94612(510) 899-7300www.bkf.com1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:C20210231Checked By:KW & JWDrawn By:ACDrawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080VESTING TENTATIVEPARCEL MAPSITE EXISTINGCONDITIONSC1.00481 PARKING GARAGEBUILDINGBBUILDINGBBUILDINGAEAST GRAND AVENUE ASSOCIATED ROAD US-101 HIGHWAYLANDS OF BAKERPROPERTIES(E) 180 SYLVESTER ROAD(NOT A PART)LANDS OF BAKER PROPERTIES(E) 160 SYLVESTER ROAD(NOT A PART)LANDS OF ARUDEJRLLC PRM & NRH LLC(E) 101 & 108ASSOCIATED ROADLANDS OF HHP(E) 170 ASSOCIATED ROAD(NOT A PART)(E) 175 SYLVESTER ROAD(NOT A PART)(E) 145 SYLVESTER ROAD(NOT A PART)(E) 129 SYLVESTER ROAD(NOT A PART)(E) 120 EAST GRAND AVENUE(NOT A PART)SYLVESTER ROADCALIFORNIA WATER SERVICEPUMP STATION(NOT A PART)LEGEND:NOTES:BKF ENGINEERS300 FRANK OGAWA PLAZASUITE 380OAKLAND, CA 94612(510) 899-7300www.bkf.com1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:C20210231Checked By:KW & JWDrawn By:ACDrawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080VESTING TENTATIVEPARCEL MAPPARCELIZATIONPLANC2.00VESTING TENTATIVEPARCEL MAP482 SDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOUS-101 HIGHWAYPARKINGSTRUCTUREFF 16.67EAST GRAND AVENUELANDS OF BAKERPROPERTIES(E) 180 SYLVESTER ROADLANDS OF BAKER PROPERTIES(E) 160 SYLVESTER ROADLANDS OF HHP(E) 170 ASSOCIATED ROAD BUILDING BFF 17.50BUILDING BFF 17.50BUILDING AFF 17.50ASSOCIATED ROAD A-CALIFORNIA WATERSERVICE PUMP STATIONSYLVESTER ROADLEGEND:NOTES:8SECTION ASCALE: 1" = 5'BKF ENGINEERS300 FRANK OGAWA PLAZASUITE 380OAKLAND, CA 94612(510) 899-7300www.bkf.com1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:C20210231Checked By:KW & JWDrawn By:ACDrawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080VESTING TENTATIVEPARCEL MAPC3.00PRELIMINARYGRADING PLAN05/10/22483 USDTSDTSDTSDTSDTSDTSDFWFWFWFWSSSSSSSSSSSSFHSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSBFPFHFDCSSSSSSSSFWFWFWFWUSDUSDUSDTSDTSDTSDTSDTSDBFPFHBFPBFPSSUSDUSDTSDTSDFHBFPFDCSDFMSDFMSDFMSDFMUSDFWFWFWFWFWFHFHUSDUSDUSDTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTPIVTSDJTJTTPIVFDCWVWVSSWVSSUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDJTJTJTJTJTJTJTWMDWFHCOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWTSDWVJTJTFWFWFWFWWVSSSSSSSSSSTIITTSSSSSSUSDBFPWMBFPDWPIVPIVWMBFPWMWMFWFWBFPWVUSDUSDWVWVUSDUSDUSDUSDDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWSSSSUSDUSDUSDSSSSSSSSSSUSDUSDTTTSDTSDTSDTSDTSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDFWFWFWFWFWFWFWTSDTSDUSDUSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDTUSDSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTBUILDINGBBUILDINGBBUILDINGAPARKINGSTRUCTURESERVICEAREAEAST GRAND AVENUESYLVESTER ROADASSOCIATED ROADLANDS OF BAKER PROPERTIES(E) 180 ASSOCIATED ROADLANDS OF BAKER PROPERTIES(E) 160 SYLVESTER ROADLANDS OF ARUDEJR LLC PRM & NRH LLC(E) 101 & 108 ASSOCIATED ROADLANDS OF HHP(E) 170 ASSOCIATED ROAD US-101 HIGHWAYNOTE:USDDWFWSSDWBFPFHBFPLEGEND:JTFDCEX FHTSDSDFMTPIVWMCOSDWMBFPIRRBKF ENGINEERS300 FRANK OGAWA PLAZASUITE 380OAKLAND, CA 94612(510) 899-7300www.bkf.com1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:C20210231Checked By:KW & JWDrawn By:ACDrawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080VESTING TENTATIVEPARCEL MAPC4.00PRELIMINARYUTILITY PLAN05/10/22484 USDTSDTSDUSDUSDTSDTSDTSDUSDTSDSDFMSDFMUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDTSDTSDTSDUSDUSDUSDUSDUSDTSDUSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOSDCOBUILDINGABUILDINGBPARKINGSTRUCTUREEAST GRAND AVESYLVESTER ROADASSOCIATED ROAD DMA 1DMA 2.11 - OFFSITEDMA2.4DMA 2.7DMA 2.6DMA2.5DMA2.8DMA7.2DMA7.1DMA2.10DMA2.9DMA8DMA9DMA2.13BUILDINGBUS-101 HIGHWAYDMA 10-OFFSITESELF-TREATED AREADMA2.3DMA 2.1IMP 1IMP 2.1IMP 7DMA 2.2LANDS OF BAKERPROPERTIES(E) 180 SYLVESTER ROAD(NOT A PART)LANDS OF BAKER PROPERTIES(E) 160 SYLVESTER ROAD(NOT A PART)LANDS OF ARUDEJR LLC PRM & NRH LLC(E) 101 & 108 ASSOCIATED ROADLANDS OF HHP(E) 170 ASSOCIATED ROADCALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE PUMP STATION(NOT A PART)DMA12DMA13DMA11IMP 11IMP 12SELF-RETAINEDAREA 1IMP 13SELF-RETRAINEDAREA 2DMA 2.12OFFSITEDMA 5DMA 3DMA 4IMP 2.2DMA 6(E) 150 ASSOCIATED ROADUSDLEGEND:NOTES:TSDSDFMBKF ENGINEERS300 FRANK OGAWA PLAZASUITE 380OAKLAND, CA 94612(510) 899-7300www.bkf.com1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:C20210231Checked By:KW & JWDrawn By:ACDrawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080VESTING TENTATIVEPARCEL MAPC5.00PRELIMINARYSTORMWATERMANAGEMENT PLANNON-STRUCTURAL BIORETENTION AREANTSHALF-STRUCTURAL BIORETENTION AREANTS2105/10/22485 05/10/22 486 487 PROPERTY LINEBUILDING ABUILDING BBUILDING BSYLVESTER ROAD ACCESS ROAD SERVICE YARDPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEXISTING PUMP STATION109' - 9"1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:Checked By:Drawn By:Drawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080PLANNING SUBMISSION4/22/2022 2:21:27 PML1-11P25596.02ENLARGEDLANDSCAPE SITEPLAN -NORTH0'5'10'20'40'L9 STREET LIGHTINGMONUMENT (TYPE A1) SIGNAGE LOCATION, SEE SIGNAGE PACKAGE FOR DETAIL.L9 STREET LIGHTINGCOURTYARD GREENWALL ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTSRECREATIONAL AREA: PINGPONG COURTCOURTYARDBIORETENTION AREABIORETENTION ZONEOUTDOOR FURNITUREPLANTING AREA (PA)PACOURTYARD TREESSPECIMEN MULTI-TRUNKHARDSCAPE, SCORED CONCRETE, TYPICALBIKE PARKINGSHORT TERM POTENTIAL FUTURE SYLVESTER CURBPRECAST BENCHWITH INTEGRATED LIGHTING TYP.PRECAST PLANTER TYP.WITH INTEGRATED BENCHAND ANTI-SKATE GROOVESPAPARECREATIONAL AREA: BOCCE COURT WITH PERIMETER CONTAINMENTPRECAST PLANTERS WITH INTEGRATED LIGHTING TYP.RECREATIONAL AREA:SCRABBLE6"X4' DARK COLOR STONE PAVERSPAGENERAL NOTES:LIGHTING:ALL SITE AREAS TO INCLUDE USE OF L9 TO MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS. LIGHT LEVELS TO UTILIZE 3500K WITH MINIMUM 1FC.PRECAST SEATWALL WITH INTEGRATED LIGHTINGRECIRCULATING WATER FEATRUE WITH BASINHARDSCAPE NON-PERVIOUS: UNIT PAVER WITH CONCRETE SUBSLAB TYP.SECURITY PURPOSE GATEENTRYSIDE-WALKGATEWAY1" = 20'-0"L1-111ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN -NORTHABPGBOLLARD LIGHTSPROPOSED RELOCATION OF PUMP STATION FENCE TBD CONTINGENT UPON COORDINATION WITH CAL WATER.E GRAND AVEBIKE PARKING SHORT TERM (4)BUILDING A ROOF ABOVEPAPAPAPAPAPAPABLUEPHONEBLUEPHONESTREET TREEVEHICULAR ACCESS GATEPEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATEPICK UP -DROP OFF ZONEBREEZEWAYNEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF EAST GRAND AVE AND SYLVESTER RD IS CURRENTLY UNDER DESIGN AND WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR THIS PROJECT AND EAST GRAND AVENUE, THE CITY'S EAST ACCESS STUDY , AND OTHER ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AS REQUIRED.ABOVE GROUND UTILITY BOXFUTURE NORTHERN ENTRANCE17' STREET LIGHTING -INTEGRATED IN FENCEPATHWAY FOR SERVICE ACCESS AND BUILDING EGRESSL20 / L20A LIGHTING FIXTUREPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA05/10/22488 T SERVICE YARD / FIRE ACCESS ASSOCIATED ROAD ACCESS ROAD PARKING GARAGE BAKER STREET26' - 0"SERVICE ROAD1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 12:08:07 PML1-12 P25596.02 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE SITEPLAN - SOUTH 0'5'10'20'40' PLAZA 1" = 20'-0"L1-121 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN - SOUTH A B PG GARDEN 25' STREET LIGHTINGBIKE PARKINGSHORT TERM (4) PA PA PA BLUEPHONE PRECAST PLANTER WITH INTEGRAL LIGHTING 25' STREET LIGHTING SILVA CELL EXTENTS BELOW TREE GRATE 25' STREET LIGHTING DROP OFF ZONE BOLLARD LIGHT STREET TREE PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA BIORETENTION AREA PRECAST CONCRETE BENCH BACKFLOW PREVENTOR FIRE HYDRANT BACKFLOW PREVENTOR25' STREET LIGHTINGTRANSFORMER SECURITY GATE 17' STREET LIGHTING -INTEGRATED IN FENCE GENERAL NOTES: LIGHTING:ALL SITE AREAS TO INCLUDE USE OF 25' ANGLE ARM POLE LIGHT TO MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS. LIGHT LEVELS TO UTILIZE 3500K WITH MINIMUM 1FC. STREET TREE L1-11 L1-12 489 LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORKBUILDING A BUILDING B 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 1:40:54 PML1-13 P25596.02 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE TERRACE PLAN 1" = 20'-0"L1-13 1 LANDSCAPE-ROOF PLAN 0'5'10'20'40' LEVEL 8 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 5 RAISED PLANTER WITH INTEGRATED BENCH AND LIGHITNG TYP. PEDISTAL SURFACE WITH BELOW DAVIT CONNECTIONS TYP. PARAPET AND GUARDRAIL CONDITION SEE ARCH AX.XX TYP. ALL EDGE CONDITIONS LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 A B PG BUILDING A ROOF ABOVE LEVEL 6LEVEL 7LEVEL 8LEVEL 9LEVEL 8 490 L1-21 L1-22 05/10/22 491 T 3L4-13 1L4-13 2L4-13 ACCESS ROAD ASSOCIATED ROAD SERVICE YARD / FIRE ACCESS PARKING GARAGE BAKER STREET1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 6:17:16 PML1-22 P25596.02 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN- SOUTH A B PG 1" = 20'-0"L1-221 ENLARGED PLANTING PLAN - SOUTH ILLUSTRATIVE PLANS FOR REFERENE ONLY L1-21 L1-22 492 LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORKBUILDING A BUILDING B 1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 1:52:21 PML1-23 P25596.02 ENLARGED ILLUSTRATIVE TERRACE PLAN 1" = 20'-0"L1-231 LANDSCAPE-ROOF PLAN. 0'5'10'20'40' LEVEL 8 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 5 RAISED PLANTER WITH INTEGRATED BENCH AND LIGHITNG TYP. PEDISTAL SURFACE WITH BELOW DAVIT CONNECTIONS TYP. PARAPET AND GUARDRAIL CONDITION SEE ARCH A2.41 TYP. ALL EDGE CONDITIONS LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 A B PG BUILDING A ROOF ABOVE ILLUSTRATIVE PLANS FOR REFERENE ONLY LEVEL 6LEVEL 7LEVEL 8LEVEL 9LEVEL 8 493 T BUIDLING A BUIDLING BBUIDLING B PARKING GARAGE A B1 B2 A A C E1 E1 E1 E2 E2 D F BUIDLING A BUIDLING B G G LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 2:54:13 PML2-00 P25596.02 Checker Author WELO PLANTING DIAGRAM 1" = 40'-0"L2-00 1 GROUND LEVEL PLAN WATER USE ZONE DESCRIPTION SQUARE FOOTAGE MIXED WATER ZONE A B C D E FHIGH WATER USE BIORETENTION AREA GRAND AVE FRONTAGE COURTYARD GREEN WALL PARKWAY WATER FEATURE 7990.08 SF 6071.61 SF 7256.22 SF 451.25 SF 2529.59 SF 103.90 SF ALL PLANTING AREA TO ADHERE TO WELO DESIGN MEASURES AS NOTED HYDROZONE TABLE LANDSCAPE PARAMETER DESIGN MEASURES COMPOST INCORPORATE COMPOST AT A RATE OF AT LEAST FOUR(4) CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQ.FT. TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES INTO LANDSCAPE AREA (UNLESS CONTRA-INDICATED BY A SOIL TEST) PLANT WATER USE INSTALL CLIMATE ADAPTED PLANTS THAT REQUIRE OCCASIONAL, LITTLE OR NO SUMMER WATER (AVERAGE WUCOLS PLANT FACTOR 0.3) FOR 100% OF THE PLANT AREA EXCLUDING EDIBLES AND AREAS USING RECYCLED WATER MULCH A MINIMUM 3-INCH LAYER OF MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS, EXCEPT IN AREAS OF TURF OR CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVERS. IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS USE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OR SOIL MOISTURE DATA AND UTILIZE A RAIN SENSOR A PRIVATE LANDSACPE SUBMETER IS INSTALLED AT NON-RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS OF 1,000 SQ.FT. OR MORE 1" = 40'-0"L2-00 2 TERRACE LEVELS PLAN B1 NORTH FACING EXPOSURE B2 WEST FACING EXPOSURE PLANTING AREA RECREATION AREA PAVING AREA E1 EAST FACING EXPOSURE E2 WEST FACING EXPOSURE G TERRACE 2529.59 SF NORTH FACING/ SHELTERED WEST FACING EAST FACING EAST FACING, VERTICAL SURFACE RECIRCULATING TO OFFSET FREEWAY NOISE EAST AND SOUTH FACING GENERAL NOTES: IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO INCLUDE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH CENTRAL CONTROLLER LOCATED WITHIN BUILDING A. ALL VINE POCKETS OR INTEGRATED PLANTING SYSTEMS TO BE SWERVED WITH IRRIGATION. ALL PLANTINGS TO INCLUDE DRIP IRRIGATION. ALL TREES TO INCLUDE (2) BUBBLERS PER TREE. IRRIGATION TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN OVERALL SITE BUILDING A,B, AND GARAGE. ALL PLANTING AND LANDSCAPED AREAS TO INCLUDE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH CENTRAL CONTROLLER LOCATED IN BUILDING A. DRIP IRRIGATION WILL BEPRESCRIBED FOR PLANTING AREA, ALL TREES TO INCLUDE (2) BUBBLERS PER TREE. GREEN WALL SHALL BE IRRIGATED. ALL AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED PER HYDROZONE AND WATERUSE, WELO MEASURES 494 1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 2:31:20 PML2-01 P25596.02 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE MIDDLE/UPPER STORY TREE TYPES A GB1B2CE1E2 E1 A D SAMBUCUS MEXICANA: BLUE ELDERBERRY ARBUTUS UNEDO ‘COMPACTA’:DRAWF STRAWBERRY TREE CORNUS SERICEA ‘KELSEY’: KELSEY DWARF RED DOGWOOD POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM: SWORD FERN POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM: SWORD FERN SEDUM SPATHULIFOLIUM:BROADLEAF STONECROP ASPARAGUS DENSIFLORUS ‘MEYERS’:ASPARGUS FERN EUPHORBIA AMYGDALOIDES:SPURGE PHORMIUM ‘GREEN DWARF’: GREEN DWARF FLAX DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA: TUFTED HAIRGRASS DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA: TUFTED HAIRGRASS POLYSTICHUM CALIFORNICUM: CALIFORNIA POLYPODY CHRONDROPETALIM TECTORUM:SMALL CAPE RUSH ELYMUS GLAUCUS: BLUE WILDRYE PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA LYONII: CATALINA CHERRY METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS: NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE CALLISTEMON CITRINUS:LEMON BOTTLEBRUSH OLEA EUROPAEA ‘MISSION’ OR ‘SWAN HILL’:FRUITLESS EUROPEAN OLIVE LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS:BISBANE BOX PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR:FERN PINE UNDERSTORY SHRUBS, GRASSES, SEDGES, PERENNIALS AND HERBACEOUS PLANTS ARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA: DOUGLAS’ SAGEWORT *PLANTING SOURCES: 1. CALSCAPE, CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY: HTTPS://CALSCAPE.ORG/2. SUCCESSFUL TREE AND PLANTS LIST, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO: HTTPS://WWW.SSF.NET/HOME/SHOWPUBLISHEDDOCUMENT?ID=10677 3. RECOMMENDED TREES FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO: HTTPS://WWW.SSF.NET/HOME/SHOWPUBLISHEDDOCUMENT?ID=1420 HYDROZONE A BIORETENTION AREA, NORTH FACING / SHELTERED WEST FACING EXPOSURE UPPER/MIDDLE STORY MULTITRUNK TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE HT (FEET) WIDTH (FEET) PLANT SOURCES* SAMBUCUS MEXICANA BLUE ELDERBERRY LOW 20 TO 30 20 TO 30 3 PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA LYONII CATALINA CHERRY VERY LOW 25 TO 40 20 3 UNDER STORY SHRUBS ARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA DOUGLAS’ SAGEWORT MIXED 8 4 1 CORNUS SERICEA ‘KELSEY’KELSEY DWARF RED DOGWOOD MOD-HIGH 2.5 2.5 1, SAME FAMILY UNDER STORY HERBACEOUS AND PERENNIALS POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SWORD FERN MIXED 1.5 TO 6 3 1 POLYSTICHUM CALIFORNICUM CALIFORNIA POLYPODY MIXED 1.5 3 1 PTERIDIUM AQUILNUM WESTERN BRACKENFERN LOW 3.5 TO 6.5 1 SOLIDAGO VELUTINA THREENERVE GOLDENROD LOW 0.7 TO 3 1 IRIS DOUGLASIANA DOUGLAS IRIS LOW 0.6 TO 2.5 2 TO 4 1 UNDER STORY GRASSES AND SEDGES DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA TUFTED HAIRGRASS MIXED 3 3 1 DESCHAMPSIA ELONGATA HAIRGRASS MIXED 2.5 TO 3 1 ELYMUS GLAUCUS BLUE WILDRYE LOW 1 TO 5 1 1 MELICA IMPERFECTA SMALL FLOWERED MELICA LOW 3.2 TO 4 1 1 CHRONDROPETALIM TECTORUM SMALL CAPE RUSH LOW 2 TO 3 3 TO 4 PLANNING REVIEW SUGGESTION THREENERVE GOLDENROD SOLIDAGO VELUTINA WESTERN BRACKENFERN PTERIDIUM AQUILINUM IRIS DOUGLASIANA: DOUGLAS IRIS DESCHAMPSIA ELONGATA: HAIRGRASS MELICA IMPERFECTA:SMALL FLOWERED MELICA POLYSTICHUM CALIFORNICUM: CALIFORNIA POLYPODY WOODWARDIA FIMBRIATA: GIANT CHAIN FERN B1 PHORMIUM ‘GREEN DWARF’: GREEN DWARF FLAXSOLIDAGO VELUTINA: THREENERVE GOLDENROD SALVIA SPATHACEA:HUMMINGBIRD SAGE ERIOGONUM FASCICULATRUM ‘PHYLUM’:CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT ELYMUS GLAUCUS: BLUE WILDRYEDESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA: TUFTED HAIRGRASS MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS 'IRVINE': PLUMETASTIC PINK MUHLY GRASSARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA: DOUGLAS’ SAGEWORT EPILOBIUM CANUM: CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA SALVIA MELLIFERA: BLACK SAGE MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS 'IRVINE': PINK MUHLY GRASS ELYMUS GLAUCUS: BLUE WILDRYE SALVIA SPATHACEA:HUMMINGBIRD SAGE C ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘BLUE SPIRES’:BLUE SPIRES ROSEMARY RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA ‘MONTO’:INDIAN PRINCESS INDIAN HAWTHORN CEANOTHUS GLORIOSUS ‘ANCHOR BAY’:PT. REYES CEANOTHUS DIETES VEGETA : FORTNIGHT LILY ARMERIA MARITIMA:SEA THRIFT AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS:LILY-OF-THE-NILELIMONIUM PEREZII: SEA LAVENDER DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA: TUFTED HAIRGRASS B2 ESCALLONIA ‘COMPAKTA’: COMPACT ESCALLONIA ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘BLUE SPIRES’:BLUE SPIRES ROSEMARY CEANOTHUS GLORIOSUS ‘ANCHOR BAY’: PT. REYES CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS GLORIOSUS ‘ANCHOR BAY’:PT. REYES CEANOTHUS ARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA: DOUGLAS’ SAGEWORT LUPINUS ARBOREUS:YELLOW BUSH LUPINE SEDUM SPATHULIFOLIUM:BROADLEAF STONECROP ELYMUS GLAUCUS: BLUE WILDRYE EPILOBIUM CANUM: CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATRUM ‘PHYLUM’:CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT ERIOGONUM FASCICULATRUM ‘PHYLUM’:CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT PHORMIUM ‘GREEN DWARF’: GREEN DWARF FLAX SALVIA MELLIFERA: BLACK SAGE ARMERIA MARITIMA:SEA THRIFT G HYDROZONE B1 GRAND AVENUE FRONTAGE, NORTH FACING EXPOSURE UPPER/MIDDLE STORY MULTITRUNK TREES METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE LOW 30 30 3 UNDER STORY SHRUBS ARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA DOUGLAS’ SAGEWORT MIXED 8 4 1 UNDER STORY GRASSES AND PERENNIALS DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA TUFTED HAIRGRASS MIXED 3 3 1 ELYMUS GLAUCUS BLUE WILDRYE LOW 1 TO 5 1 1 PHORMIUM ‘GREEN DWARF’GREEN DWARF FLAX MEDIUM 1 TO 2 2 TO 3 2 SOLIDAGO VELUTINA THREENERVE GOLDENROD LOW 0.7 TO 3 1 ERIOGONUM FASCICULATRUM ‘PHYLUM’CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT VERY LOW 1 TO 6.5 3 1 SALVIA SPATHACEA HUMMINGBIRD SAGE VERY LOW 1 TO 3 3 1 HYDROZONE B2 GRAND AVENUE FRONTAGE, WEST FACING EXPOSURE, INTERSECTION OF GRAND AND FREEWAY OFF-RAMP UPPER/MIDDLE STORY MULTITRUNK TREES CALLISTEMON CITRINUS LEMON BOTTLEBRUSH MEDIUM 25 25 3 UNDER STORY SHRUBS ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘BLUE SPIRES’ BLUE SPIRES ROSEMARY MEDIUM 4 TO 5 3 2 ESCALLONIA ‘COMPAKTA’COMPACT ESCALLONIA MEDIUM 3 4 TO 6 2 UNDER STORY GRASSES DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA TUFTED HAIRGRASS MIXED 3 3 1HYDROZONE C COURTYARD, EAST FACING EXPOSURE UPPER/MIDDLE STORY MULTITRUNK TREES OLEA EUROPAEA ‘MISSION’ OR ‘SWAN HILL’FRUITLESS EUROPEAN OLIVE LOW 30 25 3 UNDER STORY SHRUBS ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘BLUE SPIRES’ BLUE SPIRES ROSEMARY MEDIUM 4 TO 5 3 2 RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA ‘MONTO’MEDIUM 3 5 CEANOTHUS GLORIOSUS ‘ANCHOR BAY’PT. REYES CEANOTHUS LOW 2 TO 3 4 TO 6 2 UNDER STORY GRASSES AND PERENNIALS ELYMUS GLAUCUS BLUE WILDRYE LOW 1 TO 5 1 1 MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS ‘IRVINE’PLUMETASTIC PINK MUHLY GRASS MEDIUM 2 TO 4 3 EPILOBIUM CANUM CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA VERY LOW 1.5 2 TO 3 1 ERIOGONUM FASCICULATRUM ‘PHYLUM’CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT VERY LOW 1 TO 6.5 3 1 SALVIA SPATHACEA HUMMINGBIRD SAGE VERY LOW 1 TO 3 3 1 SALVIA MELLIFERA BLACK SAGE VERY LOW 3 TO 6 10 1 ARMERIA MARITIMA SEA THRIFT VERY LOW 1 4 TO 12 1 AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS LILY-OF-THE-NILE MEDIUM 2 2 2 DIETES VEGETA FORTNIGHT LILY MEDIUM 2 TO 4 2 TO 3 2 LIMONIUM PEREZII SEA LAVENDER MIXED 1.5 1 2 HYDROZONE D GREEN WALL, EAST FACING EXPOSURE, VERTICAL SURFACE POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SWORD FERN MIXED 1.5 TO 6 3 1 POLYSTICHUM CALIFORNICUM CALIFORNIA POLYPODY MIXED 1.5 3 1 PTERIDIUM AQUILNUM WESTERN BRACKENFERN LOW 3.5 TO 6.5 1 WOODWARDIA FIMBRIATA GIANT CHAIN FERN MIXED 4 TO 6 4 TO 6 1 ASPARAGUS DENSIFLORUS ‘MEYERS’ASPARGUS FERN MEDIUM 1 TO 3 3 TO 4 EUPHORBIA AMYGDALOIDES SPURGE MIXED 2 1.5 SEDUM SPATHULIFOLIUM BROADLEAF STONECROP VERY LOW 0.5 1 TO 3 1HYDROZONE E1 PARKWAY, EAST FACING EXPOSURE UPPER STORY STREET TREE LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BISBANE BOX LOW 35 25 3 UNDER STORY SHRUBS CEANOTHUS GLORIOSUS ‘ANCHOR BAY’PT. REYES CEANOTHUS LOW 2 TO 3 4 TO 6 2 UNDER STORY GRASSES AND PERENNIALS DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA TUFTED HAIRGRASS MIXED 3 3 1 PHORMIUM ‘GREEN DWARF’GREEN DWARF FLAX MEDIUM 1 TO 2 2 TO 3 2 HYDROZONE E2 PARKWAY, SOUTH FACING EXPOSURE UPPER STORY STREET TREE PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINE MEDIUM 40 15 2HYDROZONE F WATER FEATURE, RECIRCULATING WATER FEATURE TO OFFSET FREEWAY NOISEHYDROZONE G TERRACE, EAST AND SOUTH FACING EXPOSURE UPPER/MIDDLE STORY MULTITRUNK TREE ARBUTUS UNEDO ‘COMPACTA’DRAWF STRAWBERRY TREE LOW 8’6 3, SIM. TO ‘MARINA’ VARIETY UNDER STORY SHRUBS CEANOTHUS GLORIOSUS ‘ANCHOR BAY’PT. REYES CEANOTHUS LOW 2 TO 3 4 TO 6 2 ARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA DOUGLAS’ SAGEWORT MIXED 8 4 1 LUPINUS ARBOREUS MIXED 3.5 TO 7 4 1 UNDER STORY GRASSES AND PERENNIALS ELYMUS GLAUCUS BLUE WILDRYE LOW 1 TO 5 1 1 EPILOBIUM CANUM CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA VERY LOW 1.5 2 TO 3 1 ERIOGONUM FASCICULATRUM ‘PHYLUM’CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT VERY LOW 1 TO 6.5 3 1 PHORMIUM ‘GREEN DWARF’GREEN DWARF FLAX MEDIUM 1 TO 2 2 TO 3 2 SALVIA MELLIFERA BLACK SAGE VERY LOW 3 TO 6 10 1 ARMERIA MARITIMA SEA THRIFT VERY LOW 1 4 TO 12 1 SEDUM SPATHULIFOLIUM BROADLEAF STONECROP VERY LOW 0.5 1 TO 3 1 495 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/13/2022 5:53:06 PML2-02 P25596.02 LANDSCAPE MATERIAL PALETTE STREET LIGHT PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHT SIDEWALK PAVING/ DROP OFF VEHICULAR COURTYARD PAVING TERRACE PEDESTAL PAVING TERRACE PLANTER COURTYARD PLANTER COURTYARD FURNITURE TRASH AND RECYCLE BIKE RACK COURTYARD-PLAZA BENCH BOLLARDBOLLARD BIKE RACK TRAFFIC-RATED PAVER AT DROP-OFF ZONE 496 BUILDING ABUILDING BPARKING STRUCTURE L3-111 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEL3-12 1 ASSOCIATED ROAD GARDEN BY PARKING GARAGE PLAZA CONNECT BUIDLING B COURTYARD BUILDING A E GRAND AVE 1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 6:18:15 PML3-01 P25596.02 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - OVERALL EAST A B PG 1" = 25'-0"L3-011 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - OVERALL EAST -1497 ARE-LEASED PARCEL EXISTING PUMP STATION SIGNAGE LOCATION OFF-RAMPSYLVESTER ROAD 25' STREET LIGHTING NOTE: FIXTURE TO MEET CITY PERFORMANCE STANDARD. MULTI-TRUNK TREES, TYP. PEDESTRIAN SIGNAGE,SEE SIGNAGE PLAN TYPE 1ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE 46' NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR ROADWAYAND UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY 2497 OR 271 (EXCEPTION 7);MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT2497 OR 273 (EXCEPTION 8, 35, AND 47);EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPE LINE 2572 OR 464 (EXCEPTION 11);EASEMENT FOR GAS PIPE LINE 2578 OR 640 (EXCEPTION 12);POLE LINE EASEMENT 2578 OR 642 (EXCEPTION 14);AFFECTS TRACT ONE, PARCEL ONE 46' - 0" BUILDING A PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE25' STREET LIGHTINGTRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION TBD. CALWATER ACCESS 1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 6:18:47 PML3-02 P25596.02 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - OVERALL NORTH 1/16" = 1'-0"L3-021 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - OVERALL NORTH A B PG -1498 EXISTING SLOPE GRADE L3-03 2 BUILDING A BUILDING B PARKING STRUCTURE 101 FREEWAY OFFRAMPPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE10' HIGH TYPE 1 ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE 17' HIGH TYPE 1 ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE 17' HIGH TYPE 2 ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE E GRAND AVE EXISTING SLOPE GRADE SERVICE YARD BEYOND BUILDING A EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAINAT PROPERTY BOUNDARY,SHOWN APPROXIMATELY PROPERTY LINEFREEWAY OFF RAMP GRAND AVE. 17' - 0"10' - 0"10' HIGH TYPE 1 ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE (SOLID)17' HIGH TYPE 1 ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE (SOLID) CALWATER WATER UTILITY 1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 6:59:24 PML3-03 P25596.02 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - OVERALL WEST 1" = 7'-0"L3-031 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION - OVERALL WEST A B PG-11" = 7'-0"L3-032 W-E, SERVICE YARD WALL ELEVATION NOTE: ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH BUILDING DESIGN, MATCH TRANSPARENT LEVEL, COLOR: GREY TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE FINISH , TYP. TYPE 1 : SOLID TYPE 2 : TRANSPARENT TYPE 1 (SOLID) TYPE 2 (SEMI-TRANSPARENT) EXISTING LANDSCAPE OUTSIDEOF PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN (INFRONT OF FENCE). LANDSCAPEDEPICTED APPROXIMATE EXISTING CALWATER UTILITY 17'-0"499 BUILDING BPARKING STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED ROAD PLAZA CONNECT STREET LIGHT, TYP.STREET TREE, TYP. FENCE BEYOND FOLLOWING CALTRANS-OWNED HILL L3-112 9' HIGH TYPE 1 ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE FIRE TRUCK ACCESS26' METAL PICKET FENCE GATE 9' HIGH TYPE 1 ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE (SOLID) EGRESS DOOR 1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 12:43:54 PML3-11 P25596.02 ENLARGED LANDSCAPEELEVATION -GARAGE EAST 1/16" = 1'-0"L3-111 ELEVATION - GARAGE A B PG -13/16" = 1'-0"L3-112 ELEVATION - SERVICE YARD FENCE PICKET FENCE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH BUILDING DESIGN, MATCH TRANSPARENT LEVEL, COLOR: GREY TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE FINISH , TYP. STREET TREES, TYP. GENERATOR BEHIND EXISTING PLANTING BEYOND METAL PICKET FENCE BEYOND BOLLARD PAVING, PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN / VEHICULAR PAVING PER PLAN PRECAST PLANTER 500 FINISH GRADE GREEN WALL WATER FEATURE SURFACE COURTYARD METALOR STONE CLADDING REINFORCED CONCRETE COURTYARD WALL PRECAST CONCRETEPLANTER ISOLATION JOINT ATBLDG EDGE, TYP. ALIGN WALL WITH BUILDING B GLAZING BLDG A, DOOR METAL FRAMING AT DOOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM BELOW PLANTER 1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 6:19:27 PML3-12 P25596.02 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE ELEVATION -COURTYARD WALLEAST 3/16" = 1'-0"L3-121 ELEVATION - COURTYARD VEGETATED WALL AND WATER SYSTEM ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATION FOR REFERENCE ONLY 501 BEYOND 05/10/22 502 L4-11 3 ACOUSTIC AND WIND IMPACT FROM HIGHWAY 101.SEE WIND ANALYSIS APPENDIX. COURTYARD WALL WITH WATER FEATURE 46' NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR ROADWAYAND UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY 2497 OR 271 (EXCEPTION 7);MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT2497 OR 273 (EXCEPTION 8, 35, AND 47);EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPE LINE 2572 OR 464 (EXCEPTION 11);EASEMENT FOR GAS PIPE LINE 2578 OR 640 (EXCEPTION 12);POLE LINE EASEMENT 2578 OR 642 (EXCEPTION 14);AFFECTS TRACT ONE, PARCEL ONE 46' - 0" L4-111 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEL4-12 2 1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/21/2022 12:46:17 PML4-02 P25596.02 LANDSCAPE E-W SECTION 1/16" = 1'-0"L4-021 E-W SECTION A B PG BUILDING A 1 LANDS OF BERKO'SKITCHENARE-LEASED PROPERTY FREEWAY OFF RAMP CALTRANS COURTYARDSERVICE YARD SYLVESTER ROAD 503 ELEVATION 20'-25' FREEWAY OFF-RAMP SERVICE YARD EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN GENERATOR SERVICE YARD CANOPY L4-11 2 BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHTING NITROGEN TANK 17' HIGH TYPE 1 ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE PROPERTY LINEREINFORCED FOOTING 1' - 8" RELOCATED PUMP STATION FENCE BEYOND SERVICE YARD CONCRETE STAGGERED WALL BEYOND, CONTINUOUS REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE WALL METAL CLADDED PLATE ON CONCRETE BATTERED WALL LARGE STACKEDCUT-STONES INTEGRATED BENCH WITH LIGHTING CONTINUOUS REINFORCED CONCRETE FOOTING SERVICE YARD HAZMAT WATER FOUNTAIN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM BEYOND MULTI-STEM TREES WITH PLANTING SEE L3-12 FOR COURTYARD WALL ELEVATION SERVICE YARD CANOPY ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING CONNECTION 1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 8:37:02 PML4-11 P25596.02 LANDSCAPE ENLARGED SECTIONS -SERVICE YARD &COURTYARD 1" = 10'-0"L4-11 1 E-W BUILDING A SERVICE YARD SECTION 3/16" = 1'-0"L4-11 2 E-W OFFRAMP WALL SECTION 3/16" = 1'-0"L4-11 3 E-W COURTYARD WALL SECTION A B PG 2 1 3 504 05/10/22 505 CONCRETE SERVICE/FIRE TRUCK TRAVEL LANE LANDSCAPE ARECCA BIOFILTRATION AREA SEE CIVIL FOR CONVEYANCE OF STORMWATER SYSTEM. REPAIR LANDSCAPE AS REQ. IN FREEWAY EDGE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADING SECURITY GATE AT THE SOUTH 1' - 0" (VARIES) STORMWATER 17' HIGH TYPE 2 ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE FREEWAY OFF-RAMP 1' - 0" EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN BIORETENTION AREA V IE W F R O M O F F -R A M P 26' - 0" 17' HIGH WALL-MOUNTED LIGHTING FIXTURE FOR WALLS WITH UP TO 5 FT. OF RETAINED HEIGHT. 10" THICK WALL WITH 1'-6" THICK BY 5 FT. WIDE FOOTING PTR TRACT TWO, PARCEL SIXNON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTFOR RAILROAD PURPOSES;PARCEL SIX, 2760 OR 6(EXCEPTION 37, 52, AND 53)PARCEL SIX, 2761 OR 391(EXCEPTION 38) NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTFOR ACCESS, RAILROAD AND UTILITIES;RESERVING THEREFROM...2760 OR 6 (EXCEPTION 37, 52, AND 53);EASEMENT FOR GAS PIPE LINE2851 OR 96 (EXCEPTION 57) PROPOSED STREET WITH VEHICLE ACCESS TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE LANDSCAPE 13' - 0" LANDSCAPE 13' - 0" GARAGE 5' - 0"7' - 8"5' - 0" 40' - 0"8' - 6" 48' - 2" LANDSCAPE (VARIES) PASSAGE (VARIES) 4' - 0"6" DROP-OFF ZONE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES ALSO RESERVING THEREFROM 2760 OR 6 (EXCEPTION 37,52, AND 58)(VARIES) BAKER LOADING DOCKEX ELEV +/-15.7' ~ +/-17.3' BAKER PROPERTIESEX BLDG FG+/-13.0' ~ +/-14.1' 8' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"4' - 0" BUILDING B 9' HIGH TYPE 1 ARCHITECTURAL METAL FENCE GENERATOR PLAZA (VARIES) 8' - 6" 67' - 8" 29' - 8" PROPOSED STREET WITH VEHICLE ACCESS 1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 8:44:39 PML4-13 P25596.02 LANDSCAPE ENLARGED SECTIONS - PLAZA,BAKER ST. &SERVICE ROAD 1" = 10'-0"L4-133 E-W SERVICE ROAD SECTION 1" = 10'-0"L4-131 E-W BAKER STREET SECTION 1" = 10'-0"L4-132 E-W BUILDING B PLAZA SECTION A B PG 12 3 LANDSCAPE AREA, BIORETENTION AREA, SEE CIVILFOR CONVEYANCE OF STORMWATER SYSTEM REPAIR LANDSCAPE AS REQ.POST CONSTRUCTION ALONGPROPERTY LINE 2 3 506 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 12:41:13 PMS1-01 P25596.02 SITE SIGNAGE PLAN SITE SIGNAGE PLAN - Planning 507 1223 SW Washington Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 T 503 224 3860 F 503 224 2482 www.zgf.com Drawing No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: Job No: Checked By: Drawn By: Drawing Title 100 E GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PLANNING SUBMISSION 1/21/22 1/20/2022 12:41:13 PMS1-02 P25596.02 SIGN SCHEDULE 508 A-ATR0.2F.DPPHBPP120V 15A SERVICEOUTLET. (TYP)ELECTRICPALLET JACKAPOLLO A1000COMPACTORS-26ROLL-OFFCOMPACTORPOWER PACK,10HP 3-PH208/240/480V2CY FLCOMPACTEDCOMPOST BINSPARE4CY FL CONTAINERRECYCLING BINSPARE4CY FLCOMPACTEDPAPERRECYCLING BIN2CY FLCOMPACTEDCOMPOST B IN4CY FL PAPERRECYCLING BINSPARERECYCLING BIN STAGINGAREAY-14B-B-4CY FLCOMPACTEDCONTAINERRECYCLING BINAPOLLO A1000COMPACTOR2CY FLCOMPACTEDCOMPOST BINSPAREP200 VERTICALCOMPACTOR15CY SELF-CONTAINED COMPACTORWITH ANSI BAR CART DUMPERCARDBOARD (FULLY LOADED = 34600 LBS)15CY SELF-CONTAINED COMPACTORWITH ANSI BAR CART DUMPERWASTE (FULLY LOADED = 39175 LBS)C-C-DOUBLE DOORSAND LN2 TANK SHIFTED2'-0" PAGE EASTPUSH BUTTONCONTROLS30" X 30"ACCESS DOORDOOR SAFETYSWITCH4CY CONTAINERTOW BARSINGLE SIDECONTAINER LATCHA1000COMPACTORSHEET NOTES:CENTRAL TRASH COLLECTION AREA1.FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING.FLOOR TO HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE (1° MAX) AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOORLEVEL UNDER COMPACTOR.2.WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOFSURFACE SUCH AS FRP OR HIGH-GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF.3.(1) 15Y SELF CONTAINED COMPACTOR FOR WASTE.4.(1) 15Y SELF CONTAINED COMPACTOR FOR CARDBOARD.5.(1) A1000 SELF CONTAINED COMPACTOR FOR CONTAINERRECYCLING. PROVIDE 4CY COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR SPARES.6.(1) A1000 SELF CONTAINED COMPACTOR FOR PAPER RECYCLING.PROVIDE 4CY COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR SPARES.7.(1) P200 VERTICAL COMPACTOR FOR COMPOST COLLECTION.PROVIDE 2CY COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR SPARES.8.PP: COMPACTOR POWER PACKS SHALL BE FLOOR-MOUNTED. SEEDETAIL FOR HP PER POWER PACK. EACH PACK IS 3-PHASE,208/230/460V. EACH PP NEEDS 30A DISCONNECT, 60" AFF.9.HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF.10.(1) UNDEDICATED 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED FOR STAFFMAINTENANCE PURPOSE.GENERAL NOTES:1.ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWINGOR SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDINGNARRATIVES, DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED ASEXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNSOR DESIGNS SUITABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION.2.OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THEINACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH AREMANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THEDRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH ARE CUSTOMARILYPERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROMPERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY DESCRIBEDDETAILS OF THE WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF FULLYAND CORRECTLY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ANDCONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECTSHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ALL EXISTING FIELDCONDITIONS AND ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES.15CY WASTECOMPACTOR2CY FL COMPACTEDCOMPOST15CY CARDBOARDCOMPACTOR4CY FL COMPACTEDPAPER RECYCLINGPROJECTED COLLECTION SCHEDULEMTWTHF SERVICES1122133TOTAL67522134CY FL COMPACTEDCONTAINER RECYCLING10.80.2221TABLE 1 (TYPICAL 3 PHASE CIRCUIT REQUIREMENTS, MOTOR)FOR REFERENCE ONLY. NEC OR LOCAL CODE TO SUPERSEDEMOTOR H.P.VOLTAGEMINIMUMDISCONNECT (AMPS)MINIMUMFUSE SIZE (AMPS)(RMC)CONDUIT SIZE3HP460V230V208V30A30A30A15A20A20A1/2"1/2"1/2"5HP460V230V208V30A30A30A15A30A30A1/2"1/2"1/2"7.5HP460V230V208V30A60A60A20A45A50A1/2"3/4"3/4"10HP460V230V208V30A100A100A25A60A60A1/2"3/4"1"15HP460V230V208V60A100A125A45A90A100A3/4"1"1-1/4"2CY CONTAINERHARMONY P200VERTICAL COMPACTOR1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comConsultantsDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:Checked By:Drawn By:Drawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080PLANNING SUBMISSION1/21/22P25596.02AZ, SBPHTR0.1TRASH ROOM 3/32" = 1'-0"1LEVEL 1: TRASH ROOM1/2" = 1'-0"2SECTION B-B: A1000 COMPACTOR1/2" = 1'-0"2SECTION C-C: P200 VERTICAL COMPACTOR509 15CY SELF-CONTAINED COMPACTORWITH ANSI BAR CART DUMPERWASTE STREAMNELSON STUD4 38" X 34" DIA.McMASTER-CARR#90578A204 (2)48" X 24" X 14"PRIMED PLATEC10 X 15.3#CHANNELADD OR DELETE PLATESTO SUIT SITE CONDITIONSSECTION B-B6" X 6" X 1"ANGLE X 16" LGC10 X 15.3# X 2.6"HCHANNEL48"X24"X 14" WEAR PLATEB-B-15CY SELF-CONTAINED COMPACTORWITH ANSI BAR CART DUMPERWASTE STREAM1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comConsultantsDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:Checked By:Drawn By:Drawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080PLANNING SUBMISSION1/21/22P25596.02AZ, SBPH 3/8" = 1'-0"1SECTION A-A: ROLL-OFF COMPACTOR PICKUP 3/8" = 1'-0"2GUIDE CHANNEL DETAILS 3/8" = 1'-0"1SECTION A-A: CART DUMPINGTR0.2ROLL-OFFCOMPACTORSECTION VIEWSAND DETAILS510 WB-40 - Intermediate Semi-TrailerWB-40 - Intermediate Semi-Trailer WB-40 - Intermediate Semi-TrailerRECYCLING BIN STAGINGAREAY-143123 POINTIN-BOUNDTURN3317.83Max 46° HorizMax 10° Vert23.542.5312.5WB-40 - Intermediate Semi-TrailerOverall Length45.500ftOverall Width8.000ftOverall Body Height12.052ftMin Body Ground Clearance1.334ftTrack Width8.000ftLock-to-lock time4.00sMax Steering Angle (Virtual)20.40°WB-40 - Intermediate Semi-TrailerWB-40 - Intermediate Semi-T r a i l e r WB-40 - Intermediate Semi-TrailerRECYCLING BIN STAGINGAREAY-141223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comConsultantsDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:Checked By:Drawn By:Drawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080PLANNING SUBMISSION1/21/22P25596.02AZ, SBPHTR0.3WB40 STUDY 3/32" = 1'-0"1LEVEL 1: WB40 ENTERING 3/32" = 1'-0"2LEVEL 1: WB40 EXITING511 30420SU-30 - Single Unit TruckOverall Length30.000ftOverall Width8.000ftOverall Body Height13.500ftMin Body Ground Clearance1.367ftTrack Width8.000ftLock-to-lock time5.00sMax Steering Angle (Virtual)31.80°SU-30 - Single Unit TruckSU-30 - Single Unit Truck SU-30 - Single Unit TruckSU-30 - Single Unit TruckSU-30 - Single Unit Truck SU-30 - Single Unit TruckRECYCLING BIN STAGINGAREAY-14Standard Roll Off - 35ftStandard Roll Off - 35ft Standard Roll Off - 35ftStandard Roll Off - 35ftStan d a r d R o l l O f f - 3 5 f t Standard Roll Off - 35ftRECYCLING BIN STAGINGAREAY-141223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comConsultantsDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:Checked By:Drawn By:Drawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080PLANNING SUBMISSION1/21/22P25596.02AZ, SBPHTR0.4SU30 STUDY 3/32" = 1'-0"1LEVEL 1: SU30 ENTERING 3/32" = 1'-0"2LEVEL 1: SU30 EXITING512 Standard Roll Off - 35ftStandard Roll Off - 35ft Standard Roll Off - 35ftStandard Roll Off - 35ftStandard Roll Off - 35ft Standard Roll Off - 35ftRECYCLING BIN STAGINGAREAY-14352.5820.424.2Standard Roll Off - 35ftOverall Length35.000ftOverall Width8.000ftOverall Body Height12.697ftMin Body Ground Clearance1.371ftMax Track Width8.000ftLock-to-lock time6.00sCurb to Curb Turning Radius37.500ft15CY WASTECOMPACTOR2CY FL COMPACTEDCOMPOST15CY CARDBOARDCOMPACTOR4CY FL COMPACTEDPAPER RECYCLINGPROJECTED COLLECTION SCHEDULEMTWTHF SERVICES1122133TOTAL67522134CY FL COMPACTEDCONTAINER RECYCLING10.80.2221Standard Roll Off - 35ftStandard Roll Off - 35ft Standard Roll Off - 35ftStandard Roll Off - 35ftStan d a r d R o l l O f f - 3 5 f t Standard Roll Off - 35ftRECYCLING BIN STAGINGAREAY-141223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comConsultantsDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:Checked By:Drawn By:Drawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080PLANNING SUBMISSION1/21/22P25596.02AZ, SBPHTR0.5ROLL-OFF TRUCKSTUDY 3/32" = 1'-0"1LEVEL 1: ROLL-OFF ENTERING 3/32" = 1'-0"2LEVEL 1: ROLL-OFF EXITING513 Front Load - Heil 17.8 WB Front Load - Heil 17.8 WBFront Load - Heil 17.8 WBFront Load - Heil 17.8 WB Front Load - Heil 17.8 WBFront Load - Heil 17.8 WB RECYCLING BIN STAGINGAREAY-14RECYCLINGSTREAMCOMPOSTSTREAM15CY WASTECOMPACTOR2CY FL COMPACTEDCOMPOST15CY CARDBOARDCOMPACTOR4CY FL COMPACTEDPAPER RECYCLINGPROJECTED COLLECTION SCHEDULEMTWTHF SERVICES1122133TOTAL67522134CY FL COMPACTEDCONTAINER RECYCLING10.80.2221Front Load - Heil 17.8 WBFront Load - Heil 17.8 W B Front Load - Heil 17.8 WBRECYCLING BIN STAGINGAREAY-14TEMPORARYEMPTY BINDROP-OFFDOUBLE DOORSAND LN2 TANK SHIFTED2'-0" PAGE EAST1223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comConsultantsDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:Checked By:Drawn By:Drawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080PLANNING SUBMISSION1/21/22P25596.02AZ, SBPHTR0.6FRONT LOADSERVICE & BINSTAGING PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"1FRONT LOAD TRUCK PICKUP (FRIDAY STAGING) 3/16" = 1'-0"2BIN SHUFFLING514 Front Load - Heil 17.8 WBFront Load - Heil 17.8 WB Front Load - Heil 17.8 WBS-26RECYCLING BIN STAGINGAREAY-1435ft Front End LoaderOverall Length35.000ftOverall Width8.330ftOverall Body Height1.400ftMin Body Ground Clearance1.400ftTrack Width8.000ftLock-to-lock time4.00sCurb to Curb Turning Radius32.000ft15CY WASTECOMPACTOR2CY FL COMPACTEDCOMPOST15CY CARDBOARDCOMPACTOR4CY FL COMPACTEDPAPER RECYCLINGPROJECTED COLLECTION SCHEDULEMTWTHF SERVICES1122133TOTAL67522134CY FL COMPACTEDCONTAINER RECYCLING10.80.22211223 SW Washington StreetSuite 200Portland, OR 97205T 503 224 3860F 503 224 2482www.zgf.comConsultantsDrawing No.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate:Job No:Checked By:Drawn By:Drawing Title100 E GRAND AVENUESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080PLANNING SUBMISSION1/21/22P25596.02AZ, SBPHTR0.7FRONT LOADTRUCK STUDYCONTINUED 1/8" = 1'-0"1FRONT LOAD TRUCK EXITING515 Prepared by: Silvani Transportation Consulting Oakland, CA PROPOSED TDM PLAN For 100 East Grand Ave ARE-San Francisco No. 65, LLC January 2022 516 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 2 | P a g e Introduction, Project Description & Current Conditions The proposed Project at 100 E. Grand Avenue is located at the eastern gateway linking Downtown, the newly designed SSF Caltrain station and the East 101 life sciences and commercial district, also known as the Eastern Neighborhood. The Project will consist of two new buildings; Building A is a 10-story structure with 302,625 SF; and Building B is an 8-story structure with 251,759 SF. Each building will be designed to accommodate either a single tenant or multiple Life Sciences tenants. Both buildings will be supported by an 8-story parking structure with 782 parking stalls. The existing and immediate adjacent properties are low intensity, light industrial sites. To the east is a major PG&E substation which fronts on East Grand Ave. and Gateway Blvd. The City’s vision for the area is to develop a more walkable, urban form as it transitions to R&D uses, with the possibility of residential land uses. The existing rail spur immediately south of the site is slated to become a new greenway link and public park. To the north, The Comfort Inn directly across the street will also undergo redevelopment as higher density R&D. The Project is situated at the intersection of E Grand Ave, Poletti Way, which fronts the newly designed Caltrain Station, and the foot of the northbound off-ramp from Highway 101. It is literally across the street from the entrance to the new pedestrian tunnel connecting the East 101 District and Caltrain with Downtown South San Francisco; and is a 2 to 3 minute walk to Caltrain platforms and area-wide shuttle stops. 517 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 3 | P a g e The Project will activate over a third of the public facing frontage along E. Grand Avenue with an emphasis on the corner of E Grand and Sylvester Road. A café occupying this prime location will activate the primary pedestrian approach to the building from East Grand and the Caltrain station and visually direct visitors to Building A’s entrance and lobby, visible from the intersection. The café, lobby and covered plaza facing Sylvester and East Grand Avenue will be a convenient place for employees to gather en route to the Caltrain station, allowing them to cross the street ‘just in time’ to make their connections. A secure bicycle storage facility with lockers, showers, and changing facilities will also located within Building A, to be accessed off of the central courtyard. Building B will house a Conference Center off of the lobby and will be visible from Sylvester Road. A fitness center and second secure bicycle storage facility that includes a bike repair facility will also be located in Building B, accessible from a ground floor breezeway that serves as that building’s main entrance and an open passageway between the courtyard and parking garage. Project Schedule Alexandria Real Estate Equities anticipates that the Project will be completed and occupied within three to four years of initial construction. Transit Demand Management (TDM) Applicability This TDM Plan is consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s policies of promoting alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City’s transportation objectives by accentuating linkages, TDM measures, creating pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings and to and from major transit hubs. Proximity to the newly designed and expanded SSF Caltrain station, pedestrian tunnel to Downtown and new residential development, uniquely advantage this site to benefit from Transportation Demand Management. The proposed Project would incorporate a TDM plan pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, which contains the City’s TDM requirements. The TDM requirements apply to all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips. This TDM plan for the Project reflects the City’s TDM targets for zoning districts with similar permitted densities, as well as anticipated updates to the City’s TDM Ordinance, which will require projects such as this one to meet a 45% Alternative Mode Split (AMS) upon full buildout. This TDM Plan assumes the entire Project will be completed and fully occupied within three or four years of initial construction. Since delivering and occupying such a large, multi-building campus will take time, during the phasing in of occupancy, the Project will meet a minimum of 30% AMS. The AMS target of 45% will be achieved upon full occupancy and stabilization of the Project in the aggregate. Reporting will begin after one year of full occupancy. 518 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 4 | P a g e The charts below summarize the alternative mode split targeted for each building, based on an anticipated 60:40 lab-to-office ratio as well as a possible 50:50 ratio: Building A: 302,625 SF SF PER PERSON TOTAL SF EST. EMPLOYEES TOTAL EMPEES/ 40% ALT MODES GOAL Lab (60%) 325 181,575 559 Office (40%) 175 121,050 692 1251/ 500 (40% ALT MODES) Lab (50%), Office (50%) 325 175 151,312 151,312 466, 865 1331/ 532 (40% ALT MODES) Building B: 251,759 SF SF PER PERSON TOTAL SF EST. EMPLOYEES TOTAL EMPEES/40% Lab (60%) 325 151,055 465 Office (40%) 175 100,703 575 1040/ 416 (40% ALT MODES) Lab (50%) Office (50%) 325 175 125,879 125,879 387 719 1106/ 441 According to the trip generation calculations developed by Kittelson for this Project and based on the 60:40 ratio for lab-to-office, it will generate a total of 124 new net AM Peak Hour trips and 199 new net PM Peak Hour trips, compared to existing uses, after applying existing land use credits. However, a significant portion of workers in both Buildings A and B are expected to work- from-home at least two or three days a week in the post-COVID environment; even some lab personnel may no longer be required to be on-site five days a week. This trend is not reflected in traditional ITE calculations and may significantly reduce the number of new net trips shown in the current calculations. Indications (from general surveys as well as from evaluating what current SSF properties are planning) are that the Work-From-Home population will increase from pre-Covid levels of approximately 25% to between 30 and 40% on any given day. Because of this Project’s proximity to shuttle stops from BART and increased Caltrain service, we also expect the number of longer distance commuters using these modes to increase over pre-Covid levels as trust in public transit is rebuilt. Lastly, the emergence of e-scooters and e-bikes with longer ranges will make using these modes a more popular alternative to driving, particularly from close-in origins such as Downtown SSF with its new housing, and other similar developments. Historically, there has been a significant population living within a 5-to-10-mile radius of SSF which these modes address. TDM Goals TDM works by managing demand of existing transportation resources and infrastructure. It does this in several ways: 519 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 5 | P a g e 1. Converting trips to more efficient modes of transportation such as transit, carpools and other shared rides, which reduces individual vehicle trips, lessens roadway congestion, improves total travel time and reduces demand for parking facilities. 2. Converting trips to non-vehicular modes such as bicycling and walking, which eliminates vehicular trips, lessens roadway congestion, improves total travel time and reduces demand for parking facilities. These active transportation modes also improve health. 3. Encouraging use of ‘clean’ vehicles when possible by using compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid vehicles for trips, which reduces environmental impacts of trips. 4. Eliminating trips entirely through compressed work weeks, telecommuting (WFH), etc. The TDM measures and programs proposed in this Plan support the above TDM goals and will meet the required goal of 45 percent of peak hour trips being made by non-single occupant vehicle modes for the Project in the aggregate when fully occupied and stabilized. As proposed, the TDM Plan would be implemented upon full occupancy of the first building to be completed and will strive to meet an initial target of 30% alternative mode use during occupancy phase in for both buildings. The annual and triennial reporting requirements for the project will evaluate this TDM Plan for compliance with the 45 percent minimum alternative mode usage at full occupancy and stabilization of the Project in the aggregate as is anticipated will be required under the future City’s TDM Ordinance. Alexandria Real Estate Equities has several large-scale projects in the East 101 area including 901- 951 Gateway; 213 E Grand; 249-279 E Grand; and 201 Haskins. Smaller projects include properties at 341-343 Oyster Point and 400-450 E Jamie Court. These projects report alternative mode utilization to the City annually and triennially. Historically, these campuses achieve their targets; many perform above their requirements. The tenants at 100 E Grand are likely to be similar in nature to the existing tenant mix at the above properties; ARE therefore anticipates that this new campus will also achieve or exceed the TDM goal with similarly robust TDM programs. Achieving the proposed alternative mode split targets consistently will require a sustained and broad-based commitment by both Alexandria Real Estate Equities and future tenants; these efforts are outlined in the TDM measures described in the next section. Post-Covid TDM and Commute Trends The Covid-19 pandemic has permanently and fundamentally shifted commute patterns in ways we don’t fully understand as of the writing of this Plan. Of particular note, two emerging trends may have the most significant impact on reducing peak hour trips: 1) the increasing population of Work-From-Home (WFH) employees, and 2) an increasing number of employees working non- traditional shifts (e.g., working earlier or later shifts, or coming into the office fewer than 5 days a week). Both of these trends eliminate trips (not just shift travel to another mode). It is estimated that as many as 30 to 40% of all workers will either WFH or work a non-peak-schedule, as conditions evolve. (Note: were this to occur, most of the 45% alternative mode target at Project stabilization would be satisfied by these two TDM measures alone.) 520 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 6 | P a g e The measures described below are based on historical commute patterns, current transportation services, traffic, customer preferences, and technology. Over time and as new technologies, services, and changes in commute modes and patterns evolve, the specific TDM measures that are implemented at 100 E Grand Ave will also change; therefore, this TDM Plan should be viewed as a ‘living document’ that will be modified to include new services and technologies as they emerge as well to address new commuter patterns and preferences. The potential of autonomous vehicles (AVs) to provide first-last mile solutions is a new technology/mode that may also have great potential for 100 E Grand Ave, as well as other sites in the East 101 district. The growing popularity of e-bikes and scooters with longer ranges and capable of higher speeds is another trend which could significantly impact short-to-medium distance commutes. TDM Measures The purpose of the following TDM measures when combined, is to achieve three basic goals: (1) convert single-occupant vehicle trips to an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., transit, carpools or vanpools, bicycling); (2) provide technological solutions (e.g., compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid vehicles, or other zero emission vehicles); and (3) eliminate trips (e.g., compressed work weeks, telecommute), consistent with the requirements of the City’s TDM ordinance. ARE has organized the various TDM measures proposed for the Project into four categories: infrastructure; programs and services; marketing/information; and lease and reporting requirements. Responsibility for implementing each measure is further described below. Infrastructure Programs & Services Marketing & Information Regarding Project Site TDM Measures Leasing & Reporting • Pick-up/drop-off zones adjacent to main entries of Buildings A & B • Intra-Campus Walkability • Connections to Pedestrian links to both Downtown and SSF Caltrain • Secure Bike Parking (indoors) and bike repair • Sufficient Parking • Designated parking and charging facilities • Shuttles (to local ferries, BART) • Carpooling and Vanpooling • Guaranteed Ride Home • Transit subsidies and/or pre-tax payroll programs • Mobile Services that support trip reduction such as food trucks and possibly pop-ups. • Onboarding for new hires with information about all transportation options • Pre-move in planning and promotion with new tenants with presentations and demonstrations for employees • Ongoing marketing of programs on-site • Ongoing marketing of • On-site Employee Transportation Coordinator • Inclusion of TDM Measures in leases • Annual survey • Annual reporting to City • Triennial reporting demonstrating TDM plan efficacy or description of additional trip reduction measures pursuant to TDM ordinance (Ch. 521 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 7 | P a g e Infrastructure Primary responsibility: Alexandria Real Estate Equities Transit Access The 100 E Grand Project site is a 2 to 4 minute walk or bike ride to the new SSF Caltrain station and new Pedestrian Tunnel which will connect the East 101 area with Downtown. This unique location supports TDM in several distinct ways: 1. Increased Caltrain service with electrification will make this mode particularly convenient for commuters along the “Caltrain spine” which traditionally represents a large percentage of life sciences employees. 2. The proximity of new residential developments in Downtown SSF and nearby will make walking and biking to work the best alternative for many within a 1 to 5 mile radius. 3. Improved shuttle and bus connections at SSF Caltrain (i.e., 100 E Grand Ave employees can board a shuttle to SSF BART at the station as well as other SamTrans bus lines. 4. Enhanced bike-share availability at SSF and other Caltrain stations will make this mode practical for local and longer distance commuters Pedestrian Access to Downtown SSF and the SSF Caltrain Station for carpools, carshares, electric and other vehicles • On-Site Amenities to support trip reduction, such as food service, health and wellness, and small meeting/social spaces programs through tenant websites, e-communications • Annual promotional events for campus employees 20.400 of the City’s Municipal Code) 522 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 8 | P a g e The East-101 district is well-served by both public and private shuttles which link employment sites to both the SSF and Millbrae Caltrain stations, SSF BART, and the SSF Ferry Terminal. While future services may be different than their present configuration, Alexandria Real Estate Equities will participate in, and support similarly purposed future services. The new shuttle ‘hub’ at SSF Caltrain may offer new efficiencies and an opportunity to increase levels of service through more cooperative programs. As it is anticipated that most if not all these area shuttle connections will have a shuttle stop on Poletti Way, there is no need for this Project to have dedicated shuttle zones on-site. As shown below, Building A will have a 66-foot-long drop-off zone with the capacity for three vehicles (kiss-and-drop, ride-hail, taxi’s, etc.). Protection from the elements and lighting will be provided by a substantial overhang. Building B will have a similar 40-foot-long passenger drop-off zone, adjacent to the covered breezeway that passes through its ground floor. The breezeway also connects both buildings and the central courtyard area. Intra-Campus Walkability 100 E Grand Ave is designed to maximize pedestrian flow between the parking structure and both buildings, as well as access to public pedestrian right-of-ways on E Grand leading to Poletti Way 523 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 9 | P a g e and the new Downtown Tunnel and SSF Caltrain station. Connections to Area Bikeways The proposed Project fronts E Grand Ave, which has an existing bicycle path that connects with the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing as part of the SSF Caltrain Station upgrades. The drawing below shows area bicycle connections. Secure Bicycle Parking Building A includes 63 secured bicycle parking in accordance with the state’s Title 24 Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Section 5.106.4.1.2 and would meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Version 4 (LEED v4) bicycle parking standards. Both LEED and CalGreen require bicycle parking spaces to be provided in a secure facility off the main lobby. The 100 E Grand Ave Project will also include a bicycle repair facility in Building B. Building B will have some 69 indoor, secure bike parking spaces. Growth in biking is anticipated from improved facilities at Caltrain and at other transit modes AND with the popularity of e-bikes and scooters which make these modes a practical alternative for more commuters. The secure indoor bicycling parking facilities also include another 14 spaces in the parking structure and may be able to expand even further as demand requires. 524 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 10 | P a g e On Site Amenities Amenities on the ground floor of Building A include small-scale public meeting space; a café, health and wellness facilities for employees and showers and clothes locker facilities. Secure bicycle storage and a repair facility will also be housed on the ground floor. Building B will also house a Fitness Center and Conference Center. Alexandria Real Estate Equities will work with future tenants to determine an appropriate mix of other services which may be provided via mobile operations in flex spaces. For example, food trucks and other mobile businesses such as dental screening, and pop-ups supporting local artists, services and businesses may be desired. The goal of these common, on-site amenities is to reduce the number of daytime trips to and from the site, and to further support employees’ use of alternative commute modes. Parking The 100 E Grand Ave Project proposes a multi-level parking structure with 8 above ground levels, which would accommodate 782 parking stalls. Of these, 15 will be designated for accessible vehicles; another 3 for accessible vans; 64 for carpools. There will also be a minimum of 48 parking stalls equipped with dual head charging stations , including one each for ambulatory, accessible and van accessible vehicles. Should demand warrant it, another five dual-head charging stations can be installed in the future. The parking structure will be built as part of Building A, utilizing a reduction of 25% in parking spaces due to its proximity to transit, providing more-than-required bicycle parking which accommodates on a 1:1 basis any shortfall in vehicular parking, and aligns with future City parking requirement changes. Programs & Services Primary Responsibility: Tenant unless otherwise noted Shuttles Alexandria Real Estate Equities currently participates in the commute.org shuttle network on behalf of its East 101 properties, which provides tenants with last mile shuttle service from the South San Francisco BART station, Millbrae Caltrain station, and Oyster Point Ferry terminal. Alexandria will continue to support this or an equivalent shuttle network to these transit hubs for all of its East 101 properties, including 100 E Grand Ave. In addition, Alexandria may participate in area-wide pilot and/or permanent programs which offer new services to commuters living in areas currently not served by existing programs. For example, there may be a sizeable number of employees who live within a 7 to 10-mile radius of the Project, for whom existing public transit is not a practical alternative. Alexandria continues to be in dialogue about new ways to serve markets such as this one with other employers and developers in the area. Another market that may have potential is longer distance commutes which could benefit from a one-seat ride from outlying areas to the East 101 district. 525 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 11 | P a g e Carpooling and Vanpooling Carpooling apps such as Scoop and Waze fundamentally changed carpooling. Carpooling is now done in advance or more dynamically, one trip at a time and rides are coordinated by riders and drivers connecting through an app. This eliminates the barriers of employees having to commit to commuting at the same time, with the same people, every day (or on a regular basis). It enables commuters to use carpooling in just one direction and to travel to different destinations as needed. The flexibility provided by carpooling apps has greatly expanded the total number of potential carpoolers. Many employers either fully or partially subsidize employees’ carpooling. The carpooling apps provide employers with clean, clear accounting and metrics. Measuring the number of carpoolers, frequency, origins, and other important data points is also much easier and more accurate for employers and employees to track. This data will also inform the promotion of carpooling to new audiences. In the post-Covid era, there may be renewed interest in carpooling and vanpooling with employees from the same employers, and in smaller numbers (for those who may be hesitant to take transit). Guaranteed Ride Home Alexandria participates in the County-wide Guaranteed Ride Home program through its corporate affiliation with commute.org. This program covers those who bike, walk, carpool or use transit who may need to leave early or work late, due to an unexpected circumstance. In addition, Scoop and Waze provide a Guaranteed Ride Home element in their respective programs. Subsidies and Pre-Tax Payroll Deductions for Alternative Modes Offering employees the option of paying for transit and other modes with pre-tax dollars is an important incentive to use transit, particularly for employees for whom transit is not employer- subsidized. In effect, pre-tax payroll deductions for alternative modes discounts the cost of a transit pass by 20-30 percent for the end user. As long as this IRS provision is in effect, Alexandria will require its tenants to provide this benefit (which costs employers nothing). Some employers fully subsidize and further incentivize employees’ transportation costs; in this case, the pre-tax benefit isn’t necessary. Alexandria will also encourage its outside vendors (such as food service) to provide this benefit. Mobile and On Site Services Because the 100 E Grand Ave Project is a short, pleasant walk to Downtown, Alexandria expects employees to patronize Downtown’s many restaurants and other amenities via the new pedestrian tunnel and improved bicycling facilities. Offering other services at 100 E Grand Ave is another way to decrease vehicle trips and/or incentivize the use of alternative transportation modes for commuting. To this end, ARE will work with its tenant(s) at the Project to determine which types of services are most desired: from food trucks to services such as dental screenings, and other such personal and business services. These may be provided via a mobile operation or using a flexible space inside one of the buildings to provide services on certain days. 526 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 12 | P a g e Marketing & Information Dissemination of Information Alexandria Tenants Alexandria Real Estate Equities will provide transit screens or other permanent digital informational resources in public lobbies. ARE’s point of contact with commute.org will be responsible for keeping information on these electronic displays up to date. This person will also be responsible for providing tenants with the same updates. ARE leases will require tenants to be responsible for disseminating information received from service providers and Alexandria to their employees via their own digital information resources, internal websites, and other corporate communications. Tenants will also be responsible for making transportation information available to visitors. Ongoing Marketing In High Traffic Lobbies and Other Areas Alexandria will install Transit Screens, or the equivalent, to display information about alternative transportation programs and services, real-time transit and rideshare information, communicate special messages, and keep employees well informed about transportation programs and choices. Alexandria will keep this information up to date by posting the most current schedules, special promotions, new programs available, etc. These digital bulletin boards will be placed in high traffic areas such as lobbies, so the visibility of the scope of services and choices becomes ‘ubiquitous’. New Hires and New Tenant Move Ins Leases will require tenants to include information about all the transportation programs and services available to new employees, with links to various apps, websites, identification of the employee transportation coordinator and others who are available to answer questions, assist in commute planning, and enroll in specific programs. The information provided shall include the total spectrum of programs, eligibility, and enrollment procedures. This information will periodically be re-distributed to all employees. New Tenants Alexandria will work with tenant(s) during the pre-occupancy stage to educate the tenant about area-wide programs; to learn about existing tenant-specific programs and policies; establish who the Employee Transportation Coordinator shall be; and to conduct a pre-move-in survey of employees to assess commute patterns ARE will also coordinate presentations and demonstrations of transportation services (such as a demo ride to the BART station, so employees learn where bus stops are and what the routes are before actually using the service). Alexandria will also assist tenants in commute planning for their employees during the pre-move in phase. 527 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 13 | P a g e Tenant Websites and Employee Communications Tenants will be required through their leases to include a section on their respective websites that provides information regarding the how employees and visitors may access 100 E Grand Ave, and encourages travel by alternative transit modes. Links to programs, schedules and other resources should also be included on these pages. Tenants will also be required to include information and promotion of programs and services in their regularly scheduled communications to employees such as emails, newsletters, fliers, or other marketing communications vehicles. The Employee Transportation Coordinator will be listed in these marketing communications as a point of contact for questions or more information. Copies of these shall be sent to the Alexandria representative as well as to employees. Special Events Tenants will be responsible for inviting transportation partners, agencies, and providers to employee events such as its annual benefits fair. The Employee Transportation Coordinator will also have a table and be available during these events. A minimum of one such event shall be held annually. These provisions will be articulated in ARE’s leases. Alexandria will be responsible for hosting an Appreciation Day lunch (or other type of event) annually, to which transportation partners, agencies and providers will also be invited. Leases & Reporting Alexandria: Alexandria to include TDM requirements in all leases Tenants: Tenant(s) for furnishing Alexandria with copies of marketing materials, programs, communications about events, changes to programs, changes to the Employee Transportation Coordinator position, conducting the annual survey and keeping Alexandria informed about its transportation programs and outcomes. The ETC will include the Alexandria property manager on all transportation-related communications. These requirements will be spelled out in all leases for 100 E Grand Ave. Leases Alexandria will include in all leases for this project the above mandatory TDM measures required of all tenants; the alternative mode split target; dates and process for conducting an annual survey; the triennial evaluation; and reporting forms that document compliance with the TDM Plan and show utilization of programs and services and marketing activities. Leases will also include the specific appointment of an Employee Transportation Coordinator and the requirement for ongoing communications and cooperation between Alexandria’s property managers and the Employee Transportation Coordinator. It will be the tenant’s responsibility to make sure these requirements are met and to cooperate with Alexandria and/or the City or the City’s designees with regard to TDM reporting. Lastly, leases will include the City’s mandated penalties and procedures should tenant(s) fail to meet the alternative mode share targets. 528 Proposed TDM Plan for 100 E Grand Ave Project January 2022 14 | P a g e Annual Surveys and Reports Efficacy of the TDM Plan is subject to monitoring and enforcement through an annual commuter survey, annual summary report, and a triennial report. The City will coordinate with the ARE and tenant(s) to complete an annual survey which will determine the Project’s mode split for that calendar year and determine compliance with the TDM plan. This survey, along with the any required compliance reports, parking lot occupancy counts and other data points will be used to illustrate the efforts and effectiveness of the TDM programs and services. Employer data will be shared with Alexandria and used as the basis for the annual report to the City. The City will coordinate with ARE and its tenants to produce a triennial report that demonstrates this TDM plan’s efficacy in achieving the targeted alternative mode split (i.e., 30% during occupancy phase in and 45% at full occupancy and stabilization of the Project in the aggregate). The triennial report will be submitted to the City every three years on the anniversary date of the granting of the certificate of occupancy for 100 E Grand Ave. Conclusion In conclusion, Alexandria Real Estate Equities is confident the strategies described in this Plan will enable the 100 E Grand Ave project to meet its TDM requirements. 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