Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-22 Planning Commission AgendaThursday, February 3, 2022 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Remote Zoom Meeting Only Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 1 February 3, 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 in favor of the application. Then persons who oppose the project or who wish to ask questions will have their turn. If you wish to speak, please fill out a card (which is available near the entrance door) and give it, as soon as possible, to the Clerk at the front of the room. When it is your turn, she will announce your name for the record. 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 case. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/13/2022 2 February 3, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 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 10/13/2022 3 February 3, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Michele Evans, Chairperson Sam Shihadeh, Vice Chairperson Norm Faria, Commissioner JulieAnn Murphy, Commissioner Alex Tzang, 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 (Vacant Position), Associate Planner Cristina Cruz, Clerk PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS 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 10/13/2022 4 February 3, 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 Approval of the Regular Planning Commission Minutes from December 2, 2021 Att. 1 - 12-2-21 - Draft MinutesAttachments: PUBLIC HEARING Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/13/2022 5 February 3, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding public testimony for the 45-day comment period from December 29, 2021 to February 11, 2022 for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 101 Gull Drive development project for a new 7-story office/research and development (R&D) building with an attached 4.5-story parking garage in the Business Technology Park (BTP) District. (Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) Attachment 1 - 101 Gull Drive Site Plan Attachment 2 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 1 Introduction Attachment 3 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 2 Executive Summary Attachment 4 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 3 Project Description Attachment 5 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Attachment 6 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 5 Transportation Attachment 7 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 6 Other CEQA Topics Attachment 8 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 7 Alternatives Attachment 9 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 8 Report Preparers and References Attachment 10 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments Attachment 11 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Appendix B Initial Study Attachment 12 - 101 Gull Drive DEIR Appendix C Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Attachments: ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Annual Reorganization of the Chair and Vice Chair of the South San Francisco Planning Commission and Standing or Ad Hoc Committee Assignments (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) 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 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/13/2022 6 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-69 Agenda Date:2/3/2022 Version:1 Item #: Approval of the Regular Planning Commission Minutes from December 2, 2021 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/13/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™7 December 2, 2021 Minutes Page 1 of 3 MINUTES December 2, 2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:01 PM STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner, Adena Friedman, Principal Planner, Billy Gross, Principal Planner, Claire Lai, City Attorney AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the November 4, 2021 Draft Meeting Minutes Motion to approve Consent Calendar – Vice Chair Shihadeh Second – Commissioner Faria The question was called and the motion carried 6-0-1. (Commissioner De Paz Fernandez was absent) Located at minute 4:25: https://ci-ssf-ca.granicus.com/player/clip/1544?view_id=4&redirect=true PUBLIC HEARING 2. Report regarding consideration of applications for Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the property to create a total of two parcels, and Use Permit to allow a Parking Reduction and Hours of Operation between 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM, for the construction of approximately 74,600 square feet of commercial uses at 180 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is within ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Chair Evans, Vice Chair Shihadeh, Commissioners Faria, Murphy, Tzang, and Funes ABSENT: De Paz Fernandez 8 December 2, 2021 Minutes Page 2 of 3 the parameters that were analyzed in the adopted 2014 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). (Billy Gross, Principal Planner) 2a. Resolution making CEQA determinations pursuant to Sections 15162, 15183 and 15332 of CEQA Guidelines for a project to construct approximately 70,000 square feet of commercial uses at 180 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Zoning District, and making findings and approving a request for Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the property to create a total of two parcels, and Use Permit to allow a Parking Reduction and Hours of Operation between 12:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. for said project, in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Public Hearing opened 7:07 pm Public Hearing closed 8:16 pm Motion to approve Resolution – Commissioner Faria Second – Vice-Chair Shihadeh The question was called and the motion carried 6-0-1 (Commissioner De Paz Fernandez was absent) Item begins at minute 6:19: https://ci-ssf-ca.granicus.com/player/clip/1544?view_id=4&redirect=true ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 3. Report regarding submission of the 2021 Genentech Annual Report for Planning Commission consideration. (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) Comments received by staff. Item begins at hour 1:49: https://ci-ssf-ca.granicus.com/player/clip/1544?view_id=4&redirect=true ITEMS FROM STAFF The meeting on December 16, 2021 will be cancelled. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION None. 9 December 2, 2021 Minutes Page 3 of 3 ADJOURNMENT Chair Evans adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:51 PM Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner, AICP Michele Evans, Chairperson or Sam Shihadeh, Vice Chairperson Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco TR/cc 10 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-66 Agenda Date:2/3/2022 Version:1 Item #: Report regarding public testimony for the 45-day comment period from December 29,2021 to February 11, 2022 for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 101 Gull Drive development project for a new 7-story office/research and development (R&D)building with an attached 4.5-story parking garage in the Business Technology Park (BTP) District.(Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the item and review and take public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and provide any additional comments to staff. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND Project Description The project applicant,Sanfo Group,LLC,has submitted an application for a new office/R&D building at 101 Gull Drive located within the Business Technology Park (BTP)Zoning District in the City’s “East of 101” planning area.The 3.8‐acre project site is currently vacant.While the site is located along Gull Drive,it is largely separated from the roadway by a grade change and steep slope.The project site is located behind businesses fronting Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard.Existing access easements with nearby properties would provide mutual access to driveways on those roadways along with a new driveway on Gull Drive proposed as a part of this project. The applicant is proposing construction and operation of a new 166,613‐square‐foot,7‐story,office/R&D building and an attached 4.5‐story 419‐stall parking garage.Site improvements would also include open space, landscaping,outdoor seating areas,pedestrian walkways,and vehicular circulation elements,including a connection to Gull Drive for the mutual access easements in the vicinity. Draft Environmental Impact Report The environmental consulting firm Lamphier-Gregory prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the 101 Gull Drive project.An Initial Study preceded the DEIR and addressed all topic areas other than Hazardous Materials and Transportation,which were analyzed in the DEIR.Per the requirements of CEQA,the City circulated the DEIR on December 29,2021,for a 45-day public review period.This public meeting is intended to allow the public and the Planning Commission an opportunity to present oral comments on the DEIR.The public review period will conclude on February 11, 2022.The Planning Commission will not be taking action on the proposed project at this time;there will be an additional public hearing to consider the project entitlements along with the Final EIR (FEIR)within the next few months. The DEIR Executive Summary,Attachment 4 to this staff report,provides a summary of potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures,and each DEIR chapter includes detail on the analysis (DEIR Table 2-1, Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures).The full DEIR document,as well as the individual chapters and technical appendices, are attached to this staff report. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The DEIR identifies one impact that would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation that wouldCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/13/2022Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™11 File #:22-66 Agenda Date:2/3/2022 Version:1 Item #: The DEIR identifies one impact that would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation that would result if the project were implemented.For this impact,feasible mitigation measures may not be effective in reducing the impacts to a less-than-significant level.The potentially significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation is related to the amount of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)that are calculated to be generated by the project. The potentially significant and unavoidable impact is: ·Impact TR-2:Vehicles Miles Traveled.The vehicle miles traveled per employee exceeds the City’s adopted threshold of 15 percent below the regional average under existing and future conditions. Specifically,the 101 Gull Drive project would result in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)per employee above target levels (more than 15%below regional averages)despite implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Plan to reduce project trips.Based on the City’s preferred home-based-work methodology, the project would generate 16.2 VMT per employee under existing conditions and 12.9 VMT per employee under future cumulative conditions compared to a regional average of 14.2 VMT per employee and a threshold of 15%below that average of 12.2 VMT per employee.While the required TDM program for the project will be implemented and monitored pursuant to City regulations,the CEQA analysis assumes a higher and more conservative drive-alone share than is required by the TDM program,consistent with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG)model,and analysis for other similar projects within the City and the region.The project’s TDM measures will contribute towards reducing the VMT impact but cannot be guaranteed to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. Note that this impact is not unique to the project.Because the analysis is based on averages in the East of 101 area,this same impact would be seen for other office/R&D projects in the area that are not located within one half mile of the Caltrain station.As transit,first/last mile,and housing projects envisioned in the South San Francisco General Plan are built out,VMT is expected to decline over time but may remain significant compared to regional targets. Alternatives Analysis CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)states that an EIR must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which would feasibly attain most of the proposed project’s basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project.The DEIR evaluates three alternatives (detailed in DEIR Chapter 7,Attachment 9 to this staff report): ·Alternative A-No Project Alternative.The existing site conditions at the project site would not change.The site would remain vacant,and there would be no construction activities nor development at the site.Alternative A would not preclude potential future development of the project site with a range of land uses that are permitted at the project site. ·Alternative B-R&D Only Alternative.This alternative would have generally the same building and parking garage structures as the proposed project on the same site and footprint.The only difference is that the use would be constrained to R&D uses.Office uses (except as part of an R&D use)would not be allowed. ·Alternative C-Reduced Development Alternative.This alternative would involve constructing a building with an approximately 30%reduction in both building space and parking area.This building would be about two floors lower (five stories)and likely also include a somewhat reduced footprint.The building square footage would be approximately 133,300 sq.ft.As with the proposed project,any mix City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/13/2022Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™12 File #:22-66 Agenda Date:2/3/2022 Version:1 Item #: of office and/or R&D would be allowed for this alternative. Alternatives Conclusion As described in Chapter 7 of the DEIR,Alternative A,the No Project Alternative,would not have any CEQA impacts. The project site would remain as it is today with no substantial construction activities and no development at the site,Therefore,the potential for all of the less than significant impacts and need for mitigation would be avoided.While continuance of the vacant state would not be considered an impact under CEQA,the “No Project”Alternative would not develop the site consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning and does not meet any of the project objectives. Alternative B,the R&D Only Alternative,and Alternative C,the Reduced Development Alternative,would both result in fewer employees at the site than the proposed project.The project’s one significant and unavoidable impact was that the vehicle miles traveled (VMT)per employee exceeds threshold levels.VMT is mostly based on location for office or R&D uses and,therefore,would not change given a change in the mix of uses or reduced size,respectively,at the same site.The impact with respect to VMT for both Alternative B and Alternative C would therefore remain above threshold levels and significant and unavoidable.Even though adding fewer employees at higher-than-threshold-level VMT per employee rates would contribute less to overall exceedances of VMT targets in the region,the impact of both alternatives would be only marginally reduced compared to the project. CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative in an EIR.Where a no project alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative,CEQA requires the EIR to identify another alternative that would be considered environmentally superior in the absence of the no project alternative.Neither Alternative B nor Alternative C would avoid any significant impacts of the project or reduce the significance level of any impacts.With fewer resultant employees at the site,both these alternatives would marginally reduce the significant and unavoidable project impact related to VMT while the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.Both these alternatives would be substantially similar though marginally environmentally superior to the proposed project and would meet project objectives though to a lesser degree than the project. Because Alternative C would also marginally reduce construction-related impacts as well as operational-related impacts (without changing the need for mitigation or significance conclusions compared to the project)in addition to marginally reducing the VMT impact,this alternative would be the next most environmentally superior after Alternative A.As noted above,differences between the impacts under Alternative C and the proposed project would be marginal only. NEXT STEPS The DEIR public comment period will close on February 11,2022.After the comment period closes,staff and the EIR consultant will prepare written responses to comments (if comments are received)and circulate a Final EIR.The response to comments will be included in the Final EIR,which will be presented to the Planning Commission together with the 101 Gull Drive project entitlements request in the next few months. CONCLUSION Staff requests that the Planning Commission take public comments on the DEIR for the 101 Gull Drive project. Attachments City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/13/2022Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™13 File #:22-66 Agenda Date:2/3/2022 Version:1 Item #: 1.101 Gull Drive Site Plan 2.101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 1: Introduction 3.101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 2: Executive Summary 4.101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 3: Project Description 5.101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 6.101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 5: Transportation 7.101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 6: Other CEQA Topics 8.101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 7: Alternatives 9.101 Gull Drive DEIR Chapter 8: Report Preparers and References 10.101 Gull Drive DEIR Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments 11.101 Gull Drive DEIR Appendix B: Initial Study 12.101 Gull Drive DEIR Appendix C: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/13/2022Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™14 101 GULL DRIVE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOSITE PLAN - PROPOSED 06 SCALE: 1:50 0 12.5 25 50 PROPERTY LINE TABLE 20.110.003 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Standard BTP Proposed Lot Standards Minimum Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) 43,560 166,613 Minimum Lot Width (Ft.) 50 240 Building Form and Location Maximum Height Main Building n/a 128 Ft. High EL. +185’-6” Minimum Yards (Ft.) Front 20 66 Interior Side 0 30 Street Side 10 66 Rear 0 32 Maximum Lot Coverage (% of Lot) 60 % 32% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5 1.0 Maximum Floor Area Ratio with Incentives Program 1.0 1.0 Additional Standards Minimum Amount of Landscaping (% of Site) 15 37% 2 0 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 0 "20'-0" BLDG. SETBACK 4 1/2 LEVEL PARKING GARAGE 7-STORY LAB/OFFICE BUILDING Updated: 08 OCT 2021 15 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page1-1 1 Introduction Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report The California Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder (together “CEQA”) require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for any project which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA are “to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.” The information contained in this EIR is intended to be objective and impartial, and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the significance of the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. This EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the 101 Gull Drive Office / Research and Development project (“project”) in South San Francisco, California. Environmental Impact Report Review Process The City of South San Francisco distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on October 14, 2021 and ending on November 12, 2021 and a scoping meeting was held on November 4, 2021. An Initial Study was attached to the NOP, which included initial analysis of environmental topics to focus the EIR. As indicated in the Initial Study, substantial evidence indicates that no significant impacts would occur to the following issue areas with the incorporation of mitigation identified in the Initial Study: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. The following topic areas were addressed in the Initial Study and determined not to have significant impacts: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Wildfire. The two topics of Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Transportation were identified as those that would be addressed in the Draft EIR. The City received two letters in response to the NOP during the public review period and no verbal comments. The two letters were from the Native American Heritage Commission noting required coordination (performed during the Initial Study preparation with no responses received), and from CalTrans outlining standard procedures for analysis and mitigation of projects (taken into consideration in the analysis in this Draft EIR). The Initial Study is included as Attachment A to this document. The NOP and written responses received are presented in Appendix B. 16 Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-2 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR This Draft EIR, together with the Final EIR (discussed below) will constitute the EIR for the proposed project. The EIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies, and interested citizens to evaluate the environmental issues associated with the proposed project. In reviewing the Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts associated with the project. Readers are also encouraged to review and comment on ways in which significant impacts associated with this project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when the basis for the comments is explained and they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts. The Draft EIR, its supporting documentation, and details relating to the project are on-file and available for review online at: www.ssf.net/CEQAdocuments under the “101 Gull Drive” project. If you are unable to view documents online, please use the contact below to arrange access to an alternate digital copy or hard copy. Comments on the Draft EIR may be submitted in writing until 5:00 P.M. PST on the last day of the public review period to: Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 Phone: 650-877-8535 Email: stephanie.skangos@ssf.net The comments received during the public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to those comments in the Final EIR. Any minor revisions to the Draft EIR will also be included in the Final EIR. This EIR serves as an informational document for the public and City of South San Francisco decision makers. The process includes public hearings before the Planning Commission to consider certification of a Final EIR and approval of the proposed project. An EIR does not control the agency’s ultimate discretion on the project. However, as required under CEQA, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making findings and, if necessary, by making a statement of overriding considerations for any significant and unavoidable impacts. In accordance with California law, the EIR on the project must be certified before any action on the project can be taken. Once the EIR is certified, the City of South San Francisco can then consider whether the project as proposed should be approved, revised, or rejected. Content and Organization of the Draft EIR The previously issued NOP and all written responses to the NOP are presented in Appendix A. The previously issued Initial Study is included in Appendix B. An Executive Summary follows this introduction as Chapter 2. This summary presents an overview of the project and the potentially significant environmental impacts that may be associated with the project, including a listing of recommended mitigation measures and a discussion of those impacts which would remain significant and unavoidable even following mitigation. 17 Chapter 1: Introduction 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 1-3 The Draft EIR presents a description of the project in Chapter 3. Chapters 4 through 6 present environmental analysis of the project, focusing on the following issues: Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Chapter 5: Transportation, Circulation and Parking Chapter 6: Other CEQA Topics Chapter 7 presents an evaluation of the environmental effects that may be associated with the proposed project and three alternatives evaluated: the "No Project" Alternative, the “R&D Only” Alternative and the “Reduced Development” Alternative. Chapter 8 lists the persons who prepared the Draft EIR, identifies those persons and organizations contacted during the preparation of the document, and lists the reference materials used. 18 Chapter 1: Introduction  Page 1‐4 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR                        This page intentionally left blank.  19 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 2-1 2 Executive Summary Introduction and Project Overview This report, together with its appendices, constitutes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed 101 Gull Drive project (“project”). The Lead Agency for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act is the City of South San Francisco (as Lead Agency). The project site is located at 101 Gull Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-082-250), within the City of South San Francisco’s “East of 101” planning area. The 3.8-acre project site is currently vacant. While the site is located along Gull Drive, it is largely separated from the roadway by a grade change and steep slope. The project site is located behind businesses fronting Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard and existing access easements with nearby properties would provide mutual access to driveways on those roadways along with the new driveway on Gull Drive proposed as a part of the project. The project Sponsor, Sanfo Group LLC, is proposing construction and operation of a new 166,613- square-foot, 7-story, office / research and development (R&D) building and an attached 4.5-story 419-stall parking garage. Site improvements would also include open space, landscaping, outdoor seating areas, pedestrian walkways, and vehicular circulation elements, including the proposed connection to Gull Drive for the mutual access easements in the vicinity. The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and zoning at the site. Areas of Known Controversy The EIR scoping process did not identify areas of known controversy for the proposed project. Summary of Conclusions The following Table 2.1 provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, identified mitigation measures, and the resulting level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures. For a more complete discussion of potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures, please refer to individual topic area chapters of this Draft EIR and sections of the Initial Study (Appendix A). Impacts are categorized as follows: Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. 20 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Page 2-2 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Less than Significant with Mitigation. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. No Impact: The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards. Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR Table 2.1 includes significant impacts from topic areas of the environmental checklist addressed in the Initial Study (Appendix A). As indicated in the Initial Study, substantial evidence indicates that no significant impacts would occur to the following issue areas with the incorporation of mitigation identified in the Initial Study: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. The following topic areas were addressed in the Initial Study and determined not to have significant impacts: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Wildfire. The two topics of Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Transportation are addressed in this Draft EIR. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Based on the analysis presented in this EIR, the project would result in the following environmental impact that would be considered significant and unavoidable: Vehicles Miles Traveled Impact (TR-2): The vehicle miles traveled per employee exceeds the City’s adopted threshold of 15 percent below the regional average under existing and future conditions. Even with contribution toward first- and last-mile strategies to increase use of alternate modes of travel (Mitigation Measure TR-2), this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Note that this impact is not unique to this project. Because the estimated vehicle miles traveled for this project is based on averages for the entire East of 101 area, most office/R&D projects in this area incur a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to vehicle miles traveled unless they are located within one half mile of the Caltrain station. Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially significant impacts are largely limited to construction-period disturbance, including impacts and mitigation related to construction period dust and emissions (Mitigation Measure Air- 1); potential disturbance of unknown archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources (Cul-1, Cul-2, Cul-3); and appropriate construction given site characteristics in a seismically-active region (Geo-1). Additionally, the project would contribute toward previously-identified area sewer line upgrades (Util-1). 21 Chapter 2: Executive Summary 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 2-3 The project would be required to adhere to remediation measures in the Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) to address hazardous materials concerns at the site including appropriate handling and capping of metals-impacted site soils and vapor barriers if necessary to address methane gas migration from the nearby landfill (Haz-2). The impacts listed in this subsection would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the identified mitigation measures. All other impacts would be less than significant without the need for mitigation. Summary of Alternatives Three alternatives to the project were evaluated in Chapter 20 of this EIR, including: • The “No Project” Alternative in which the site remains vacant. • The “R&D Only” Alternative representing the same structures as proposed but constrained to the generally lower-employee use of R&D rather than allowing office. • The “Reduced Development” Alternative representing an approximately 30% smaller office/R&D development on the same site. The “No Project” alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative, since it would not result in any substantial changes to the site and therefore, has the lowest possible impacts in every parameter. However, this alternative does not meet any of the project objectives and would not prevent future development of the site consistent with the underlying land use designation and zoning (such as the project). The CEQA Guidelines also require that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The CEQA Guidelines require a consideration of whether alternatives “avoid or substantially lessen” significant impacts of the proposed project. In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. Neither the “R&D Only” Alternative nor the “Reduced Development” Alternative would avoid any significant impacts of the project or reduce the significance level of any impacts. With fewer resultant employees at the site, both these alternatives would marginally reduce the significant and unavoidable project impact related to vehicle miles traveled while the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Both these alternatives would be substantially similar though marginally environmentally superior to the proposed project and would meet project objectives though to a lesser degree than the project. Because the “Reduced Development” Alternative would marginally reduce construction-related impacts as well as operational-related impacts (without changing the need for mitigation or significance conclusions compared to the project), the “Reduced Development” Alternative would be the next most environmentally superior after the “No Project” Alternative. As noted above, differences between the impacts under this alternative and the proposed project would be marginal only. 22 Chapter 2: Executive Summary 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 2-4 Table 2.1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Impact TR-2: Vehicles Miles Traveled. The vehicle miles traveled per employee exceeds the City’s adopted threshold of 15 percent below the regional average under existing and future conditions. Mitigation Measure TR-2: First- and Last-Mile Strategies. The project sponsor shall coordinate with the City for the project sponsor to implement the following off-site improvements to support the project’s first- and last-mile and active transportation connections necessary to support reductions in Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled. • Participation in first-/last-mile shuttle program(s) to Caltrain and BART. Shuttles may be operated by Commute.org and/or other East of 101 shuttle providers offering services open to the general public. • Restriping of five crosswalks at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue, one crosswalk at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard, and two crosswalks at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and the 329- 333 Oyster Point Boulevard driveway with high-visibility longitudinal markings to enhance pedestrian access to the westbound shuttle stop and nearby land uses. The project sponsor shall additionally coordinate with the City for the project sponsor to pay fair-share contribution toward the following off-site improvements to support the project’s first- and last-mile and active transportation connections necessary to support reductions in Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled. • Modification of the existing eastbound shuttle stop at the far side of the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection to provide an accessible five-foot long by eight-foot-wide landing pad and pavement markings (if such facilities are not already fully funded or constructed by the City or SamTrans). • Installation of a westbound shuttle stop at the far side of the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection including a pole, accessible five-foot long by eight-foot-wide landing pad, pavement markings, and shelter (if such facilities are not already fully funded or constructed by the City or SamTrans). • Provision of eastbound and westbound Class II buffered bicycle lanes along Eccles Avenue between Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, spanning approximately 3,000 linear feet. The improvement consists primarily Significant and Unavoidable 23 Chapter 2: Executive Summary 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 2-5 Table 2.1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance of restriping the curbside vehicle travel lane in each direction to a Class II buffered bicycle lane and signage. The bicycle facility will help close a gap between the project and a planned Class I shared-use pathway between Forbes Boulevard / Eccles Avenue and the South San Francisco Caltrain station. Less Than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Impact Haz-2: Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials. Through compliance with applicable regulations, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measure Haz-2: Adherence to Remediation Measures. Applicant or project sponsor shall ensure that project design and construction shall incorporate the recommended remediation measures in an Amended Site Closure Plan and Post- Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) approved by the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health, to avoid or reduce the hazards related to the presence of hazardous materials (burn ash) and combustible vapor at this site. The remediation measures are anticipated to include the following, based on the measures contained in the current PCMP: • Placement of cap throughout the development area consistent with the final cover / capping plan in an approved Amended PCMP. • Installation of building combustible gas protection and monitoring features to consist of a subfloor vapor barrier and passive venting system, and interior alarm system, unless determined not to be necessary (due to vapor levels following current removal of landfill materials from nearby portions of the Oyster Point Landfill). • Adhering to applicable provisions of the existing Risk Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan for soil handling during excavations for utility trenches, foundations, and other site work. • Adherence to water conservation standards for landscaping and irrigation to reduce or eliminate the potential for water infiltration into underlying contaminated soil layers. Less than Significant Criteria Pollutants and Dust Impact: Construction of the project would result in emissions and fugitive dust. While the project Mitigation Measure Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices, Measures: The project applicant / owner / sponsor shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, Less than Significant 24 Chapter 2: Executive Summary 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 2-6 Table 2.1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance would be below threshold levels, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) considers dust generated by grading and construction activities to be a significant impact associated with project development if uncontrolled and recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions and dust for all projects, regardless of comparison to their construction-period thresholds. building or grading permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”. i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. iii) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. viii) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Cultural Resources Impact: There are no known cultural or tribal cultural resources at the site. However, given the moderate potential for unrecorded archeological resources and Native Mitigation Measures Cul-1: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a WEAP training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of artifacts that Less than Significant 25 Chapter 2: Executive Summary 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 2-7 Table 2.1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance American resources at a currently-developed site, mitigation measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3 shall be implemented. might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb native soils. Mitigation Measures Cul-2: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, historical, or tribal resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant / owner / sponsor shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery are ceased until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional, who shall be retained by the project applicant / owner / sponsor, and specific measures can be implemented by the project applicant / owner / sponsor to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code. Mitigation Measures Cul-3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant / owner / sponsor shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery are ceased until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, which evaluation shall be arranged by the project applicant / owner / sponsor, and appropriate action taken by the project applicant / owner / sponsor in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. Seismic Hazards Impact: The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region and the project site includes undocumented fill and soils with low potential for expansion, liquefaction, and lateral spreading. To mitigate the potential for damage to structures or people, the following measure shall be implemented: Mitigation Measure Geo-1: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code. Less than Significant 26 Chapter 2: Executive Summary 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 2-8 Table 2.1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Paleontological Resources Impact: There are no known paleontological resources at the site. However, given the potential for unrecorded paleontological resources at a currently- developed site, mitigation measures Culture-1, 2, and 3 shall be implemented. Mitigation Measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3 would also reduce the potential impact related to unknown paleontological resources. Less than Significant Tribal Cultural Impact: There are no known tribal cultural resources at the site. However, given the moderate potential for unrecorded archeological resources and Native American resources at a currently-developed site, mitigation measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3 shall be implemented. Mitigation Measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3 would require proper handling of any discoveries and also reduce the potential impact related to unknown tribal cultural resources. Less than Significant Sewer Capacity Impact: The Oyster Point Specific Plan to the east identified required upsizing of the 8-inch gravity main in Oyster Point Blvd between approximately Gull Drive and Eccles Avenue to a 12-inch main. The Oyster Point Specific Plan project requires this mitigation with reimbursement from other area projects as appropriate. Mitigation measure Util-1 is consistent with the wording of the measure in the Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR and would be required of this project as well because this improvement is not included within the Sewer Master Plan. Mitigation Measure Util-1: Oyster Point Subtrunk Replacement. An approximately 700-foot segment of 8-inch diameter sewer trunk from Eccles Avenue to Gull Road needs to be upsized to a 12-inch diameter trunk sewer. This segment of sewer trunk is not included in the Sewer Master Plan. The applicant / owner / sponsor shall either work with the City to include this improvement in a Sewer Master Plan update or directly fund their fair share of the improvement. Less than Significant 27   101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR  Page 3‐ 1  3 Project Description Note that Figures 3.1 through 3.5b are included together at the end of this chapter (pages 3‐5 through  3‐10).   Project Applicant Mike Sanford  Sanfo Group LLC  3351 Greenview Drive  El Dorado Hills, CA 96762  Project Objectives The City of South San Francisco has identified the following objectives for the 101 Gull Drive Project in  coordination with the applicant:  1.    Allow for development and productive use of a currently vacant lot.  2.    Construct a flexible facility that will allow for office/research & development uses that will create  quality jobs for South San Francisco residents.  3.    Build an economically viable project that will enhance property values in the City’s East of 101 area  and be consistent with the goals of the South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinances.  Location and Vicinity of the Project Project Location and Existing Uses The project site (APN 015‐082‐250) is a vacant, generally triangular‐shaped 3.8‐acre lot located in the  East of 101 area of the City of South San Francisco, California. The project proposes the construction and  operation of a 166,613 square foot office/research and development (R&D) building with adjoining  structured parking and a new driveway on Gull Drive along with mutual access easements with the  neighboring properties also connecting to Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard. Figure 3.1 shows  the project location.  The site is located along Gull Drive, but is largely separated from the roadway by a grade change and  step slope. The project site is located behind businesses fronting Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point  Boulevard and existing access easements with nearby properties would provide mutual access to  driveways on those roadways and the new driveway on Gull Drive proposed as a part of this project. The  28 Chapter 3: Project Description    Page 3‐2 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR  regional location of the project is shown in Figure 3.1, and the project parcel, including access  easements, is shown in Figure 3.2.   The site is relatively level, except along its south and east portions, which slope down at inclinations of  approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The maximum slope height is around 40 feet.   The site is generally underlain by about 10 to 55 feet of undocumented fill consisting of loose to medium  dense sandy soil and stiff to very stiff clayey soil with varying amounts of debris. The fill is around 10  feet thick at the northeast corner of the site and increases to the south and to the west, with the  thickest portion near the top of the existing slope. The fill is underlain by stiff to hard clay and sandy clay  over bedrock. Bedrock, consisting of sandstone and claystone of the Francisco Complex, was  encountered at depths ranging from 12 to 68 feet below ground surface. Bedrock generally becomes  deeper to the southwest.  Due to the steep slope of the native soil and bedrock underlying the site and the current site  topography, the depth to groundwater is variable. The depth to groundwater is approximately 30 feet  below ground surface, and the groundwater flow direction is to the southeast, generally toward the San  Francisco Bay.  The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses. During the 1950s, trash was  reportedly burned on a portion of the project site and/or burn ash dumped at the site. The trash  burning/ash dumping activities were not licensed. While the burn ash located at the project site is  assumed to be associated with activity at the now‐closed Oyster Point Landfill across Gull Drive from the  site, the project site was not used for disposal of municipal solid waste. The residual burn ash material  consists of ash, brick, concrete, metal fragments, and glass, and select metals concentrations were  reported at concentrations above industrial or commercial environmental screening levels, requiring  further action. Additionally, migration of landfill gas from the Oyster Point Landfill had historically been  a concern. Hazards and Hazardous Materials will be discussed in detail in the Environmental Impact  Report.  General Plan Designation / Zoning Business and Technology Park / Business Technology Park (BTP) Surrounding Land Uses Uses in the project vicinity include a mix of office, warehouse, corporate, commercial, and light  industrial uses in Business Technology Park zoning. The project parcel is bounded to the north, west, and  south by office/commercial and light industrial buildings and associated parking lots. Gull Drive borders  the project parcel to the east.   Four existing businesses would directly share the access driveway(s) with the project. The existing  easements are shown on Figure 3.2. Adjacent to the north of the project site is Plenty Unlimited, Inc., a  hydroponic produce company. Two buildings, together comprising the Nickell Property, sit southwest of  the Plenty Unlimited building across the mutually‐accessible 30‐foot driveway to Eccles Avenue. The  Nickell Property includes several office complexes and a wholesale business (MTC Trading Company).  Both the Nickell and Plenty Unlimited properties have direct connections from their parking lots to the  Eccles Avenue driveway.   29  Chapter 3: Project Description    101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 3‐3  On the other side of the Plenty Unlimited building to the east is Iron Mountain, a records storage and  document shredding facility. This property is separated from Plenty Unlimited by two parallel  approximately 30‐foot drive aisles (both owned by Plenty Unlimited, but grade separated such that they  are separate aisles), which intersect with Oyster Point Boulevard east of the signalized intersection with  Eccles Avenue and the signalized intersection with a driveway to the north.   A mutual access easement also runs along the northwest border of the project site and the USDA facility  to the southwest of the project site, allowing access around the back of the Plenty Unlimited and Iron  Mountain properties and, if the project is implemented, to Gull Drive via the proposed new driveway.  Project Description Overview and Building Massing The proposed project would involve construction of a new 166,613‐square‐foot (sf), 7‐story, office /  research and development (R&D) building and an attached 4.5‐story 419‐stall parking garage. Site  improvements would also include open space, landscaping, outdoor seating areas, pedestrian walkways,  and vehicular circulation elements, including a connection to Gull Drive for the mutual access easements  in the vicinity (see above).   The exterior office/R&D building design would include fiber cement panels and colored glass with metal  louvers and overhangs and would reach heights of 115.5 feet tall to the top of the parapet, with  allowable rooftop elements up to 128 feet. The parking garage would reach heights of 44 feet tall.   The project site plan is shown in Figure 3.3, and the grading and drainage plan is shown in Figure 3.4.  Building elevations are shown in Figures 3.5a and 3.5b.  Access & Parking Vehicular access to and from the project would be via three routes (all of which have mutual access  easements with nearby properties per discussion above):   A new right‐in/right‐out only driveway on Gull Drive (which would require recording a new access  easement over a sliver of City‐owned land).      Along the shared drive aisle heading southwest from the site then  along  an  existing  driveway  between  the  Plenty  Unlimited  and  Nickell  properties  to  connect with  Eccles  Avenue  at  an  unsignalized intersection.      Along one of the two adjacent 30‐foot drive aisle easements between the Plenty Unlimited and Iron  Mountain  buildings  to  Oyster  Point  Boulevard.  While  the  intersection of these driveways with  Oyster Point Boulevard is not signalized and would be limited to right‐in, right‐out movements by  existing  medians  on  Oyster  Point  Boulevard,  it  is  possible  for vehicles  to  access  the  adjacent  signalized driveway intersection internally through the parking lot area for full turning options. Due  to the constraints of the connection to Oyster Point Boulevard at this access point, the project’s on‐ site circulation has been designed to discourage outbound movement along this pathway.  30 Chapter 3: Project Description    Page 3‐4 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR  The companies currently using the existing paved drive aisle along the northwestern boundary of the  existing parcel for access and circulation would continue to have the same access and rights to do so;  with development of the project, vehicles accessing the project site would also use the driveway and  drive aisles.   Construction Construction is expected to span approximately 22.5 months. Site preparation would occur in the first  1.5 months, followed by 3 months of foundation work, then 18 months of building and parking garage  construction, which would overlap with 2 months for hardscape and landscaping toward the end of that  period. This active construction period would be followed by inspections and closeout. It is expected  that future tenants would engage in additional interior build out of the space to suit their needs.  Construction activities are targeted to begin in late summer 2022 with operations beginning as early as  summer of 2024.  No substantial excavation or subsurface floors / parking is proposed. Grading would involve 18,440 cubic  yards of cut across the site. Some of that would be balanced on site, with a net import of 1,780 cubic  yards and export of 16,460 cubic yards. Drilled piles are proposed for building support that would be  drilled down to bedrock (approximately 15 to 60 feet). To address the stability of the slope along the  south and east portions of the site, design‐level geotechnical recommendations would include a  combination of additional rows of piles, ground improvement and/or tighter spacing of piles.  Depth to groundwater is approximately 30 feet below the ground surface (of the development portion  of the site, not the slope), and dewatering is not anticipated during foundation work.  Project Approvals Development of the project would require the following approvals from the City of South San Francisco:  Conditional Use Permit (Parking/Loading Reduction, Incentive‐Based Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus,  Parking Garage Rooftop Planting), Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Program. The  project would also require the City to grant  an easement for vehicular ingress and egress to Gull Drive.  Because the project is located in the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan  area, the project would be subject to Airport Land Use Commission review and approval.  The project is required to comply with Municipal Regional Permit requirements related to stormwater  pollution prevention.     31  Chapter 3: Project Description    101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 3‐5                                                Figure 3.1: Project Location   Source: Fehr & Peers, for this project analysis  32  Page 3‐6 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR                 Figure 3.2: Existing Conditions and Access Easements Source: Source: Project Plan Set, dated 10/8/2021 33  Chapter 3: Project Description  101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 3‐7                 Figure 3.3: Illustrative Site Plan Source: Source: Project Plan Set, dated 10/8/2021    34  Page 3‐8 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR                 Figure 3.4: Grading and Drainage Plan Source: Source: Project Plan Set, dated 10/8/2021    35  Chapter 3: Project Description  101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 3‐9                 Figure 3.5a: Exterior Elevations ‐ Northeast Source: Source: Project Plan Set, dated 10/8/2021 36  Page 3‐10 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR                 Figure 3.5b: Exterior Elevations ‐ South Source: Source: Project Plan Set, dated 10/8/2021 37 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 4-1 4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Introduction A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. This chapter utilizes information from the following reports prepared for this project or analysis: Langan Engineering and Environmental (Langan) was contracted to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the project site. Information is from their report dated December 22, 2020, included as Attachment C to this document. Environmental Setting Site Use History The project site is historically undeveloped land on a hillside along the western margin of the San Francisco Bay. In the early 1900s, as part of modifications being made to the coastline of the Bay, fill material was placed on the project site. During the 1950s, a portion of the site was used as a burn dump, with those operations ceasing before the end of that decade. Additional fill material was placed over the burn ash material to raise the project site to the current grades. Based on review of aerial photos, the project site appears to have been graded to the current configuration by the 1980s. The project site has remained undeveloped, vacant land. Current Site Use and Potential Contamination The top layer of soil at the site consists of undocumented fill material ranging from approximately 10 to 20 feet thick. A layer of burn ash material underlies the fill, ranging from 10 to 25 feet thick, with native clays and silts, followed by bedrock, below that. Soil sampling found elevated concentrations of metals in the burn ash material, including arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc. These levels exceeded the applicable environmental screening levels (ESLs) allowed for commercial shallow soil. Testing on the undocumented fill above the burn ash found concentrations of arsenic and lead above the ESLs allowed for commercial shallow soil and antimony, arsenic, chromium VI, cobalt, and lead at levels above those allowed for residential shallow soil but below the ESLs for commercial shallow soil. The presence of lead in multiple shallow soil samples is likely at concentrations that could potentially be classified as hazardous waste if exported from the property for off-site disposal. 38 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page 4-2 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR A soil vapor investigation conducted in 2006, detected methane at the site at concentrations up to 41% by volume, exceeding the limits of 5% at the property perimeter and 1.25% within on-site structures set by the San Mateo County Health Services Division (SMCEHD) Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) per California Code of Regulations Title 27 (27 CCR) §20921. The highest concentrations of methane were found in the northeastern corner of the project site, which is across Gull Drive from property identified as formerly part of Oyster Point Landfill. Benzene and vinyl chloride were also detected in soil vapor at concentrations above both residential and commercial vapor intrusion ESLs. Groundwater sampling conducted between 2008 and 2009 found that the shallow groundwater at the project site appears to have been impacted with metals consistent with the presence of burn ash material below the water table. One well also found low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. The project site (combined with the adjacent parcel at the time) was listed in the RWQCB Geotracker database under the name “560 Eccles” with a status of “Informational Item as of 12/13/2018” and case number T10000012436. The records available on Geotracker were related to the abandonment of the former groundwater monitoring wells. The project site is also listed in the CalRecycle SWIS database as a former “Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility” under the name “USDA Building (41-CR-0028)” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” Other Contamination in the Vicinity Most of the nearby listings of off-site property were either closed by the regulatory agency, located in a direction from the project site that is inferred to be hydrologically down-gradient, a significant distance away, and/or otherwise determined in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Attachment C) not to have a potential impact on the project site. The following properties remain of environmental interest with respect to contamination at the project site. ● The USDA building owned by SMPO ELS, LLC at 560 Eccles Avenue is the western adjoining property and inferred to be hydrologically up- to cross- gradient. The building has a valid permit for the storage of small quantities of diesel fuel in an aboveground storage tank for a backup generator. There have been no violations, spills, or releases from the facility operations noted. ● The property at 336 Oyster Point Boulevard is the northern/western adjoining property and inferred to be hydrologically up- to cross- gradient. The site is a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup site (SWRCB Case #T0608100451) with a status of “Completed- Case Closed as of 11/14/1995” and notes that a 2,000-gallon diesel underground storage tank was removed in 1987 and, while petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in groundwater, that a No Further Action (NFA) letter was issued in 1995 indicating that no further monitoring of the groundwater was required due to the low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater and lack of technically feasible remediation. Therefore, due to the NFA determination, this property is not considered an environmental concern for the project site. ● The property at 349 Oyster Point Boulevard is approximately 350 feet northwest of the project site and inferred to be hydrologically up- to cross- gradient. The site was formerly occupied by a metal reclamation plant which operated between 1907 and 1987. It is a LUST cleanup site (SWRCB Case #T0608114784) with a status of “Completed- Case Closed as of 7/17/2001” and as a cleanup program site under the name “Wildberg Brothers” with case number T10000008176 and a status of “Completed - Case Closed as of 3/21/2018.” Alternative case numbers for the property are San Mateo County LOP case number 559014 and RWQCB case numbers 41-1115 39 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 4-3 and 41S0028. The property is also listed in the DTSC Envirostor database as a voluntary cleanup site under the name “Wildberg Brothers (Boliden Metech)” with case number 41330049 and a status of “Certified as of 11/30/1987.” Testing over the years found relatively high concentrations of lead in some samples from that site, leading to the removal of affected site soils in October 1995. In November 1995, DTSC issued a NFA letter related to the lead remediation. During construction activities in 1997, soil impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons was encountered. Excavation activities were performed, removing additional impacted soil and a NFA letter was issued related to the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. Due to the NFA determinations, this property is not considered to be an environmental concern for the project site. ● The former Oyster Point Landfill is the eastern adjoining property across Gull Drive and inferred hydrologically downgradient. This property is listed in the RWQCB Geotracker database as a land disposal site under the name “Oyster Point Landfill” with case number L10009323371 and a status of “Open as of 1/1/1965.” Alternative case numbers for the property are RWQCB case number 2 417061001. The site is also listed in the CalRecycle SWIS database as a former “Solid Waste Disposal Site” under the name “So. San Francisco Municipal Dump/Oyster (41-AA-0065)” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” Redevelopment of the landfill is currently ongoing as part of a larger, multi-phase development project by the City of South San Francisco and Kilroy Realty Corporation, including multiple office/R&D buildings, infrastructure improvements, and open space areas. The current work is subject to a Final Closure Plan (FCP) and Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (PCMMP), detailing procedures for closure and long-term monitoring and maintenance of the landfill pursuant to Title 27 CCR §21190 requirements. Since the Oyster Point Landfill is downgradient of the project site, groundwater impacts are not anticipated to be a concern. However, due to the unknown extent of refuse potentially remaining in place beneath Gull Drive and further west within the eastern adjoining parcel owned by the City of South San Francisco (APN 015-190-180), and the ongoing operation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements for the perimeter landfill gas monitoring features immediately outside the eastern project site boundary, the Oyster Point Landfill is considered to be an environmental concern for the project site. Other Hazard and Hazardous Materials Issues Schools and Daycare Facilities CEQA establishes special requirements for certain projects near schools to ensure that potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, and substances will be carefully examined and disclosed in a negative declaration or EIR, and that the lead agency will consult with other agencies in this regard. There are no schools located within or near the project site, or within the entire East of 101 area. There are four daycare centers located within the East of 101 area, including: ● Gateway Child Development Center at 559 Gateway Boulevard ● Genentech’s Cabot 2nd Generation at 342 Allerton Avenue ● Genentech’s 2nd Generation at 444 Allerton Avenue 40 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page 4-4 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR ● Early Years Preschool at 371 Allerton Avenue All of these daycare centers are farther than one-quarter mile from the project site. Airports Aviation safety hazards can result if projects are located near airports. The public airport located nearest to the project site is San Francisco International Airport (SFO), located approximately 2 miles south of the project site. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity. Wildland Fires The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazard based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors (PRC 4201-4204 and Govt. Code 51175-89). Factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to fire hazards include slope, vegetation type and condition, and atmospheric conditions. The CAL FIRE San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map does not identify any very high or high zones of fire hazard severity in the vicinity of the project site. Regulatory Setting Adoption of and development pursuant to the project is subject to government health and safety regulations applicable to the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. This section provides an overview of the health and safety regulatory framework that is potentially applicable to the project. Federal Hazardous Materials Management The primary federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Federal laws, regulations and responsible agencies are summarized below and are discussed in detail in this section. The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 imposes requirements to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of and to prevent or mitigate injury to human health or the environment in the event that materials are accidently released. Hazardous Materials Site Listings The National Priorities List (NPL) is a compilation of over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Federal Superfund Program. The Proposed National Priorities List identifies sites considered for NPL listing. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) system contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the US EPA by California. CERCLIS contains sites that are proposed or are on the NPL, and sites that are in the screening and assessment phase. 41  Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials  101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 4‐5  Hazardous Waste Handling Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the US EPA regulates the generation,  transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Act  amended RCRA in 1984. The amendments specifically prohibit the use of certain techniques for the  disposal of hazardous waste.   Hazardous Materials Transportation The US Department of Transportation (DOT) has the regulatory responsibility for the safe transportation  of hazardous materials. The DOT regulations govern all means of transportation except packages  shipped by mail (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)). The US Postal Service (USPS) regulations govern  the transportation of hazardous materials shipped by mail.  Occupational Safety The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Fed/OSHA) sets standards for safe workplaces and  work practices, including the reporting of accidents and occupational injuries (29 CFR).  Aviation Safety and Aviation Hazards The closest airport to the project site is the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), approximately 2  miles to the south. The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San  Francisco International Airport (ALUCP) is used by the City/County Association of Governments of San  Mateo County (C/CAG) to promote compatibility between SFO and surrounding land uses. The project  site is subject to Federal Aviation Regulations and the SFO ALUCP, which provides policies and  regulations pertaining to land use that may affect, or be affected by airport operations, including  restrictions for the height of structures within the ALUCP area and/or elements that may affect normal  aviation operations or that could create a safety hazard for aircraft.  State of California Primary state agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous chemical materials management are the  Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).  Additional state agencies are also involved in hazardous materials management. These agencies include  Cal/OSHA (which is part of the Department of Industrial Relations), State Office of Emergency Services  (OES), California Air Resources Board (CARB), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD),  California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Highway Patrol (CHP), State Office of  Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the California Integrated Waste Management  Board (CIWMB).  In January 1996, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) adopted regulations  implementing a Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program  (Unified Program). The program has six elements:   ● Hazardous waste generators and hazardous waste on‐site treatment;   ● Underground storage tanks;   ● Aboveground storage tanks;   42 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page 4-6 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR ● Hazardous materials release response plans and inventories; ● Risk management and prevention programs; and ● Unified Fire Code, hazardous materials management plans, and inventories. The Unified Program is implemented at the local level. The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is the local agency that is responsible for the implementation of the Unified Program. In South San Francisco, the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) is the designated CUPA. Hazardous Materials Management The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act) requires that any business that handles hazardous materials prepare a business plan, which must include the following: ● Details, including floor plans, of the facility and business conducted at the site; ● An inventory of hazardous materials that are handled or stored on site; ● An emergency response plan; and ● A training program for safety and emergency response for new employees, with annual refresher courses The California Hazardous Materials Incident Report System (CHMIRS) provides information regarding spills and other incidents gathered from the California Office of Emergency Services. Hazardous Waste Handling The DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. State and federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and, in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. Laws and regulations require hazardous materials users to store these materials appropriately and to train employees to manage them safely. Under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), individual states may implement their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of RCRA, as long as the state program is at least as stringent as federal RCRA requirements. In California, the DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. The hazardous waste regulations establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribe management of hazardous waste; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal and transportation; and identify hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills. Hazardous Materials Transportation The State of California has adopted DOT regulations for the intrastate movement of hazardous materials. State regulations are contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which includes requirements applicable to the transportation of hazardous waste originating in the State and 43 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 4-7 passing through the State. The two state agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Occupational Safety The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in California. Because California has a federally approved OSHA program, it is required to adopt regulations that are at least as stringent as those found in Title 29 of the CFR. Cal/OSHA standards are sometimes, but not always, more stringent than federal regulations. Cal/OSHA Title 8 regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace require employee safety training, safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention planning. Cal/OSHA enforces regulations for hazard communication programs, which contain training and information requirements, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, and communicating hazard information relating to hazardous substances and their handling. The hazard communication program also requires that Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) be available to employees, and that employee information and training programs be documented. These regulations also require preparation of emergency action plans (escape and evacuation procedures, rescue and medical duties, alarm systems, and training in emergency evacuation). Cal/OSHA (8 CCR), like Fed/OSHA (29 CFR), includes extensive, detailed requirements for worker protection applicable to any activity that could disturb asbestos-containing materials, including maintenance, renovation, and demolition. These regulations are also designed to ensure that persons working near the maintenance, renovation or demolition activity are not exposed to asbestos. Emergency Response California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state and local government and private agencies. Responding to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the State Office of Emergency Services (OES), which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including Cal EPA, CHP, CDFG, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB and the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD). The SSFFD provides first response capabilities, if needed, for hazardous materials emergencies within the East of 101 Area. Additional Regulatory Setting Specific to Life Sciences Facilities While the exact tenant or tenants of the proposed building have not yet been identified, the following regulations are listed as they are potentially applicable to R&D/life sciences types of facilities depending on the specifics of the operations therein. Microbiological, Biomedical and Animal Laboratories The United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) prescribe containment and handling practices for use in microbiological, biomedical, and animal laboratories. Based on the potential for transmitting biological agents, the rate of transmission of these agents, and the quality and concentrations of 44 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page 4-8 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR biological agents produced at a laboratory, Biosafety Levels are defined for four tiers of relative hazards. Biosafety Level 1 (BSL-1) is for the least hazardous biological agents, and Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) is for the most hazardous biological agents. Biosafety Levels for infectious agents are based on the characteristics of the agent (virulence, ability to cause disease, routes of exposure, biological stability and communicability), the quantity and concentration of the agent, the procedures to be followed in the laboratory, and the availability of therapeutic measures and vaccines. Federal and state laws, such as the Animal Welfare Act, specify standards for record keeping and the registration, handling, care, treatment and transportation of animals. Such laws are enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Health Services (DHS). Medical wastes must be managed as a biohazardous material, in accordance with Section 117635 of the California Health and Safety Code. The management of biohazardous materials must comply with USDHHS guidelines and DHS regulations pertaining to such materials. Biohazardous medical waste is generally regulated in the same manner as hazardous waste, except that special provisions apply to storage, disinfection, containment and transportation. The DHS Medical Waste Management Program enforces the Medical Waste Management Act and related regulations. Radioactive Materials Regulations The Atomic Energy Act (42U.S.C. Sections 2011- 2259) (AEA) ensures the proper management of source, special nuclear, and by-product material. The AEA, and the statutes that amended it, delegate the control of nuclear energy primarily to the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The California Radiation Control Law (California Health & Safety Code Sections 114960-114985) is a regulatory program designed to provide for compatibility with the standards and regulatory programs of the federal government and integrate an effective system of regulation within the state. The program regulates sources of ionizing radiation and establishes procedures for performance of certain regulatory responsibilities with respect to the use and regulation of radiation sources. These laws and regulations govern the receipt, storage, use, transportation and disposal of sources of ionizing radiation (radioactive material) and protect the users of these materials and the public from radiation hazards. Local San Mateo County Health Department As noted above, the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division is the primary local agency approved as the CUP) with responsibility for implementing federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials management. The Unified Program is the consolidation of six state environmental regulatory programs into one program under the authority of a CUPA. This program was established under the amendments to the California Health and Safety Code made by SB 1082 in 1994. The six consolidated programs are: ● Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory (Business Plans) ● California Accidental Release Program (CalARP) ● Hazardous Waste (including Tiered Permitting) 45 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 4-9 ● Underground Storage Tanks ● Above Ground Storage Tanks, and ● Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Hazardous Materials Identification System As the local CUPA, the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division maintains the records regarding location and status of hazardous materials sites in the county, and administers programs that regulate and enforce the transport, use, storage, manufacturing and remediation of hazardous materials. By designating a CUPA, San Mateo County has accurate and adequate information to plan for emergencies and/or disasters, and to plan for public and firefighter safety. A Participating Agency (PA) is a local agency that has been designated by the local CUPA to administer one or more Unified Programs within their jurisdiction, on behalf of the CUPA. The City of South San Francisco Fire Department maintains a special program that regulates hazardous materials through disclosure and risk management plans, as well as referrals to the County of San Mateo for above ground storage tanks. Thus, the City of South San Francisco Fire Department is a PA with the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division as the CUPA. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The City of South San Francisco General Plan describes goals and policies that address the patterns of urban and industrial development in South San Francisco that may pose risks to human health and property. The goals and policies of the General Plan Safety Element are intended to acknowledge and mitigate the risk posed by such hazards. Pertinent Safety Element policies are listed below: ● Policy 8.3-G-2: Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage and transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use and handling of hazardous substances as established by federal (US EPA), State (DTSC, RWQCB, Cal OSHA, Cal EPA), and local (County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco) regulations. ● Policy 8.3-I-2: Continue to maintain hazardous waste regulations in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. ● Policy 8.3-I-3: Prepare a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coverage for the sites included in the Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. ● Policy 8.3-I-4: Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting hazardous materials. ● Policy 8.4-I-3: Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and adequate access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire within the City. ● Policy 8.6-I-1: Maintain and update the City’s Emergency Response Plan, as required by State law, to minimize the risk to life and property of seismic and geologic hazards, flooding, hazardous materials and waste, and fire. 46 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page 4-10 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR ● Policy 8.6-I-3: Coordinate regular emergency drills with emergency organizations, including City and County Fire, Police, Emergency Medical Services, and Public Works; San Francisco International Airport; and California Environmental Protection Agency. ● Policy 8.7-I-1: Do not permit land uses that pose potential hazards to air navigation in the vicinity of SFO. These land uses include the following: 1. Any use that would direct a steady or flashing light of white, red, green or amber color towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward a landing, other than FAA-approved navigational lights; 2. Any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing; 3. Any use that would generate smoke or rising columns of air; 4. Any use that would attract large concentrations of birds within approach and climb-out areas; and 5. Any use that would engage electrical interference that may interfere with aircraft communications or aircraft instrumentation. East of 101 Area Plan (adopted 1994) The project site is also located within the East of 101 Area Plan planning area, which provides a detailed implementation guide for the area. The East of 101 Area Plan is principally used to provide direction related to project design and certain other facets of development in the area not otherwise covered in the General Plan or other City plans. Some of the policies in the East of 101 Area Plan related to hazards and hazardous concerns are listed below. ● Policy L1U9: Uses that emit loud noise or create hazardous materials, water contaminants or other pollutants shall only be allowed in the East of 101 Area after review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission must find, in addition to any other required findings, that a proposed use would include all feasible measures to mitigate such adverse impacts and that the use would also have mitigating benefits such as employment creation or revenue generation. ● Policy L2U3: Maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights established by the Airport Land Use Commission based on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Criteria. ● Policy L3U1: No new above ground, bulk fuel tanks are permitted after July 25, 1994. Any above ground fuel tanks that lawfully existed prior to July 1994 may be maintained but may not be replaced or expanded. ● Policy G5EO: If hazardous fill such as garbage organics is encountered, it shall be appropriately disposed by a project developer during construction. This material shall not be used for either structural fill or grading fill. However, other uses may be possible such as landscaping around 47 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 4-11 vegetation if the fill has a high organic content. If no acceptable use is found on-site, the hazardous fill should be properly disposed off-site. South San Francisco Municipal Code The South San Francisco Municipal Code includes regulatory requirements addressing use and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. These regulatory requirements include the following: Chapter 14.04 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ● Section 14.04.320, Coordination with hazardous materials inventory and response program: The first revision of a business plan for any facility subject to the city’s hazardous materials inventory and response program shall include a program for compliance with this chapter, including the prohibitions on non-stormwater discharges and illicit discharges, and the requirement to reduce stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Chapter 14.08 Water Quality Control ● Section 14.08.170, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements for permittee: All industrial users discharging any substance which, if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous or acutely hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261, must comply with the notification requirements in 40 CFR 403.12(p)(1) and (3) unless exempted under the provisions of 40 CFR 403.12(p)(2). Any written notification required by this subsection shall be provided to the city, the EPA Regional Waste Management Division Director and state hazardous waste authorities. The industrial user shall certify that it has a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of hazardous wastes generated to the degree it has determined to be economically practical. The city may accept a copy of a hazardous waste reduction or minimization plan otherwise required by law, as compliance with this requirement. ● Section 14.08.210, General discharge regulations: It is unlawful to discharge or cause to be discharged directly or indirectly, any pollutant or wastewater into any storm sewer or into any sewage facility that will interfere with the operation or performance or pass through of the POTW. These general prohibitions apply to all users whether or not the user is subject to categorical pretreatment standards or any other national, state, or local pretreatment standards or requirements. The discharge of the following is prohibited: 1. Wastes or wastewater containing any radioactive materials except in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations; 2. Any pesticides containing algaecides, antibiotics, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides or any similar pesticides in amounts deleterious to any sewage treatment process or to the aquatic life of the waters receiving the effluent; and 3. Any wastewater or pollutant that results in the presence of toxic gases, vapors or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker or public health or safety problems. 48 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page 4-12 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant hazards and hazardous materials impact if it would do any of the following. • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. • 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. • Emit hazardous emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • 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, if the project results in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. • Impair implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Routine Transport, Use, Disposal or Storage of Hazardous Materials Impact Haz-1: Routine Use of Hazardous Materials. With compliance with applicable regulations, the project would not expose employees, the nearby public, or the environment to significant hazards due to the routine transport, use, disposal, or storage of hazardous materials (including chemical, radioactive and biohazardous waste). (Less than Significant) Construction at the project site would involve small amounts of hazardous materials routinely used in construction, such as fuels, paints, and solvents. The proposed project would result in development and operation of an office and R&D building which may include laboratories and other research facilities that are likely to use, store or require the transportation and disposal of hazardous materials, depending on the particulars of the future tenant(s). The amount and type of hazardous materials may vary over time, with changes in research and additions to hazardous materials lists. These hazardous materials may include inorganic and organic chemicals, chemical reagents and reaction products, solvents, mercury, lead, asbestos, radioisotopes, biohazards, fuels, oils, paints, cleansers, and pesticides. 49 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 4-13 For the handling of hazardous materials during operations, the facility would be required to adhere to all applicable state and local regulations, seek consultation with the SMCEHD, and apply for applicable permits. In addition, registration of the materials through the SMCEHD Hazardous Material Business Plan Program would be required to ensure safe and responsible handling. Additionally, hazardous chemicals that are typical in office settings (e.g., toners, paints, kitchen and restroom cleaners, and other maintenance materials) would likely also be used. Landscaping and maintenance on the project site would require the use of a wide variety of commercial products that are formulated with hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, cleaners and degreasers, solvents, paints, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides). Such materials are considered common and are unlikely to be stored or used in large quantities. Any spills involving these materials would be small and localized and would be cleaned up as they occur. The City requires that building spaces be designed to handle the intended uses, with sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment structures, in accordance with the guidelines laid out in the City’s Fire Code. Compliance with state and local regulations would ensure that buildings are equipped with safety measures including sprinklers, alarms, etc., to minimize potential impacts of the presence of hazardous materials. The City further requires that upon completion of the construction of the proposed building, occupancy is not allowed until a final inspection is made by the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) for conformance of all building systems with the City’s Fire Code and National Fire Protection Association requirements. The inspection includes a review of the emergency evacuation plans. Finally, compliance with the California Department of Transportation regulations would ensure that all necessary safety precautions would be taken during transport of hazardous materials during all phases of the project. Therefore, with compliance with applicable regulations, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation and this impact would be less than significant. Hazardous Materials Site and Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Impact Haz-2: Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials. Through compliance with applicable regulations, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project construction and operation would involve the routine transport, use, disposal, and/or storage of hazardous materials. Impacts related to such routine handling are addressed above. The project site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and is adjacent to the now-closed Oyster Point Landfill. Hazardous materials upset or accident could have the potential to occur related to these hazardous materials concerns as described below. As detailed in the Phase I Environmental Site Investigation and summarized above, site contamination concerns include a layer of burn ash with elevated concentrations of metals and the possible presence of methane in the soil vapor due to migration of landfill gas from the former Oyster Point Landfill to the east. 50 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page 4-14 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR A closure/post-closure development plan (PCMP) is in place at the project site. The project requires approval from the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health, which will include an amended PCMP to reflect the proposed development at the site. Consistent with the current PCMP, an amended PCMP will include measures designed to minimize potential exposure of workers and building occupants to contaminated soils and vapor during and after site development. This is likely to be achieved generally through capping site soils with asphalt, concrete and vegetative barriers; installation of a vapor barrier and venting system below the building foundation to address the potential for migration onto the site of combustible vapor; and implementation of safety measures for soil handling during construction. Project construction activities have the potential to result in the release of contaminated soils and project operation has the potential to bring site users into contact with contaminated soils and combustible vapors. This impact is considered potentially significant and requires mitigation consistent with an approved amended PCMP, and as also listed in the measure below. Mitigation Measure Haz-2: Adherence to Remediation Measures. The applicant or the project sponsor shall ensure that project design and construction incorporate the recommended remediation measures in an Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) approved by the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health, to avoid or reduce the hazards related to the presence of hazardous materials (burn ash) and combustible vapor at this site. The remediation measures are anticipated to include the following, based on measures contained in the current PCMP: • Placement of cap throughout the development area consistent with the final cover / capping plan in an approved Amended PCMP. • Installation of building combustible gas protection and monitoring features to consist of a subfloor vapor barrier and passive venting system, and interior alarm system, unless determined not to be necessary (due to vapor levels following current removal of landfill materials from nearby portions of the Oyster Point Landfill). • Adhering to applicable provisions of the existing Risk Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan for soil handling during excavations for utility trenches, foundations, and other site work. • Adherence to water conservation standards for landscaping and irrigation to reduce or eliminate the potential for water infiltration into underlying contaminated soil layers. Consistent with conclusions under the current PCMP, compliance with an amended PCMP would result in human health and ecological risk evaluations during both construction and operations to be insignificant assuming implementation of identified measures into the proposed project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-2, the impact relating to a hazardous material site and the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Emissions of Hazardous Materials near a School There are no existing schools within one-quarter mile of the project site and none within the East of 101 Area. There are no childcare facilities within one-quarter mile of the project site. The closest daycare centers are approximately 0.5 miles from the project site, including the Cabot 2nd Generation at 342 Allerton Avenue and the 2nd Generation at 444 Allerton Avenue, as well as the private Early Years 51 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 4-15 Preschool at 371 Allerton Avenue. The project would have no impact with respect to hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school. Hazardous Materials Site The project site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Because the contamination at the site represents potential impacts related to upset and accident conditions during site construction, these criteria are assessed together under Impact Haz- 2 above. Safety Hazards Related to a Public or Private Airport or Airstrip Impact Haz-3: Development within Airport Land Use Plan Boundaries. The proposed project is located within the Airport Land Use Plan boundaries of San Francisco International Airport (SFO), but the project would comply with applicable regulations including required consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration prior to construction and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working at the project site. (Less than Significant) The project site is within the boundary of the SFO ALUCP and as such, the compatibility criteria contained within the ALUCP are applicable to development at the project site. Most of the East of 101 Area, including the project site, is located outside of the ALUCP-designated Safety Compatibility zone that would have restricted types of uses, but within Airport Land Use Compatibility Area B, which requires Airport Land Use Commission review of land development proposals, such as the proposed project to confirm compatibility with airport uses and airspace safety. Development on the project site is limited to heights between 200 and 250 feet above mean sea level according to the ALUCP but could be modified through consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The proposed project rooftop elements would reach up to 128 feet above ground level on a site that is approximately 60 feet above mean sea level for a total height above mean sea level of approximately 188 feet. Thus, the project would be consistent with height limitations identified in the ALUCP. Notification and consultation with the Airport Land Use Commission would be required under CFR part 77.9 and would ensure that the project is compatible with the SFO ALUCP. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 1 Impairment or Interference with an Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan Impact Haz-4: Temporary Construction Obstructions. The proposed project would not result in permanent changes to the roadway system or otherwise result in changes to area emergency response or evacuation plans. No substantial construction-period roadway obstruction is planned and any temporary construction obstructions would follow appropriate procedures. (Less than Significant) 1 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, including Exhibit IV-14 . Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf 52 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page 4-16 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access to the site or surrounding area. Vehicular access to and from the project would be via two existing mutual access easements with nearby properties and one additional new access to Gull Drive, which would be available via a mutual access easement to nearby properties, providing an additional point of ingress/egress to all nearby properties. The proposed project would be designed to comply with the California Fire Code and the City Fire Marshal’s code requirements that require on site access for emergency vehicles, a standard condition for any new project approval. No substantial obstruction in public rights-of-way has been proposed with the project’s construction activities. However, any construction activities can result in temporary intermittent roadway obstructions, but these would be handled through standard procedures with the City to ensure adequate clearance is maintained. Therefore, with compliance with applicable regulations and standard procedures, the impact with respect to impairment or interference with an Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan would be less than significant. Wildland Fires The project site is a highly developed industrial area, and no wildlands are intermixed within this industrial area. The closest wildlands area is San Bruno Mountain County Park located approximately one mile away. The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks of any nature, would not substantially impair an adopted emergency evacuation plan or emergency response plan, and it not located in or near a Local or State Responsibility area with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation. The project is not susceptible to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there would be no impact in this regard.2 Cumulative Hazards Risks The project, when combined with other past, present, existing, approved, pending and reasonably foreseeable development in the vicinity, would not result in significant cumulative hazards. With implementation of applicable regulatory requirements, cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. Cumulative health and safety impacts could occur if off-site hazards related to the project were to interact with or combine with similar effect of other cumulative development within the East of 101 Area. These impacts could only occur through limited mechanisms: air emissions, transport of hazardous materials and waste, inadvertent release of hazardous materials to the sewer or non-hazardous waste landfill, and potential accidents that require hazardous materials emergency response capabilities. Because cumulative land use in the East of 101 Area relies on the same roads to be used by the project, the project would contribute to a cumulative increase in the amount of hazardous materials transported to and from the area. Cumulative increases in the transportation of hazardous materials and wastes 2 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building- codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones- maps/. 53 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 4-17 would not be significant because the probability of accidents is relatively low due to stringent regulations that apply to transport, use and storage of hazardous materials. The project, in combination with other development in the East of 101 Area would add to cumulative traffic congestion on those roadways used for evacuation. Traffic congestion during an evacuation event is inevitable, but the roadway system in the East of 101 Area allows for multiple possible evacuation routes in the case of an emergency. For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, and with compliance with identified regulation and project-specific mitigation, would not result in additional significant cumulative hazards or hazardous materials impacts. 54 Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Page 4‐18 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR                        This page intentionally left blank.    55 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 5-1 5 Transportation Introduction This chapter of the EIR evaluates the potential impacts of the project related to transportation. It has been prepared in coordination with Fehr & Peers. Environmental Setting Roadway Facilities The project site is located on the west side of Gull Drive near Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue in the City of South San Francisco’s East of 101 employment area. Regional access to the project site is provided via U.S. Route 101 (U.S. 101) accessed via Oyster Point Boulevard to the north and East Grand Avenue via Eccles Avenue or Forbes Boulevard to the south. Figure 5.1 shows the project location and the surrounding roadway and transit system. Project site vehicular access is provided via a new two-way driveway on Gull Drive to the east, an easement to Oyster Point Boulevard to the north (via 340 Oyster Point Boulevard), and an easement to Eccles Avenue to the west (via 570-590 Eccles Avenue). • U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway and principal north-south roadway connection between San Francisco, San José, and intermediate San Francisco Peninsula cities. In South San Francisco, U.S. 101 is located approximately one mile west of the project site and serves the East of 101 area with three primary access points. Near the project site, U.S. 101 carries about 220,000 vehicles per day and defines the East of 101 area’s western edge and barrier to east-west bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Access points are listed below: o Oyster Point Boulevard: Northbound on- and off-ramps intersect Dubuque Avenue at and immediately south of Oyster Point Boulevard. Southbound on-ramps are at Dubuque Avenue, adjacent to the northbound off-ramp. The southbound off-ramp intersects Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard as the intersection’s fifth leg. o East Grand Avenue: Northbound off-ramps are at East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way and on-ramps are to the west at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard. Southbound off-ramps are at Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue. There is no southbound freeway access at this location. o South Airport Boulevard: Northbound on- and off-ramps are at South Airport Boulevard/ Wondercolor Lane; southbound on- and off-ramps are immediately south of the San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard intersection. • Gull Drive is a two-lane road connecting Oyster Point Boulevard with Forbes Boulevard and provides direct vehicular access to the project site. It has Class II bicycle lanes and is signalized where it connects to Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard. 56 Chapter 5: Transportation Page 5-2 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR • Eccles Avenue is a two-lane roadway connecting Oyster Point Boulevard on the north and Forbes Boulevard on the south. Signalized at both Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard, Eccles Avenue has no street parking. The project site can be accessed from Eccles Avenue via an easement driveway. • Oyster Point Boulevard is an east-west arterial street that connects U.S. 101 with the Oyster Point Marina. It has mostly four travel lanes between Gull Drive and U.S. 101. The project site could be accessed from Oyster Point Boulevard via an easement driveway. • Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane street extending north from East Grand Avenue, then running east into the Genentech campus, terminating at DNA Way. East of Allerton Avenue, Forbes Boulevard has two lanes and Class II buffered bicycle lanes. There is not direct driveway access from the project site to Forbes Boulevard. • East Grand Avenue is an east-west arterial street. It has six travel lanes west of Gateway Boulevard, four travel lanes east of Gateway Boulevard, and two travel lanes east of Haskins Way. U.S. 101 freeway ramps at East Grand Avenue enable project site access from the south. Transit Facilities and Service Transit services are not located along the project’s frontage, but there are transit options within walking distance of the project site. The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal is located approximately 0.6 miles from the project site (a 10 to 15 minute walk). The South San Francisco Caltrain station and South San Francisco BART Station are farther away (approximately 1.5 miles and 4.1 miles, respectively) and no SamTrans bus service currently serves the east of U.S. 101 area in South San Francisco near the project site. The project site therefore relies on supplementary public shuttle services to connect employees with regional transit. Shuttles to BART and Caltrain operated by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org) stop about 0.2 miles from the project site on Oyster Point Boulevard. Existing transit services are shown in Figure 5.1. Regional Transit Service The following transit services operate within South San Francisco and are accessible from the project site, primarily via Commute.org shuttles. Descriptions provided in this section reflect conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in atypical travel behavior and changes to transit services. • BART provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San Francisco, and San Mateo County, connecting between San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco to the north, and Oakland, Richmond, Pittsburgh/Bay Point, Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont in the East Bay. Two BART lines serve South San Francisco Station: the Yellow Line connecting Antioch with San Francisco International Airport, and the Red Line connecting Richmond and Millbrae. Each BART line operates every 15-minutes throughout the day. • Caltrain provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San José, and limited service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains, with 23 northbound and 23 southbound weekday trains. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station provides weekday service from around 5:30 A.M. to 12:00 A.M., with approximately 30-minute headways during peak times and 60-minute headways during off-peak times. In 2022, Caltrain plans to relocate the South San Francisco Caltrain station 57 Chapter 5: Transportation 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 5-3 Figure 5.1: Project Vicinity Roadways and Transit Facilities Source: Fehr & Peers 58 Chapter 5: Transportation Page 5-4 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR several hundred feet to the south near the East Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection and provide more direct pedestrian and shuttle access to the East of 101 area via a tunnel with access at East Grand Avenue and Poletti Way. By 2024, Caltrain plans to complete its electrification project to support the operation of faster and more frequent rail service on the Peninsula. • The Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) provides weekday commuter ferry service between the Oakland/Alameda ferry terminals and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal at Oyster Point. There are three morning departures from Oakland/Alameda to South San Francisco, and three evening departures from South San Francisco to Oakland/Alameda. • SamTrans provides bus service in San Mateo County but does not serve the East of 101 employment area near the project site. Draft recommendations from the Reimagine SamTrans project call for extending Route 130 from its current terminus in downtown South San Francisco into the East of 101 area via East Grand Avenue, Gateway Boulevard, and Oyster Point Boulevard by Fall 2022; however, these recommendations have not yet been adopted. East of 101 Commuter Shuttle Service Commute.org provides weekday commute period first/last mile shuttles connecting employers with BART, Caltrain, and the ferry. Three shuttle routes serve the Oyster Point Boulevard corridor connecting to the South San Francisco BART station, the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. Shuttles have timed connections to Caltrain and ferry service, while BART shuttles meet every other peak period trains. While the closest eastbound shuttle stop to the project site is located about 0.2 mile away near the intersection of Oyster Point and Eccles Avenue, there is no corresponding westbound shuttle stop. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and pedestrian signals. Pedestrian facilities near the project site tend to serve walking trips connecting to shuttle stops, the ferry terminal, and nearby offices and businesses. The following pedestrian facilities exist near the project site: • Gull Drive has a continuous sidewalk along the east side of the street connecting Oyster Point Boulevard to Forbes Boulevard. A partial sidewalk on the west side of the street also connects the project site to Oyster Point Boulevard, but this sidewalk does not continue to Forbes Boulevard due to steep grades and a drainage culvert. • Oyster Point Boulevard has a continuous sidewalk on the southern side of the street but does not have a sidewalk on the northern side between Gull Drive and Eccles Avenue. Oyster Point Boulevard may be accessed from the project site via the western sidewalk along Gull Drive or via the western easement driveway through 340 Oyster Point Boulevard. At the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive, marked crosswalks exist on the south and east legs of the intersection. Oyster Point Boulevard provides the primary pedestrian connection to shuttle services as well as the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. • Eccles Avenue has a continuous sidewalk on the western side of the street but lacks a sidewalk on the eastern side of the street. Eccles Avenue may be accessed from the project site via the western easement driveway along 570-590 Eccles Avenue. 59 Chapter 5: Transportation 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 5-5 • Forbes Boulevard has a sidewalk on the north side of the street that connects to the sidewalk on the western side of Gull Drive. Forbes Boulevard provides pedestrian access to the northern end of the Genentech campus. • A segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail runs along the shoreline in the East of 101 area, providing a continuous off-street shared-use trail connection between Brisbane’s Sierra Point to the north and South Airport Boulevard at the San Bruno Canal to the south. Gaps in sidewalks near the project site are shown on Figure 5.2. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities consist of separated bikeways, bicycle lanes, routes, trails, and paths, as well as bicycle parking, bicycle lockers, and showers for cyclists. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities as described below. Class I—Shared-Use Pathway: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians with crossflow minimized (e.g., off-street bicycle paths). Class II—Bicycle Lanes: Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. May include a “buffer” zone consisting of a striped portion of roadway between the bicycle lane and the nearest vehicle travel lane. Class III—Bicycle Route: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, are often signed or include a striped bicycle lane. Class IV—Separated Bikeway: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. Current bicycle facilities in the project vicinity, as designated by the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and the draft Active South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (ongoing), are shown in Figure 5.2 and discussed below. • Gull Drive has Class II bicycle lanes between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard and provides bicycle connectivity between the project site to Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. • Forbes Boulevard has Class II bicycle lanes between Allerton Avenue and DNA Way. An extension of bike lanes between Eccles Avenue and Allerton Avenue is planned. • Oyster Point Boulevard has Class II bicycle lanes between Gull Drive and Gateway Boulevard. • The Bay Trail is a Class I mixed-use trail along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. 60 Chapter 5: Transportation Page 5-6 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Figure 5.2: Project Vicinity Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Source: Fehr & Peers 61 Chapter 5: Transportation 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 5-7 Bicyclists primarily access the project site from Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard via Gull Drive and Eccles Avenue. While the City continues to expand its bicycle network, the East of 101 area has historically experienced low volumes of bicyclists due to commute lengths, lack of continuous low stress bicycle facilities, lack of network connectivity to residences and transit stations, and topography. The reconstructed South San Francisco Caltrain station (currently under construction, with completion expected in 2022) features a bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing that will connect the East of 101 area to residents and transit facilities west of U.S. 101. The undercrossing represents the first non-motorized connection spanning the Caltrain and U.S. 101 corridors, which represent substantial barriers to east- west bicycle and pedestrian travel. Emergency Vehicle Access Emergency vehicles typically use major streets through the study area when heading to and from an emergency and/or an emergency facility. Arterial roadways allow emergency vehicles to travel at higher speeds and provide enough clearance space to permit other traffic to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicle and yield the right-of-way. The nearest fire station to the project is Fire Station 62 located at 249 Harbor Way, approximately 1.4 miles south of the project site. Emergency vehicle access to the project site presently occurs via easements at 570-590 Eccles Avenue and 340 Oyster Point Boulevard. Regulatory Setting Summary The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all local City streets and City-operated traffic signals within the study area. Several regional agencies, including the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), the Congestion Management Agency in San Mateo County, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), coordinate and establish funding priorities for intra-regional transportation improvement programs. Freeways serving South San Francisco (US 101, I-380 and I-280), associated local freeway ramps and local surface highway segments are under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Transit service providers such as BART, Caltrain, SamTrans, and WETA (ferry service), have jurisdiction over their respective services. State California Department of Transportation Caltrans has authority over the state highway system, including freeways, interchanges, and arterial routes. Caltrans operates and maintains state highways in the project site vicinity. The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans 2001) provides information that Caltrans uses to review impacts on state highway facilities, including freeway segments. This guidance was updated by the Local Development – Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance published in November 2016 for consistency with Senate Bill (SB) 743, described below. 62 Chapter 5: Transportation Page 5-8 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375 With the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the state committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is coordinating a response to comply with AB 32. In 2008, CARB defined its 1990 baseline level of emissions. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Proposed Scoping Plan for AB 32. This scoping plan included approval of SB 375 as the means for achieving regional transportation-related GHG targets. In 2011, CARB completed its major rulemaking for reducing GHG emissions. Rules on emissions, as well as market-based mechanisms such as the cap-and-trade program, took effect on January 1, 2012. SB 375 provides guidance regarding curbing emissions from cars and light-duty trucks to help the state comply with AB 32. There are four major components to SB 375. First, SB 375 requires regional GHG emissions targets. CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee guides the adoption of targets to be met by 2020 and 2035 for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the state. These targets, which MPOs may propose themselves, must be updated every eight years in conjunction with the revision schedule of the housing and transportation elements of local general plans. Second, MPOs are required to create a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that provides a plan for meeting regional targets. The SCS and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) must be consistent, including action items and financing decisions. If the SCS does not meet the regional target, the MPO must produce an alternative planning strategy that details an alternative plan for meeting the target. Third, SB 375 requires regional housing elements and transportation plans to be synchronized on eight-year schedules. In addition, Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation numbers must conform to the SCS. If local jurisdictions are required to rezone land as a result of changes in the housing element, rezoning must take place within three years of adoption of the housing element. Finally, MPOs must use transportation and air emissions modeling techniques that are consistent with the guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission. Regional transportation planning agencies, cities, and counties are encouraged, but not required, to use travel demand models that are consistent with California Transportation Commission guidelines. The adopted RTP, per SB 375 (Plan Bay Area 2040), is discussed below. Complete Streets (AB 1358) Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, also known as the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, requires cities and counties to include “complete street” policies in their general plans. These policies address issues regarding the safe accommodation of all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, public transit vehicles and riders, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. These policies can apply to new streets as well as the redesign of transportation corridors. Senate Bill 743 Senate Bill (SB) 743, was signed into law in 2013 and is codified in Section 21099 of the California Public Resources Code with the intent to better align CEQA transportation impact analysis practices and mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active transportation. SB 743 created several key statewide changes to CEQA, as described in the EIR sections referenced above. This discussion focusses on changes related to the assessment of transportation and parking impacts under CEQA. 63 Chapter 5: Transportation 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 5-9 As required by SB 743, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) amended CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 to provide an alternative to automobile delay, as described by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, for evaluating traffic impacts of proposed projects. The new metric, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), measures the total number of miles traveled by vehicles daily on the roadway network and thereby the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled (e.g., through GHG emissions). In other words, SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts on drivers to measuring the impact of driving on the environment, particularly as it relates to GHG emissions. Land use projects with one or more of the following characteristics would generally have lesser VMT impacts relative to projects without these characteristics: • A mix of project uses; • Support for a citywide jobs/housing balance; • Proximity to high-quality transit service; and • Locations in highly walkable or bikeable areas. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b)(1) states that lead agencies generally should presume that projects within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. This presumption would not apply, however, if project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. For transportation infrastructure projects, such as a street extension, projects that reduce or have no impact on VMT are presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. This shift in transportation impact criteria is expected to align transportation impact analysis and mitigation outcomes with state goals to reduce GHG emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active transportation. Although OPR provides recommendations for adopting new VMT analysis guidelines, lead agencies retain discretion in designing their methodology. Lead agencies must select their preferred method for estimating and forecasting VMT, their preferred significance thresholds for baseline and cumulative conditions, and the mitigation strategies they consider feasible. Lead agencies must prove that their selected analysis methodology aligns with SB 743’s goals to promote infill development, reduce GHGs, and reduce VMT. To aid in SB 743 implementation, the following state guidance has been published: • OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA • California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals • California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) Local Development–Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance, Implementing Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2015–2020 Consistent with SB 743 On June 10, 2020, the City of South San Francisco adopted Resolution 77-2020 establishing VMT thresholds and methodology effective July 1, 2020. The VMT thresholds applied in this analysis are further described in the Significance Criteria section below. 64 Chapter 5: Transportation Page 5-10 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Regional San Mateo City/County Association of Governments The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Mateo County and is authorized to set State and federal funding priorities for improvements affecting the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway system. The C/CAG-designated CMP roadway system in South San Francisco near the project site includes U.S. 101 and Interstate 380. C/CAG has adopted guidelines to reduce the number of net new vehicle trips generated by new land development. These guidelines apply to all developments that generate 100 or more net new peak hour vehicular trips on the CMP network and are subject to CEQA review. The goal of these guidelines is that developers and/or tenants will reduce demand for all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by a development. C/CAG has adopted guidelines as a part of its CMP, which are intended to reduce the regional traffic impacts of substantive new developments. The guidelines apply to all projects in San Mateo County that will generate 100 or more net new peak hour trips on the CMP network and are subject to CEQA review. C/CAG calls for projects that meet the criteria to determine if a combination of acceptable measures is possible that has the capacity to “fully reduce,” through the use of a trip credit system, the demand for net new trips that the project is anticipated to generate on the CMP roadway network (including the first 100 trips). C/CAG has published a list of mitigation options in a memorandum. South San Francisco’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance is consistent with CCAG’s ordinance, so by adhering to the City’s ordinance, the proposed project would also be compliant with CCAG’s guidelines. Local City of South San Francisco General Plan The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and policy standards. The General Plan contains a Transportation Element, which includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages to provide “Complete Streets” that are safe, comfortable, and convenient routes for walking, bicycling, and public transportation to increase use of these modes of transportation, enable active travel as part of daily activities, reduce pollution, help reduce transportation demand, and meet the needs of all users of the streets, including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, pedestrians, users of public transportation, seniors, youth, and families, while continuing to maintain a safe and effective transportation system for motorists and movers of commercial goods. The general plan includes the following policies that are applicable to transportation and circulation. • Guiding Principle 4.2-G-1: Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth and emerging employment areas such as in the East of 101 area. • Guiding Principle 4.2-G-2: Improve connections between different parts of the city. These would help integrate different parts of the city. Connections between areas west and east of U.S. 101 (currently limited to streets that provide freeway access) would also free-up capacity along streets 65  Chapter 5: Transportation  101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 5‐11  Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard that provide access to U.S. 101. (Amended by Resolution  26‐2014, adopted February 12, 2014)   Guiding Principle 4.2‐G‐8: Use the Bicycle Master Plan to identify, schedule, and implement roadway  improvements that enhance bicycle access. (Amended by Resolution 26‐2014, adopted February 12,  2014)    Guiding Principle 4.2‐G‐9: Use the Pedestrian Master Plan to identify, schedule, and implement  roadway improvements that enhance pedestrian access. (Amended by Resolution 26‐2014, adopted  February 12, 2014)   Guiding Principle 4.2‐G‐10: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the  arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various  transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle‐miles traveled.   Guiding Principle 4.2‐G‐13: Integrate Complete Streets infrastructure and design features into street  design and construction to create safe and inviting environments for people to walk, bicycle, and use  public transportation. (Amended by Resolution 136‐2014, adopted December 10, 2014)    Guiding Principle 4.2‐G‐14: Make Complete Streets practice a routine part of South San Francisco’s  everyday operations. (Amended by Resolution 136‐2014, adopted December 10, 2014)   Guiding Policy 4.3‐G‐3: In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations.   Guiding Policy 4.3‐G‐4: In partnership with the local business community, develop a transportation  systems management plan with identified trip‐reduction goals, while continuing to maintain a  positive and supportive business environment.   Implementing Policy 4.3‐I‐4: Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and  future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/ institutional uses.   Implementing Policy 4.3‐I‐11: As part of any development in Lindenville or East of 101, require  project proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for new  development and redevelopment projects.   Implementing Policy 4.3‐I‐16: Favor Transportation Systems Management programs that limit vehicle  use over those that extend the commute hour.   Implementing Policy 4.4‐I‐4: Encourage SamTrans to increase the shuttle or bus‐service to the East of  101 area to better serve the area’s growing employment base.  The City of South San Francisco is presently updating its General Plan but has not yet adopted new  transportation policies.  South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan The City’s Bicycle Master Plan identifies and prioritizes street improvements to enhance bicycle access.  The plan analyzes bicycle demand and gaps in bicycle facilities and recommends improvements and  programs for implementation as described in the policy below.  66 Chapter 5: Transportation  Page 5‐12 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR   Policy 3.2‐1: All development projects shall be required to conform to the Bicycle Transportation  Plan goals, policies and implementation measures.  The City’s Pedestrian Master Plan identifies and prioritizes street improvements to enhance pedestrian  access. The plan analyzes pedestrian demand and gaps in pedestrian facilities and recommends  improvements and programs for implementation. The Pedestrian Master Plan establishes the following  policy related to the project:   Policy 3.2: Pedestrian facilities and amenities should be provided at schools, parks, and transit stops,  and shall be required to be provided at private developments, including places of work, commercial  shopping establishments, parks, community facilities and other pedestrian destinations.  The City is currently updating both the Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan via the Active  South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.  South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance The City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which is specified in Title 20 of the  City’s Municipal Code in Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, seeks to reduce the  amount of traffic generated by nonresidential development and minimize drive‐alone commute trips.  The ordinance establishes a performance target of 28 percent minimum alternative mode share for all  nonresidential projects resulting in more than 100 average daily trips and identifies higher thresholds for  projects requesting a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus.  Per the ordinance, all projects are required to submit annual mode share surveys. Project sponsors  seeking an FAR bonus are required to submit triennial reports assessing project compliance with the  required alternative mode share target. Where targets are not achieved, the report must include  program modification recommendations and City officials may impose administrative penalties should  subsequent triennial reports indicate mode share targets remain unachieved.  Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a transportation and  circulation impact if it would do any of the following:   Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including  transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities;   Generate per‐employee VMT greater than the City’s adopted threshold of 15 percent below the  regional average, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and City of  South San Francisco Resolution 77‐2020 related to VMT;   Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or  dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses; or   Result in inadequate emergency access.  67  Chapter 5: Transportation  101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 5‐13  Project Trip Characterization While congestion‐based analysis is no longer used for assessment of CEQA impacts per SB 743 and City  of South San Francisco Resolution 77‐2020, the project’s trip generation is still useful in conveying an  understanding of the project and to better assess circulation on and around the site.   Proposed project traffic added to the surrounding roadway system was estimated using data collected in  Fall 2019 from three sample office and research and development (R&D) campus sites in the East of 101  area. Local travel demand data were used instead of national averages because of the unique  transportation and land use conditions in the East of 101 area, including peak period spreading, mix of  employers, and higher rates of participation in TDM programs. In contrast, national trip generation data  such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th edition are  generally collected at suburban sites with limited non‐auto access and less congestion.  The project trip generation rate was derived from the sample site data and multiplied by the size of the  proposed project (gross square feet) to determine average weekday, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour  vehicle trip generation volume, shown in Table 15.1.   Table 5.1: Project Trip Generation Land Use Size (KSF) Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Project 166.6 933 147 18 165 24 150 175 Source: Fehr & Peers 2021. Notes: KSF = thousand square feet. Trip generation rates based on 2019 driveway count data collected at similar sites in South San Francisco’s East of 101 area and reflect a daily rate of 5.6, A.M. Peak Hour rate of 0.99, and P.M. Peak Hour rate of 1.05. Rates are reported in trips per thousand square feet. According to this trip generation analysis, the new 166,600 square foot office building would generate  933 new daily trips, 165 new AM peak hour trips (147 inbound and 18 outbound), and 175 new PM peak  hour trips (24 inbound and 150 outbound). As noted previously, the project site is currently vacant and  therefore no trips were discounted from the total trip generation estimate.    Project traffic would exit the site primarily via driveways on Gull Drive and Eccles Avenue, while exiting  via Oyster Point Boulevard would be discouraged via site design and signage.  The project would generate non‐auto trips, including trips walking and bicycling to and from nearby  destinations as well as accessing regional transit. Approximately 60 to 80 walking and bicycle trips would  be generated during each peak hour, with most trips occurring via walking to and from nearby shuttle  stops and the ferry terminal.  Conflict with a Transit, Bicycle or Pedestrian System Program or Policy Impact TR‐1: Increased Demand for Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities. The proposed project  would not produce a detrimental impact to existing bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities, or  conflict with adopted plans and programs. (Less than Significant)  68 Chapter 5: Transportation  Page 5‐14 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR  Construction Construction activities could potentially interfere with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies if  temporary closures impede roadways, shuttle stops, bikeways, or pedestrian paths in a way that  prohibits the achievement of identified goals. Similarly, construction activities could have a detrimental  impact on existing bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities if temporary closures impede the use of these  facilities. However, while temporary sidewalk and bike lane rerouting on Gull Drive is expected and  roadway traffic control would be used as needed during construction, detours would be temporary in  nature and would not fully impede movement or have a sustained detrimental impact on existing bicycle  and pedestrian facilities.  In the event of a temporary construction closure, the project would be  required to prepare a traffic control plan that would document how temporary facilities, detour routes,  and/or signage would be provided consistent with guidance from the California Manual on Uniform  Traffic Control Devices (CA‐MUTCD). Therefore, the project would not produce a detrimental impact on  existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities during construction and construction‐related conflicts with  programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system would be less than significant.  No mitigation is required.  Operation The project would not produce a detrimental impact to existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities or conflict  with adopted policies in adopted City plans summarized in the Regulatory Setting section earlier in this  chapter. The project would generate additional vehicle trips to existing sidewalks, bikeways, and shuttle  routes along streets such as Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive, and would also generate  approximately 60 to 80 walking and bicycling trips on such streets during each peak hour. However, by  adding approximately three vehicles per minute to the surrounding street network, the project would  not adversely affect existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities or substantially lengthen travel  times by existing shuttle services. Although the project would add a new driveway across existing bike  lanes on Gull Drive, the bike lanes would be marked per applicable design standards to minimize  potential conflicts with vehicles.   Therefore, the project’s impacts to walking, bicycling, and transit facilities would be less than significant.  In addition, project‐related conflicts with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the  circulation system would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.  Vehicle Miles Travelled Impact TR‐2:  Vehicles Miles Traveled. The vehicle miles traveled per employee exceeds the City’s  adopted threshold of 15 percent below the regional average under existing and future  conditions. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation)  On June 10, 2020, the City of South San Francisco adopted Resolution 77‐2020 establishing VMT  thresholds and methodology effective July 1, 2020. The adopted VMT threshold for land use projects  determines that a project would have a significant transportation impact if the VMT for the project  would be 15 percent below the applicable baseline VMT.  The project was analyzed based on home‐based work (HBW) VMT per employee as shown in Table 5.2.  HBW VMT per employee was derived from the C/CAG Travel Demand Model. This metric follows City  69  Chapter 5: Transportation  101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 5‐15  and OPR guidance for measuring office project VMT and helps compare the project’s relative  transportation efficiency to the regional average baseline.  Based on these factors, a significant impact would occur if existing HBW VMT per employee in the  transportation analysis zone (TAZ) results in greater than 15 percent below the existing regional  average. Based on the City’s analysis using the C/CAG Model, this threshold would be set at 12.1 HBW  VMT per employee for office and R&D projects, which represents 15 percent below the existing regional  average of 14.2 HBW VMT per employee as shown in Table 5 2. This threshold of 12.1 HBW VMT per  employee also applies to cumulative conditions.  The project’s effect on VMT describes changes in VMT generation from neighboring land uses by  comparing area VMT for “no Project” and “Project” scenarios. Project‐generated HBW VMT per  employee is calculated based on the average HBW VMT generated by employees working in the C/CAG  Model transportation analysis zone (TAZ) where the project is located divided by the number of jobs  within the TAZ. A TAZ is the smallest resolution available in the C/CAG Model. Each TAZ included in the  model contains information related to the existing and proposed land uses and transportation options  for zone. Therefore, the transportation properties of the project’s TAZ are an appropriate proxy for  transportation properties of the project itself.   Per City requirements, the project is required to implement a TDM Plan. The proposed project would  include a TDM Plan to achieve an alternative mode use goal of 35 percent to help manage commuting  via driving alone. The effects of the project’s TDM Plan are included in the calculation of HBW VMT.  Additional potential reductions to VMT based on implementation of the project’s TDM Plan are  uncertain for several reasons. First, mode share targets do not necessarily correlate with trip generation  and trip length; although many East of 101 employers meet their non‐drive alone mode share targets,  vehicle trip generation and trip lengths remain comparable to regional averages. Second, alternative  mode share targets include passenger vehicle‐based modes such as vanpools and carpools, which may  dilute its effectiveness of VMT reductions. Third, VMT is a measure of daily activity for all trips, whereas  accounting for non‐drive alone mode share targets focuses only on commute trips. Therefore, additional  VMT adjustments based on the project’s TDM Plan are not applicable.  Table 5.2: Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Employee Location Estimated HBW VMT per Employee Estimated Employees Estimated HBW VMT Bay Area Region (Existing) 14.2 4,461,700 63,336,200 VMT Reduction Factor (15%) HBW VMT Per Employee Threshold 12.1 Project (Existing) 16.2 550 8,900 Above threshold Yes Project (2040 Cumulative) 12.9 550 7,100 Above threshold Yes Source: Fehr & Peers 2021; C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Transportation Demand Model, 2021. Notes: HBW = home-based work; VMT = vehicle miles traveled. Project estimated employees are based on employment density of 1 employee per 300 square feet. 70 Chapter 5: Transportation Page 5-16 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Based on this methodology, the project would generate 16.2 HBW VMT per employee under existing conditions and 12.9 HBW VMT per employee under future cumulative conditions. The above-threshold HBW VMT is due to above-average trip lengths and auto mode shares. As transit, first/last mile, and housing projects envisioned in the South San Francisco General Plan are built out, HBW VMT is expected to decline over time but would remain above the threshold of significance under cumulative conditions. Note that this impact is not unique to the project. Since VMT is analyzed based on HBW VMT per employee averages for the entire East of 101 area, most office/R&D projects in this area incur a significant and unavoidable impact to VMT unless they are located within one half mile of the Caltrain station. Mitigation Measure TR-2: First- and Last-Mile Strategies. The project sponsor shall coordinate with the City for the project sponsor to implement the following off-site improvements to support the project’s first- and last-mile and active transportation connections necessary to support reductions in Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled. • Participation in first-/last-mile shuttle program(s) to Caltrain and BART. Shuttles may be operated by Commute.org and/or other East of 101 shuttle providers offering services open to the general public. • Restriping of five crosswalks at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue, one crosswalk at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard, and two crosswalks at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and the 329-333 Oyster Point Boulevard driveway with high-visibility longitudinal markings to enhance pedestrian access to the westbound shuttle stop and nearby land uses. The project sponsor shall additionally coordinate with the City for the project sponsor to pay fair-share contribution toward the following off-site improvements to support the project’s first- and last-mile and active transportation connections necessary to support reductions in Home- Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled. • Modification of the existing eastbound shuttle stop at the far side of the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection to provide an accessible five-foot long by eight-foot wide landing pad and pavement markings (if such facilities are not already fully funded or constructed by the City or SamTrans). • Installation of a westbound shuttle stop at the far side of the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection including a pole, accessible five-foot long by eight-foot wide landing pad, pavement markings, and shelter (if such facilities are not already fully funded or constructed by the City or SamTrans). • Provision of eastbound and westbound Class II buffered bicycle lanes along Eccles Avenue between Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, spanning approximately 3,000 linear feet. The improvement consists primarily of restriping the curbside vehicle travel lane in each direction to a Class II buffered bicycle lane and signage. The bicycle facility will help close a gap between the project and a planned Class I shared-use pathway between Forbes Boulevard / Eccles Avenue and the South San Francisco Caltrain station. 71 Chapter 5: Transportation 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 5-17 First- and last-mile transit connections and active transportation improvements are likely to produce the greatest project VMT reductions. Mitigation Measure TR-2, First- and Last-Mile Strategies, would help enhance first- and last-mile and active transportation connections, supporting decreased use of single- occupancy vehicles. The components of Mitigation Measure TR-2 are shown in Figure 5.3. The effectiveness of Mitigation Measure TR-2 is uncertain and cannot be guaranteed to fully reduce VMT under the threshold of significance under existing or cumulative conditions. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. Note that this impact is not unique to the project. Since VMT is analyzed based on HBW VMT per employee averages for the entire East of 101 area, most office/R&D projects in this area incur a significant and unavoidable impact to VMT unless they are located within one half mile of the Caltrain station. For the off-site improvements, the City would collect payment from the project sponsor and would allocate those funds for the specific improvements identified. Specific details of the contributions would be addressed in the project’s conditions of approval, but in any case, would comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. The potential environmental impacts of these pedestrian and bicycle improvements would be analyzed under the CEQA review prepared for the Active South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Any impacts associated with the construction of these projects would be temporary and minor in nature (e.g., short-term construction impacts related to air quality and noise) and would not result in a substantial adverse impact on the environment. The participation in first- and last-mile shuttle program(s), would not result in long-term air quality, greenhouse gas, or noise impacts. Thus, no adverse secondary impacts on the environment would occur with implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-2. Transportation Hazards Impact TR-3: New Project Meeting Safety Standards. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. (Less than Significant) The proposed project would not worsen any existing geometric design features or cause new design hazards. The project would rely on two existing driveways accessed via 340 Oyster Point Boulevard and 570-590 Eccles Avenue and would provide a new unsignalized driveway providing a direct connection to Gull Drive. Existing driveways would be appropriate to handle expected vehicle traffic in and out of the buildings constructed pursuant to the project. Although the driveway between 340 Oyster Point Boulevard and 570-590 Eccles Avenue includes a circuitous connection for vehicles exiting to the traffic signal at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/329-333 Oyster Point Boulevard driveway, the project would include signage directing vehicles to exit via Eccles Avenue instead and include driveway geometry to encourage target circulation. The new driveway on Gull Drive would not change the geometry of the adjacent roadways. Based on an assessment of the site, the sight distance at the proposed driveway location is expected to be adequate for drivers exiting the project site and for pedestrians crossing the driveways. The hill north of the driveway would be graded to ensure sight distance is met, and any future vegetation or signage located in the sight triangles at the driveway would be maintained to prevent restricting drivers’ sight distance when exiting the driveway. 72 Chapter 5: Transportation Page 5-18 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Figure 5.3: Identified Vicinity Improvements to Transit & Active Transportation Source: Fehr & Peers 73 Chapter 5: Transportation 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 5-19 The project would not include any uses that are incompatible with the surrounding land use or the existing roadway system; trips generated by office/R&D uses are consistent with the surrounding mix of office/R&D and light industrial land uses.. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in a substantial increase to hazards, and the project’s impacts to hazards would be less than significant under existing plus project conditions and less than significant under cumulative plus project conditions. No mitigation is required. Emergency Access Impact TR-4: Adequate Emergency Access. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Less than Significant) Vehicle trips generated by the project would represent a small percentage of overall daily and peak hour traffic on roadways and freeways in the study area. The project would generate about three vehicle trips per minute on average during peak hours, which is not expected to introduce or exacerbate conflicts for emergency vehicles traveling near the project. The project would not include features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway facilities; fire and police vehicles would continue to have access to all facilities around the entire City. Emergency vehicles would have full access to the project site via three driveways connecting to adjacent streets; each driveway would be equipped to handle all types of emergency vehicles. Therefore, the project would result in adequate emergency access, and the project’s impacts to emergency access would be less than significant under existing plus project conditions and less than significant under cumulative plus project conditions. No mitigation is required. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative conditions include transportation demand resulting from reasonably foreseeable land use changes and conditions associated with funded transportation projects. As indicated in the analysis above, the vehicle miles traveled analysis was performed for both existing and future cumulative conditions with the same conclusions. There would be no difference in the impacts or conclusions related to conflict with programs, transportation hazards, or emergency access, as the conclusion that the project would comply with applicable programs and, safety standards, and provide adequate emergency access are not affected by changes in future cumulative analysis conditions. There are no additional cumulative impacts or mitigation required beyond the cumulative vehicle miles traveled impact identified above. 74 Chapter 5: Transportation Page 5-20 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. 75 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 6-1 6 Other CEQA Topics Introduction This chapter of the Draft EIR contains discussion of the following additional CEQA considerations: • Mandatory Findings of Significance • Significant Irreversible Modifications in the Environment • Growth Inducing Impacts The environmental effects of the proposed project, proposed mitigation measures, and alternatives are summarized in Chapter 2: Executive Summary. Mandatory Findings of Significance Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist) contains a list of mandatory findings of significance that may be considered significant impacts if any of the following occur: 1. Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory? 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? Quality of the Environment With compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures identified in this document, 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, or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. The project site is in an urbanized area, is generally consistent with surrounding development, and the site does not contain biological or cultural resources. 76 Chapter 6: Other CEQA Topics Page 6-2 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts The immediate vicinity of the project site is largely already developed. The cumulative context for analysis in this EIR includes the existing development as well as continued redevelopment, especially in the surrounding East of 101 area. As detailed in this EIR and the attached Initial Study, impacts of the project are considered to be less than significant or reaching that level with mitigation for all topic areas except transportation, and the same would therefore be true for cumulative impacts given the cumulative scenario for this site. The project would result in a significant impact with respect to vehicles miles traveled per employee, which is over target rates at this site. While overall vehicles miles traveled per employee is expected to go down over time in all areas including at the project site, the analysis in this Draft EIR determined that the site continue to have vehicles miles traveled per employee rates above future cumulative threshold levels as well. Adverse Effects on Human Beings Potential impacts of the project on human beings include exposure to emissions, site soils and seismic activity, disturbance of site contamination during construction, potential presence of methane gas in soil vapor, and routine hazardous materials use; however, these impacts are less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements and identified mitigation as detailed in this Draft EIR and the attached Initial Study. The project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Significant Irreversible Modifications in the Environment An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused by a project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes: 1. Changes in land use which would commit future generations to specific uses; 2. Irreversible damage; and 3. Commitment of Resources. Changes in Land Use which Would Commit Future Generations The project proposes office and R&D development on a site zoned for such use in the City’s General Plan. The type of use is consistent with plans and policies for development of the site and would not constitute a change in land use. Irreversible Damage While currently vacant, the site is not in a “natural” state, and development of this site in an urbanized area would not represent damage to an otherwise natural resource. While accident involving routine 77 Chapter 6: Other CEQA Topics Page 6-3 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR use of hazardous materials or site contamination during construction can never be fully discounted, compliance with regulatory requirements, standard procedures, and mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and attached Initial Study would result in non-significant risk of occurrence. Similarly, while air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would contribute to regional pollutant levels and global climate change, through compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, local greenhouse gas reduction measures, and mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR and attached Initial Study, the project would comply with emissions reduction targets and would result in non-significant contribution to emissions-related environmental damage. Commitment of Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources can include increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. The project would not result in the loss of agricultural lands or mining reserves, as these are not located at or near the site. Development of the project area as proposed could result in the commitment of nonrenewable resources (e.g., gravel and petroleum products) and slowly renewable resources (e.g., wood products) used in construction. The operation of the proposed use would also require commitment of water and energy resources (e.g., petroleum products for vehicle operations, natural gas and electricity for lighting, heating, and cooling). As a project on a vacant site that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation for the site, it can be concluded that the project is consistent with City plans for area development and, therefore, that energy consumption for construction and operations would not be considered unnecessary. The project incorporates energy and energy-related efficiency measures meeting all applicable requirements, including water and waste efficiency. The project is not required to prepare a separate Water Supply Assessment under Senate Bill 610 because the project has less than 1,000 employees and is less than 250,000 square feet (the threshold for a commercial office building) and can instead rely upon the planning within the current UWMP, which indicates available supply for the proposed project, which is within development assumptions for the site. The project would be required to comply with all standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN), as applicable, aimed at the incorporation of energy-conserving design and construction. The project would also implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce employee trips, thereby reducing energy consumption for transportation for the employees. The project is also consistent with regional and local climate actions plans, as currently applicable, which include measures related to energy consumption. Growth-Inducing Effects Typical growth inducement concerns of CEQA include actions such as the extension of roadways or expansion of infrastructure capacity that would otherwise preclude new development or that would induce growth beyond what is otherwise planned. Proposed project improvements are limited to the project site or contribution to already-planned improvements such as for the vicinity sewer line and area transit and bicycle facilities. The project is on an infill site in the East of 101 section of the city which consists almost entirely of similar employment centers. While neither housing nor population are directly created as a result of this project, employment opportunities can indirectly increase population and the demand for housing. Based on an average office/R&D project employment density of 300 gross square footage per employee, the project is estimated to introduce 555 new jobs to the City of South San Francisco. The current South 78 Chapter 6: Other CEQA Topics Page 6-4 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR San Francisco General Plan was released in 1999 and does not have relevant employee estimates and the updated General Plan, while being prepared during the preparation of this document, is not yet available. That being said, the project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site, and, therefore, should be within current and updated General Plan projections of future employees. Plan Bay Area 2050 is the current regional long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine- county San Francisco Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on four key issues — the economy, the environment, housing, and transportation. Plan Bay Area 2050 estimates a total addition of 1,403,000 total jobs to the Bay Area between 2015 and 2050.1 The project’s addition of 555 employees would increase jobs in the City and region incrementally. Compared to the total jobs projection for the entire Bay Area, the addition of 555 jobs would not be substantial. Based on consistency with land use and zoning designations of the site, project implementation would be within the expected growth of City employment and projected employment growth of the Bay Area and the impact with respect to indirect population growth would be less than significant. The project will not include physical improvements that would induce growth beyond what is otherwise planned. Proposed project improvements are limited to the project site or contribution to already- planned improvements such as for the vicinity sewer line and area transit and bicycle facilities. 1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, adopted October 21, 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, Table 6-4. Available at: https://www.planbayarea.org/finalplan2050. 79 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR PAGE 7-1 7 Alternatives Introduction CEQA Guidelines require an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives for any project subject to an EIR. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to provide decision-makers and the public with a discussion of alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. Evaluation of alternatives should present the proposed action and all the alternatives in comparative form, to define the issues and provide a clear basis for choice among the alternatives. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Where a lead agency has determined that even after adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed would still result in significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency must first determine whether any alternatives are both environmentally superior and feasible. CEQA provides the following guidelines for discussing project alternatives: ● An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation (§15126.6(a)). ● An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible (§15126.6(a)). ● The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project (§15126.6(b)). ● The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects (§15126.6(c)). ● The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project (§15126.6(d)). Project Objectives CEQA requires the analysis of alternatives that would feasibly attain “most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” (15126.6 (a)). Therefore, the stated objectives can be used as a metric against which an alternative can be measured when determining overall feasibility. Additionally, CEQA requires the evaluation of a proposed project 80 Chapter 7: Alternatives Page 7-2 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR to address only impacts to the physical environment; economic and social effects can be analyzed only as one link in a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision (e.g., physical changes caused, in turn, by economic and social changes) (15131). However, economic viability can be considered when determining the feasibility of a project alternative. The following objectives have been identified for the project. Alternatives are evaluated in part based on their ability to meet these objectives. 1. Allow for development and productive use of a currently vacant lot. 2. Construct a flexible facility that will allow for office/research & development uses that will create quality jobs for South San Francisco residents. 3. Build an economically viable project that will enhance property values in the City’s East of 101 area and be consistent with the goals of the South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. Summary of Project Impacts Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Based on the analysis presented in this EIR, the project would result in the following environmental impact that would be considered significant and unavoidable: Vehicles Miles Traveled Impact (TR-2): The vehicle miles traveled per employee exceeds the City’s adopted threshold of 15 percent below the regional average under existing and future conditions. Even with contribution toward first- and last-mile strategies to increase use of alternate modes of travel (Mitigation Measure TR-2), this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Note that this impact is not unique to this project. Because the estimated vehicle miles traveled for this project is based on averages for the entire East of 101 area, most office/R&D projects in this area incur a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to vehicle miles traveled unless they are located within one half mile of the Caltrain station. Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially significant impacts are largely limited to construction-period disturbance, including impacts and mitigation related to construction period dust and emissions (Mitigation Measure Air-1); potential disturbance of unknown archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources (Cul-1, Cul-2, Cul-3); and appropriate construction given site characteristics in a seismically-active region (Geo-1). Additionally, the project would contribute toward area sewer line upgrades (Util-1). The project would be required to adhere to remediation measures in the Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) to address hazardous materials concerns at the site including appropriate handling and capping of metals-impacted site soils and vapor barriers if necessary to address methane gas migration from the nearby landfill (Haz-2). 81 Chapter 7: Alternatives 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 7-3 The impacts listed in this subsection would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the identified mitigation measures. All other impacts would be less than significant without the need for mitigation. A comparison of the impacts of the alternatives to the impacts of the project is included in Table 7.1 at the end of this chapter. Alternatives Analysis The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed project. A project may have the potential to generate significant impacts, but changes to certain features may also afford the opportunity to avoid or reduce such impacts. The following alternatives analysis compares the potential significant environmental impacts of the alternatives with those of the proposed project. This analysis focuses on potentially significant impacts with other topics grouped together. Selection of Alternatives The three alternatives analyzed in this EIR are listed below. These alternatives are intended to meet the CEQA requirements for the EIR to describe the no project alternative as well as a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects. • No Project • R&D Only • Reduced Development Each of the alternatives is more fully described below, and their potential environmental effects are compared to those of the project. As permitted by CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[d]), the effects of the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the impact discussions of the project. However, the alternatives analysis is conducted at a sufficient level of detail to provide the public, other public agencies, and City decision-makers adequate information to evaluate the alternatives as compared to the project. For each of the alternatives, the significance of each impact is compared to applicable thresholds. These significance conclusions assume implementation of those same regulatory requirements and mitigation measures as applied to the project (if necessary). Alternatives Rejected From Further Consideration Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. No Project – Allowable Site Development The CEQA Guidelines state that, “where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project’s non-approval” (15126.6(e)(3)(B)). The project site is currently vacant, but other than project approvals, there is nothing otherwise preventing development of this vacant site according to existing 82 Chapter 7: Alternatives Page 7-4 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR rules and regulations. It can therefore be assumed that if this project did not proceed, the site would not be “preserved” as a vacant site, but rather another development proposal would likely be brought forth at this location. As development consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and underlying zoning at the site, the proposed project itself represents a project that could be proposed at the site under such a “no project” condition. Therefore, since the proposed project already represents allowable site development, an alternative to represent allowable site development would not need to be different than the proposed project. For these reasons, a “no project” alternative that looks at allowable site development was eliminated from further consideration in this EIR. Alternative Site Location In considering the range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR, the CEQA Guidelines state that an alternative site location should be considered when, “…any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location” (15126.6(f)(2)(A)). The current proposal is specific to the project site and consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the site. While the applicant may own other sites suitable for office/R&D development, the development of one site does not preclude them from proposing development on any other sites. If this developer did not propose this project at this site at this time, it could be proposed in the same or similar details at any later date. Therefore, because the proposed type of development is not unique such that consideration of development on a different site would mean it was no longer considered at this site, consideration of an alternative site location would not effectively avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the project and therefore, an off-site alternative was determined not to provide a useful discussion for this analysis. For these reasons, an alternative site location was eliminated from further consideration in this EIR. Incorporation of Residential Uses An alternative that would incorporate residential uses at the project site either as a wholly-residential project or a mixed-use project with a residential component was considered. A residential alternative could help address regional housing shortages and would have the potential to reduce the average HBW VMT per employee by locating residential uses in an area predominantly occupied by employment uses, providing more opportunities for employees in the East of 101 area to live closer to their place of work. The project site is identified as Business Technology Park in the General Plan and is zoned Business and Technology Park under the City’s zoning ordinance. Neither of these designations permit residential uses, nor would residential uses be consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity of the project site and potentially result in conflicts by introducing emissions and noise sensitive receptors to a commercial area. Residential development at this site would not be consistent with current General Plan direction and policies to preserve land East of 101 for employment uses. As part of the City’s Shape SSF 2040 General Plan update process currently underway, the City is considering residential uses in portions of the East of 101 area, potentially including high-density mixed-use residential uses in areas adjacent to and within 0.5 miles to the Caltrain station. The areas that are under consideration for residential uses are within 0.5 mile of the Caltrain station, which does not include the project site. The City does not anticipate that the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan will consider residential uses for the project site. Furthermore, a residential alternative would be inconsistent with virtually all of the project objectives. 83 Chapter 7: Alternatives 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 7-5 Therefore, this alternative was rejected based on its infeasibility and inability to meet the basic project objectives. Other Alternatives Considerations Obviously, not every possible alternative to the project can be fully evaluated. Alternatives A through C satisfy the requirement to consider and discuss “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6. As discussed in this chapter, these alternatives were chosen as reasonable alternatives at this site and no additional alternatives were identified that would substantially contribute to a meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison of the project to possible alternatives. “No Project” Alternative Alternative Description CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that a “no project” alternative be evaluated, along with its impacts. Alternative A is a “no project” alternative. It assumes the proposed project is not approved and the site remains vacant. While the CEQA Guidelines allow the no project alternative to assess development under the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future, the proposed project already represents development per existing plans and policies. Therefore, Alternative A presumes the site would remain in its current state. Impact Comparison Impact Summary Under the “No Project” Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today with no substantial construction activities and no development at the site. Therefore, the potential for all of the less than significant impacts and need for mitigation would be avoided. While continuance of the vacant state would not be considered an impact under CEQA, the “No Project” Alternative also would not develop the site consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The “No Project” Alternative represents no substantial construction activities or operations at the site and, therefore, no potential for hazards and hazardous materials impacts. Transportation The “No Project” Alternative represents no construction or operations at the site and, therefore, no potential for transportation impacts. 84 Chapter 7: Alternatives Page 7-6 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Other Topics Because the assessed “No Project” alternative would not change the conditions at the site or involve construction activities, there would be no actions that could be considered to result in environmental impacts under CEQA. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives and Feasibility The “No Project” Alternative would have the following ability to meet project objectives: 1. The “No Project” Alternative would not meet the objective to allow for development and productive use of a currently vacant lot. This alternative would not result in development of the site. 2. The “No Project” Alternative would not meet the objective to construct a flexible facility that will allow for office/research & development uses that will create quality jobs for South San Francisco residents. This alternative would not result in any development of the site. 3. The “No Project” Alternative would not meet the objective to build an economically viable project that will enhance property values in the City’s East of 101 area and be consistent with the goals of the South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. This alternative would not result in any development of the site. The “No Project” Alternative would not meet any of the Project Objectives. This alternative represents the possibility that no project is approved on this site at this time. It would not preclude application for development of the site at a later point. “R&D Only” Alternative Alternative Description This alternative would have generally the same building and parking garage structures as the proposed project on the same site and footprint. The only difference is that the use would be constrained to R&D uses. Office uses (except as part of an R&D use) would not be allowed. The proposed project would allow for any mix of office and R&D uses to be determined through identification of future tenants. Office uses have generally more employees while R&D uses have more daily trips reflecting more supporting services. Because the one significant and unavoidable impact of the project is related to the vehicle miles traveled per employee, a project with a lower number of employees would have a marginally lower impact in this respect. R&D uses usually have employee densities of 300 to 350 square feet of building space per employee, whereas strictly office uses can have employment densities of 150 to 250 square feet per employee. Therefore, a 100% R&D project would have approximately 40% less employees than a 100% office project. While the project as proposed could be any mix of R&D and office uses and the analysis in the Initial Study and EIR made applicable assumptions for reasonable worst-case assessment of impacts, this alternative is intended to present the difference if the project were constrained to R&D uses only. 85 Chapter 7: Alternatives 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 7-7 Impact Comparison Impact Summary Impacts under the “R&D Only” Alternative would be the same or marginally reduced compared to the project. No impacts would be avoided or substantially reduced by the “R&D Only” Alternative. Because the “R&D Only” Alternative would result in fewer employees at the site than the proposed project, there would be a marginal reduction in the project’s one significant and unavoidable impact. Because the threshold is based on the vehicle miles traveled per employee and not on the number of employees, and the per-employee rate would remain the same for a project of this type at this site, the impact would remain above threshold levels and significant and unavoidable. That being said, adding fewer employees at higher-than-threshold-level vehicle miles traveled per employee rates would contribute less to region-wide rates of vehicle miles traveled above target levels. This could be considered a marginal reduction in this impact with no change in significance or the required mitigation. With the same structure and construction required, all construction-related impacts would remain the same under the “R&D Only” Alternative, as would the need to contribute to area-wide sewer improvements and the same mitigation would be required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The “R&D Only” Alternative would require generally the same site construction as under the proposed project and would also be required to adhere to remediation measures in the Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) to address hazardous materials concerns at the site. As under the proposed project, compliance with applicable regulations and procedures related to routine use of hazardous materials would result in less than significant impacts related to routine handling of such materials for an R&D use. There would be no change to hazards and hazardous materials impacts under the “R&D Only” Alternative. Transportation The “R&D Only” Alternative would result in fewer employees at the site than the proposed project, which could be any mix of office and R&D uses. The project’s one significant and unavoidable impact was that the vehicle miles traveled per employee exceeds threshold levels. The vehicle miles traveled per employee is mostly based on location for office or R&D uses and, therefore, would not change given a change in the mix of those uses at the same site. The impact with respect to vehicle miles traveled for the “R&D Only” Alternative would therefore remain above threshold levels and significant and unavoidable. That being said, adding fewer employees at higher-than-threshold-level vehicle miles traveled per employee rates would contribute less to overall exceedances of vehicle miles traveled targets in the region. The impact of the “R&D Only” project would therefore be marginally reduced compared to the project. Other Topics Because site construction would be generally the same as under the proposed project, there would be no substantial change in construction-related impacts and mitigation measures including for 86 Chapter 7: Alternatives Page 7-8 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR construction emissions and dust; potential disturbance of unknown archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources; and appropriate construction given site characteristics in a seismically-active region. Contribution toward area sewer line upgrades would also still be required under the “R&D Only” Alternative. There would be no substantial change to other impacts. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives and Feasibility The “R&D Only” Alternative would have the following ability to meet project objectives: 1. The “R&D Only” Alternative would meet to the same degree the objective to allow for development and productive use of a currently vacant lot. 2. The “R&D Only” Alternative would meet to a lesser degree the objective to construct a flexible facility that will allow for office/research & development uses that will create quality jobs for South San Francisco residents. This alternative would result in an R&D use to create quality jobs in South San Francisco but would not provide flexibly to allow office use. 3. The “R&D Only” Alternative would meet to the same degree the objective to build an economically viable project that will enhance property values in the City’s East of 101 area and be consistent with the goals of the South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. The “R&D Only” Alternative would meet two of the three Project Objectives to the same degree as the project. The third objective would be met to a lesser degree as the “R&D Only” Alternative would not allow for flexible use of the development. “Reduced Development” Alternative Alternative Description This alternative represents a reduced intensity alternative to demonstrate how impacts may be different if the project were smaller. An approximately 30% reduction in both building space and parking area was chosen, which would be consistent with a building about two floors lower (five stories), though it would likely also include a somewhat reduced footprint. The building square footage would be approximately 133,300. As with the project, any mix of office and/or R&D would be allowed. Impact Comparison Impact Summary Impacts under the “Reduced Development” Alternative would be the same or marginally reduced compared to the project. No impacts would be avoided or substantially reduced by the “Reduced Development” Alternative. Because the “Reduced Development” Alternative would result in fewer employees at the site than the proposed project, there would be a marginal reduction in the project’s one significant and unavoidable impact. Because the threshold is based on the vehicle miles traveled per employee and not on the number of employees, and the per-employee rate would remain the same for a project of this type at this site, the impact would remain above threshold levels and significant and unavoidable. That being said, adding fewer employees at higher-than-threshold-level vehicle miles traveled per employee rates 87 Chapter 7: Alternatives 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 7-9 would contribute less to region-wide rates of vehicle miles traveled above target levels. This could be considered a marginal reduction in this impact with no change in significance or the required mitigation. While the building construction activities would be reduced in scope under the “Reduced Development” Alternative with potentially even a smaller building footprint, the entire site would still be developed (open space/landscaping and circulation elements would fill areas not developed with structures) and require site preparation generally the same as under the proposed project. Site-disturbance related impacts and mitigation measures including for construction dust; potential disturbance of unknown archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources; and also the need for appropriate construction given site characteristics in a seismically-active region would not change under the “Reduced Development” Alternative. Building construction itself would be reduced. However, impacts related to building construction were already below significance levels so would remain less than significant under the project or the “Reduced Development” Alternative. While a reduced project would contribute less demand to the sewer line in need of an upgrade, this is an identified area-wide improvement and as such, the need for the improvement would not be affected by reduction in the development intensity at this site and the impact and mitigation would remain substantially the same under the “Reduced Development” Alternative. Hazards and Hazardous Materials While the construction activities would be reduced in scope under the “Reduced Development” Alternative with potentially even a smaller building footprint, the entire site would still be developed (open space/landscaping and circulation elements would fill areas not developed with structures) and require site preparation generally the same as under the proposed project. As under the project, the “Reduced Development” Alternative would be required to adhere to remediation measures in the Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) to address hazardous materials concerns at the site and would be required to comply with applicable regulations and procedures related to routine use of hazardous materials. There would be no substantial change to hazards and hazardous materials impacts under the “Reduced Development” Alternative. Transportation The “Reduced Development” Alternative would result in approximately 30% fewer employees at the site than the proposed project. The project’s one significant and unavoidable impact was that the vehicle miles traveled per employee exceeds threshold levels. The vehicle miles traveled per employee is mostly based on location for office or R&D uses and, therefore, would not change given reduced project size at the same site. The impact with respect to vehicle miles traveled for the “Reduced Development” Alternative would therefore remain above threshold levels and significant and unavoidable. That being said, adding fewer employees at higher-than-threshold-level vehicle miles traveled per employee rates would contribute less to overall exceedances of vehicle miles traveled targets in the region. The impact of the “Reduced Development” project would therefore be marginally reduced compared to the project. 88 Chapter 7: Alternatives Page 7-10 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Other Topics While building construction would be reduced under the “Reduced Development” Alternative, the entire site would still be disturbed for development. There would be no substantial change in site- disturbance-related impacts and mitigation measures including for construction dust; potential disturbance of unknown archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources; and also the need for appropriate construction given site characteristics in a seismically-active region. With a smaller building, there would be a reduction in construction-related noise, traffic, and energy use. Compliance with applicable regulations and procedures would result in project impacts below threshold levels in these topics for the project and, therefore, reductions in impacts under the “Reduced Project” Alternative would be marginal. Less building construction activities would also result in less construction-related emissions, which were already below threshold levels and further lowered by Mitigation Measure Air-1. This would again be a marginal reduction in the impact without changing significance conclusions. Similarly, with fewer employees and a smaller building at the site, there would be marginal reductions in operational-related air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials handling, noise, population, demand for public services and utility and energy use. Other than sewer capacity discussed below, compliance with applicable regulations and procedures would result in project impacts below threshold levels in these topics for the project and, therefore, reductions in impacts under the “Reduced Project” Alternative would be marginal. Contribution toward area sewer line upgrades would also still be required for all area projects including the “Reduced Development” Alternative. While a reduced project would contribute less demand to the sewer line, this is an identified area-wide improvement and as such, the need for the improvement would not be affected by reduction in the development intensity at this site. There would be no substantial change to other impacts. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives and Feasibility The “Reduced Development” Alternative would have the following ability to meet project objectives: 1. The “Reduced Development” Alternative would meet to the same degree the objective to allow for development and productive use of a currently vacant lot. 2. The “Reduced Development” Alternative would meet to a lesser degree the objective to construct a flexible facility that will allow for office/research & development uses that will create quality jobs for South San Francisco residents. This alternative would result in a flexible office/R&D use to create quality jobs in South San Francisco but would be a smaller project with relatively fewer jobs created. 3. The “Reduced Development” Alternative would meet to the same degree the objective to build an economically viable project that will enhance property values in the City’s East of 101 area and be consistent with the goals of the South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. The “Reduced Development” Alternative would meet two of the three Project Objectives to the same degree as the project. The third objective would be met to a lesser degree as the “Reduced Development” Alternative would result in a smaller project with fewer jobs. 89 Chapter 7: Alternatives 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 7-11 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative in an EIR. Where a no project alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires the EIR to identify another alternative that would be considered environmentally superior in the absence of the no project alternative. Table 7.1 provides a summary comparison of the impacts of each of these alternatives relative to those of the project. This table focuses on potentially significant impacts with other topics grouped into construction-related and operational-related. Because the differences between the project and the alternatives are often marginal only – meaning that small changes could occur in the magnitude of an impact without changing the significance conclusion - Table 7.1 also indicated when there are marginal differences (with an arrow symbol). Table 7.1: Summary of Impacts and Relative Comparison of Alternatives Environmental Topic Project “No Project” Alternative “R&D Only” Alternative “Reduced Development” Alternative Transportation (TR-2) SU with MM NI SU with MM  SU with MM  Hazardous Materials (Haz-2) LTS with MM NI LTS with MM LTS with MM Construction Emissions (Air-1) LTS with MM NI LTS with MM  LTS with MM  Cultural/Tribal Cultural (Cul-1, Cul-2, Cul-3) LTS with MM NI LTS with MM LTS with MM Geology and Soils (Geo-1) LTS with MM NI LTS with MM LTS with MM Utilities (Util-1) LTS with MM NI LTS with MM LTS with MM Other Topics (construction-related) LTS NI LTS LTS  Other Topics (operational-related) LTS NI LTS  LTS  NI = no impact LTS = less than significant SU = significant and unavoidable with MM = with implementation of mitigation measures  = marginal reduction in impacts of the same significance level Environmentally Superior Alternative In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be 90 Chapter 7: Alternatives Page 7-12 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR selected and the reasons for such a selection disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts. Table 7.1 above provides a summary comparison of the environmental impacts of the alternatives compared to the proposed project. The “No Project’ Alternative would not result in any substantial changes to the site and therefore, has the lowest possible impacts in every parameter. The “No Project” Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, the “No Project’ Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives. The CEQA Guidelines also require that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The CEQA Guidelines require a consideration of whether alternatives “avoid or substantially lessen” significant impacts of the proposed project. In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. Neither the “R&D Only” Alternative nor the “Reduced Development” Alternative would avoid any significant impacts of the project or reduce the significance level of any impacts. With fewer resultant employees at the site, both these alternatives would marginally reduce the significant and unavoidable project impact related to vehicle miles traveled while the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Both these alternatives would be substantially similar though marginally environmentally superior to the proposed project and would meet project objectives though to a lesser degree than the project. Because the “Reduced Development” Alternative would marginally reduce construction-related impacts as well as operational-related impacts (without changing the need for mitigation or significance conclusions compared to the project), the “Reduced Development” Alternative would be the next most environmentally superior after the “No Project” Alternative. As noted above, differences between the impacts under this alternative and the proposed project would be marginal only. 91 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR Page 8-1 8 EIR Preparers and References Lead Agency City of South San Francisco Department of Economic & Community Development, Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner EIR Preparers Lamphier-Gregory (Primary Report Preparers) 4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 510-535-6690 Rebecca Auld, Vice President Jenna Sunderlin, Planner Fehr & Peers (Transportation) 332 Pine Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-3222 Daniel Jacobson, Associate Ashley Hong, Transportation Planner III References California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007, San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning- engineering/wildland-hazards-building- codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ California Air Resources Board, January 2019, 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-01/2017_sp_vmt_reductions_jan19.pdf California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), July 2020, Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitcioners Guidance. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation- planning/documents/sb-743/2020-07-01-interim-ldigr-safety-guidance-a11y.pdf 92 Chapter 8: EIR Preparers and References Page 8-2 101 Gull Drive Project Draft EIR City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, including Exhibit IV-14 . Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf City of South San Francisco, accessed November 2021, Active South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Available: https://activesouthcity.com/ City of South San Francisco, 2011, South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/1304/636334624142770000 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Alta Planning + Design, February 9, 2011, Bicycle Master Plan. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/760/636319456492130000 Langan Engineering and Environmental, December 22, 2020, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, adopted October 21, 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050. Available at: https://www.planbayarea.org/finalplan2050. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 93     101 Gull Drive Project ‐ Draft EIR Appendices  Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Comments   94 95  NOTICE OF PREPARATION  OF AN EIR AND SCOPING MEETING   FOR THE PROPOSED 101 GULL DRIVE PROJECT     To: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties  From: City of South San Francisco, Economic and Community Development Department  Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in Compliance with Title  14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Title 14, Chapter 3  of the CCR is described herein as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of South San  Francisco (City) is the Lead Agency under CEQA for the proposed project identified below, and will  prepare an EIR to analyze the project under CEQA.   Project Title: 101 Gull Drive. The project location and a summary of the project description are included  on the following page.  Current Environmental Review: An Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines  Section 15063 to determine topic areas that have the potential to result in significant environmental  impacts.   The Initial Study determined that the project would not have significant impacts in the other CEQA topic  areas, consisting of Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources,  Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality,  Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Mineral Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation,  Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.   The  Initial  Study  determined  that  an  Environmental  Impact  Report  should  be  prepared  to  provide  detailed analysis in the topic areas of Hazards & Hazardous Materials and Transportation.  Where to View Documents: The Initial Study, its supporting documentation, and details relating to the  project are on‐file and available for review online at:  www.ssf.net/CEQAdocuments under the “101 Gull Drive” project. If you are unable to view documents  online, please use the contact below to arrange access to an alternate digital copy or hard copy.  Agency/Public Comments: The City requests your comments regarding the analysis in the Initial Study  and the scope and content of the environmental review to be presented in the Environmental Impact  Report for the proposed project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be  sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. The City will  accept written comments on this NOP from October 14, 2021 through 5pm on November 12, 2021.  Please send your comments by email to stephanie.skangos@ssf.net or by mail to: City of South San  Francisco,    Economic  and  Community  Development  Department, 315  Maple  Avenue,  South  San  Francisco, CA 94083, Attention: Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner. Verbal comments will also be  received at the Scoping Meeting indicated below.  Scoping Meeting: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and Sections 15206 and 15082 of  the CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency also hereby gives notice of a public scoping meeting on this  project  to  receive  comments  on  the  scope  of  the  EIR.  In  accordance  with  current  shelter‐in‐place  mandates related to COVID‐19, the Lead Agency will conduct a virtual scoping meeting on Thursday,  November 4, 2021, from 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM, via webinar and telephone conference line. During the  96 101 Gull Drive Project ‐ Notice of Preparation    Page 2 of 4  scoping meeting, agencies, organizations, and the public will have an opportunity to submit comments.  Please note that comments are limited to three minutes per speaker.  To access the scoping meeting webinar, please use this link from your computer, tablet or smartphone  (you may need to install the Zoom app on your device prior to the meeting):  https://ssf‐net.zoom.us/j/81573605732?pwd=TDFLUWxxc25NRUYwYml3MUxPR3QzUT09    You can also dial in to the meeting using your phone (United States Toll Free):  833 548 0276, 833 548 0282, 877 853 5257, or 888 475 4499   Meeting ID: 815 7360 5732  Passcode: 285944    EIR Process: Following the close of the NOP comment period, a Draft EIR will be prepared that will  consider the environmental topic areas of Hazards & Hazardous Materials and Transportation and take  into consideration NOP comments. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a), the Draft EIR  will be released for public review and comment for the required 45‐day review period. Following the  close of the 45‐day public review period, the City will prepare a Final EIR that will include responses to  all substantive comments received on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR and Final EIR will be considered by the  Planning Commission and City Council in making the decision to certify the EIR and to approve or deny  the project.  Project Location: The project site is located at 101 Gull Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015‐082‐250),  within the City of South San Francisco’s “East of 101” planning area. The 3.8‐acre project site is currently  vacant. While the site is located along Gull Drive, it is largely separated from the roadway by a grade  change and steep slope. The project site is located behind businesses fronting Eccles Avenue and Oyster  Point Boulevard and existing access easements with nearby properties would provide mutual access to  driveways on those roadways along with the new driveway on Gull Drive proposed as a part of this  project. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1.  The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses. During the 1950s, trash was  reportedly burned on a  portion of the project site and/or burn ash dumped at the site. The trash  burning/ash dumping activities were not licensed. While the burn ash located at the project site is  assumed to be associated with activity at the now‐closed Oyster Point Landfill across Gull Drive from the  site, the project site was not used for disposal of municipal solid waste. The residual burn ash material  consists of ash, brick, concrete, metal fragments,  and glass, and select metals concentrations were  reported at concentrations above industrial or commercial environmental screening levels, requiring  further action. Additionally, migration of landfill gas from the Oyster Point Landfill had historically been  a concern. Hazards and Hazardous Materials will be discussed in detail in the Environmental Impact  Report.  Project Description: The Project Sponsor, Sanfo Group LLC, is proposing construction and operation of a  new 166,613‐square‐foot, 7‐story, office / research and development (R&D) building and an attached  4.5‐story  419‐stall  parking  garage.  Site  improvements  would  also  include  open  space,  landscaping,  outdoor seating areas, pedestrian walkways, and vehicular circulation elements, including a connection  to Gull Drive for the mutual access easements in the vicinity. The project site plan is shown in Figure 2.  Construction is expected to span approximately 22.5 months. No substantial excavation or subsurface  floors / parking is proposed. Grading would involve 18,440 cubic yards of cut across the site. Some of  that would be balanced on site, with a net import of 1,780 cubic yards and export of 16,460 cubic yards.  Drilled piles are proposed for building support that would be drilled down to bedrock (approximately 15  to 60 feet). To address the stability of the slope along the south and east portions of the site, design‐ 97 101 Gull Drive Project ‐ Notice of Preparation    Page 3 of 4  level geotechnical recommendations would include a combination of additional rows of piles, ground  improvement and/or tighter spacing of piles.  The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and zoning at the site and  would require the following approvals from the City of South San Francisco: Conditional Use Permit  (Parking/Loading  Reduction,  Incentive‐Based  Floor  Area  Ratio  (FAR)  Bonus,  Parking  Garage  Rooftop  Planting), Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Program.      Date:  October 13, 2021      Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner    Telephone:   (650) 877‐8535      Figure 1: Project Location 98 101 Gull Drive Project ‐ Notice of Preparation   Page 4 of 4  Figure 2: Project Site Plan99 100 101 102 103 104 105 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 www.dot.ca.gov November 9, 2021 SCH #: 2021100227 GTS #: 04-SM-2021-00391 GTS ID: 24595 Co/Rt/Pm: SM/101/23.2 Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: 101 Gull Drive Notice of Preparation (NOP) Dear Stephanie Skangos: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the 101 Gull Drive Project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the October 2021 NOP. Project Understanding The project proposes the construction and operation of a 166,613‐square‐foot, 7‐story, office/research and development (R&D) building, an attached 4.5‐story 419‐stall parking garage, along with related site improvements. The project is located 1 mile east of the US-101/Oyster Point Boulevard interchange in the City of South San Francisco. Travel Demand Analysis With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Transportation Impact Studies, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide. 106 Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner November 9, 2021 Page 2 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” If the project meets the screening criteria established in the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) policy to be presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT impact and exempt from detailed VMT analysis, please provide justification to support the exempt status in align with the City’s VMT policy. Projects that do not meet the screening criteria should include a detailed VMT analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which should include the following: ● VMT analysis pursuant to the City’s guidelines. Projects that result in automobile VMT per capita above the threshold of significance for existing (i.e. baseline) city-wide or regional values for similar land use types may indicate a significant impact. If necessary, mitigation for increasing VMT should be identified. Mitigation should support the use of transit and active transportation modes. Potential mitigation measures that include the requirements of other agencies such as Caltrans are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments under the control of the City. ● A schematic illustration of walking, biking and auto conditions at the project site and study area roadways. Potential safety issues for all road users should be identified and fully mitigated. ● The project’s primary and secondary effects on pedestrians, bicycles, travelers with disabilities and transit performance should be evaluated, including countermeasures and trade-offs resulting from mitigating VMT increases. Access to pedestrians, bicycle, and transit facilities must be maintained. Mitigation Strategies Location efficiency factors, including community design and regional accessibility, influence a project’s impact on the environment. Using Caltrans’ Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade, the proposed project site is identified as a Close- In Compact Community where community design is moderate and regional accessibility is variable. Given the place, type and size of the project, the DEIR should include a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from future development in this area. The measures listed below have been quantified by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and shown to have different efficiencies reducing regional VMT: ● Bike/Pedestrian network improvements; ● Traffic calming measures; ● Implementation of a neighborhood electric vehicle (EV) network, including designated parking spaces for EVs; ● Limiting parking supply; 107 Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner November 9, 2021 Page 3 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” ● Ridesharing programs, Commute Trip Reduction programs, bike sharing programs; ● Transit and trip planning resources such as a commute information kiosk; ● Real-time transit information system; ● Transit access supporting infrastructure (including bus shelter improvements and sidewalk/ crosswalk safety facilities); ● VMT Banking and/or Exchange program; ● Bike parking near transit facilities; ● Telecommuting programs and alternative work schedules; and/or ● Employer-based vanpool. Using a combination of strategies appropriate to the project and the site can reduce VMT, along with related impacts on the environment and State facilities. TDM programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by a TDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. If the project does not achieve the VMT reduction goals, the reports should also include next steps to take in order to achieve those targets. Please reach out to Caltrans for further information about TDM measures and a toolbox for implementing these measures in land use projects. Additionally, Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (Chapter 8). The reference is available online at: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf. Transportation Impact Fees Please identify project-generated travel demand and estimate the costs of transit and active transportation improvements necessitated by the proposed project; viable funding sources such as development and/or transportation impact fees should also be identified. We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi-modal and regional transit improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also strongly support measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT. Lead Agency As the Lead Agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. 108 Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner November 9, 2021 Page 4 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nick Hernandez at nick.hernandez@dot.ca.gov. Additionally, for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email LDIGR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, MARK LEONG District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse 109     101 Gull Drive Project ‐ Draft EIR Appendices  Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Comments   110 111  NOTICE OF PREPARATION  OF AN EIR AND SCOPING MEETING   FOR THE PROPOSED 101 GULL DRIVE PROJECT     To: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties  From: City of South San Francisco, Economic and Community Development Department  Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in Compliance with Title  14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Title 14, Chapter 3  of the CCR is described herein as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of South San  Francisco (City) is the Lead Agency under CEQA for the proposed project identified below, and will  prepare an EIR to analyze the project under CEQA.   Project Title: 101 Gull Drive. The project location and a summary of the project description are included  on the following page.  Current Environmental Review: An Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines  Section 15063 to determine topic areas that have the potential to result in significant environmental  impacts.   The Initial Study determined that the project would not have significant impacts in the other CEQA topic  areas, consisting of Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources,  Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality,  Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Mineral Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation,  Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.   The  Initial  Study  determined  that  an  Environmental  Impact  Report  should  be  prepared  to  provide  detailed analysis in the topic areas of Hazards & Hazardous Materials and Transportation.  Where to View Documents: The Initial Study, its supporting documentation, and details relating to the  project are on‐file and available for review online at:  www.ssf.net/CEQAdocuments under the “101 Gull Drive” project. If you are unable to view documents  online, please use the contact below to arrange access to an alternate digital copy or hard copy.  Agency/Public Comments: The City requests your comments regarding the analysis in the Initial Study  and the scope and content of the environmental review to be presented in the Environmental Impact  Report for the proposed project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be  sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. The City will  accept written comments on this NOP from October 14, 2021 through 5pm on November 12, 2021.  Please send your comments by email to stephanie.skangos@ssf.net or by mail to: City of South San  Francisco,    Economic  and  Community  Development  Department, 315  Maple  Avenue,  South  San  Francisco, CA 94083, Attention: Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner. Verbal comments will also be  received at the Scoping Meeting indicated below.  Scoping Meeting: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and Sections 15206 and 15082 of  the CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency also hereby gives notice of a public scoping meeting on this  project  to  receive  comments  on  the  scope  of  the  EIR.  In  accordance  with  current  shelter‐in‐place  mandates related to COVID‐19, the Lead Agency will conduct a virtual scoping meeting on Thursday,  November 4, 2021, from 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM, via webinar and telephone conference line. During the  112 101 Gull Drive Project ‐ Notice of Preparation    Page 2 of 4  scoping meeting, agencies, organizations, and the public will have an opportunity to submit comments.  Please note that comments are limited to three minutes per speaker.  To access the scoping meeting webinar, please use this link from your computer, tablet or smartphone  (you may need to install the Zoom app on your device prior to the meeting):  https://ssf‐net.zoom.us/j/81573605732?pwd=TDFLUWxxc25NRUYwYml3MUxPR3QzUT09    You can also dial in to the meeting using your phone (United States Toll Free):  833 548 0276, 833 548 0282, 877 853 5257, or 888 475 4499   Meeting ID: 815 7360 5732  Passcode: 285944    EIR Process: Following the close of the NOP comment period, a Draft EIR will be prepared that will  consider the environmental topic areas of Hazards & Hazardous Materials and Transportation and take  into consideration NOP comments. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a), the Draft EIR  will be released for public review and comment for the required 45‐day review period. Following the  close of the 45‐day public review period, the City will prepare a Final EIR that will include responses to  all substantive comments received on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR and Final EIR will be considered by the  Planning Commission and City Council in making the decision to certify the EIR and to approve or deny  the project.  Project Location: The project site is located at 101 Gull Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015‐082‐250),  within the City of South San Francisco’s “East of 101” planning area. The 3.8‐acre project site is currently  vacant. While the site is located along Gull Drive, it is largely separated from the roadway by a grade  change and steep slope. The project site is located behind businesses fronting Eccles Avenue and Oyster  Point Boulevard and existing access easements with nearby properties would provide mutual access to  driveways on those roadways along with the new driveway on Gull Drive proposed as a part of this  project. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1.  The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses. During the 1950s, trash was  reportedly burned on a  portion of the project site and/or burn ash dumped at the site. The trash  burning/ash dumping activities were not licensed. While the burn ash located at the project site is  assumed to be associated with activity at the now‐closed Oyster Point Landfill across Gull Drive from the  site, the project site was not used for disposal of municipal solid waste. The residual burn ash material  consists of ash, brick, concrete, metal fragments,  and glass, and select metals concentrations were  reported at concentrations above industrial or commercial environmental screening levels, requiring  further action. Additionally, migration of landfill gas from the Oyster Point Landfill had historically been  a concern. Hazards and Hazardous Materials will be discussed in detail in the Environmental Impact  Report.  Project Description: The Project Sponsor, Sanfo Group LLC, is proposing construction and operation of a  new 166,613‐square‐foot, 7‐story, office / research and development (R&D) building and an attached  4.5‐story  419‐stall  parking  garage.  Site  improvements  would  also  include  open  space,  landscaping,  outdoor seating areas, pedestrian walkways, and vehicular circulation elements, including a connection  to Gull Drive for the mutual access easements in the vicinity. The project site plan is shown in Figure 2.  Construction is expected to span approximately 22.5 months. No substantial excavation or subsurface  floors / parking is proposed. Grading would involve 18,440 cubic yards of cut across the site. Some of  that would be balanced on site, with a net import of 1,780 cubic yards and export of 16,460 cubic yards.  Drilled piles are proposed for building support that would be drilled down to bedrock (approximately 15  to 60 feet). To address the stability of the slope along the south and east portions of the site, design‐ 113 101 Gull Drive Project ‐ Notice of Preparation    Page 3 of 4  level geotechnical recommendations would include a combination of additional rows of piles, ground  improvement and/or tighter spacing of piles.  The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and zoning at the site and  would require the following approvals from the City of South San Francisco: Conditional Use Permit  (Parking/Loading  Reduction,  Incentive‐Based  Floor  Area  Ratio  (FAR)  Bonus,  Parking  Garage  Rooftop  Planting), Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Program.      Date:  October 13, 2021      Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner    Telephone:   (650) 877‐8535      Figure 1: Project Location 114 101 Gull Drive Project ‐ Notice of Preparation   Page 4 of 4  Figure 2: Project Site Plan115 116 117 118 119 120 121 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 www.dot.ca.gov November 9, 2021 SCH #: 2021100227 GTS #: 04-SM-2021-00391 GTS ID: 24595 Co/Rt/Pm: SM/101/23.2 Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: 101 Gull Drive Notice of Preparation (NOP) Dear Stephanie Skangos: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the 101 Gull Drive Project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the October 2021 NOP. Project Understanding The project proposes the construction and operation of a 166,613‐square‐foot, 7‐story, office/research and development (R&D) building, an attached 4.5‐story 419‐stall parking garage, along with related site improvements. The project is located 1 mile east of the US-101/Oyster Point Boulevard interchange in the City of South San Francisco. Travel Demand Analysis With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Transportation Impact Studies, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide. 122 Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner November 9, 2021 Page 2 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” If the project meets the screening criteria established in the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) policy to be presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT impact and exempt from detailed VMT analysis, please provide justification to support the exempt status in align with the City’s VMT policy. Projects that do not meet the screening criteria should include a detailed VMT analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which should include the following: ● VMT analysis pursuant to the City’s guidelines. Projects that result in automobile VMT per capita above the threshold of significance for existing (i.e. baseline) city-wide or regional values for similar land use types may indicate a significant impact. If necessary, mitigation for increasing VMT should be identified. Mitigation should support the use of transit and active transportation modes. Potential mitigation measures that include the requirements of other agencies such as Caltrans are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments under the control of the City. ● A schematic illustration of walking, biking and auto conditions at the project site and study area roadways. Potential safety issues for all road users should be identified and fully mitigated. ● The project’s primary and secondary effects on pedestrians, bicycles, travelers with disabilities and transit performance should be evaluated, including countermeasures and trade-offs resulting from mitigating VMT increases. Access to pedestrians, bicycle, and transit facilities must be maintained. Mitigation Strategies Location efficiency factors, including community design and regional accessibility, influence a project’s impact on the environment. Using Caltrans’ Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade, the proposed project site is identified as a Close- In Compact Community where community design is moderate and regional accessibility is variable. Given the place, type and size of the project, the DEIR should include a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from future development in this area. The measures listed below have been quantified by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and shown to have different efficiencies reducing regional VMT: ● Bike/Pedestrian network improvements; ● Traffic calming measures; ● Implementation of a neighborhood electric vehicle (EV) network, including designated parking spaces for EVs; ● Limiting parking supply; 123 Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner November 9, 2021 Page 3 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” ● Ridesharing programs, Commute Trip Reduction programs, bike sharing programs; ● Transit and trip planning resources such as a commute information kiosk; ● Real-time transit information system; ● Transit access supporting infrastructure (including bus shelter improvements and sidewalk/ crosswalk safety facilities); ● VMT Banking and/or Exchange program; ● Bike parking near transit facilities; ● Telecommuting programs and alternative work schedules; and/or ● Employer-based vanpool. Using a combination of strategies appropriate to the project and the site can reduce VMT, along with related impacts on the environment and State facilities. TDM programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by a TDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. If the project does not achieve the VMT reduction goals, the reports should also include next steps to take in order to achieve those targets. Please reach out to Caltrans for further information about TDM measures and a toolbox for implementing these measures in land use projects. Additionally, Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (Chapter 8). The reference is available online at: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf. Transportation Impact Fees Please identify project-generated travel demand and estimate the costs of transit and active transportation improvements necessitated by the proposed project; viable funding sources such as development and/or transportation impact fees should also be identified. We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi-modal and regional transit improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also strongly support measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT. Lead Agency As the Lead Agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. 124 Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner November 9, 2021 Page 4 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nick Hernandez at nick.hernandez@dot.ca.gov. Additionally, for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email LDIGR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, MARK LEONG District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse 125     101 Gull Drive Project ‐ Draft EIR Appendices  Appendix B Initial Study      126 127 INITIAL STUDY 101 GULL DRIVE PROJECT Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 OCTOBER 2021 Prepared By: Lamphier-Gregory, Inc. 4100 Redwood Rd, STE 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 128   129   i   TABLE OF CONTENTS page Introduction to this Document ................................................................................................................ 1  Public Review ........................................................................................................................................... 1  Project Information .................................................................................................................................. 1  Lead Agency Determination ................................................................................................................... 11  Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 12    Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................................... 12    Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................. 12  Aesthetics....................................................................................................................................... 13  Agricultural and Forest Resources ................................................................................................. 15  Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 16  Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 22  Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 24  Energy ............................................................................................................................................ 26  Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................... 27  Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 30  Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 33  Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 34  Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................... 38  Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 39  Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 40  Population and Housing ................................................................................................................. 42  Public Services ............................................................................................................................... 43  Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 44  Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 45  Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 46  Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................... 47  Wildfire .......................................................................................................................................... 50  Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................... 51  Document Preparers .............................................................................................................................. 52  Sources ................................................................................................................................................... 52   130    ii   page TABLES Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction ................................................... 18  Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations ............................................................... 19  Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 31  FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location .................................................................................................................. 5  Figure 2: Existing Conditions and Access Easements ........................................................................ 6  Figure 3: Illustrative Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 7  Figure 4: Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan ............................................................................. 8  Figure 5a: Exterior Elevations ‐ Northeast ........................................................................................ 9  Figure 5b: Exterior Elevations ‐ South ............................................................................................. 10  ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:  Emissions Modeling  Attachment B:   Cultural Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission Response         131   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study    Page 1 INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT This document serves as the Initial Study for the 101 Gull Drive project (“project”). As discussed in this  document, an EIR will be prepared to address indicated topics. Full project application materials are  available for review upon request from the Planning Department at City of South San Francisco (see  contact info below).  PUBLIC REVIEW This Initial Study will be circulated for a 30‐day public review period. Comments may be submitted in  writing by email or regular mail to the following address:  Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner  City of South San Francisco  Economic & Community Development Department   315 Maple Avenue  South San Francisco, CA 94083‐0711  Phone: 650‐877‐8535  Email: stephanie.skangos@ssf.net  PROJECT INFORMATION All figures for the project information are included together on pages 5 through 10.  PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS Development of the project would require the following approvals from the City of South San Francisco:  Conditional Use Permit (Parking/Loading Reduction, Incentive‐Based Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus,  Parking Garage Rooftop Planting), Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Program.  Because the project is located in the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan  area, the project would be subject to Airport Land Use Commission review and approval.  The project is required to comply with Municipal Regional Permit requirements related to stormwater  pollution prevention.  LEAD AGENCY City of South San Francisco  Economic & Community Development Department   315 Maple Avenue  South San Francisco, CA 94083‐0711  CONTACT PERSON Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner  City of South San Francisco  Economic & Community Development Department   315 Maple Avenue  South San Francisco, CA 94083‐0711  Phone: 650‐877‐8535  Email: stephanie.skangos@ssf.net  132   Page 2    101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study    PROJECT SPONSOR Mike Stanford  Sanfo Group LLC  3351 Greenview Drive  El Dorado Hills, CA 96762  PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING USES The project site (APN 015‐082‐250) is a vacant, generally triangular‐shaped 3.8‐acre lot located in the  East of 101 area of the City of South San Francisco, California. The project proposes the construction and  operation of a 166,613 square foot office/research and development (R&D) building with adjoining  structured parking and a new driveway on Gull Drive along with mutual access easements with the  neighboring properties also connecting to Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Road. Figure 1 shows the  project location.  The site is located along Gull Drive, but is largely separated from the roadway by a grade change and  step slope. The project site is located behind businesses fronting Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point  Boulevard and existing access easements with nearby properties would provide mutual access to  driveways on those roadways and the new driveway on Gull Drive proposed as a part of this project. The  regional location of the project is shown in Figure 1 and the project parcel, including access easements,  is shown in Figure 2.   The site is relatively level, except along its south and east portions, which slope down at inclinations of  approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The maximum slope height is around 40 feet.   The site is generally underlain by about 10 to 55 feet of undocumented fill consisting of loose to medium  dense sandy soil and stiff to very stiff clayey soil with varying amounts of debris. The fill is around 10  feet thick at the northeast corner of the site and increases to the south and to the west with the thickest  portion near the top of the existing slope. The fill is underlain by stiff to hard clay and sandy clay over  bedrock. Bedrock, consisting of sandstone and claystone of the Francisco Complex was encountered at  depths ranging from 12 to 68 feet below ground surface. Bedrock generally becomes deeper to the  southwest.  Due to the steep slope of the native soil and bedrock underlying the site and the current site  topography, the depth to groundwater is variable. The depth to groundwater is approximately 30 feet  below ground surface and the groundwater flow direction is to the southeast, generally toward the San  Francisco Bay.  The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses. During the 1950s, trash was  reportedly burned on a portion of the project site and/or burn ash dumped at the site. The trash  burning/ash dumping activities were not licensed. While the burn ash located at the project site is  assumed to be associated with activity at the now‐closed Oyster Point Landfill across Gull Drive from the  site, the project site was not used for disposal of municipal solid waste. The residual burn ash material  consists of ash, brick, concrete, metal fragments, and glass, and select metals concentrations were  reported at concentrations above industrial or commercial environmental screening levels, requiring  further action. Additionally, migration of landfill gas from the Oyster Point Landfill had historically been  a concern. Hazards and Hazardous Materials will be discussed in detail in the Environmental Impact  Report.  133   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study    Page 3 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION / ZONING Business and Technology Park / Business Technology Park (BTP) SURROUNDING LAND USES Uses in the project vicinity include a mix of office, warehouse, corporate, commercial, and light  industrial uses in Business Technology Park zoning. The project parcel is bounded to the north, west, and  south by office/commercial and light industrial buildings and associated parking lots. Gull Drive borders  the project parcel to the east.   Four existing businesses would directly share the access driveway(s) with the project. The existing  easements are shown on Figure 2. Adjacent to the north of the project site is Plenty Unlimited, Inc., a  hydroponic produce company. Two buildings, together comprising the Nickell Property, sit southwest of  the Plenty Unlimited building across the mutually‐accessible 30‐foot driveway to Eccles Avenue. The  Nickell Property includes several office complexes and a wholesale business (MTC Trading Company).  Both the Nickell and Plenty Unlimited properties have direct connections from their parking lots to the  Eccles Avenue driveway.   On the other side of the Plenty Unlimited building to the east is Iron Mountain, a records storage and  document shredding facility. This property is separated from Plenty Unlimited by two parallel  approximately 30‐foot drive aisles (both owned by Plenty Unlimited, but grade separated such that they  are separate aisles), which intersect with Oyster Point Boulevard east of the signalized intersection with  Eccles Avenue and the signalized intersection with a driveway to the north.   A mutual access easement also runs along the northwest border or the project site and the USDA facility  to the southwest of the project site, allowing access around the back of the Plenty Unlimited and Iron  Mountain properties and, if the project is implemented, to Gull Drive via the proposed new driveway.  PROJECT DESCRIPTION Overview and Building Massing   The proposed project would involve construction of a new 166,613‐square‐foot (sf), 7‐story, office /  research and development (R&D) building and an attached 4.5‐story 419‐stall parking garage. Site  improvements would also include open space, landscaping, outdoor seating areas, pedestrian walkways,  and vehicular circulation elements, including a connection to Gull Drive for the mutual access easements  in the vicinity (see above).   The exterior office/R&D building design would include fiber cement panels and colored glass with metal  louvers and overhangs and would reach heights of 115.5 feet tall to the top of the parapet, with  allowable rooftop elements up to 128 feet. The parking garage would reach heights of 44 feet tall.   The project site plan is shown on Figure 3 and the grading and drainage plan is shown in Figure 4.  Building elevations are shown on Figures 5a and 5b.  Access & Parking    Vehicular access to and from the project would be via three routes (all of which have mutual access  easements with nearby properties per discussion above):   A new right‐in/right‐out only driveway on Gull Drive (which would require recording a new access  easement over a sliver of City‐owned land).   134   Page 4    101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study     Along the shared drive aisle heading southwest from the site then  along  an  existing  driveway  between  the  Plenty  Unlimited  and  Nickell  properties  to  connect with  Eccles  Avenue  at  an  unsignalized intersection.    Along one of the two adjacent 30‐foot drive aisle easements between the Plenty Unlimited and Iron  Mountain  buildings  to  Oyster  Point  Boulevard.  While  the  intersection of these driveways with  Oyster Point Boulevard is not signalized and would be limited to right‐in, right‐out movements by  existing  medians  on  Oyster  Point  Boulevard,  it  is  possible  for vehicles  to  access  the  adjacent  signalized driveway intersection internally through the parking lot area for full turning options. Due  to the constraints of the connection to Oyster Point Boulevard at this access point, the project’s on‐ site circulation has been designed to discourage outbound movement along this pathway.  The companies currently using the existing paved drive aisle along the northwestern boundary of the  existing parcel for access and circulation would continue to have the same access and rights to do so;  with development of the project, vehicles accessing the project site would also use the driveway and  drive aisles.   Construction   Construction is expected to span approximately 22.5 months. Site preparation would occur in the first  1.5 months, followed by 3 months of foundation work, then 18 months of building and parking garage  construction, which would overlap with 2 months for hardscape and landscaping toward the end of that  period. This active construction period would be followed by inspections and closeout. It is expected  that future tenants would engage in additional interior build out of the space to suit their needs.  Construction activities are targeted to begin in late summer 2022 with operations beginning as early as  summer of 2024.  No substantial excavation or subsurface floors / parking is proposed. Grading would involve 18,440 cubic  yards of cut across the site. Some of that would be balanced on site, with a net import of 1,780 cubic  yards and export of 16,460 cubic yards. Drilled piles are proposed for building support that would be  drilled down to bedrock (approximately 15 to 60 feet). To address the stability of the slope along the  south and east portions of the site, design‐level geotechnical recommendations would include a  combination of additional rows of piles, ground improvement and/or tighter spacing of piles.  Depth to groundwater is approximately 30 feet below the ground surface (of the development portion  of the site, not the slope), and dewatering is not anticipated during foundation work.     135   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study    Page 5                                                               Figure 1: Project Location   Source: Fehr & Peers, for this project analysis  136  Page 6 101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study                  Figure 2: Existing Conditions and Access Easements Source: Project Plan Set, dated 10/8/2021     137  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study Page 7               Figure 3: Illustrative Site Plan  Source: Project Plan Set, dated 10/8/2021 138  Page 8 101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study               Figure 4: Grading and Drainage Plan  Source: Project Plan Set, dated 10/8/2021    139  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study Page 9                 Figure 5a: Exterior Elevations ‐ Northeast  Source: Project Plan Set, dated 10/8/2021   140  Page 10 101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study                Figure 5b: Exterior Elevations ‐ South  Source: Project Plan Set 2/28/2021 141   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 11   LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION On the basis of this evaluation:   I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and  a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.   I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,  there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures to reduce these  impacts will be required of the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be  prepared.   I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.   I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially  significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been  adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has  been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on  attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only  the effects that remain to be addressed.   I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,  because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR  or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or  mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or  mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.          Signature         Date  Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner     142   Page 12  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Environmental factors that may be affected by the project are listed alphabetically below. Factors  marked with an “X” () were determined to be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one  impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the Checklist on the following pages.  Unmarked factors () were determined to not be significantly affected by the project, based on  discussion provided in the Checklist, including the application of mitigation measures.     Aesthetics  Agricultural/Forest Resources  Air Quality   Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy    Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards/Hazardous Material   Hydrology/Water Quality  Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources     Noise  Population/Housing  Public Services     Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources    Utilities/Service Systems  Wildfire   Mandatory Findings of Significance  An EIR will be prepared to address the indicated topics above.   EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each CEQA issue topic. Four  outcomes are possible, as explained below.  1. A “no impact” response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on the  environment would occur due to the project.   2. A “less than significant” response indicates that while there may be potential for an environmental  impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other features of the project as  proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level of “less than significant.”   3. Responses that indicate that the impact of the project would be “less than significant with  mitigation” indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be  required as a condition of project approval in order to effectively reduce potential project‐related  environmental effects to a level of “less than significant.”   4. A “potentially significant impact” response indicates that further analysis is required to determine  the extent of the potential impact and identify any appropriate mitigation. If any topics are indicated  with a “potentially significant impact,” these topics would need to be analyzed in an Environmental  Impact Report.     143   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 13 1.  AESTHETICS  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)   Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?   b)  Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,  rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?      c)   Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views  of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are  experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an  urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other  regulations governing scenic quality?       d)   Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely  affect day or nighttime views in the area?        a)  Scenic Vistas    The project vicinity is predominantly developed with business park and industrial uses and is not  considered a scenic resource or vista in any vicinity plans. The East of 101 Area Plan (Policy 5.3)  states that a design goal of development in the Plan Area should be to “Protect visually significant  features of the East of 101 Area, including views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain.”1 CEQA  generally protects against significant adverse impacts to public views of scenic vistas, taking into  consideration whether the view is from a location at which people gather specifically to enjoy  views and the environmental context (i.e., if the area is a natural area or a developed urban area).  While views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain are considered scenic vistas for purposes of this  analysis, there are no designated public viewing locations in the vicinity of the project. Views from  public roadways are discussed below to indicate the potential for changed views from public  locations.   San Bruno Mountain, which lies northwest of the project site, is not visible from Gull Drive (to the  east) or Forbes Boulevard (to the south) due to the relative ground elevations and existing  development in the area. Similarly, views toward the Bay from area roadways that would cross  the site are already substantially blocked at road level by existing area development, topography,  and landscaping.   While areas of the adjacent development could experience some blockage of views of the Bay or  San Bruno Mountain (for example, views from the parking area south of the Nickell Property and  the Plenty Unlimited building could be partially obstructed), this would not be considered a  substantial adverse effect, as these are not public viewing locations where people gather  specifically to enjoy views and obstruction of private views is not considered a significant  environmental impact under CEQA.                                                               1   East of 101 Area Plan, July 1994, p. 13  144   Page 14  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study    Taking both the regulatory and specific locational/scenic context into account, the impact on  scenic vistas from implementation of the project would be considered less than significant.  b)   Scenic Highways   The project would not be visible from a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway. U.S. 101 is not  a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway corridor in the vicinity of the project nor are there  any scenic corridors identified in the area.2 The project would be less than significant on a state  scenic highway or scenic resources viewable from such a highway.  c)   Visual Character   The project is located in an urbanized area and therefore the threshold of significance is whether  the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.  The site is currently zoned for Business and Technology Park (BTP) use, under which R&D and  office uses are explicitly permitted. While the proposed project would require a Conditional Use  Permit for Parking/Loading Reduction, Incentive‐Based FAR Bonus, and Parking Garage Rooftop  Planting, these are allowable approvals under the site planning and would therefore not be  considered conflicts. Therefore, the impact on visual character from implementation of the  project would be considered less than significant. Additionally, City staff will review the proposed  design as part of the approval process, and design parameters would be imposed by the City.  d)   Light and Glare  Sources of light and glare in the project vicinity include interior and exterior building lights, service  areas and surface parking lots, and city street lights. Light and glare associated with vehicular  traffic along major thoroughfares in the area also create sources of glare. The existing level and  sources of light and glare are typical of those in a developed urban business park setting.     Residential uses and natural areas are particularly sensitive to light and glare impacts. The project  is located in a commercial and industrial area with no immediately adjacent residential uses or  natural areas and has lighting consistent with that existing in the area. As a standard condition of  Project approval, new lighting will be required to conform to the City’s standards that limit the  amount of light that can spill over to other properties through the use of downcast lighting  fixtures.  The project would result in development and lighting treatments typical of the existing  commercial/industrial urban settings and consistent with lighting standards to minimize lighting  on adjacent areas, and would therefore not result in new sources of substantial adverse light or  glare. The impact would be less than significant.                                                                  2  California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at:  https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap‐landscape‐architecture‐and‐community‐livability/lap‐liv‐i‐scenic‐highways   145   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 15 2.  AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)   Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide  Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the  Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,  to non‐agricultural use?       b)   Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?    c)   Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (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))?       d)   Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?    e)   Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or  nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or  conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?         a‐e) Agriculture and Forestry Resources   The project site is located in a developed urban area adjacent to a highway. No part of the site is  zoned for or currently being used for agricultural or forestry purposes or is subject to the Williamson  Act.3 There would be no impact to agricultural and forestry resources as a result of this project.                                                                    3 South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.  146   Page 16  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  3.  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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)   Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?    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?       c)   Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?    d)   Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting  a substantial number of people?      a)   Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?      a) Air Quality Plan   Projects within South San Francisco are subject to the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, first adopted by the  Bay  Area  Air  Quality  Management  District  (BAAQMD)  (in  association  with  the  Metropolitan  Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments) in 1991 to meet state  requirements and those of the Federal Clean Air Act. The plan is meant to demonstrate progress  toward meeting the ozone standards, but also includes other elements related to particulate matter,  toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases. The latest update to the plan, adopted in April 2017,  is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan.     BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan primary goals  and control measures. The impact would be presumed significant if the project would conflict with  or obstruct attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures.    The primary goals of the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan are:  •  Attain all state and national air quality standards  •  Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air  contaminants  •  Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below  1990 levels by 2050 (This standard is addressed in Section 8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.)    The project would be required to comply with all applicable rules and regulations related to  emissions and health risk and would not result in a new substantial source of emissions or toxic air  contaminants (see items b‐d below) or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean  Air Plan.    Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area‐wide improvements, large  stationary source reductions, or large employers and these are not applicable to the proposed  147   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 17 project. However, the project would be consistent with all rules and regulations related to  construction activities and the proposed development would meet current standards of energy and  water efficiency (Energy Control Measure EN1 and Water Control Measure WR2) and recycling and  green waste requirements (Waste Management Control Measures WA3 and WA4) and does not  conflict with applicable control measures aimed at improving access/connectivity for bicycles and  pedestrians (Transportation Control Measure TR9) or any other control measures.      The project, therefore, would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan and have a less than significant  impact in this regard.  b)  Air Quality Standards/Criteria Pollutants   Ambient air quality standards have been established by state and federal environmental agencies  for specific air pollutants most pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants are referred to as  criteria air pollutants because the standards established for them were developed to meet specific  health and welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation and include ozone precursors  including nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gasses (NOx and ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), and  suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The Bay Area is considered “attainment” for all of  the national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered “nonattainment” for State  standards for ozone and particulate matter.   Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts  on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single  project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.  Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air  quality impacts.4  BAAQMD updated their Guidelines for air quality analysis in coordination with adoption of new  thresholds of significance on June 2, 2010.5 The most recent version of the Guidelines is dated May  2017.   Project‐related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short‐term impacts that would occur  during construction of the project and long‐term impacts due to project operation. BAAQMD’s  adopted thresholds are average daily emissions during construction or operation of 54 pounds per  day or operational emissions of 10 tons per year of NOx, ROG or PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day or 15  tons per year of PM10.  Construction Emissions   Construction of the project would involve demolition, excavation and site preparation, and building  erection. Although these construction activities would be temporary, they would have the potential  to cause both nuisance and health‐related air quality impacts.   Construction emissions for the project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator  Model (“CalEEMod”). Project details were entered into the model including the proposed land uses,  Transportation Demand Management Plan trip reductions, Peninsula Clean Energy carbon intensity                                                               4 BAAQMD, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2‐1.  5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2, 2010. News Release  http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Publications/News%20Releases/2010/ceqa_10 0602.ashx .   148   Page 18  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  factors, demolition/earthwork volumes, and construction schedule. Model defaults were otherwise  used. The CalEEMod results are included in Attachment A. Emissions from construction are  summarized in Table 1.   Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction (Pounds per Day)  Description  Reactive  Organic  Gases  Nitrogen   Oxides  Particulate   Matter (PM10)*  Fine Particulate  Matter (PM2.5) *  Average Daily Emissions   5  19  0.69  0.65  BAAQMD Daily Thresholds  54  54  82  54  * Applies to exhaust emissions only  Source: CalEEMod results included as Attachment A, converted from tons per year to pounds per day across the active  construction days (approximately 533 days).     Construction‐period emissions levels are below BAAQMD thresholds presented in Table 1. However,  BAAQMD considers dust generated by grading and construction activities to be a significant impact  associated with project development if uncontrolled and recommends implementation of  construction mitigation measures to reduce construction‐related emissions and dust for all projects,  regardless of comparison to their construction‐period thresholds. These basic measures are included  in Mitigation Measure Air‐1, below and would further reduce construction‐period criteria pollutant  impacts.   Mitigation Measure  Air‐1:  Basic Construction Management Practices. The project applicant / owner / sponsor  shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and  operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits,  including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation  Measures”.  i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,  and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site shall be  covered.  iii) All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed  using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, unless the City  Engineer determines that an alternative cleaning  method would achieve  the  same  standard  of  air  pollution  prevention  and  also  reduce  the  potential  for  stormwater pollution.   iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon  as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless  seeding or soil binders are used.  vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use  or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California  airborne  toxics  control  measure  Title  13,  Section  2485  of  California  Code  of  Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at  all access points.  149   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 19 vii) All  construction  equipment  shall  be  maintained  and  properly  tuned  in  accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked  by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior  to operation.  viii) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at  the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take  corrective action within 48 hours. Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s  24‐hour general air pollution complaint phone number shall also be visible to  ensure compliance with applicable regulations.    With implementation of Mitigation Measure Air‐1, the impact related to construction‐period criteria  pollutant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Because construction‐period  emissions would not exceed applicable significance thresholds, additional construction mitigation  measures would not be required to mitigate impacts.    Operational Emissions   Emissions from operation of the project could cumulatively contribute to air pollutant levels in the  region. These air pollutants include ROG and NOx that affect ozone levels (and to some degree –  particulate levels), PM10, and PM2.5. Emissions of air pollutants associated with the project were  predicted using CalEEMod. This model predicts daily emissions associated with development  projects including transportation, energy and other utilities, and on‐site activities such as  landscaping and building cleaning and maintenance. CalEEMod inputs and results are included in  Attachment A and summarized in Table 2, below.  Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations (Pounds per Day for Daily, Tons per Year  for Annual)  Description  Reactive  Organic Gases  Nitrogen  Oxides  Particulate   Matter (PM10)  Fine Particulate  Matter (PM2.5)  Project Emissions, Daily 5.2  7.2  3.9  1.1  BAAQMD Daily   Significance Thresholds  54 54 82 54  Project Emissions, Annual 0.9  1.3  0.7  0.2  BAAQMD Annual   Significance Thresholds  10 10 15 10  Source: CalEEMod results included as Attachment A. Average daily emissions were calculated by converting from tons per  year to pounds/days.      Daily and annual air emissions predicted with build‐out of the proposed project are reported in  Table 2 above and compared against BAAQMD thresholds.     As vehicular emissions have improved over the years, carbon monoxide hotspots have become less  of a concern. BAAQMD presents traffic‐based criteria as screening criteria for carbon monoxide  impacts, as follows.6 The project is consistent with General Plan and zoning designations for the site                                                               6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 3‐2, 3‐3.  150   Page 20  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  and area planning and would implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan per South San  Francisco Municipal Code to reduce project trips. The project is therefore consistent with the  Congestion Management Plan (CMP) of the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments  (C/CAG), which is the first threshold. The other two screening thresholds are whether the project  would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or to  more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited  (such as a tunnel or underground parking garage, which the project or vicinity intersections do not  include).  These hourly traffic volumes are very high and much higher than those in the vicinity. For  example, the highest volume roadway in the vicinity of the project is Oyster Point Boulevard, which  carries less than 17,000 vehicles per day under existing conditions and is forecast to carry just over  30,000 vehicle per day with cumulative development by 2040. With daily volumes below the hourly  volume thresholds, the hourly volumes would be even lower and the project would not have the  potential to exceed the screening thresholds. The project would not result in individually or  cumulatively significant impacts from CO emissions.    The project is below significance thresholds established by BAAQMD and meets localized CO  screening criteria. As a result, the project would have a less than significant impact on regional air  quality during the operational period.    c)  Sensitive Receptors   A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined by California law as an air pollutant that may cause or  contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present  or  potential  hazard  to  human  health.  In  the  Bay  Area,  a  number of  urban  or  industrialized  communities exist where the exposure to TACs is relatively high compared to other communities.  According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the project site is not in an impacted community.7  Substantial sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways and high‐ volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities,  dry  cleaners  using  perchloroethylene,  and  gasoline  dispensing  facilities.  The  project  would  not  involve  any  of  these  uses.  However,  construction  activity  that uses  traditional  diesel‐powered  equipment results in the emission of diesel particulate matter including fine particulate matter,  which is considered a toxic air contaminant and potential health risk.  Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, can be  particularly sensitive to air pollution. With respect to air pollutants, examples of sensitive receptors  include health care facilities, retirement homes, school and playground facilities, and residential  areas. The project itself is not considered a sensitive receptor. There are few sensitive receptors in  the East of 101 area of South San Francisco, but there are scattered day care facilities and some live‐ aboard house boats in the marina in the Oyster Point area. All these sensitive receptors are over  1,000 feet from the proposed project, which is the screening distance recommended by BAAQMD.  Therefore, because there are no sensitive receptors within the screening distance of site and the  project  does  not  exceed  criteria  pollutant  emissions  levels  during  either  the  construction  or  operational period (discussed under this section 3(a) above), the project would not expose sensitive  receptors  to  substantial  pollutant  concentrations  and  impact  in this regard would be less  than  significant.                                                               7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Figure 5‐1.  151   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 21 d)   Objectionable Odors     Odors from construction activities are associated with construction equipment exhaust and the  application of asphalt and architectural coatings. Odors emitted from construction activities would  be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the project site’s boundaries. The  proposed office/R&D use is consistent with the type of development in the area, and is not a use  type considered by BAAQMD to be a source of substantial objectionable odors.8 The same types of  uses that are sensitive to pollutants would be sensitive to odors, and as discussed under this section  3(a) above, there are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project. Therefore, the potential  for objectionable odor impacts to adversely affect a substantial number of people is less than  significant.                                                                      8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Table 3‐3.  152   Page 22  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  4.  BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)   Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat  modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special  status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the  California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?       b)   Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive  natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or  regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish  and Wildlife Service?       c)   Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands  (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through  direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?       d)   Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or  migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or  migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery  sites?       e)   Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological  resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?      f)   Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,  Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,  or state habitat conservation plan?         a–c)  Special Status Species and Habitat and Wetlands   The project site is maintained as a vacant site and can generally be described as a grassy and  weedy area with scattered shrubs that is regularly mowed/cut. The General Plan has assessed  parcels in the area that have the potential for biological resources. The project site is mapped as  an area that can be considered not to have biological resources, thus precluding the need for a  Biological Resources Assessment.9     Special‐status species are unlikely to occur in the project vicinity due to its highly disturbed and  urbanized nature. The project site was not mapped in the East of 101 Area Plan as an area with  sensitive biological resources.10 Plant and animal species that may occur in the vicinity would be  common species associated with urban, developed, and ruderal conditions throughout the San  Francisco Bay area. No wetlands, riparian habitats, or other sensitive habitats are present at the  site.11 Impacts on special‐status species and habitats would therefore be less than significant.                                                                  9   South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. Figure 7‐2.  10   City of South San Francisco. East of 101 Area Plan, July 1994. Figure 18.  11   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at  https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed August 2021.  153   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 23 d)  Wildlife Corridors   The project site is surrounded by roadways and other developed areas and does not connect  undeveloped areas or otherwise have the potential to act as a substantial wildlife corridor.  Impacts related to movement of wildlife would be less than significant.  e)  Local Policies and Ordinances  There are no local policies or ordinances directly applicable to the project and tree removal is not  proposed. Therefore, the project would have no impact regarding conflicts with local policies and  ordinances, including tree preservation.  f)  Habitat Conservation Plan   There is no Habitat Conservation Plan applicable to the project site. Therefore, the project would  have no impact.     154   Page 24  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  5.  CULTURAL RESOURCES  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical  resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5?     b)   Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological  resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5?      c)   Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal  cemeteries?        a)  Historic Resources   The site is currently vacant and does not contain historic‐age structures. There is no potential to  impact historic resources , thus the project would have no impact on historic resources.   b, c)  Archaeological Resources and Human Remains   A records search was performed by the Northwest Information Center (Attachment B), which  indicated that while there are no known cultural resources present in the project area, there is a  moderate to high potential for the inadvertent discovery of previously unrecorded Native  American and historic‐period archaeological resources based on the characteristics of the site and  history of the region. A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands  File was completed for the project and indicated there are no known sacred lands present in the  vicinity of the site (see Attachment B). While no tribes have requested consultation for project in  this area, notice was sent to listed tribes in September 2021, per recommendation of the Native  American Heritage Commission. No responses were received prior to publication of this Initial  Study. If responses are subsequently received that require additional discussion in the CEQA  context, such discussion will be included in the EIR.    There is no significant excavation or below‐grade levels proposed. Given that the site is generally  underlain by about 10 to 55 feet of fill, grading activities are not anticipated to disturb native soils,  except limited disturbance from drilled piles for the foundation.  Therefore, although not  anticipated, previously unknown cultural resources or human remains could be inadvertently  unearthed during ground‐disturbing activities. This inadvertent discovery would be a potentially  significant impact and require mitigation.   Mitigation Measures  Cul‐1: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP).  A qualified  archaeologist shall conduct a WEAP training for all construction personnel on the project  site prior to construction and ground‐disturbing activities. The training shall include basic  information about the types of artifacts that might be encountered during construction  activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be  provided for any personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb  native soils.   155   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 25 Cul‐2: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that  previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, historical, or tribal resources are  uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project  applicant / owner / sponsor shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the  discovery are ceased until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional,  who shall be retained by the project applicant / owner / sponsor, and specific measures can  be implemented by the project applicant / owner / sponsor to protect these resources in  accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.   Cul‐3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination  with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are  uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project  applicant / owner / sponsor shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the  discovery are ceased until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, which  evaluation shall be arranged by the project applicant / owner / sponsor, and appropriate  action taken by the project applicant / owner / sponsor in coordination with the Native  American Heritage Commission, in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health  and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, section 5097.98 of the California  Public Resources Code.    Implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul‐1, Cul‐2, and Cul‐3 would reduce the impacts  associated with possible disturbance of unidentified cultural resources at the project site to a level  of less than significant with mitigation.     156   Page 26  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  6.  ENERGY  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)  Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,  inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project  construction or operation?       b)   Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or  energy efficiency?        a, b) Energy     The threshold of significance  related to energy use is whether the project would result in wasteful,  inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct state or  local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.  The project would use energy in various ways, including directly to power the building, heating and  cooling, and also to power vehicles. Construction and routine operation and maintenance also  consume energy. Additionally, there is indirect energy consumption related to the production and  distribution of energy and other utilities and transportation and disposal of waste. That being said,  there is no quantified threshold for energy consumption against which to compare a quantified  amount of energy use. Rather, the threshold hinges on whether the energy consumption would be  wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.   As a project  on a vacant site that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation for the  site, it can be concluded that the project is consistent with City plans for area development and  therefore that energy consumption for construction and operations would not be considered  unnecessary.  As discussed in other sections of this analysis, the project incorporates energy and energy‐related  efficiency measures meeting all applicable requirements, including water and waste efficiency. The  project would be required to comply with all standards of Title 24 of the California Code of  Regulations and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN), as applicable, aimed at  the incorporation of energy‐conserving design and construction. The project would also implement  a Transportation Demand Management  Plan to reduce employee trips, thereby reducing energy  consumption for transportation for the employees.   As detailed in sections 3: Air Quality and 8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project is also consistent  with regional and local climate actions plans, as currently applicable, which include measures  related to energy consumption.    Therefore, although the project would incrementally increase energy consumption, it would not  result in a significant impact related to energy consumption in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary  manner or otherwise conflict with energy plans and the impact in this regard would be less than  significant.     157   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 27 7.  GEOLOGY AND SOILS  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the  risk of loss, injury, or death involving:      i)  Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent  Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State  Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a  known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special  Publication 42)       ii)   Strong seismic ground shaking?      iii)   Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?     iv)   Landslides?      b)  Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?    c)  Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become  unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site  landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?       d)  Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform  Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or  property?       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?       f)   Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or  unique geologic feature?          This section utilizes information from the Preliminary Geotechnical Site Assessment and  Supplemental Discussion (“Geotechnical Report”) prepared for the applicants by Langan Engineering  and Environmental Services, dated November 12, 2020 and August 2, 2021, which is available as  part of project application materials.  a, c, d) Geologic Hazards    The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Hayward Faults. The  closest fault traces are located almost 4 miles from the project site. The project site is not within an  Alquist‐Priolo Seismic Hazard Zone, and no known active or potentially active faults traverse the site.  Therefore, the project has no impact related to rupture along a fault.     However, the San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region and the site is likely to encounter  strong seismic ground shaking during the lifetime of the project, which can result in seismic‐related  ground failure including liquefaction depending on the characteristics of the site and development.  The soil and development characteristics can also result in risks of non‐seismic‐related hazards,  including lateral spreading and expansive soil.   158   Page 28  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study    The project’s Geotechnical Report concludes that most of the fill encountered on site is sufficiently  dense and/or has sufficient cohesion to resist substantial liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismic  densification during a large earthquake on one of the nearby faults. Isolated layers of medium dense  sand at the site may be susceptible to liquefaction, estimated at about 1 inch of liquefaction‐ induced settlement and 1 inch of cyclic densification settlement should be anticipated during a  major earthquake. Because the liquefiable layers are not continuous and occur near the base of the  adjacent slope, the potential for lateral spreading is low.    The stability of the slope was also specifically considered, given the characteristics of the site soils  and proposed development. While development is proposed on the relatively level portion of the  site, buildings are proposed within 20 feet of the slopes at the south and east edges of the site.  These slopes have inclinations of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and the maximum slope  height is around 40 feet. The project’s Geotechnical Report  concludes that the proposed  development is feasible and would not result in slope instability with appropriate foundation  support including a combination of additional rows of piles, ground improvement, and/or tighter  spacing of piles.  The geotechnical analysis concluded that the potential geological hazards can be addressed through  appropriate design and construction, which would occur as part of the design‐level geotechnical  recommendations and structural plans as specified in mitigation measure Geo‐1.   Mitigation Measure  Geo‐1:  Compliance with a design‐level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a  Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by  a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction  shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered  Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural  engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate  seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.   Compliance with a design‐level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans, as required  by Mitigation Measure Geo‐1 would reduce the potential impact of seismic hazards including  liquefaction and slope stability to a level of less than significant with mitigation.  b)   Soil Erosion     Project construction, particularly grading and site preparation, can result in erosion and loss of  topsoil from the project site. The development portion of the project site is generally flat. Outside of  the proposed development area are existing slopes along the site’s east and southeast boundaries  with inclinations of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and a maximum slope height around  40 feet. Grading would involve 18,440 cubic yards of cut across the site. Some of that would be  balanced on site, with a net import of 1,780 cubic yard and export of 16,460 cubic yards. No  substantial changes are proposed to the existing slopes.    The project would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge  Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with  Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009‐0009‐DWQ (Construction General  Permit), administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Coverage under the  NPDES Permit would require implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)  and various site‐specific best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and loss of topsoil  during site demolition and construction. Compliance with the NPDES permit and BMPs during  demolition and construction such as straw wattles, silt fencing, concrete washouts, and inlet  159   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 29 protection during construction would reduce impacts resulting from loss of topsoil. The project  would be required to comply with South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”) Section 15.56.030,  which would require the development of the project site to control filling, grading, and dredging  which may increase flood damage.       Soil erosion after construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and  irrigation plans. With the implementation of a SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan to prevent erosion,  sedimentation, and loss of topsoil during and following construction – which are required under  existing regulations and therefore not needed to be implemented as mitigation ‐ the soil erosion  impacts of the project would be less than significant.  e)   Septic Tanks    The project would not include the use of septic tanks and associated disposal facilities. Therefore,  the project would have no impact in this regard.  f)   Unique Geologic Feature or Paleontological Resource     The area east of Highway 101 is underlain by deposits of Bay mud up to 80 feet deep in some places,  which have some sensitivity for paleontological vertebrates, but no paleontological resources have  been found on the project site (University of California Museum of Paleontology 2019).12, 13    The project site falls within a highly urbanized area and the site is underlain by about 10 to 55 feet  of fill. Project grading activities are not anticipated to disturb native soils, though drilled piles would  reach into native soils. Therefore, the project has a low potential to directly or indirectly destroy  unique paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature. That being said, there is some  potential that previously‐undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered, which  would be addressed through the following measures.   Mitigation Measures Cul‐1a, Cul‐2, and Cul‐3 would also reduce the potential impact related to  unknown paleontological resources.  Implementation of mitigation measures Cul‐1, Cul‐2, and Cul‐3 would reduce the impacts associated  with possible disturbance of previously‐unidentified paleontological resources to a less than  significant with mitigation level.                                                                  12 South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.   13 University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen search portal,  http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed September 2021).  160   Page 30  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  8.  GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)  Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may  have a significant impact on the environment?      b)   Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the  purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?        a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions   BAAQMD has determined that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and global climate change represent  cumulative  impacts.  Construction  and  operation  of  the  proposed project  would  be  additional  sources of GHG emissions, primarily through consumption of fuel for transportation and energy  usage on an ongoing basis. The threshold of significance for operational GHGs is a brightline of 1,100  metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year for small projects that do not meet the  efficiency threshold or an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric tons  CO2e  per  service  population  (residents and employees) per year for large projects that do not meet the brightline threshold.  Because this is not a small project, the efficiency threshold will be used for this analysis.   State Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) required California state and local governments to reduce greenhouse  gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The BAAQMD thresholds were based on those 2020 targets.  State Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) was subsequently adopted to require that there be a further reduction in  GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030. BAAQMD has not yet updated their  thresholds to address future target reductions past 2020. While not yet adopted by BAAQMD, the  additional 40% reduction by 2030 identified in SB 32  equates to a 2030 efficiency standard of 2.8  metric tons CO2e per year per service population.   BAAQMD has not proposed a separate threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG  emissions, though recommends quantification and a determination regarding significance in relation  to meeting AB 32 (and now SB 32) goals. Standard practice is to divide the construction emissions by  40 years (an average building life) and add that to the operational emissions.  The project’s GHG emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, as discussed in section 3: Air Quality. A  summary of the results are included in Table 3 on the next page and the CalEEMod input and output  can be found in Attachment A and as detailed, the emissions quantification incorporated project  details, some of which serve to reduce GHG emissions including Transportation Demand  Management Plan trip reductions, and the lower carbon intensity factors of the Peninsula Clean  Energy provider.  As shown in Table 3, GHG emissions would be below BAAQMD’s efficiency threshold based on 2020  reductions and also the projected 2030 efficiency threshold. Therefore, the project would have a  less‐than‐significant impact related to increased GHG emissions.   161   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 31 Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions   Description  metric tons CO2e per year  Project Emissions, Operational 1,275  Project Emissions, Construction   (averaged over 40 years) 29  Project Emissions, Total 1,304  Project Service Population  555  Project Emissions, Total   (per Service Population) 2.35  BAAQMD Project Service Population   Significance Threshold 2020 4.6  Exceeds 2020 Threshold?  No  Projected Service Population   Significance Threshold 2030 2.8  Exceeds 2030 Threshold?  No  Source: CalEEMod results included as Attachment A.   Notes: CO2e is carbon dioxide equivalent units, the standard measure of total greenhouse gasses.  Service Population was calculated at approximately 300 square feet per employee for office/R&D. While office and  specifically tech office uses could have a higher number of employees, a lower number was used here for a more  conservative analysis of GHG emissions.   b)  Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans   The City adopted a GHG reduction plan in 2014, known as the City of South San Francisco Climate  Action Plan (“SSF CAP”). This plan estimated community‐wide GHG emissions of 548,600 metric tons  CO2e in 2005 and a target reduction of 15% below the 2005 baseline levels by 2020. Because the SSF  CAP only demonstrates consistency with the AB 32 near‐term reduction target for 2020, it is not a  “qualified” CAP available for CEQA streamlining for projects after 2020 and was therefore not used  in place of emissions quantification under section 8(a) above. However, until an updated CAP is  adopted, the current SSF CAP’s measures and development requirements still apply to projects  constructed and operated after 2020. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the proposed project’s  consistency with applicable measures and development requirements in the SSF CAP.  Many of the SSF CAP’s reduction measures are targeted to city‐wide strategies that are not directly  applicable to the proposed project. The project includes bicycle facilities and has pedestrian  connections to shuttle stops on Oyster Point Boulevard (to/from BART and Caltrain stations) and  participate in a Transportation Demand Management program (contributing to SSF CAP Measures  1.1 through 1.3). The project includes tree plantings (SSF CAP Measure 3.4,) would meet current  standards of energy and water efficiency (SSF CAP Measures 3.1 and 6.1), and occupants would  participate in recycling for waste reduction (SSF CAP Measure 5.1). A discussion of the project’s  consistency with the Clean Air Plan is included in section 3: Air Quality.   Additionally, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were analyzed per the BAAQMD  Guidelines against thresholds based on 2020 target reductions and projected 2030 target  162   Page 32  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  reductions. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into account implementation of state‐ wide regulations and plans, such as the Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan and adopted state regulations  such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard. Systemic changes will be required at the state level  to achieve California’s future (post‐2020) GHG reduction goals. Regulations, such as future  amendments to the low‐carbon fuel standard, updates to the state’s Title 24 standards, and  implementation of the state’s Short‐Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, including  forthcoming regulations for composting and organics diversion, will be necessary to attain the  magnitude of reductions required for the state’s goals. The project would be required to comply  with applicable operational regulations or be directly affected by the outcomes (e.g., vehicle trips  and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive because of statewide compliance with  future low‐carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewables Portfolio  Standards). Therefore, for the foreseeable future, the Specific Plan would not conflict with any other  state‐level regulations pertaining to GHGs in the post‐2020 era. Additionally, as detailed under  section 8(a) above, project emissions would not exceed threshold levels, including projected 2030  threshold levels consistent with adopted state reduction targets.   Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact in relation to consistency with GHG  reduction plans.     163   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 33 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact All topics     Because hazards and hazardous materials considerations are expected to be of interest to the public and  decision‐makers, the discussion of this topic area is being deferred to the EIR. While significance  conclusions have not yet been determined, these are considered potentially significant until additional  information is compiled to reach detailed conclusions. All topics under the Hazards and Hazardous  Materials section will be addressed in the EIR.     164   Page 34  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)   Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or  otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?      b)   Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with  groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable  groundwater management of the basin?       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:  i)  result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site;  ii)   substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner  which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site;  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       d)    In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to  project inundation?      e)   Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or  sustainable groundwater management plan?        a)   Water Quality and Discharge   Construction activities have the potential to impact water quality through erosion and through  debris and oil/grease carried in runoff could result in pollutants and siltation entering stormwater  runoff and downstream receiving waters if not properly managed. The project would be required to  obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (General Construction  Permit) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. Coverage under this permit requires  preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the  City.14 At a minimum, the SWPPP would include a description of construction materials, practices,  and equipment storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater; a list of  provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; best management practices  (BMPs); and an inspection and monitoring program. Furthermore, the County of San Mateo’s Water  Pollution Prevention Program would require the project site to implement BMPs during project  construction to reduce pollution carried by stormwater such as keeping sediment on site using  perimeter barriers and storm drain inlet protection and proper management of construction  materials, chemicals, and wastes on site. Additional BMPs required by South San Francisco  Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 would also be implemented during project construction. Per  standard City procedures, compliance with SWPPP requirements and BMPs would be verified during  the construction permitting process.                                                                14 SWRCB, Construction General Permit Order 2009‐0009‐DWQ (Construction General Permit)  165   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 35 Project operations have the potential to result in sources of stormwater pollutants such as oil,  grease, and debris to stormwater drainage flowing over roadways and other impermeable surfaces  and entering the city’s stormwater system, served by the City of South San Francisco’s Public Works  Department, Maintenance Division. The project site drains to an existing storm drain system that  outfalls to a tidally influenced channel that is connected to the San Francisco Bay. With the  proposed improvements, runoff from the rooftop and parking areas would be retained and treated  via bio‐retention basins and flow‐through planters.    Federal Clean Water Act regulations require municipalities to obtain National Pollution Discharge  Elimination System (NPDES) permits which outline programs and activities to control surface  stormwater pollution. Municipalities, such as the City of South San Francisco, must eliminate or  reduce "non‐point" pollution, consisting of all types of substances generated as a result of  urbanization (e.g. pesticides, fertilizers, automobile fluids, sewage, litter, etc.), to the “maximum  extent practicable” (as required by Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(3)(iii)). Clean Water Act Section  402(p) and USEPA regulations (40 CFR 122.26) specify a municipal program of “best management  practices” to control stormwater pollutants. Best Management Practices (BMP) refers to any kind of  procedure or device designed to minimize the quantity of pollutants that enter the storm drain  system. To comply with these regulations, each incorporated city and town in San Mateo County  joined with the County of San Mateo to form the San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention  Program (SMCWPPP) in applying for a regional NPDES permit, which includes Provision C.3. 15 The  C.3 requirements are intended to protect water quality by minimizing pollutants in runoff, and to  prevent downstream erosion by: designing the project site to minimize imperviousness, detain  runoff, and infiltrate runoff where feasible; treating runoff prior to discharge from the site; ensuring  runoff does not exceed pre‐project peaks and durations; and maintaining treatment facilities.  Project applicants must prepare and implement a Stormwater Control Plan containing treatment  and source control measures that meet the “maximum extent practicable” standard as specified in  the NPDES permit and the SMCWPPP C.3 Guidebook. Project applicants must also prepare a  Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan and execute agreements to ensure the  stormwater treatment and flow‐control facilities are maintained in perpetuity.   Project compliance with applicable State General Permit requirements, City ordinances, County of  San Mateo’s guidelines, and General Plan policies would not result in significant impacts on water  quality and would not result in a violation of water quality standards. Impacts would be less than  significant.  b) Groundwater Recharge and Supplies   The project is located on a designated urban area within the Visitation Valley groundwater basin.16   The California Water Service (Cal Water) supplies water to the City of South San Francisco and would  serve the project site. Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) anticipates future  growth in the region that includes the project, as allowed under existing land use and zoning  designation. The majority of the water supply to the Cal Water South San Francisco District (i.e.,  approximately 80 percent from 2005‐2019) is treated water purchased from the City and County of  San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), which is operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities                                                               15 Regional Water Board, 2007, Order No. R2‐2007‐0027, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921.  16 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control  Plan (Basin Plan), November 2019.  166   Page 36  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Commission (SFPUC), and originates largely (85%) from the Hetch Hetchy watershed (surface water).   Groundwater makes up approximately 20 percent of the water supply for the South San Francisco  District, which comes from the “Westside Basin”, which underlies the South San Francisco District.  The Basin is currently categorized by the California Department of Water Resources as a very low  priority basin and as such, the Basin is not subject to the requirements of the California Sustainable  Groundwater Management Act though the Basin has been actively managed for years, including the  establishment of pumping limitations.17  The site is currently undeveloped and therefore consists entirely of pervious surfaces. The project  would result in an increase of approximately 2.4 acres of impervious surface (63% of the site). The  project would construct new above and below ground drainage system that includes catch‐basins,  storm drain pipe, bio‐retention areas, and flow‐through planters to capture, treat, and discharge  runoff from the entire site. The proposed drainage system would maintain the existing flow  discharge pattern.   The project would not extract groundwater or directly interfere with the groundwater table through  construction activities on the site, as ground disturbance would not occur below the water table.   As discussed under item a above, the project would comply with stormwater drainage  requirements, including bio‐retention/treatment areas to address both quality and volumes of  runoff and is consistent with expected use of the site in basin planning. The project would not  substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,  and would have a less than significant impact related to groundwater.  c)   Drainage Pattern Alteration     The site is currently undeveloped and therefore consists entirely of pervious surfaces across the 3.8‐ acre site. The project would result in approximately 2.4 acres of impervious surface (63% of the site).     As an undeveloped site, runoff currently sheet flows north to a 30‐inch storm drain pipe which  conveys runoff from the properties at 560 and 570 Eccles Ave., and conveys it down the slope to the  38‐inch culvert. The project site is currently served by a 30‐inch storm drain that conveys runoff  from 560 and 570 Eccles Ave to the 38‐inch culvert under Gull Drive. The 38‐inch culvert conveys  runoff from Gull Drive and upstream drainage areas to the tidal channel that is east of the project  site. The project would construct new above and below ground drainage system that includes catch‐ basins, storm drain pipe, bio‐retention areas, and flow‐through planters to capture, treat, and  discharge runoff from the entire site. The proposed drainage system would maintain the existing  flow discharge pattern. According to the 101 Gull Drive Storm Drainage Report (available as part of  the project materials), there is adequate capacity in the existing off‐site system to accommodate  flows from the project site.18     As discussed under this section 10(a) above, through compliance with applicable regulations, runoff  from site would be the same or reduced from that existing and would not cause erosion, siltation,  pollution, or flooding and as discussed above, changes to on‐site conditions would meet applicable  requirements and would not exceed capacity of the stormwater drainage system or result in on‐ or                                                               17 California Water Service (Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District.,  available at: https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf.  18 BKF Engineers, August 17 2021, 101 Gull Drive Storm Drainage Report.  167   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 37 off‐site flooding. Project impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns would be less than  significant.  d)  Inundation   The project site is approximately 0.25 miles from the San Francisco Bay and approximately 5.75  miles from the Pacific Ocean, and according to state hazard mapping is not located in a tsunami  hazard area.19   The nearest body of water that could experience seiche (water level oscillations in an enclosed or  partially enclosed body of water) is the San Francisco Bay located approximately 5.75 miles east of  the project site. A seiche would not experience run up higher than a tsunami and as discussed  above, the site is not located in a tsunami hazard area and is therefore not in an area at risk for  seiche inundation either. No other large bodies of water with the potential to inundate the project  site by a seiche are located near the site.   The project is not located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone and is  therefore not at substantial risk of flooding from 100‐year or more common storms.20  Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the risk of release of pollutants due to  inundation by a tsunami, seiche, or flooding and the project impact in this regard would be less than  significant.   e)   Implementation of Plans   As discussed under this Section 10(a) above, the project would comply with applicable requirements  under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, County of San Mateo’s Water Pollution  Prevention Program, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which are intended  to implement relevant laws and plans related to water quality.   As discussed under  this section 10(b) above, the local groundwater basin is not required to comply  with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, but in any case, the project would not extract  or recharge a substantial amount of groundwater from the basin, would not introduce more  intensive or water‐demanding uses than planned for the site, and would not otherwise conflict with  Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan or groundwater management. Impacts would be less  than significant.                                                                    19 California Geological Survey, 2021, Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Mateo County, available at:  https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.  20 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), effective 4/5/2019, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number  06081C0042F, available at https://www.fema.gov/flood‐maps.  168   Page 38  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  11. LAND USE AND PLANNING  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)  Physically divide an established community?   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?         a) Physical Division of a Community   The project site is in an urbanized area with currently developed parcels and roadways and while  currently undeveloped, the site does not act as a connection point for other parcels other than  through the access easement, which would be preserved. The project would not involve any physical  changes that would have the potential to divide an established community and there is therefore no  impact in this regard.  b) Conflict with Land Use Plan   An environmental impact could occur when a project conflicts with a policy or regulation intended  to avoid or reduce an environmental impact. The following discussion does not replace or preclude a  consistency assessment for project approval considerations, which take into account more than  potential impacts to the environment.   The site is currently zoned for Business and Technology Park (BTP) use, under which R&D and office  uses are expressly permitted. While the proposed project would require a Conditional Use Permit  for Parking/Loading Reduction, Incentive‐Based FAR Bonus, and Parking Garage Rooftop Planting,  these are allowable development standard approvals under the City’s planning process and would  therefore not be considered conflicts.   Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to land use plan  conflicts.     169   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 39 12.  MINERAL RESOURCES  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)   Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would  be of value to the region and the residents of the state?      b)   Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource  recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other  land use plan?         a, b) Mineral Resources   The site contains no known mineral resources and has not been delineated as a locally important  mineral recovery site on any land use plan.21 The project would have no impact related to mineral  resources.                                                                        21   U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accessed Septmeber  2021, at: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/  170   Page 40  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  13. NOISE  Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact  Less Than Significant With Mitigation  Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?       b)  Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise  levels?      c)   For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport  land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two  miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose  people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?         a‐b)  Excessive Noise or Vibration     Noise and vibrations from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of  construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance  between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts  primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise‐sensitive times of the day (early  morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise  sensitive land uses, or when construction involves particularly noisy techniques, such as driven piles.     The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Section 8.32.050)  restricts construction activities to 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. This ordinance also limits  noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line.  The project does not propose pile driving (piles would be drilled) and the project’s construction  activities would comply with the Noise Ordinance.    With respect to noise, examples of sensitive receptors in the East of 101 area of South San Francisco  include scattered day care facilities and some live‐aboard house boats in the marina in the Oyster  Point area. All these sensitive receptors are over 1,000 feet from the proposed project, which is  beyond the distance potentially affected by normal on‐site noise for this type of construction and  use.     Operation of an office/R&D use would not be considered a noise‐sensitive receptor and does not  produce substantial levels of off‐site vibration or noise. Traffic‐related noise impacts generally have  the potential to occur with at least a doubling of traffic volumes on roadways adjacent to areas with  noise sensitive uses that are already at or above acceptable noise conditions. In this case, as will be  detailed further in the EIR, trip generation estimates for the project given proposed Transportation  Demand Management Plan reductions are preliminarily estimated to total 933 daily trips. The  average daily traffic (ADT) on nearby roadway segments (and anticipated contribution of project  traffic as a percentage of existing traffic) include 7,800 ADT (3%) on Gull Drive, 2,200 ADT (14%) on  171   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 41 Eccles Avenue, 16,300 ADT (3%) on Oyster Point Boulevard, and 7,700 ADT (1%) on Forbes  Boulevard. With additional cumulative growth in the area, total ADT would be increased, making the  project increment even smaller than under existing conditions. All of these increases are well below  a doubling of traffic that could result in a noticeable increase in traffic noise. Because net new traffic  volumes would generally be below a doubling of traffic volumes in noise‐impacted areas, the project  would therefore not result in traffic‐related noise impacts.       Therefore, because the project is consistent with construction practices and regulations and  operations would be consistent with area uses and not noticeably increase traffic noise on sensitive  uses, impacts from noise and vibration generated by construction and operation of the project  would be less than significant.   c)  Airport Noise     The closest airport to the project site is the San Francisco International Airport, approximately 2.25  miles to the south. The project site is within the boundary of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan  (ALUCP), but is not within the area substantially impacted by airplane flyover noise (i.e., the  Community Noise Equivalent Level 70 Noise Contours).22 Impacts related to excessive aircraft noise  exposure would be less than significant.                                                                  22   City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use  Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp‐ content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November‐20121.pdf  172   Page 42  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  14. POPULATION AND HOUSING  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)?       b)   Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating  the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?        a)   Substantial Population Growth   While neither housing nor population are directly created as a result of this project, employment  opportunities can indirectly increase population and the demand for housing.   Based on an average office/R&D project employment density of 300 gross square footage per  employee, the project is estimated to introduce 555 new jobs to the City of South San Francisco. The  current South San Francisco General Plan was released in 1999 and does not have relevant  employee estimates and the updated General Plan, while being prepared during the preparation of  this document, is not yet available. That being said, the project would be consistent with the land  use and zoning designations for the site, and therefore should be within current and updated  General Plan projections of future employees.    Plan Bay Area 2040 is the current regional long‐range plan charting the course for the future of the  nine‐county San Francisco Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on four key issues — the economy,  the environment, housing and transportation. Plan Bay Area 2040 estimates a total addition of  4,698,375 total jobs to the Bay Area by 2040. The project’s addition of 555 employees would  increase jobs in the City and region incrementally. Compared to the total jobs projection for the  entire Bay Area, the addition of 555 jobs would not be substantial. Based on consistency with land  use and zoning designations of the site, project implementation would be within the expected  growth of City employment and projected employment growth of the Bay Area and the impact with  respect to indirect population growth would be less than significant.  b)   Displacement of Housing or People   There is currently no housing or people at the site that would be displaced by the project. The  project would have no impact related to displacement of housing or people.         173   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 43 15. PUBLIC SERVICES   Would the project 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  following public services? Potentially  Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Fire protection    b) Police protection    c) Schools    d) Parks    e) Other public facilities      a‐e) Public Services   The proposed project is located on a developed site within the City of South San Francisco that is  within the public services area, which includes South San Francisco Fire Department Station 62  located 1.5 miles southwest of the project site. The project would not directly add population, and  an office/R&D use would not be anticipated to substantially increase utilization of public services,  such that new or physically altered facilities would be required. The minimal increases in demand  for services expected with the worker population and potential indirect population growth (see  section 14: Population and Housing), would be offset through payment of development fees and  annual taxes, a portion of which go toward ongoing provision of and improvements to public  services. Therefore, the impact to public services would be less than significant.     174   Page 44  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  16. RECREATION  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)   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.       b)   Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of  recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the  environment.        a‐b) Recreation   The project proposes onsite open space in the form of landscaped areas, outdoor seating areas and  outlook areas, and a hillside walking trail. The construction of onsite amenities has been included in  the analysis in this document and would not result in significant impacts to the environment. The  project would not otherwise construct or cause to be constructed parks or recreational facilities.   Some employees at the site could use area facilities, including the nearby Oyster Point Park  (approximately 0.5 miles to the northeast) and the Bay Trail, all development that does not include  qualifying publically‐accessible parks and recreation amenities is required to pay in‐lieu fees to the  City, which helps fund City facilities and programs. The use of public recreational facilities would not  be anticipated to increase substantially due to by project employees such that physical deterioration  would occur or construction or expansion would be necessary. Therefore, the impact related to  recreation would be less than significant.       175   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 45 17. TRANSPORTATION  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact All topics       Transportation topics were being analyzed during preparation of this Initial Study. While significance  conclusions have not yet been determined, these are considered potentially significant until additional  information is compiled to reach detailed conclusions. All topics under the Transportation section will be  addressed in the EIR.     176   Page 46  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES  Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)   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:   i)  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  ii)  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  Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the  significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.         a)   Tribal Cultural Resources   The project area is previously disturbed, and a search of the Sacred Lands File (included in  Attachment C) did not identify any Sacred Lands that could be impacted by the project.   As discussed in more detail under section 5: Cultural Resources, a records search performed by the  Northwest Information Center (included as Attachment C) confirmed there are no known Native  American resources on the site and the potential for unrecorded Native American resources is  considered moderate to high based on the location of the site and history of the region.  Construction of the project involves ground disturbance that would mostly occur in fill over top of  any native soils at the site. However, there would be some disturbance of native soils, including for  drilling of foundation piles and there is some potential for unknown tribal cultural resources or  human remains to be encountered.   Mitigation Measures Cul‐1, Cul‐2, and Cul‐3 would require proper handling of any discoveries and  also reduce the potential impact related to unknown tribal cultural resources.  While no tribes have requested consultation for project in this area, notice was sent to the Native  American Heritage Commission listed local tribes in September 2021. No responses were received  prior to publication of this Initial Study. If responses are subsequently received that require  additional discussion in the CEQA context, such discussion will be included in the EIR.  Compliance with the protection procedures specified in Mitigation Measures Cul‐1, Cul‐2, and Cul‐3  would require that if any previously‐unknown tribal cultural resources and/or human remains are  discovered, these would be handled appropriately and the impact of the project would be less than  significant with mitigation.     177   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 47 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS  Would the project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)   Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded  water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,  natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or  relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?       b)   Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and  reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and  multiple dry years?       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?       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?       e)   Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes  and regulations related to solid waste?        a,b, c) Water, Stormwater, Wastewater, and Other Utilities    Water    As discussed in section 10: Hydrology and Water Quality, the City of South San Francisco’s East of  101 Area is served by Cal Water through a combination of local groundwater and water purchased  from SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy System. Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which  plans for provision of water, anticipates future growth in the region that includes the project, as  allowed under existing land use and zoning designation.     Statewide regulations and other factors can impact the water system reliability. Of note, the Water  Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay‐Delta Plan  Amendment, adopted December 2018, Resolution No. 2018‐0059) requires the release of 30‐50  percent of the “unimpaired flow” on the three San Joaquin River tributaries from February through  June in every year type to maintain the health of the Bay‐Delta ecosystem. If implemented with no  additional measures / supply  in place to address the shortfall, this could impact the ability to meet  the projected water demand in the UWMP during multiple dry years. However, implementation of  the Bay‐Delta Plan Amendment is uncertain at this time for multiple reasons, including numerous  legal challenges in both state and federal courts, lack of implementation responsibility, current lack  of the identified agreement between stakeholder agencies. In the meantime, the SFPUC and the Bay  Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) ‐ of which the SFPUC is a member agency ‐  are pursuing numerous options to improve water supply reliability. The UWMP will continue to be  updated regularly to reflect changes in regulations, projected demands, and water conservation and  supply reliability measures.  178   Page 48  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study    The project is not required to prepare a separate Water Supply Assessment under Senate Bill 610  because the project has less than 1,000 employees and is less than 250,000 square feet (the  threshold for a commercial office building) and can instead rely upon the planning within the current  UWMP, which indicates available supply for the proposed project, which is within development  assumptions for the site. Impacts with respect to water would be less than significant. 23, 24, 25    Wastewater    The wastewater collection system that serves the project site is owned and operated by the City of  South San Francisco. According to the 101 Gull Drive Sanitary Sewer Analysis26 (available as part of  the project materials), the project’s estimated Dry Weather Flow (PDWF), and the Peak Wet  Weather Flow (PWWF) would be 83.3 gallons per minute and 138.8 gallons per minute, respectively,  and these can be accommodated in the existing sewer system with the following exception:      The Oyster Point Specific Plan to the east identified required upsizing of the 8‐inch gravity main in  Oyster Point Blvd between approximately Gull Drive and Eccles Avenue to a 12‐inch main. The  Oyster Point Specific Plan project requires this mitigation with reimbursement from other area  projects as appropriate. While this improvement has been fully analyzed as a part of the Oyster  Point Specific Plan, that project is not fully built‐out and this improvement has not yet been made.  The following mitigation measure is consistent with the wording of the measure in the Oyster Point  Specific Plan EIR and would be required of this project as well because this improvement is not  included within the Sewer Master Plan.27  Mitigation Measure  Util‐1:  Oyster Point Subtrunk Replacement. An approximately 700‐foot segment of 8‐inch  diameter sewer trunk from Eccles Avenue to Gull Road needs to be upsized to a 12‐ inch diameter trunk sewer. This segment of sewer trunk is not included in the Sewer  Master Plan. The applicant / owner / sponsor shall either work with the City to  include this improvement in an Sewer Master Plan update or directly fund their fair  share of the improvement.    With implementation of Mitigation Measure Util‐1, the impact related to required sewer system  capacity upgrades would be less than significant with mitigation.    Stormwater    As discussed in section 10: Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed drainage system would  maintain the existing flow discharge pattern and connect to the existing storm drain system  operated and maintained by the City of South San Francisco. As development on a currently vacant  site, the project would result in an increase of approximately 2.4 acres of impervious surface (63% of  the site) and would construct a new above and below ground drainage system that includes catch‐                                                              23 California State Water Board, amended plan adopted December 12, 2021, Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco  Bay/Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta Estuary, available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans_policies/docs/2018wqcp.pdf .  24 BAWSCA, Water Reliability webpage, available at: https://bawsca.org/water/reliability  25 California Water Service (Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District.,  available at: https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf.  26 BKF Engineers, August 17 2021, 101 Gull Drive Sanitary Sewer Analysis.  27 Lamphier‐Gregory, January 2011, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, Chapter  12.  179   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 49 basins, storm drain pipe, bio‐retention areas, and flow‐through planters to capture, treat, and  discharge runoff from the entire site. According to the 101 Gull Drive Storm Drainage Report28  (available as part of the project materials), there is adequate capacity in the existing off‐site system  to accommodate flows from the project site and the project would not require the construction of  new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts with respect to  stormwater would be less than significant.     Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications    As discussed in section 6: Energy, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or  unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, the project would not require the construction of  new electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities because it is located in an urban  area already served by those utilities and would not require additional capacity. Impacts with  respect to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications would be less than significant.   d, e) Solid Waste and Solid Waste Reduction     South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. (SSFSC) manages all trash and recycling services in  South San Francisco. SSFSC collects, receives, processes, and recycles (or transfers for landfill  disposal) over 250,000 tons of waste a year.29 Of all solid waste generated, approximately 84 percent  is sent to the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain) in Half Moon Bay, California. The Corinda  Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain) accepts up to 3,598 tons per day and is anticipated to have  available capacity until 2034.30    The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. Handling of  debris and waste generated during construction would be subject to SSFMC Section 8.16  coordination with Scavengers Company; and SSFMC Section 15.22.030 diversion of at least 65  percent of construction or demolition waste. The project would not involve demolition activities;  therefore, construction activities would not generate substantial solid waste.    According to CalEEMod default values (See section 3: Air Quality and Attachment A), the project  would generate approximately 12.66 tons of waste per year, or approximately 0.03 tons per day. The  estimate is conservative as it does not factor in any recycling or waste‐diversion programs. The 0.03  tons of solid waste generated daily by the project would represent less than 0.001 percent of the  permitted landfill throughput.     The City of South San Francisco is required to meet the statewide waste diversion goal of 50 percent  set by AB 939. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and  regulations related to solid waste, such as AB 939, the SSFMC, and the City’s recycling program.  Impacts related to solid waste and waste facilities would be less than significant.                                                                     28 BKF Engineers, August 17 2021, 101 Gull Drive Storm Drainage Report.  29 South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. website, “About Us”, available at: https://ssfscavenger.com/about‐us/,  accessed August 2021.  30 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2019, SWIS Facility Detail: Corinda Los Trancos  Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41‐AA‐002), https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223, accessed  August 2021.  180   Page 50  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  20. WILDFIRE  If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high  fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)   Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency  evacuation plan?      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?       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?       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?       a‐d) Wildfire Risk and Emergency Response     The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of South San Francisco and is  surrounded by existing industrial development. Neither the project site nor the City of South San  Francisco is identified as being within a state responsibility area or a very high fire hazard severity  zone and not located near such an area (the nearest very high fire severity zone is the San Bruno  Mountain State and County Park, located approximately 6 miles from the project site). 31 The  proposed project would have no impact related to wildfire.                                                                  31 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard  Severity Zones, November 24, 2008, available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6800/fhszl_map41.pdf.  181   101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  Page 51   21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact All topics       As indicated throughout this document, there are various environmental topics that will be addressed in  an EIR to be prepared subsequently. Because this section relies on conclusions from all topics, it will also  be addressed in the EIR.       182   Page 52  101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study  DOCUMENT PREPARERS  Lamphier ‐Gregory, Inc.  (Primary Report Preparers)  Rebecca Auld, Vice President  4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A ‐ #601  Oakland, CA 94619  510‐535‐6690    City of South San Francisco  This document was prepared in consultation with City of South San Francisco staff, including Gaspare  Annibale, Associate Planner and Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner.    SOURCES  1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air  Quality Guidelines.  2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, June 2, 2010, News Release  http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Publications/News% 20Releases/2010/ceqa_100602.ashx  3. BKF Engineers, August 17 2021, 101 Gull Drive Sanitary Sewer Analysis  4. BKF Engineers, August 17 2021, 101 Gull Drive Storm Drainage Report  5. California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, San  Mateo County.  6. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin  Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), November 2019.  7. California Water Service (Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan:  South San Francisco District   8. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive  Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport.    9. City of South San Francisco, 1994, East of 101 Area Plan.  10. City of South San Francisco, 1999, General Plan.  11. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, San Mateo  County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.  12. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), April 2019, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map  Number 06081C0042F.  13. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, November 12, 2020, Preliminary Geotechnical Site  Assessment.  14. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, August 2, 2021, Preliminary Geotechnical Site  Assessment Supplemental Discussion.  15. University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen  search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed September 2021).  16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper.    183         EMISSIONS MODELING ATTACHMENT A to the 101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study    184 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2101 Gull Drive SSF - San Mateo County, Annual101 Gull Drive SSFSan Mateo County, Annual1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationResearch & Development 166.61 1000sqft 2.00 166,608.00 0Enclosed Parking with Elevator 419.00 Space 1.80 167,600.00 01.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)63Climate Zone5Operational Year2024Utility CompanyPacific Gas & Electric CompanyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)129.77CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.029N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.0061.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Penninsula Clean Energy 2018 CO2 intensity factor used.Land Use - Project total lot acreage is 166,613 square feet per plans, which was split betweent he parking and building uses for the analysis.Demolition - Vehicle Trips - Weekday trip rate of 5.6 per transportation study for the project, which takes into account normal employment densities and trip rates for similar project in the immediate vicinity, which already includes TDM Plan reductions.Construction Phase - Per preliminary construciton schedule.Grading - Estimated area to be disturbed based on a 3.8 acre site with undisturbed slopes along the boundary.SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 1 of 28185 Energy Use - Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Table Name Column Name Default Value New ValuetblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 440.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 25.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 40.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/5/2023 2/28/2024tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/16/2023 6/7/2024tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/28/2022 9/30/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/11/2023 6/7/2024tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/16/2022 8/26/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/12/2023 2/5/2024tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/29/2022 10/3/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/17/2022 8/29/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/17/2023 4/15/2024tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/10/2022 8/15/2022tblGrading AcresOfGrading 12.50 3.00tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 16,460.00tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 1,730.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.82 2.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.77 1.80tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 129.77tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.11 5.602.0 Emissions Summary2.1 Overall ConstructionSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 2 of 28186 Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalNBio- CO2Total CO2Unmitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10CH4 N2O CO2eYear tons/yrMT/yrFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO22022 0.1222 1.4064 1.0086 3.1100e-0030.2333 0.0475 0.2808 0.1091 0.0443 0.1534 0.0000 283.9556 283.9556 0.0412 0.0000 284.98572023 0.2641 2.4618 2.5664 6.5000e-0030.1744 0.0924 0.2668 0.0475 0.0869 0.1344 0.0000 582.9004 582.9004 0.0816 0.0000 584.94112024 1.0341 1.2091 1.3895 3.3000e-0030.0821 0.0444 0.1265 0.0223 0.0417 0.0640 0.0000 294.3504 294.3504 0.0463 0.0000 295.5075Maximum 1.0341 2.4618 2.5664 6.5000e-0030.0816 0.0000 584.94110.2333 0.0924 0.2808 0.1091 0.0869 0.1534SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 582.9004 582.9004PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated ConstructionROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eYear tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.52022 0.1222 1.4064 1.0086 3.1100e-0030.2333 0.0475 0.2808 0.1091 0.0443 0.1534 0.0000 283.9555 283.9555 0.0412 0.0000 284.98552023 0.2641 2.4618 2.5664 6.5000e-0030.1744 0.0924 0.2668 0.0475 0.0869 0.1344 0.0000 582.9000 582.9000 0.0816 0.0000 584.94072024 1.0341 1.2091 1.3895 3.3000e-0030.0821 0.0444 0.1265 0.0223 0.0417 0.0640 0.0000 294.3502 294.3502 0.0463 0.0000 295.5073Maximum 1.0341 2.4618 2.5664 6.5000e-0030.2333 0.0924 0.2808 0.1091 0.0869 0.1534 0.0000 582.9000 582.9000 0.0816 0.0000 584.9407ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 3 of 28187 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)1 8-15-2022 11-14-20221.0594 1.05942 11-15-2022 2-14-20230.7363 0.73633 2-15-2023 5-14-20230.6667 0.66674 5-15-2023 8-14-20230.6876 0.68765 8-15-2023 11-14-20230.6891 0.68916 11-15-2023 2-14-20241.0365 1.03657 2-15-2024 5-14-20241.2467 1.24670.2490Highest1.2467 1.2467SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM108 5-15-2024 8-14-20240.2490PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO22.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.7524 5.0000e-0055.3700e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0050.0000 0.0105 0.0105 3.0000e-0050.0000 0.0112Energy 0.0222 0.2021 0.1698 1.2100e-0030.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 352.0003 352.0003 0.0337 0.0101 355.8632Mobile 0.1736 1.1073 1.9674 8.3800e-0030.6918 6.7500e-0030.6985 0.1859 6.3200e-0030.1922 0.0000 773.8962 773.8962 0.0289 0.0000 774.6189Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.5699 0.0000 2.5699 0.1519 0.0000 6.3667Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 25.9898 26.0924 52.0822 2.6752 0.0642 138.1055Total 0.9482 1.3094 2.1426 9.5900e-0032.8898 0.0744 1,274.96540.6918 0.0221 0.7139 0.1859 0.0217 0.2076 28.5597 1,151.99931,180.5589Mitigated OperationalSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 4 of 28188 SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.7524 5.0000e-0055.3700e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0050.0000 0.0105 0.0105 3.0000e-0050.0000 0.0112Energy 0.0222 0.2021 0.1698 1.2100e-0030.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 352.0003 352.0003 0.0337 0.0101 355.8632Mobile 0.1736 1.1073 1.9674 8.3800e-0030.6918 6.7500e-0030.6985 0.1859 6.3200e-0030.1922 0.0000 773.8962 773.8962 0.0289 0.0000 774.6189Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.5699 0.0000 2.5699 0.1519 0.0000 6.3667Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 25.9898 26.0924 52.0822 2.6752 0.0642 138.1055Total 0.9482 1.3094 2.1426 9.5900e-0030.6918 0.0221 0.7139 0.1859 0.0217 0.2076 28.5597 1,151.99931,180.55892.8898 0.0744 1,274.9654ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003.0 Construction DetailConstruction PhasePhase NumberPhase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days WeekNum Days Phase Description1 Mobilization and Site Preparation Site Preparation 8/15/2022 8/26/2022 5 102 Grading Grading 8/29/2022 9/30/2022 5 25403 Building Construction Building Construction 10/3/2022 6/7/2024 52/28/2024 54404 Paving Paving 4/15/2024 6/7/2024 518Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 05 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/5/2024SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 5 of 28189 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3Acres of Paving: 1.8Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 249,912; Non-Residential Outdoor: 83,304; Striped Parking Area: OffRoad EquipmentPhase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load FactorMobilization and Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40Mobilization and Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.0097 0.37Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Trips and VMTPhase Name Offroad Equipment CountWorker Trip NumberVendor Trip NumberHauling Trip NumberWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip LengthHauling Trip LengthWorker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassHauling Vehicle ClassMobilization and Site Preparation7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 6 of 28190 Grading 6 15.00 0.00 2,274.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 9 124.00 55.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTHDT_Mix HHDT3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionArchitectural Coating 1 25.00 0.00 0.00 10.80SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM107.30 20.00 LD_MixPM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.2 Mobilization and Site Preparation - 2022Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e-0048.0600e-0038.0600e-0037.4200e-0037.4200e-0030.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e-0030.0000 16.8549Total 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e-0045.4100e-0030.0000 16.85490.0903 8.0600e-0030.0984 0.0497 7.4200e-0030.0571SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 16.7197 16.7197PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 7 of 28191 Worker 2.7000e-0041.8000e-0041.9600e-0031.0000e-0057.1000e-0040.0000 7.2000e-0041.9000e-0040.0000 1.9000e-0040.0000 0.5884 0.5884 1.0000e-0050.0000 0.5887Total 2.7000e-0041.8000e-0041.9600e-0031.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.0000 0.58877.1000e-0040.0000 7.2000e-0041.9000e-0040.0000 1.9000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.5884 0.5884PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e-0048.0600e-0038.0600e-0037.4200e-0037.4200e-0030.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e-0030.0000 16.8549Total 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e-0045.4100e-0030.0000 16.85490.0903 8.0600e-0030.0984 0.0497 7.4200e-0030.0571SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 16.7197 16.7197PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 2.7000e-0041.8000e-0041.9600e-0031.0000e-0057.1000e-0040.0000 7.2000e-0041.9000e-0040.0000 1.9000e-0040.0000 0.5884 0.5884 1.0000e-0050.0000 0.5887Total 2.7000e-0041.8000e-0041.9600e-0031.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.0000 0.58877.1000e-0040.0000 7.2000e-0041.9000e-0040.0000 1.9000e-0040.0000 0.5884 0.5884SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 8 of 28192 SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.3 Grading - 2022Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust 0.0779 0.0000 0.0779 0.0417 0.0000 0.0417 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0244 0.2607 0.1909 3.7000e-0040.0118 0.0118 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 32.5685 32.5685 0.0105 0.0000 32.8318Total 0.0244 0.2607 0.1909 3.7000e-0040.0105 0.0000 32.83180.0779 0.0118 0.0897 0.0417 0.0108 0.0525SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 32.5685 32.5685PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 8.5900e-0030.2824 0.0555 8.8000e-0040.0193 8.0000e-0040.0201 5.3000e-0037.7000e-0046.0700e-0030.0000 84.8273 84.8273 4.1300e-0030.0000 84.9306Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 5.6000e-0043.8000e-0044.0900e-0031.0000e-0051.4800e-0031.0000e-0051.4900e-0033.9000e-0041.0000e-0054.0000e-0040.0000 1.2258 1.2258 3.0000e-0050.0000 1.2265Total 9.1500e-0030.2828 0.0596 8.9000e-0044.1600e-0030.0000 86.15710.0207 8.1000e-0040.0216 5.6900e-0037.8000e-0046.4700e-0030.0000 86.0530 86.0530Mitigated Construction On-SiteSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 9 of 28193 SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust 0.0779 0.0000 0.0779 0.0417 0.0000 0.0417 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0244 0.2607 0.1909 3.7000e-0040.0118 0.0118 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 32.5684 32.5684 0.0105 0.0000 32.8318Total 0.0244 0.2607 0.1909 3.7000e-0040.0105 0.0000 32.83180.0779 0.0118 0.0897 0.0417 0.0108 0.0525SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 32.5684 32.5684PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 8.5900e-0030.2824 0.0555 8.8000e-0040.0193 8.0000e-0040.0201 5.3000e-0037.7000e-0046.0700e-0030.0000 84.8273 84.8273 4.1300e-0030.0000 84.9306Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 5.6000e-0043.8000e-0044.0900e-0031.0000e-0051.4800e-0031.0000e-0051.4900e-0033.9000e-0041.0000e-0054.0000e-0040.0000 1.2258 1.2258 3.0000e-0050.0000 1.2265Total 9.1500e-0030.2828 0.0596 8.9000e-0044.1600e-0030.0000 86.15710.0207 8.1000e-0040.0216 5.6900e-0037.8000e-0046.4700e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 86.0530 86.0530PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.4 Building Construction - 2022Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 10 of 28194 Category tons/yrMT/yrOff-Road 0.0555 0.5075 0.5318 8.8000e-0040.0263 0.0263 0.0247 0.0247 0.0000 75.3107 75.3107 0.0180 0.0000 75.7618Total 0.0555 0.5075 0.5318 8.8000e-0040.0180 0.0000 75.76180.0263 0.0263 0.0247 0.0247SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 75.3107 75.3107PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 5.1700e-0030.1816 0.0379 4.8000e-0040.0117 3.4000e-0040.0121 3.4000e-0033.3000e-0043.7300e-0030.0000 46.3694 46.3694 2.4600e-0030.0000 46.4308Worker 0.0120 8.2100e-0030.0879 2.9000e-0040.0319 2.1000e-0040.0321 8.4800e-0031.9000e-0048.6700e-0030.0000 26.3460 26.3460 5.8000e-0040.0000 26.3606Total 0.0171 0.1898 0.1259 7.7000e-0043.0400e-0030.0000 72.79140.0436 5.5000e-0040.0442 0.0119 5.2000e-0040.0124SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 72.7154 72.7154PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0555 0.5075 0.5318 8.8000e-0040.0263 0.0263 0.0247 0.0247 0.0000 75.3106 75.3106 0.0180 0.0000 75.7617SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 11 of 28195 Total 0.0555 0.5075 0.5318 8.8000e-0040.0180 0.0000 75.76170.0263 0.0263 0.0247 0.0247SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 75.3106 75.3106PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 5.1700e-0030.1816 0.0379 4.8000e-0040.0117 3.4000e-0040.0121 3.4000e-0033.3000e-0043.7300e-0030.0000 46.3694 46.3694 2.4600e-0030.0000 46.4308Worker 0.0120 8.2100e-0030.0879 2.9000e-0040.0319 2.1000e-0040.0321 8.4800e-0031.9000e-0048.6700e-0030.0000 26.3460 26.3460 5.8000e-0040.0000 26.3606Total 0.0171 0.1898 0.1259 7.7000e-0043.0400e-0030.0000 72.79140.0436 5.5000e-0040.0442 0.0119 5.2000e-0040.0124SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 72.7154 72.7154PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.4 Building Construction - 2023Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e-0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3462 301.3462 0.0717 0.0000 303.1383Total 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e-0030.0717 0.0000 303.13830.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3462 301.3462SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 12 of 28196 SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0152 0.5623 0.1326 1.8800e-0030.0470 6.0000e-0040.0476 0.0136 5.7000e-0040.0142 0.0000 180.2007 180.2007 7.8500e-0030.0000 180.3970Worker 0.0445 0.0295 0.3221 1.1200e-0030.1275 8.2000e-0040.1283 0.0339 7.5000e-0040.0347 0.0000 101.3535 101.3535 2.0900e-0030.0000 101.4058Total 0.0597 0.5918 0.4547 3.0000e-0039.9400e-0030.0000 281.80280.1744 1.4200e-0030.1758 0.0475 1.3200e-0030.0488SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 281.5542 281.5542PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e-0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3458 301.3458 0.0717 0.0000 303.1380Total 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e-0030.0717 0.0000 303.13800.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3458 301.3458Mitigated Construction Off-SiteSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 13 of 28197 SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0152 0.5623 0.1326 1.8800e-0030.0470 6.0000e-0040.0476 0.0136 5.7000e-0040.0142 0.0000 180.2007 180.2007 7.8500e-0030.0000 180.3970Worker 0.0445 0.0295 0.3221 1.1200e-0030.1275 8.2000e-0040.1283 0.0339 7.5000e-0040.0347 0.0000 101.3535 101.3535 2.0900e-0030.0000 101.4058Total 0.0597 0.5918 0.4547 3.0000e-0039.9400e-0030.0000 281.80280.1744 1.4200e-0030.1758 0.0475 1.3200e-0030.0488SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 281.5542 281.5542PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.4 Building Construction - 2024Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0846 0.7730 0.9296 1.5500e-0030.0353 0.0353 0.0332 0.0332 0.0000 133.3132 133.3132 0.0315 0.0000 134.1014Total 0.0846 0.7730 0.9296 1.5500e-0030.0315 0.0000 134.10140.0353 0.0353 0.0332 0.0332SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 133.3132 133.3132PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 14 of 28198 Category tons/yrMT/yrHauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 6.5100e-0030.2469 0.0562 8.3000e-0040.0208 2.6000e-0040.0210 6.0100e-0032.5000e-0046.2600e-0030.0000 79.1521 79.1521 3.4300e-0030.0000 79.2379Worker 0.0184 0.0117 0.1315 4.8000e-0040.0564 3.5000e-0040.0567 0.0150 3.3000e-0040.0153 0.0000 43.0526 43.0526 8.3000e-0040.0000 43.0734Total 0.0249 0.2587 0.1877 1.3100e-0034.2600e-0030.0000 122.31130.0771 6.1000e-0040.0778 0.0210 5.8000e-0040.0216SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 122.2047 122.2047PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0846 0.7730 0.9296 1.5500e-0030.0353 0.0353 0.0332 0.0332 0.0000 133.3131 133.3131 0.0315 0.0000 134.1012Total 0.0846 0.7730 0.9296 1.5500e-0030.0315 0.0000 134.10120.0353 0.0353 0.0332 0.0332SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 133.3131 133.3131PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 15 of 28199 Vendor 6.5100e-0030.2469 0.0562 8.3000e-0040.0208 2.6000e-0040.0210 6.0100e-0032.5000e-0046.2600e-0030.0000 79.1521 79.1521 3.4300e-0030.0000 79.2379Worker 0.0184 0.0117 0.1315 4.8000e-0040.0564 3.5000e-0040.0567 0.0150 3.3000e-0040.0153 0.0000 43.0526 43.0526 8.3000e-0040.0000 43.0734Total 0.0249 0.2587 0.1877 1.3100e-0034.2600e-0030.0000 122.31130.0771 6.1000e-0040.0778 0.0210 5.8000e-0040.0216SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 122.2047 122.2047PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.5 Paving - 2024Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0176 0.1655 0.2444 3.8000e-0047.9700e-0037.9700e-0037.3700e-0037.3700e-0030.0000 32.7606 32.7606 0.0103 0.0000 33.0180Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0176 0.1655 0.2444 3.8000e-0040.0103 0.0000 33.01807.9700e-0037.9700e-0037.3700e-0037.3700e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 32.7606 32.7606PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.0300e-0036.6000e-0047.3800e-0033.0000e-0053.1600e-0032.0000e-0053.1800e-0038.4000e-0042.0000e-0058.6000e-0040.0000 2.4153 2.4153 5.0000e-0050.0000 2.4165SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 16 of 28200 Total 1.0300e-0036.6000e-0047.3800e-0033.0000e-0055.0000e-0050.0000 2.41653.1600e-0032.0000e-0053.1800e-0038.4000e-0042.0000e-0058.6000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 2.4153 2.4153PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0176 0.1655 0.2444 3.8000e-0047.9700e-0037.9700e-0037.3700e-0037.3700e-0030.0000 32.7606 32.7606 0.0103 0.0000 33.0179Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0176 0.1655 0.2444 3.8000e-0040.0103 0.0000 33.01797.9700e-0037.9700e-0037.3700e-0037.3700e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 32.7606 32.7606PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.0300e-0036.6000e-0047.3800e-0033.0000e-0053.1600e-0032.0000e-0053.1800e-0038.4000e-0042.0000e-0058.6000e-0040.0000 2.4153 2.4153 5.0000e-0050.0000 2.4165Total 1.0300e-0036.6000e-0047.3800e-0033.0000e-0055.0000e-0050.0000 2.41653.1600e-0032.0000e-0053.1800e-0038.4000e-0042.0000e-0058.6000e-0040.0000 2.4153 2.41533.6 Architectural Coating - 2024SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 17 of 28201 SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 0.9037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 1.6300e-0030.0110 0.0163 3.0000e-0055.5000e-0045.5000e-0045.5000e-0045.5000e-0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e-0040.0000 2.3012Total 0.9053 0.0110 0.0163 3.0000e-0051.3000e-0040.0000 2.30125.5000e-0045.5000e-0045.5000e-0045.5000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 2.2979 2.2979PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 5.8000e-0043.7000e-0044.1500e-0032.0000e-0051.7800e-0031.0000e-0051.7900e-0034.7000e-0041.0000e-0054.8000e-0040.0000 1.3586 1.3586 3.0000e-0050.0000 1.3593Total 5.8000e-0043.7000e-0044.1500e-0032.0000e-0053.0000e-0050.0000 1.35931.7800e-0031.0000e-0051.7900e-0034.7000e-0041.0000e-0054.8000e-0040.0000 1.3586 1.3586Mitigated Construction On-SiteSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 18 of 28202 SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 0.9037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 1.6300e-0030.0110 0.0163 3.0000e-0055.5000e-0045.5000e-0045.5000e-0045.5000e-0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e-0040.0000 2.3012Total 0.9053 0.0110 0.0163 3.0000e-0051.3000e-0040.0000 2.30125.5000e-0045.5000e-0045.5000e-0045.5000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 2.2979 2.2979PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 5.8000e-0043.7000e-0044.1500e-0032.0000e-0051.7800e-0031.0000e-0051.7900e-0034.7000e-0041.0000e-0054.8000e-0040.0000 1.3586 1.3586 3.0000e-0050.0000 1.3593Total 5.8000e-0043.7000e-0044.1500e-0032.0000e-0053.0000e-0050.0000 1.35931.7800e-0031.0000e-0051.7900e-0034.7000e-0041.0000e-0054.8000e-0040.0000 1.3586 1.35864.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures MobileSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 19 of 28203 CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2ROG NOxNBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.1736 1.1073 1.9674 8.3800e-0030.6918 6.7500e-0030.6985 0.1859 6.3200e-0030.1922 0.0000 773.8962 773.8962 0.0289 0.0000 774.6189Unmitigated 0.1736 1.1073 1.9674 8.3800e-0030.6918 6.7500e-0030.6985 0.1859 6.3200e-0030.1922 0.0000 773.8962 773.8962 0.0289 0.0000 774.61894.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated MitigatedLand Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMTEnclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00Research & Development 933.00 316.56 184.93 1,849,795 1,849,795Total 933.00 316.56 184.93 1,849,795 1,849,7954.3 Trip Type InformationMiles Trip % Trip Purpose %Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-WH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byEnclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 34.4 Fleet MixLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHEnclosed Parking with Elevator 0.562515 0.038056 0.190319 0.106285 0.014814 0.005157 0.024895 0.046887 0.002221 0.002358 0.005460 0.0003430.000690Research & Development 0.562515 0.038056 0.190319 0.106285 0.014814 0.005157 0.024895 0.046887 0.002221 0.002358 0.005460 0.000343 0.0006905.0 Energy DetailSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 20 of 28204 Historical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrElectricity Mitigated0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 131.9520 131.9520 0.0295 6.1000e-003134.5073Electricity Unmitigated0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 131.9520 131.9520 0.0295 6.1000e-003134.5073NaturalGas Mitigated0.0222 0.2021 0.1698 1.2100e-0030.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 220.0482 220.0482 4.2200e-0034.0300e-003221.3559NaturalGas Unmitigated0.0222 0.2021 0.1698 1.2100e-003220.0482 220.0482 4.2200e-0034.0300e-003221.35590.0154 0.0154 0.0154ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM100.00000.0154PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO25.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development4.12355e+0060.0222 0.2021 0.1698 1.2100e-0030.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 220.0482 220.0482 4.2200e-0034.0300e-003221.3559Total 0.0222 0.2021 0.1698 1.2100e-0030.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 220.0482 220.0482 4.2200e-0034.0300e-003221.3559SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 21 of 28205 MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development4.12355e+0060.0222 0.2021 0.1698 1.2100e-0030.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 220.0482 220.0482 4.2200e-0034.0300e-003221.3559Total 0.0222 0.2021 0.1698 1.2100e-0030.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 220.0482 220.0482 4.2200e-0034.0300e-003221.35595.3 Energy by Land Use - ElectricityUnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator982136 57.8112 0.0129 2.6700e-00358.9307Research & Development1.25956e+00674.1409 0.0166 3.4300e-00375.5766Total 131.9520 0.0295 6.1000e-003134.5073MitigatedSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 22 of 28206 Electricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator982136 57.8112 0.0129 2.6700e-00358.9307Research & Development1.25956e+00674.1409 0.0166 3.4300e-00375.5766NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Total 131.9520 0.0295 6.1000e-003Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2134.50736.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROGNBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.7524 5.0000e-0055.3700e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0050.0000 0.0105 0.0105 3.0000e-0050.0000 0.0112Unmitigated 0.7524 5.0000e-0055.3700e-0030.00003.0000e-0050.0000 0.01122.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-005SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0105 0.0105PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO26.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 23 of 28207 SubCategory tons/yrMT/yrArchitectural Coating0.0904 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.6615 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping 5.0000e-0045.0000e-0055.3700e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0050.0000 0.0105 0.0105 3.0000e-0050.0000 0.0112Total 0.7524 5.0000e-0055.3700e-0030.00003.0000e-0050.0000 0.01122.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-005SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0105 0.0105PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2MitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating0.0904 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.6615 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping 5.0000e-0045.0000e-0055.3700e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0050.0000 0.0105 0.0105 3.0000e-0050.0000 0.0112Total 0.7524 5.0000e-0055.3700e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0050.0000 0.0105 0.0105 3.0000e-0050.0000 0.01127.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 24 of 28208 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytonMT/yrMitigated 52.0822 2.6752 0.0642 138.1055Unmitigated 52.0822 2.6752 0.0642 138.10557.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use MgaltonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development81.9211 / 052.0822 2.6752 0.0642 138.1055Total 52.0822 2.6752 0.0642 138.1055MitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use MgaltonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 25 of 28209 Research & Development81.9211 / 052.0822 2.6752 0.0642 138.1055Total 52.0822 2.6752 0.0642 138.10558.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/YearTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2etonMT/yr Mitigated 2.5699 0.1519 0.0000 6.3667 Unmitigated 2.5699 0.1519 0.0000 6.36678.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use tonstonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development12.66 2.5699 0.1519 0.0000 6.3667SSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 26 of 28210 Total 2.5699 0.1519 0.0000 6.3667MitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use tonstonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.1519 0.00000.0000Research & Development12.66 2.5699 0.1519 0.0000 6.36676.36679.0 Operational OffroadEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/YearTotal 2.569910.0 Stationary EquipmentFire Pumps and Emergency GeneratorsEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/YearHeat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeHorse Power Load Factor Fuel TypeHorse PowerUser Defined EquipmentEquipment Type NumberLoad Factor Fuel TypeBoilersEquipment Type Number Heat Input/DaySSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 27 of 28211 11.0 VegetationSSF 101 Gull Drive Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 28 of 28212         CULTURAL RECORDS SEARCH, NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION RESPONSE ATTACHMENT B to the 101 Gull Drive Project Initial Study   213 August 21, 2021 NWIC File No.: 21-0245 Rebecca Auld Lamphier- Gregory, Inc. 4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 Re: Record search results for the proposed 101 Gull Drive Project in the City of South San Francisco. Dear Ms. Rebecca Auld: Per your request received by our office on the 11th of August, 2021, a rapid response records search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for San Mateo County. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures. As per information received by this office, the 3.8-acre project site is currently vacant. The site includes Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-082-250. The project proposes construction and operation of a 166,608 square foot office/research and development (R&D) building with adjoining structured parking and a new driveway on Gull Drive along with mutual access easements with the neighboring properties also connecting to Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Road. No substantial excavation or subsurface floors / parking is proposed and site grading will be constrained to building pad preparation involving 18,440 cubic yard of cut across the site. Drilled piles are proposed for building support that would be drilled down to bedrock (approximately 15 to 60 feet). Review of this information indicates that there have been no cultural resource studies that cover the 101 Gull Drive project area. This 101 Gull Drive project area contains no recorded archaeological resources. The State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, 214 2            21‐0245  lists no recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed 101 Gull Drive project area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed 101 Gull Drive project area. At the time of Euroamerican contact the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Ramaytush language, part of the Costanoan/Ohlone language family (Levy 1978: 485). There are Native American resources in or adjacent to the proposed 101 Gull Drive project area referenced in the ethnographic literature (Levy 1976, Nelson 1909). Using Milliken’s study of various mission records, the proposed project area is located within the lands of the Urebure tribe, whose territory was located "in the San Bruno Creek area just south of San Bruno Mountain on the San Francisco Peninsula. (Milliken 1995: 258-9). Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in areas marginal to the San Francisco Bay shore and inland in valleys, near intermittent and perennial watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. The 101 Gull Drive project area is located on the lower terraces of an eastern facing hillside approximate 0.25 miles from the current San Francisco Bayshore between Oyster Point Park and San Bruno Point Park, formerly within and adjacent to the historic bayshore margin. Aerial maps indicate an empty dirt parcel. Given the similarity of these environmental factors and the ethnographic sensitivity of the area, there is a moderate to high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed 101 Gull Drive project area. Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period activity within the 101 Gull Drive project area. Early San Mateo County maps indicated the project area was located within the South San Francisco Land and Improvements Co., Abattoire (Bromfield 1894). In addition, the 1915 San Mateo USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle indicated a portion of railroad within and adjacent to the project area. With this in mind, there is a moderate to high potential for unrecorded historic- period archaeological resources to be within the proposed 101 Gull Drive project area. The 1956 photo revised 1980 San Francisco South USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle fails to depict any buildings or structures within the 101 Gull Drive project area; therefore, there is a low possibility for any buildings or structures 45 years or older to be within the 101 Gull Drive project area. 215 3            21‐0245  RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) There is a moderate to high potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a moderate to high potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in the project area. As the 101 Gull Drive project indicated that drilled piles are proposed for building support that would be drilled down to bedrock (approximately 15 to 60 feet), we recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to identify cultural resources. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 2) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710. 3) If the proposed project area contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement, prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that this resource be assessed by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of San Mateo County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 4) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive. 5) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing 216 4            21‐0245  shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. 6) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s website:  https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351 Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law. Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any questions, (707) 588-8455. Sincerely, Jillian Guldenbrein Researcher 217 5            21‐0245  LITERATURE REVIEWED In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed: Brabb, Earl E., Fred A. Taylor, and George P. Miller 1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California. Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1257-B, 1:62,500. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Bromfield, Davenport 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California General Land Office 1858, 1864 Survey Plat for Rancho Buri Buri, Township 3 South/Range 5 West. Heizer, Robert F., editor 1974 Local History Studies, Vol. 18., “The Costanoan Indians.” California History Center, DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA. Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976) Levy, Richard 1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Milliken, Randall 1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park, CA. Nelson, N.C. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley. (Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964) 218 6            21‐0245  Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright 1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board 1984 San Mateo County: Its History and Heritage. Second Edition. Division of Planning and Development Department of Environmental Management. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. State of California Office of Historic Preservation ** 2020 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through March 3, 2020). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. **Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review. 219 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 September 8, 2021 Rebecca Auld Lamphier-Gregory Via Email to: Rauld@lamphier-gregory.com Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. Dear Ms. Auld: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides: Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources. The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as: 1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to: CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Luiseño VICE CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Chumash SECRETARY Merri Lopez-Keifer Luiseño PARLIAMENTARIAN Russell Attebery Karuk COMMISSIONER William Mungary Paiute/White Mountain Apache COMMISSIONER Julie Tumamait-Stenslie Chumash COMMISSIONER [Vacant] COMMISSIONER [Vacant] COMMISSIONER [Vacant] EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Christina Snider Pomo NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov 220 Page 2 of 2 • A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including: • Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10. 3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE. Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource. This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current. If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: Katy.Sanchez@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Katy Sanchez Associate Environmental Planner Attachment 221 On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 12:21 PM Sanchez, Katy@NAHC <Katy.Sanchez@nahc.ca.gov> wrote: Hi Rebecca, The AB 52 No letter is still in effect. The attached list is for the correct county in which the project is located. Thank you for your patience. Katy Sanchez Associate Environmental Planner Native American Heritage Commission (916) 373-3712 222 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contacts List September 8, 2021 Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson 3030 Soda Bay Road Lakeport 95453 (650) 851-7489 Cell (650) 851-7747 Office Ohlone/Costanoan CA, amahmutsuntribal@gmail.com (650) 332-1526 Fax Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. Tony Cerda, Chairman 244 E. 1st Street Pomona 91766 (909) 629-6081 Ohlone/Costanoan CA, rumsen@aol.com (909) 524-8041 Fax Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. Kanyon Sayers-Roods 1615 Pearson Court San Jose 95122 408-673-0626 Ohlone/Costanoan CA, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson P.O. Box 28 Hollister 95024 (831) 637-4238 Ohlone/Costanoan CA, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. Monica Arellano, Vice Chairwoman 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley 94546 (408) 205-9714 Ohlone / Costanoan CA, marellano@muwekma.org Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson P.O. Box 717 Linden 95236 (209) 887-3415 Ohlone/Costanoan Northern Valley Yokuts Bay Miwok CA, canutes@verizon.net North Valley Yokuts Tribe This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. Timothy Perez, MLD Contact P.O. Box 717 Linden 95236 (209) 662-2788 Ohlone/Costanoan Northern Valley Yokuts Bay Miwok CA, huskanam@gmail.com North Valley Yokuts Tribe This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. Quirina Luna Geary, Chairperson P.O. Box 8053 San Jose 95155 (707) 295-4011 Ohlone/Costanoan CA, qgeary@tamien.org Tamien Nation This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. Johnathan Wasaka Costilla, THPO P.O. Box 866 Clearlake Oaks 95423 (925) 336-5359 Ohlone/Costanoan CA, thpo@tamien.org Tamien Nation This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. Corrina Gould, Chairperson 10926 Edes Avenue Oakland 94603 (510) 575-8408 Ohlone/Costanoan CA, cvltribe@gmail.com The Confederated Villages of Lisjan This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. . 223 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contacts List September 8, 2021 Andrew Galvan P.O. Box 3388 Fremont 94539 (510) 882-0527 Cell Ohlone Bay Miwok Plains Miwok Patwin CA, chochenyo@AOL.com (510) 687-9393 Fax The Ohlone Indian Tribe This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson 1179 Rock Haven Ct. Salinas 93906 (831) 443-9702 Foothill Yokuts Mono Wuksache CA, kwood8934@aol.com Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 101 Gull Drive Project, Alameda County. . 224 225     101 Gull Drive Project ‐ Draft EIR Appendices  Appendix C Phase I Environmental Site Assessment   226 227 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California Prepared For: SRE Acquisitions III, LLC c/o Singerman Real Estate, LLC 980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Prepared By: Langan Engineering and Environmental 135 Main Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, California 94105 Hayley Farr, EIT Senior Staff Engineer Jeffrey Ludlow, PG Principal/Vice President 22 December 2020 731747601 228 22 December 2020 Kiley Carter SRE Acquisitions III, LLC c/o Singerman Real Estate, LLC 980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60611 Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California Langan Project: 731747601 Dear Ms. Carter: Langan Engineering and Environmental (Langan) is pleased to submit this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), for the property located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue, in South San Francisco, California. In performing this Phase I ESA, we have endeavored to observe the degree of care and skill generally exercised by other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time, under similar circumstances and conditions, and in the same geographical area. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. If you have any questions or need any information clarified, please call Mr. Jeffrey Ludlow at (415) 717-0263. Sincerely yours, Langan Engineering and Environmental Hayley Farr, EIT Jeffrey Ludlow Senior Staff Engineer Principal/Vice President cc: Mike Sanford – Sanfo Group Lindsay Florin – LBF Consulting Group 731747601.02 HF_Phase 1 ESA 101 Gull-560 Eccles_122220 229 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS E1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 E1.1 Site Description.................................................................................................. 1 E1.2 Environmental Database and File Review ........................................................ 1 E1.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Scope of Phase I ESA ......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Assumptions, Limitations and Exceptions ....................................................... 4 1.4 Special Terms and Conditions and User Reliance ........................................... 5 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Location and Legal Description ........................................................................ 6 2.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics ......................................................... 6 2.3 Current Use of the Site and Adjoining Properties ........................................... 6 2.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads, and Other Site Improvements ................ 7 3.0 PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................. 7 4.0 CLIENT-PROVIDED INFORMATION ............................................................................ 12 4.1 User/Owner Questionnaire ............................................................................. 12 4.2 Title Records .................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ................................... 12 4.4 Specialized Knowledge ................................................................................... 12 4.5 Commonly Known and Reasonable Ascertainable Information ................... 13 4.6 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ............................................. 13 4.7 Owner, Site Manager, and Occupant Information ........................................ 13 4.8 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA ................................................................ 13 5.0 RECORDS REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 13 5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources ...................................................... 13 5.1.1 Site – 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue ............................................ 15 5.1.2 Off-Site Database Listings ................................................................... 16 5.2 Physical Setting Sources ................................................................................. 22 5.3 Historical Use Information on the Site and Adjoining and Surrounding Properties ......................................................................................................... 23 6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ............................................................................................ 24 6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions........................................................... 24 6.2 General Site Setting and Reconnaissance Observations .............................. 25 6.3 Site Observations ............................................................................................ 25 7.0 INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................ 27 7.1 Subject Site User ............................................................................................. 27 7.2 Owners of Current and Adjacent Properties .................................................. 27 230 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 8.0 PHASE I ESA FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ............................................................. 28 8.1 Known or Suspect RECs and COEIs ................................................................ 28 8.2 De Minimis Conditions .................................................................................... 29 8.3 Data Gaps ......................................................................................................... 29 8.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 29 9.0 DEVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ 31 10.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .............................................................................................. 31 11.0 EXCEPTIONS ................................................................................................................ 31 12.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 32 13.0 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS ............................................. 34 14.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS .................................... 34 FIGURES EXHIBITS APPENDICES 231 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page iii ATTACHMENTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Plan LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 560 Eccles Limits of Burn Ash Material Exhibit 2 560 Eccles Cross Sections Exhibit 3 Oyster Point Landfill Remedial Activities Exhibit 4 Oyster Point Landfill Grading Plan Exhibit 5 Oyster Point Landfill City Disposal Area Plan Exhibit 6 Oyster Point Landfill Sump 2 Excavation Area Exhibit 7 Oyster Point Landfill – Landfill Gas Monitoring Locations Exhibit 8 Oyster Point Landfill – Groundwater Monitoring Locations LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B User/Owner Provided Information Appendix C EDR Database Report Appendix D Sanborn Maps Appendix E Topographic Maps Appendix F City Directory Report Appendix G Aerial Photographs Appendix H Resumes of Environmental Professionals 232 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 1 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California E1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Langan Engineering and Environmental (Langan) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue (Site) in South San Francisco, California (Figure 1). The ESA was performed on behalf of the SRE Acquisitions III, LLC (Client) to assist them with their due diligence for the Site. This Phase I ESA was conducted in substantial conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E1527-13 (Standard Practice for ESA: Phase I ESA Process), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 2006 All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) Rule (40 CFR Part 312) now in effect. Completion of a Phase I ESA in accordance with the ASTM Practice and AAI Rule is needed to qualify for the bona fide prospective purchaser liability protections available under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The objective of this Phase I ESA was to identify the presence or likely presence, use, or release on the Site of hazardous substances or petroleum products as defined in ASTM E1527-13 as a recognized environmental condition (REC). E1.1 Site Description The Site is located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California and is identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 015-082-250. The Site is bound by commercial and light industrial properties to the north, commercial and light industrial properties west and south, and Gull Drive and commercial and light industrial properties to the east. As shown on Figure 2, the Site is currently undeveloped vacant land with an area of approximately 160,000 square feet (3.68 acres). E1.2 Environmental Database and File Review As part of the Phase I ESA, we have reviewed the environmental database report prepared by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The EDR report contains information from the environmental databases maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), state, and local agencies within the approximate minimum search distance. The database review indicated that the property is not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. 233 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 2 Inquiries were made and records searched at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division (SMCEHD), the City of South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regarding any additional files related to fuel and hazardous materials leaks reported at the Site. E1.3 Conclusion Based on the databases searched by EDR, requests made for public documentation related to past or present environmental conditions at the Site and surrounding area, review of previous Site reports, and our Site reconnaissance, Langan has identified one REC associated with the Site during this Phase I ESA:  REC-1 – Historical Site Operations and Impacted Shallow Site Soil, Groundwater, and Soil Vapor: The Site was previously occupied by a portion of a former landfill that was utilized as a burn dump facility in the 1950s. The CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database lists the facility as a former “Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” Records indicate that residual burn ash material underlies the western portion of the Site and that after burn dump operations at the Site ceased in the late 1950s, additional fill material was placed over the burn ash material to raise the Site to the current grades. Records for the source of the fill material placed at the Site are unavailable; therefore the material is considered undocumented fill. Previous Site investigations indicate metals concentrations in shallow fill soil and burn ash material exceeding the 2019 RWQCB commercial shallow soil Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Shallow groundwater at the Site appears to have been impacted with metals (consistent with the presence of burn ash material below the water table) and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) in a limited area in the southeast portion of the Site; however, there are not RWQCB vapor intrusion ESLs established for metals or TPH. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were detected in soil vapor exceeding the 2019 RWQCB commercial vapor intrusion environmental screening levels and methane was also detected at concentrations up to 41% by volume. The residual burn ash from former landfill operations and impacted shallow Site soils, groundwater, and soil vapor are considered a REC for the Site. Future Site development will require mitigation measures to be established and implemented per California Code of Regulations Title 27 (27 CCR) §21190 governing redevelopments on closed landfills. 234 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION Langan Engineering and Environmental (Langan) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue (Site) in South San Francisco, California (Figure 1). The ESA was performed on behalf of the SRE Acquisitions III, LLC (Client) to assist them with their due diligence for the Site. The Site is located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California and is identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 015-082-250. The Site is bound by commercial and light industrial properties to the north, commercial and light industrial properties west and south, and Gull Drive and commercial and light industrial properties to the east. As shown on Figure 2, the Site is currently undeveloped vacant land with an area of approximately 160,000 square feet (3.68 acres). 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to accomplish the following: (1) Identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) in connection with the Site, as defined in The Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, Designation E1527-13, which states: The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a Site: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. (2) Satisfy the criteria of United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 312 Subpart C Standards and Practices §312.20 AAI Rule. 1.2 Scope of Phase I ESA This Phase I ESA was conducted utilizing a standard of good commercial and customary practice that is consistent with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-13. Any 235 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 4 significant scope-of-work additions, deletions, or deviations to ASTM E1527-13 are noted in Section 9.0 of this report. In general, the scope of this assessment consisted of obtaining information from the User; reviewing reasonably ascertainable information and environmental data relating to the Site; reviewing maps and records maintained by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies; interviewing persons knowledgeable about the Site; and conducting a Site reconnaissance. The specific scope of this assessment included the following: 1. A Site reconnaissance to observe conditions and assess the Site’s location with respect to adjoining and surrounding property uses and natural surface features. The reconnaissance included the surrounding roads and observations of surrounding properties from public rights-of-way to identify obvious potential environmental conditions on neighboring properties. The Site reconnaissance was conducted in a systematic manner focusing on the spatial extent of the Site and then progressing to adjacent and surrounding properties. Photographs taken as part of the Site reconnaissance are provided in Appendix A. 2. As per ASTM E1527-13, a questionnaire was provided to the user and/or owner to obtain information related to the Site. A copy of the completed questionnaires are provided in Appendix B. 3. A review of environmental databases maintained by the USEPA, state, and local agencies within the approximate minimum search distance. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) prepared the environmental database report, which is included in Appendix C. 4. Physical characteristics of the Site were determined through referenced sources for topographic, geologic, soils, and hydrologic data. 5. A review and interpretation of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (Sanborn Maps), historical topographic maps, city directories, and aerial photographs to identify previous activities on and in the vicinity of the Site. Copies are included in Appendices D, E, F, and G, respectively. 1.3 Assumptions, Limitations and Exceptions This Phase I ESA report was prepared for SRE Acquisitions III, LLC (Client) for the property located at located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue (Site) in South San Francisco, California. The report is intended to be used in its entirety. Excerpts taken from this report are not 236 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 5 necessarily representative of the assessment findings. Langan cannot assume responsibility for use of this report for any property other than the Site addressed herein, or by any other third party without a written authorization from Langan. Langan’s scope of services, which is described in Section 1.2, was limited to that agreed to with the User and no other services beyond those explicitly stated are implied. The services performed and agreed upon for this effort comports to those prescribed in the ASTM Standard E1527-13. This Phase I ESA was not intended to be a definitive investigation of possible environmental impacts at the Site. The purpose of this investigation was limited to determining if there is reason to suspect the possibility of RECs at the Site. It should be understood that even the most comprehensive Phase I ESA may fail to detect environmental liabilities at a particular property. Therefore, Langan cannot “insure” or "certify" that the Site is free of environmental impacts. No expressed or implied representation or warranty is included or intended in this report, except that our services were performed, within the limits prescribed by our Client, with the customary standard of care exercised by professionals performing similar services under similar circumstances within the same jurisdiction. The findings and opinions provided in this report are based solely on the specific activities as required for the performance of ASTM E1527-13 and are intended exclusively for the purpose stated herein, at the specified Site, as it existed at the time of our Site reconnaissance. The services performed and agreed upon for this effort comports to those prescribed in the ASTM Standard E1527-13. Intrusive sampling (e.g., soil borings and groundwater sampling) was not performed as part of this Phase I ESA. 1.4 Special Terms and Conditions and User Reliance The Client requested no special terms or conditions regarding this Phase I ESA. Langan has prepared this report specifically for the use of the Client and SRE SSF Innovation, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The findings contained within the report shall not, in whole or in part, be disseminated or conveyed to any other party, nor be used by any other party, in whole or in part without written prior consent of the Client and Langan. Other parties cannot rely on this Phase I ESA and the conclusions therein, unless Langan receives a written request from the Client, at which time a “Reliance Letter” will be prepared for the interested party. The relying party will be subject to the same terms and conditions and limitations as agreed to by the Client. 237 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 6 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location and Legal Description The Site is located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California and is identified as APN 015-082-250. 2.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics As shown on Figure 2, the Site is currently undeveloped vacant land with an area of approximately 160,000 square feet (3.68 acres). The Site is located in an area zoned by the City of South San Francisco as Business Technology Park, which is designated for a wide range of commercial and light industrial activities. The Site is located approximately ¾ miles east of highway 101 and 1,500 feet west of the San Francisco Bay. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps, reviewed by Langan in EDR’s Historical Topographic Map Report, the Site is at an elevation of approximately 50 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The Site topography slopes down to the southeast. A detailed description the current Site uses observed during the Site reconnaissance are discussed in Section 6.0. Photographs showing the current Site use are provided in Appendix A. 2.3 Current Use of the Site and Adjoining Properties The following table summarizes the current ownership and use of the parcel within the Site. Parcel Number Current Address Site Owner Size (Acres) Current Parcel Use 015-082-250 101 Gull Drive/ 560 Eccles Avenue SMPO ELS LLC 3.68 Vacant undeveloped land = 238 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 7 The current uses of the adjoining and surrounding properties include: 2.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads, and Other Site Improvements There are no structures or roads on the Site; however, there is a sidewalk and an ingress/egress easement for vehicles and utilities along a portion of the northern boundary of the Site (Land Title Survey, Appendix B). Additionally, there is a storm drain easement along the eastern boundary of the Site that parallels Gull Drive (Land Title Survey, Appendix B). Within the southern portion of the eastern adjoining City of South San Francisco owned parcel (APN 015-190-180) are two perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells (LFG-9 and LFG-10) and a passive venting trench (PVT-1) related to the ongoing monitoring for the former Oyster Point Landfill (Figure 2). Further details regarding the former landfill and monitoring wells are provided in Sections 3.0 and 5.0. 3.0 PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS Langan reviewed the following environmental documents previously prepared for the Site and western adjoining property associated with the same address (560 Eccles Avenue):  1996 September 30, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Clayton Environmental Consultants; Direction Block/Lot Adjoining Properties Surrounding Properties North 015-082-180 Iron Mountain Records Management Warehouse (336-340 Oyster Point Boulevard) Commercial and light industrial properties 015-082-200 Plenty Unlimited Inc. Warehouse (584-590 Eccles Avenue) East 015-190-180 Vacant undeveloped land owned by the City of South San Francisco Commercial and light industrial properties Gull Drive 015-010-950 Former Oyster Point Landfill - Redevelopment under construction (Oyster Point Boulevard) South 015-231-430 UPS Shipping Facility Parking Lot (Address not reported) Commercial and light industrial properties 015-082-170 Apex Logistics Warehouse (573 Forbes Boulevard) West 015-082-240 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Office (560 Eccles Avenue) Commercial and light industrial properties 239 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 8  1998 March 16, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by AEI;  2006 June 14, Phase II Environmental Site Investigation Report, Vacant Land along Gull Drive between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2006 June 29, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vacant Land, Northwest of the Intersection of Gull Road and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2008 January 30, Preliminary Waste Characterization Study of Burn Ash Material, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2011 August 11, Site Closure Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2011 August 11, Risk Management Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2011 October 6, Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Report, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2014 February 26, Site Closure Plan and Post Construction Maintenance Plan Letter to San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2017 April 5, Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Construction Maintenance Plan, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by SCS Engineers;  2017 April 25, Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Construction Maintenance Plan Review Letter, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division;  2017 June 21, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Landfill Due Diligence Report, 560 Eccles Avenue, prepared by SCS Engineers;  2018 February 22, Soil Management Plan, 560 Eccles Avenue, prepared by SCS Engineers;  2018 May 29, Completion Report – Monitoring Well Abandonment/Destruction, Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-1 and MW-2, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by SCS Engineers;  2018 October 3, Completion Report – Monitoring Well Abandonment/Destruction, Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-4 and MW-5, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by SCS Engineers; and 240 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 9  2019 April 4, Covenant to Restrict Use of the Property, Environmental Restriction, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California between SMPO ELS, LLC and San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division. Relevant information based on our review of the above-listed reports is summarized below. Operational History of the Site The Site was historically undeveloped land on a hillside along the western margin of the San Francisco Bay. The Site contains fill material placed as part of modifications to the coastline of the Bay in the early 1900s and remained undeveloped through the 1950s. During the 1950s, a portion of the Site was reportedly used as a burn dump; this was common practice for waste management at the time, prior to phasing out in the early 1970s in response to federal and state air quality legislation. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database lists the facility as a former “Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility” under the name “USDA Building (41-CR-0028)” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” After burn dump operations at the Site ceased in the late 1950s, additional fill material was placed over the burn ash material to raise the Site to the current grades. Based on review of aerial photos, the property appears to have been graded to the current configuration by the 1980s. Records for the source of the fill material placed at the Site are unavailable; therefore the material is considered undocumented fill. From the 1980s through the present, the Site has been undeveloped, vacant land. Site Investigation History and Remedial Actions From the late 1990s through the present, several soil and groundwater investigations have been conducted to evaluate the former burn dump site and identify potential mitigative measures for future Site development. As shown in Exhibits 1 and 2, investigations previously conducted by Environ have identified burn ash material underlying the western portion of the Site. The areal extent of the residual ash material is approximately four acres, with an estimated in-place volume of 346,000 cubic yards (cy) (Environ, 2011). Within the Site boundaries, the burn ash material ranges from approximately 10 to 25 feet thick (Environ, 2011). Native clays and silts followed by bedrock were identified below the burn ash material (Environ, 2011). The thickness of fill material overlying the burn ash at the Site ranges from approximately 10 to 20 feet thick (Environ, 2011). Soil sampling conducted between 2006 and 2008 identified elevated concentrations of metals exceeding the 2019 RWQCB commercial shallow soil environmental screening levels (ESLs) 241 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 10 within the burn ash material including: arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc (Environ, 2008). Several metals were also detected within the shallow undocumented fill material overlying the burn ash at concentrations exceeding the 2019 RWQCB residential shallow soil ESLs, but below the commercial ESLs, including: antimony, arsenic, chromium VI, cobalt, and lead (SCS, 2018). Arsenic and lead were also detected within the fill samples at concentrations exceeding their respective 2019 RWQCB commercial shallow soil ESLs (SCS, 2018). Select shallow fill soil samples were tested for soluble metals (Environ, 2008). Multiple shallow soil samples had concentrations exceeding the soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC) for lead, indicating that it is likely some of the soil at the Site could potentially be classified as hazardous waste if exported from the property for off-Site disposal. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were not detected in shallow fill soil or burn ash samples at concentrations exceeding the 2019 residential or commercial ESLs, with the exception of TPH as diesel (TPHd) and motor oil (TPHmo) that were detected above both the residential and commercial ESLs in one sample at a depth of 25 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Environ, 2008). A soil vapor investigation was conducted in 2006 that included installation of 16 temporary soil vapor probes to depths of 5 and 10 feet bgs at each sample location. Methane was detected in soil vapor at five sample locations at concentrations ranging from 0.45% to 41% by volume (Environ, 2008). The methane compliance levels enforced by the San Mateo County Health Services Division (SMCEHD) Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) per California Code of Regulations Title 27 (27 CCR) §20921 are 5% at the property perimeter, and 1.25% within on-site structures. Several VOCs were also detected in soil vapor at concentrations below their respective 2019 RWQCB residential and commercial vapor intrusion (V/I) ESLs, with the exception of benzene and vinyl chloride that were detected above both the residential and commercial V/I ESLs. The highest concentrations of methane were detected in the northeastern corner of the Site across Gull Drive from the eastern adjoining property (APN 015-010-950) that is part of a former municipal Class III landfill (Oyster Point Landfill) that was operated by the City of South San Francisco from approximately 1956 until it stopped accepting waste in 1970 (Langan, 2017). As discussed further in Section 5.1.2, there are two perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells (LFG-9 and LFG-10) and a passive venting trench (PVT-1) related to the ongoing monitoring for the former Oyster Point Landfill within the southern portion of the eastern adjoining City of South San Francisco owned parcel (APN 015-190-180) (Figure 2). In 2008, five groundwater monitoring wells, designated MW-1 through MW-5 were installed at the property (Figure 2). Groundwater sampling was conducted between 2008 and 2009 as part 242 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 11 of ongoing Site investigations. The investigations concluded that shallow groundwater at the Site appears to have been impacted with metals consistent with the presence of burn ash material below the water table. It was also concluded that shallow groundwater in the vicinity of monitoring well MW-5 was impacted by low concentrations of TPH (Environ, 2011). RWQCB V/I ESLs are not established for metals or TPH. Due to the Site not being subject to any regulatory agency order or directive to perform water quality monitoring, the groundwater monitoring wells were abandoned in 2018 (SCS, 2018). The western adjoining property (APN 015-082-240) that also overlies a portion of the burn ash material was recently developed in 2018 with a commercial/industrial building that is utilized as a USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Office. In preparation for redevelopment, SCS Engineers (SCS) prepared an Amendment to the Site Closure Plan (SCP) and Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (PCMP) previously prepared by Environ in 2011 for a previous Site owner who intended to develop the property for commercial uses, but the development was not constructed (SCS, 2017). The Amended SCP and PCMP were prepared in accordance with 27 CCR §21190 requirements governing redevelopments on landfills and approved by the SMCEHD LEA, with concurrence from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (SCS, 2017). The remedial strategies in the SCP and PCMP included the following:  Proper decommissioning and abandonment of existing groundwater monitoring wells within the footprint of proposed improvement areas;  Localized excavations within shallow fill soil;  Placement of a new landfill cap consisting of concrete or asphalt slabs within hardscape areas, re-compacted and vegetated soil within perimeter slope softscape areas, and planters with impermeable geomembrane liners and subdrain systems within parking lot softscape areas;  Installation of a passive sub-slab methane mitigation system (MMS) and interior methane detection and alarm system; and  Adherence to applicable provisions of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HASP) included in the initial SCP prepared by Environ (Environ, 2011). Additionally, SCS prepared a Soil Management Plan (SMP) according to the revised development plans for the USDA building and Amended SCP and PCMP intended to guide the prime contractor and associated subcontractors to properly manage soils containing chemicals of concern (COCs) in a manner that is protective of human health during development and proposed future land use (SCS, 2018). At the time the SCP, PCMP, and SMP were prepared by SCS, the Site was part of 243 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 12 a larger parcel (APN 015-082-210-4), which was divided in 2018 into two parcels: APN 015-082- 240 (western adjoining property) and APN 015-082-250 (Site); therefore, the property boundary in the plans is inclusive of the larger former parcel as shown in Exhibit 1. On 4 April 2019, a deed restriction was recorded between SMPO ELS, LLC and SMCEHD for the western adjoining property (APN 015-082-240) which requires the property owner to maintain the integrity of the landfill cap per the Amended PCMP, obtain agency approval prior to any soil disturbance or groundwater drilling, and comply with land use limitations (development and use of the property is restricted to commercial and/or industrial use). 4.0 CLIENT-PROVIDED INFORMATION 4.1 User/Owner Questionnaire Per ASTM E1527-13, user and owner questionnaires were provided to the User to inquire about specialized information related to the Site. Ms. Lindsay Florin of LBF Consulting Group Inc. completed the User/Client questionnaire on behalf of Ms. Kiley Carter of SRE Acquisitions III, LLC. Ms. Florin has no-first-hand knowledge of the Site and is not aware of any environmental cleanup liens associated with the Site. Ms. Florin is aware of the deed restriction recorded for the western adjoining property on 4 April 2019 as discussed in Section 3.0. The completed User questionnaire is included in Appendix B. Mr. Steve Williams completed the owner questionnaire for the Site. Mr. Williams has no knowledge of environmental cleanup liens associated with the Site. Mr. Williams also provided several environmental documents to the Client, which are discussed in Section 3.0. The completed Owner questionnaire is included in Appendix B. 4.2 Title Records A Title Report provided by the Client for the Site parcel (APN 015-082-250) is included in Appendix B. 4.3 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations The Client is not aware of any environmental cleanup or liens in connection to the Site. 4.4 Specialized Knowledge The Client does not have any specialized knowledge of the Site. 244 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 13 4.5 Commonly Known and Reasonable Ascertainable Information The Client is not aware of any commonly known and reasonable ascertainable information regarding the Site. 4.6 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues The Client is not aware of any valuation reduction for environmental issues in connection with the Site and that the value of the Site reflects market value. 4.7 Owner, Site Manager, and Occupant Information The Client representative has indicated that the Site is owned by SMPO ELS, LLC. 4.8 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA It is our understanding that the Client has requested this study as part of their environmental due diligence regarding the Site. 5.0 RECORDS REVIEW 5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources Langan reviewed an environmental database search report, prepared by EDR, for the Site and surrounding area. The EDR report is a listing of properties identified on select federal and state standard source environmental databases within the approximate search radius specified by ASTM Standard Practice for E1527-13. A review of environmental regulatory agency lists and records was performed for the Site and vicinity to identify potential sources of or activities involving hazardous substances or petroleum products that might affect the soil and groundwater quality at the Site. The lists identify properties where underground storage tank (UST) leaks, chemical spills, or contamination of soil and/or groundwater have been reported and confirmed. The regulatory lists also include properties where above-ground or underground storage tanks are present, hazardous materials are generated and/or stored, and whether or not there has been an unauthorized release. This information is reported to Langan by EDR, and to EDR by government sources; therefore, neither Langan nor EDR can verify the completeness and accuracy of the database information. Langan reviewed each environmental database on a record-by-record basis to determine if certain 245 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 14 sites identified in the report are suspected to represent a potential impact to the Site. A copy of regulatory database information that was provided by EDR is included in Appendix C. The following summary table lists the number of properties by database within the prescribed search radius appearing in the EDR Radius Map Report: Database (Date of government version) Minimum Search Area Site Listed Properties within Search Area Federal Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Archive (10/25/2019) ½ mile radius No 3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTs) (12/16/2019) 1 mile radius No 2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Large Quantity Generators (RCRA – LQG) (12/16/2019) ¼ mile radius No 6 RCRA Small Quantity Generators (RCRA – SQG) (12/16/2019) ¼ mile radius No 13 State and Tribal RESPONSE – State and tribal equivalent NPL (10/28/2019) 1 mile radius No 2 DTSC EnviroStor (10/28/2019) 1 mile radius No 12 Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill (SWF/LF) (11/11/2019) 1/2 mile radius Yes 2 LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tank) (09/09/2019) ½ mile radius No 25 Cleanup Program Sites/Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (CPS-SLIC) (06/08/2020) ½ mile radius No 10 Underground Storage Tank (UST) (09/09/2019) ¼ mile radius No 1 Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) (07/06/2019) ¼ mile radius No 7 Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) (10/28/2019) ½ mile radius No 1 Brownfields (09/23/2019) ½ mile radius No 1 Additional Record Sources Historical (HIST) Cal-Sites (08/08/2005) 1 mile radius No 2 California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous (HAZ) Waste (10/21/2019) ¼ mile radius No 18 Toxic Pits 1 mile radius No 1 CA Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) UST (06/01/1994) ¼ mile radius No 8 CA HIST UST (10/15/1990) ¼ mile radius No 11 CA Facility Inventory Database (FID) UST (10/31/1994) ¼ mile radius No 7 CERS TANKS (10/21/2019) ¼ mile radius No 6 Deed Restriction Listing (DEED) (09/03/2019) ½ mile radius No 2 RCRA Non-Generator (NonGen)/No Longer Regulated (NLR) (12/16/2019) ¼ mile radius Yes 68 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDs) (05/15/2019) 1 mile radius No 1 Facility Index System (FINDS) (02/03/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 1 246 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 15 Database (Date of government version) Minimum Search Area Site Listed Properties within Search Area Enforcement and Compliance History Information (ECHO) (06/27/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 1 CA Bond Expenditure Plan (01/01/1989) 1 mile radius No 1 San Mateo County Business Inventory (02/20/2020) ¼ mile radius No 67 Cortese (09/23/2019) ½ mile radius No 17 Facility and Manifest Data (HAZNET) (12/31/2019) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 2 HIST CORTESE (4/1/2001) ½ mile radius No 15 Permitted Hazardous Waste Facility (HWP) (05/18/2020) 1 mile radius No 3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Sites (05/12/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 1 Proposition 65 Records (Notify 65) (09/16/2019) 1 mile radius No 2 California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) (06/01/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 1 California Environmental Protection Agency Regulated Sites (CERS) (07/20/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 2 Geotracker Non-Case Information Sites (06/08/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 1 Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) (04/08/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 3 A description of the reviewed databases is provided in the EDR Radius Map Report (Appendix C). A summary of Site database listings and other properties identified within the prescribed search area is presented below. A total of 326 listings within a one mile radius of the Site were found in various regulatory agency databases. Their database listings relative to the Site are shown in the maps found in the EDR Radius Map Report provided in Appendix C. Based on the large number of properties identified within one mile of the Site, Langan limited the review of surrounding properties to adjoining and upgradient properties. It is the environmental professional’s opinion that, based on the area, and former, current and proposed use of the Site, the review of the database pertaining to this more limited area is appropriate. Langan also requested and reviewed available environmental records from California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), RWQCB, CalRecycle, SMCEHD, the City of South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). A summary Site database listings and other properties identified within the prescribed search area is presented below. 5.1.1 Site – 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue The Site was identified in the following databases searched by EDR: SWF/LF, RCRA NonGen/NLR, FINDS, ECHO, HAZNET, NPDES, CIWQS, CERS, Geotracker Non-Case 247 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 16 Information Sites, and HWTS. Additionally, the Site was not listed in the DTSC EnviroStor database; however, it was listed in the RWQCB Geotracker database under the name “560 Eccles” with a status of “Informational Item as of 12/13/2018” and case number T10000012436. The records available on Geotracker were related to the abandonment of the former groundwater monitoring wells at the Site discussed in Section 3.0. The Site is also listed in the CalRecycle SWIS database as a former “Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility” under the name “USDA Building (41-CR-0028)” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” The records available on SWIS are related to the former Site use as a burn dump as discussed in Section 3.0. SMCEHD provided files related to the former Site use as a nonhazardous ash disposal/monofill facility under San Mateo County local oversight program (LOP) facility number FA0063171, including investigation and monitoring reports, postclosure development reports, and postclosure inspection reports related to the construction of the USDA building on the western adjoining property that also overlies a portion of the former burn ash material. No inspection violations were reported. SSFFD and BAAQMD had no records for the Site. 5.1.2 Off-Site Database Listings Based on our review of off-Site property listings, most of the nearby listings were either: (1) closed by the regulatory agency, (2) located in the inferred hydrologically down-gradient direction from the Site, (3) determined to be a significant distance from the Site, and/or 4) determined not to have a potential impact on the Site based on our review of available database information. However, the following properties in the surrounding area are of environmental interest. 560 Eccles Avenue (Western adjoining property, inferred up- to cross-gradient) SMCEHD records indicate that the USDA building owned by SMPO ELS, LLC is enrolled in the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) with a valid permit for the storage of small quantities of hazardous materials related to facility operations, specifically 309 gallons of diesel fuel in an aboveground storage tank for a backup generator. No violations, spills, or releases from facility operations were noted; therefore, the property is not anticipated to be an environmental concern for the Site. 336 Oyster Point Boulevard (Northern/western adjoining property, inferred up- to cross-gradient) This property was identified in the following databases searched by EDR: LUST, San Mateo County Business Inventory, Cortese, HIST CORTESE, and CERS. Additionally, this property is listed in the RWQCB Geotracker database as a LUST cleanup site under the name “Seaboard 248 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 17 Paper Co.” with case number T0608100451 and a status of “Completed - Case Closed as of 11/14/1995.” Alternative case numbers for property are San Mateo County LOP case number 550023 and RWQCB case number 41-0475. A No Further Action (NFA) letter issued by the SMCEHD indicates that the 2,000-gallon diesel UST was removed in 1987 and appeared to be in good condition with no holes (SMCEHD, 1995). Approximately 16 cy of soil were reportedly excavated and disposed. One water sample and one soil sample was obtained from the excavation, though no sample depths were recorded. An additional composite soil sample was collected from the excavated stockpile. TPHd was detected in the excavation soil sample and stockpile composite soil sample at concentrations of 3.4 parts per million (ppm) and 180 ppm, respectively, which are below the RWQCB 2019 residential and commercial shallow soil ESLs. Benzene, toluene, and xylenes were detected in the water sample at concentrations of 2,100 parts per billion (ppb), 22,000 ppb, and 42,000 ppb, respectively. TPHd and ethylbenzene were not detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in the water sample. In July 1987, two groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the 336 Oyster Point Boulevard property at depths of approximately 17 and 18 feet bgs, and quarterly monitoring was conducted for four consecutive quarters between May 1994 and May 1995. TPHd was detected in the wells at concentrations ranging between 120 ppb and 220 ppb during the four quarters of monitoring. The low levels of TPHd detected in groundwater are slightly above the RWQCB 2019 direct exposure human health risk ESL of 200 ppb; however, V/I ESLs are not established for TPHd. SMCEHD stated in the NFA letter that no further monitoring of the groundwater was required due to the low levels of TPHd in groundwater, further reduction of TPHd levels, the apparent asymptomatic trend in TPHd levels, and lack of technically feasible remediation. Therefore, due to the NFA determination, this property not expected to be an environmental concern for the Site. 349 Oyster Point Boulevard (approximately 350 feet northwest, inferred up- to cross-gradient) This property was identified in the following databases searched by EDR: RCRA NonGen/NLR, SEMS-ARCHIVE, RCRA-SQG, FINDS, CPS-SLIC, CERS, ENVIROSTOR, LUST, VCP, FINDS, ECHO, San Mateo County Business Inventory, Cortese, HIST CORTESE, CERS, CERS HAZ WASTE, and AST. Additionally, this property is listed in the RWQCB Geotracker database as a LUST cleanup site under the name “Wildberg Bros” with case number T0608114784 and a status of “Completed - Case Closed as of 7/17/2001”, and as a cleanup program site under the name “Wildberg Brothers” with case number T10000008176 and a status of “Completed - Case Closed as of 3/21/2018.” Alternative case numbers for property are San Mateo County LOP case number 249 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 18 559014 and RWQCB case numbers 41-1115 and 41S0028. The property is also listed in the DTSC Envirostor database as a voluntary cleanup site under the name “Wildberg Brothers (Boliden Metech)” with case number 41330049 and a status of “Certified as of 11/30/1987.” The Wildberg Brothers property (aka Boliden Metech) was formerly occupied by a metal reclamation plant which operated between 1907 and 1987. After operations of the facility ceased, several soil and groundwater investigations were conducted which identified heavy metals in shallow soils and trichloroethene (TCE) in groundwater at the Site related to former use as a metal reclamation facility. In 1995, Boliden Metech executed a voluntary cleanup agreement (VCA) with DTSC (DTSC, 1995). As part of the VCA activities, ACC Environmental Consultants collected soil samples from 19 locations and three groundwater monitoring wells (ACC, 1995). One soil sample collected from beneath a former laboratory building detected lead at a concentration of 930 ppm, which was above 800 ppm residential cleanup level at the time. Therefore, Boliden Metech removed approximately 10 cubic feet of soil from the impacted area in October 1995. Confirmation samples from these removal areas detected lead at a maximum concentration of 41 ppm, which is below the RWQCB 2019 residential and commercial shallow soil ESLs. TCE was detected in monitoring well MW-2 at a concentration of 2.5 ppb, which exceeds the RWQCB 2019 residential V/I ESLs, but is below the commercial V/I ESLs. In November 1995, DTSC issued a NFA letter indicating that all remedial actions conducted under the VCA had been completed (DTSC, 1995). During construction activities in 1997, soil that appeared to be impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons was encountered beneath a concrete slab. Reportedly, a heating fuel oil UST of unknown capacity was removed in 1982. Additional soil samples were collected in 1997 and TPHd, TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) were detected at concentrations of 730 ppm, 200 ppm, 0.024 ppm, 0.97 ppm, 0.240 ppm, 3.1 ppm, and 0.11 ppm, respectively. The concentration of TPHd exceeds the 2019 RWQCB residential shallow soil ESL, but is below the commercial ESL. Concentrations of TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and MTBE are below both the 2019 RWQCB residential and commercial shallow soil ESLs. Two groundwater samples were collected and analysis did not detect fuel constituents above the laboratory reporting limits. Excavation activities were performed, removing approximately 412 cy of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil. Based on the characterization and remedial actions performed, a NFA letter was issued by the SMCEHD in 2001 (SMCEHD, 2001). 250 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 19 Due to the NFA determinations for the VCA and the LUST, this property not expected to be an environmental concern for the Site. Former Oyster Point Landfill (eastern adjoining property across Gull Drive, inferred downgradient) This property was identified in the following databases searched by EDR: RCRA-LQG, RCRA NonGen/NLR, SWF/LF, and CERS. Additionally, this property is listed in the RWQCB Geotracker database as a land disposal site under the name “Oyster Point Landfill” with case number L10009323371 and a status of “Open as of 1/1/1965.” Alternative case numbers for property are RWQCB case number 2 417061001. The site is also listed in the CalRecycle SWIS database as a former “Solid Waste Disposal Site” under the name “So. San Francisco Municipal Dump/Oyster (41-AA-0065)” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” This property was formerly part of a municipal Class III landfill (Oyster Point Landfill) operated by the City of South San Francisco from approximately 1956 until it stopped accepting waste in 1970 (Langan, 2017). Prior to 1956, the existing landfill area consisted of tidal marshlands, upland bedrock and soils on the western part of the property, while the eastern part of the property was part of the San Francisco Bay. As a result of the waste disposal operations, the shoreline was extended approximately 3,000 feet to the east of the pre-landfill shoreline. Consistent with landfill practices at the time, no liner was installed underlying the refuse. Instead, the waste was placed directly onto the bay mud and soils overlying the bedrock. Two areas of the landfill, identified as Sumps 1 and 2, were reportedly used as hazardous waste disposal sites for industrial waste including drums, paints, thinners, and solvent sludge between 1961 and 1967. After landfill operations ceased in 1970, the City conducted various closure activities under RWQCB oversight and in accordance with the RWQCB regulatory guidelines that governed at that time; this was prior to the adoption of Title 27 CCR, the regulatory requirements currently governing Class III landfill closures. Between 1971 and 1976, the upper surface of the landfill was compacted, and a 2-foot layer of low-permeability soil was placed on top of the compacted fill. Additional mitigative measures were constructed between 1979 and 1981, including installation of a 2- to 3-foot-thick Bay Mud cap across the site, placement of additional riprap and Bay Mud along the Marina, construction of bentonite-cement trenches between the landfill and the drainage channel as well as along an approximately 300-foot length of shoreline on the west basin (beach area), and realignment of the drainage channel (Exhibit 3). In addition, Bay Mud was placed along the southern boundary of the landfill where leachate seepage had been observed. In 1987, a Bay Mud leachate cutoff trench was constructed along the northern landfill boundary, between the 251 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 20 mole and beach area. A gas barrier trench consisting of compacted soil and a CPE liner (20 mils thick) was also reportedly installed along the western landfill boundary to mitigate the lateral migration of landfill gas. As shown in Exhibits 4 and 5, the eastern adjoining parcel owned by the City of South San Francisco (APN 015-190-180) was formerly part of the Oyster Point Landfill property. In April 1995, waste material was encountered during the installation of eight test pits as part of an investigation of unstable soil conducted by the City in connection with the realignment of Gull Drive (CH2MHILL, 1996). The waste was encountered to the west of the capped landfill area. A subsequent investigation indicated that part of the new Gull Drive alignment was likely being constructed over part of Sump 2 (CH2MHILL, 1996). CH2MHILL concluded that the westernmost portion of this sump had not been included in previous landfill closure activities (the original landfill cap was completed in 1981). After waste was uncovered, roadway construction stopped and approximately 220 drums and approximately 4,000 cy of soil were removed and disposed of off- site as hazardous material. In January 1996, following removal of the drums and soil, the excavated area was graded and covered (see Exhibit 6 for the approximate area of the Sump 2 excavation). At the request of the RWQCB, CH2MHILL performed a limited field investigation including a geophysical survey and confirmatory trenching in February 1996 to define the extent of waste not covered by the existing cap and not removed during Sump 2 excavation activities (CH2MHILL, 1996). Before completing the construction of Gull Drive, the landfill cover was extended as described in the Construction Quality Assurance Report for the Gull Drive Final Cover Extension prepared by CH2MHILL in October 1996; however, drums and refuse may potentially remain in place beyond the cover extension below Gull Drive and within the eastern adjoining parcel owned by the City of South San Francisco since the excavation and removal effort in the vicinity of Sump 2 was limited to the minimum extent necessary to allow for continued construction of the new road. The perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells (LFG-9 and LFG-10) and passive venting trench (PVT-1) immediately outside the eastern Site boundary within the City of South San Francisco owned parcel (APN 015-190-180) were reportedly installed outside the footprint of the landfill; therefore, refuse related to the former Oyster Point Landfill is not anticipated to be present within the Site boundaries. Redevelopment of the landfill is currently ongoing as part of a larger, multi-phase development project by the City of South San Francisco and Kilroy Realty Corporation, including multiple office/research and development (R&D) buildings, infrastructure improvements, and open space areas. In anticipation of redevelopment of the landfill, Langan prepared a Final Closure Plan (FCP) and Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (PCMMP), dated 8 September 2017, 252 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 21 describing the project in more detail and procedures for closure and long-term monitoring and maintenance of the landfill pursuant to Title 27 CCR §21190 requirements (Langan, 2017). As detailed further in the PCMMP, the Oyster Point Landfill is regulated by Order Number 2000-046 issued by the RWQCB to the City of South San Francisco on 21 June 2000 (RWQCB, 2000). The Order includes Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for the landfill and imposes closure and postclosure requirements on the Discharger, including performing sampling, analyses, and observations of groundwater, leachate, and surface water and submitting the results in semi- annual and annual reports to the RWQCB. On 15 December 2017, the Order was amended to add Oyster Point Development, LLC as a discharger after they became the fee title owner of approximately 17.9 acres of the landfill property. In August 2018, Kilroy Realty assumed Oyster Point Development, LLC’s contracts for redevelopment of the property. Additionally, perimeter landfill gas is regulated by the San Mateo County LEA. The perimeter compliance level enforced by the LEA is 5% methane by volume in air (27 CCR §20921). Per the Final Closure Plan, the City shall retain responsibility for environmental conditions and continued compliance with landfill post-closure maintenance, monitoring, and reporting requirements of the Order during and following redevelopment of the property (Langan, 2017). As shown in Exhibit 7 and Figure 2, there are two perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells (LFG-9 and LFG-10) and a passive venting trench (PVT-1) related to the ongoing monitoring within the eastern adjoining City of South San Francisco owned parcel (APN 015-190-180). As documented in the 2019 Annual Monitoring Report for the former Oyster Point Landfill prepared by CSS Environmental, perimeter methane concentrations at LFG-9 and LFG-10 have largely been below the 5% threshold, with the exception of spikes in 2010 and 2011 up to 7.7% (CSS, 2020). In response, the City installed a passive wind turbine at the exhaust of the PVT-1 venting trench in 2011 to further enhance landfill gas venting, and methane concentrations at LFG-9 and LFG-10 have been below the 5% threshold since. Further, groundwater monitoring conducted at the landfill from 1999 through 2019 indicate that the concentrations of COCs within the perimeter compliance wells are below the Maximum Allowable Concentrations Limits (MACLs) established for the property and either steady, or following a decreasing trend. Groundwater monitoring locations are shown in Exhibit 8. Since the Oyster Point Landfill is downgradient of the Site, groundwater impacts are not anticipated to be a concern. However, due to the unknown extent of refuse potentially remaining in place beneath Gull Drive and further west within the eastern adjoining parcel owned by the City of South San Francisco (APN 015-190-180), and the ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements for the perimeter landfill gas monitoring features immediately outside the eastern Site boundary (LFG-9, LFG-10, and PVT-1), the Oyster Point Landfill is considered a Condition of Environmental Interest (COEI). 253 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 22 5.2 Physical Setting Sources The physical setting at the Site is based on the Physical Setting Source Addendum to the EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck report, topographic maps, and subsurface investigations previously conducted at the Site by others. Topography The Site elevation is approximately 50 feet above MSL. The Site topography slopes down to the southeast. Geology and Hydrogeology The Site is located along the western margin of the historic shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. Based on our review of available maps, the southeastern portion of the Site is bayward of the historic shoreline. The Site is underlain by fill placed during modifications of the San Francisco Bay shoreline and general grading beginning in the early 1900s, based on historical topographic maps (Appendix E). Based on available subsurface data at the site, the fill thickness increases from the northwest to the southeast, with the thickest fill in the southeastern portion of the Site that is bayward of the historic shoreline. According to the Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5’ Quadrangle, the fill is underlain by Quarternary deposits consisting of sandy clay and clayey sand and Franciscan Complex bedrock classified as sandstone and shale (USGS, 1998). As discussed in Section 3.0, the Site was formerly part of larger burn dump facility in the 1950s. According to previous subsurface investigations conducted by Environ, the burn ash material underlies the western portion of the Site and ranges from approximately 10 to 25 feet thick (Exhibits 1 and 2). Native clays and silts followed by bedrock were identified below the burn ash material (Environ, 2011). After burn dump operations ceased, additional fill material was placed over the burn ash material to raise the Site to the current grades. The thickness of fill material overlying the burn ash at the Site ranges from approximately 10 to 20 feet thick (Environ, 2011). Due to the steep slope of the native alluvium and bedrock underlying the Site and the current Site topography, the depth to groundwater is highly variable (Environ, 2011). At the western boundary of the Site, depth to groundwater is approximately 30 feet bgs at former MW-4 (25 feet above mean sea level [MSL]) (Exhibit 2). At the eastern boundary of the Site, groundwater is approximately 10 feet bgs at former MW-5 (10 feet above MSL) (Exhibit 2). According to investigations conducted by Environ in 2008 and 2009, groundwater flow direction at the Site is to the southeast, generally toward the San Francisco Bay (Environ, 2011). 254 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 23 Surface Water No surface water was observed at the Site at the time of this assessment. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 1,500 feet east of the Site. Wetlands and Flood Plain According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), there are no mapped wetlands at the Site. The closest mapped wetlands are approximately 50 feet east of the Site at the San Bruno Channel. The Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center indicates that the Site is not located in a flood hazard zone area. Water Wells, Injection Wells and Oil and Gas Wells and Facilities A review of the Geocheck section of the EDR Radius Map (Appendix C) and the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Well Finder did not identify any water, injection, or oil and gas wells on the Site or within 0.25-mile of the Site. 5.3 Historical Use Information on the Site and Adjoining and Surrounding Properties Sanborn Maps Review Sanborn maps were not available for the Site or surrounding properties. Appendix D contains a copy of the Sanborn Map Report indicating that fire insurance maps covering the target property were not found. Historical Topography Maps Review Langan reviewed the following Historical Topography Maps from EDR: 1896, 1899, 1915, 1939, 1947, 1950, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1995, 1996, and 2012. Appendix E contains copies of the Historical Topography Maps. From the 1880s through 1950s, the Site was located on a hillside along the margins of the San Francisco Bay. By the 1960s, portions of the surrounding marshland, including the Site, were filled during modifications to the coastline of the Bay. The Site appears to be graded in the current configuration from the 1980s through the present. City Directory Review Langan reviewed the following city directory abstracts obtained from EDR. Listings in the EDR City Directory were found for Eccles Avenue from 1972 until 2017; however, no records were 255 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 24 related to the Site address (560 Eccles Avenue). Appendix F contains a copy of the City Directory Report. Aerial Photograph Review Langan reviewed aerial photographs to evaluate past uses and relevant characteristics of the Site and surrounding properties. We reviewed the following aerial photographs from EDR: 1943, 1946, 1956, 1963, 1968, 1974, 1982, 1993, 1998, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2016. Appendix G contains copies of the aerial photographs from EDR. In the 1940s, the Site appears to be undeveloped vacant land on a hillside along the margins of the San Francisco Bay. Adjoining and surrounding properties appear to be undeveloped, with the exception of the Wildberg Brothers metal reclamation plant to the northwest of the Site. By 1956, the Site appears to be utilized as a burn dump as indicated by a smoke plume visible along the western Site boundary. Modifications to the coastline of the Bay due to landfilling operations at the eastern adjoining property (former Oyster Point Landfill) are visible in the 1963 Aerial Photograph. Between 1963 and 1974, further filling operations and modifications to the coastline of the Bay are apparent at surrounding area properties. From 1982 through the 2016, the Site appears to be graded to the current configuration. Additional commercial/industrial development has also occurred at adjoining and surrounding area properties from the late 1960s through the present. 6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions The Site reconnaissance was conducted in a systematic manner focusing on the spatial extent of the Site and then progressing to the adjacent and surrounding properties. The assessment of the adjacent and surrounding properties was limited to identifying, if possible, any indications of past or current use that may involve the use, storage, disposal, or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products; noting the general type of current use; the general topography of the surrounding area; and providing a general description of adjoining or adjacent structures. Mr. Jeffrey Ludlow and Ms. Stephanie Lee of Langan performed a Site and vicinity reconnaissance on 20 October 2020. Appendix A contains photographs from the Site reconnaissance. 256 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 25 6.2 General Site Setting and Reconnaissance Observations As shown on Figure 2, the Site is currently undeveloped vacant land with an area of approximately 168,500 square feet (3.9 acres). The Site is located in an area zoned by the City of South San Francisco as Business Technology Park, which is designated for a wide range of commercial and light industrial activities. Photographs showing the current Site use are provided in Appendix A. Past Use of Site No other evidence of past use of the Site was observed during the Site reconnaissance. Description of Structures There are no roads or structures on the Site; however, there is a sidewalk along the eastern and northern Site boundaries for adjoining properties ingress/egress. 6.3 Site Observations Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products in Connection with Identified Uses Langan did not observe hazardous substances or petroleum products in connection with identified uses at the Site during the reconnaissance. Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Containers in Connection with Unidentified Uses Langan did not observe hazardous substances or petroleum products in connection with unidentified uses at the Site during the reconnaissance. Storage Tanks Langan did not observe any storage tanks at the Site during the reconnaissance. Odors Langan did not notice any noxious odors at the Site during the reconnaissance. Pools of Liquids Langan did not observe any pools of liquids at the Site during the reconnaissance. Drums Langan did not observe any drums at the Site during the reconnaissance. 257 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 26 PCBs Langan did not observe PCBs or PCB-containing equipment at the Site during the reconnaissance. Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons Langan did not observe any pits, ponds, or lagoons at the Site during the reconnaissance. Stained Soil or Pavement Langan observed minor staining of the soil, including an approximately 5 by 10 foot area where an aggregate base patch appeared to be placed. Additionally, chunks of glass and porcelain were observed within shallow surface soils, indicating the potential presence of undocumented fill material. Stressed Vegetation Langan did not observe stressed vegetation at the Site during the reconnaissance. Solid Waste Langan observed solid waste in the form of trash, including abandoned piping, a refrigerator, and other miscellaneous debris, at the Site during the reconnaissance. These observations do not represent a concern at the Site. Wastewater Langan did not observe wastewater discharges at the Site during the reconnaissance. Wells Along the eastern Site boundary, Langan observed two perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells (LFG-9 and LFG-10) and a passive venting trench (PVT-1) related to the ongoing monitoring for the former Oyster Point Landfill located to the east of the Site (Appendix A). The wells are assumed to be located within the eastern adjoining City of South San Francisco owned parcel (APN 015-190-180). Abandoned groundwater monitoring well MW-3 was observed at the southeastern corner of the Site. Further details regarding the former landfill and monitoring wells are provided in Section 3.0. Septic Systems Langan did not observe septic systems at the Site during the reconnaissance. 258 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 27 Utilities In the northeastern portion of the Site, Langan observed riser pipes and utility vaults assumed to be related to water and irrigation lines. Additionally, a concrete lined channel along the southern and eastern boundaries of the Site, a culvert, and a drain with a grate were observed that are assumed to be related to storm water drainage (Appendix A). Langan also observed what appeared to be a post indicator valve and a stub up for unused water utilities in the northern portion of the Site (see Appendix A, Photographs 28 and 35). According to the Site Owner and available records, three laterals connected to the water line running along the northern Site boundary were reportedly installed for fire protection for a planned warehouse building at the Site that was never constructed (see SMPO Title Survey in Appendix B). The lateral furthest west was capped during development of the western adjoining property, but the other two laterals on Site are assumed to remain in place. 7.0 INTERVIEWS 7.1 Subject Site User For the Phase I ESA, Langan was introduced to and interviewed the User of this report, as defined in ASTM 1527-13. The object of the interviews is to obtain information indicating RECs in connection with the Site and to provide further details regarding historical use of the Site. Mr. Mike Sanford with the Sanford Group was interviewed as the User on behalf of Ms. Kiley Carter of SRE Acquisitions III, LLC. as part of this Phase I ESA. Mr. Sanford stated that he has no-first-hand knowledge of the Site and is not aware of any environmental cleanup liens associated with the Site. Mr. Sanford is aware of the Deed Restriction recorded for the western adjoining property on 4 April 2019 as discussed in Section 3.0. Mr. Sanford also indicated that he was not aware of any current government notifications, violations of environmental laws, or litigation at the Site. 7.2 Owners of Current and Adjacent Properties Mr. Oscar Romero, the site engineer for SMPO ELS, LLC, was interviewed as part of this Phase I ESA. Mr. Romero stated that the Site was previously used as a staging area for construction office trailers and equipment storage during the construction of the USDA Building adjoining the Site to the west. Mr. Romero indicated that he has no actual knowledge whether the purchase price of the Site was below the fair market value due to environmental conditions. 259 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 28 Mr. Romero stated that he has no actual knowledge of any environmental liens or Activity and Use Limitations encumbering the Site or in connection with the Site and that he was not aware of any current government notifications, violations of environmental laws, or litigation at the Site. Owners of adjacent properties were not available for interview. 8.0 PHASE I ESA FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Langan’s findings with respect to known and suspect RECs and COEIs, and our opinion of these findings are as follows: 8.1 Known or Suspect RECs and COEIs Based on the databases searched by EDR, requests made for public documentation related to past or present environmental conditions at the site and surrounding area, review of previous Site reports, and our Site reconnaissance, Langan has identified one REC associated with the Site during this Phase I ESA:  REC-1 – Historical Site Operations and Impacted Shallow Site Soil, Groundwater, and Soil Vapor: The Site was previously occupied by a portion of a former landfill that was utilized as a burn dump facility in the 1950s. The CalRecycle SWIS database lists the facility as a former “Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” Records indicate that residual burn ash material underlies the western portion of the Site and that after burn dump operations at the Site ceased in the late 1950s, additional fill material was placed over the burn ash material to raise the Site to the current grades. Records for the source of the fill material placed at the Site are unavailable; therefore the material is considered undocumented fill. Previous Site investigations indicate metals concentrations in shallow fill soil and burn ash material exceeding the 2019 RWQCB commercial shallow soil ESLs. Shallow groundwater at the Site appears to have been impacted with metals (consistent with the presence of burn ash material below the water table) and TPH in a limited area in the southeast portion of the Site; however, there are not RWQCB vapor intrusion ESLs established for metals or TPH. VOCs were detected in soil vapor exceeding the 2019 RWQCB commercial vapor intrusion environmental screening levels and methane was also detected at concentrations up to 41% by volume. The residual burn ash from former landfill operations and impacted shallow Site soils, groundwater, and soil vapor are considered a REC for the Site. Future Site development will require mitigation measures to be established and implemented per 27 CCR §21190 governing redevelopments on closed landfills. 260 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 29 Langan also identified one COEI associated with the eastern adjoining property during this Phase I ESA:  COEI-1 – Historical Operations at Eastern Adjoining Property: The eastern adjoining property was formerly part of a municipal Class III landfill (Oyster Point Landfill) operated by the City of South San Francisco from approximately 1956 until it stopped accepting waste in 1970. Since the Oyster Point Landfill is downgradient of the Site, groundwater impacts to the Site from this landfill are not anticipated to be a concern. However, due to the unknown extent of refuse potentially remaining in place beneath Gull Drive and further west within the eastern adjoining parcel owned by the City of South San Francisco (APN 015-190-180), and the ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements for the perimeter landfill gas monitoring features immediately outside the eastern Site boundary (LFG-9, LFG-10, and PVT-1), the Oyster Point Landfill is considered a COEI. 8.2 De Minimis Conditions No de minimis conditions were discovered during this study. 8.3 Data Gaps The Site history could not be researched in five-year intervals back to 1940 because of a lack of readily available information. It is Langan’s opinion that this variation from the ASTM standard does not significantly affect the results of this Phase I ESA or the ability to assess the presence of a REC at the Site, because land use did not change frequently enough to warrant a five year interval Site history evaluation. 8.4 Conclusion Langan conducted this Phase I ESA with a standard of commercial and customary practice using the local standard of case that is consistent with ASTM E1527-13. Any significant scope-of-work deviations, deletions, or additions to ASTM E1527-13 are noted in Sections 8.0 and 9.0 of this report. This Phase I ESA identified that most of the Site is underlain by burn ash from the Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility, as regulated by the San Mateo County LEA and CalRecycle. Since the Site is underlain by a former landfill, development activities will be subject to 27 CCR §21190 governing redevelopments on landfills. This regulation requires that a new Postclosure Development Plan (PCDP) and Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (PCMMP) be prepared for regulatory agency approval prior to any Site development activities. As detailed further below, these documents will outline mitigation measures and ongoing monitoring and 261 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 30 maintenance requirements to be implemented per 27 CCR §21190. In general, the PCDP and PCMMP will contain information on the following topics:  Introduction and Background  Regulatory Requirements - RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements - Title 27 CCR §21190 Landfill Postclosure Land Use  Soil Management Plan - Landfill Final Cover Requirements  Criteria for final cover components including concrete building slabs, asphalt parking lots, landscaped areas etc. - On-Site Soil Reuse Criteria - Import Fill Criteria - Foundation Installation - Dust Control and Monitoring - Stormwater Management  Landfill Gas Mitigation and Monitoring - Sub-slab Methane Mitigation System - Building Interior Methane Detection System  Health and Safety Plan  Construction Quality Assurance Plan  Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance - Landfill Final Cover  Periodic visual inspections of landfill cover integrity  Repair of landfill cover components as needed to maintain condition - Landfill Gas Mitigation and Monitoring Systems  Periodic inspections of visible Methane Mitigation System components (risers at the roof level, perimeter fresh air inlet vents etc.)  Testing and calibration of interior methane detection system  As needed replacement of landfill gas mitigation and monitoring system components 262 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 31 - Utilities  Periodic inspections of flexible connections or other settlement mitigation devices for utilities  Modification to utilities as necessary depending on settlement  Periodic inspections and maintenance of stormwater drainage systems  Emergency Response Plan 9.0 DEVIATIONS This Phase I ESA has been performed without deviation to, and in conformance with, ASTM Practice E 1527-05 and E1527-13 (Standard Practice for ESA: Phase I ESA Process) except as noted. No expressed or implied representation or warranty is included or intended in the report, except that the services were performed within the limits prescribed by the Client, and with the customary thoroughness and competence of our profession. 10.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The scope of services performed for this study did not include the following non-ASTM required Phase I ESA items: radon, asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP), lead in drinking water, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing material, wetlands, cultural and historical resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, mold, indoor air quality, and biological agents. 11.0 EXCEPTIONS The exceptions to the ASTM standards for this Phase I ESA include not assessing the Site history on five-year intervals from its initial development to its current land use. The format of this report also varies from the format presented in the ASTM standard for Phase I ESAs. It is Langan’s opinion that neither of these variations from the ASTM standard significantly affects the results of this Phase I ESA or the ability to assess the presence of a recognized environmental condition at the Site because land use did not change frequently enough to warrant a five year interval Site history evaluation. 263 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 32 12.0 REFERENCES The sources below were used during the performance of this Phase I ESA: AEI, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 16 March 1998. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 2013), Designation: E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. ACC Environmental Consultants, Letter Report of Limited Soil Investigation/Remediation, 349 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San Francisco, California dated 19 October 1995. CH2MHILL, Construction Quality Assurance Report City of Landfill, City of South San Francisco Landfill, Gull Drive Final Cover Extension, South San Francisco, California dated October 1996. Clayton Environmental Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 30 September 1996. CSS Environmental Services, Inc. 2019 Annual Report, Former Oyster Point Landfill, City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco, California dated 31 January 2020. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Wildberg Brothers (Boliden Metech) Oyster Point Facility Voluntary Cleanup Action Completion Letter, Five Year Review, South San Francisco, California dated 22 November 1995. DTSC, Wildberg Brothers (Boliden Metech) Oyster Point Facility Voluntary Cleanup Action Completion Letter, Five Year Review, South San Francisco, California dated 29 November 1995. Environ, Phase II Environmental Site Investigation Report, Vacant Land along Gull Drive between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California dated 14 June 2006. Environ, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vacant Land, Northwest of the Intersection of Gull Road and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California dated 29 June 2006. Environ, Preliminary Waste Characterization Study of Burn Ash Material, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 30 January 2008. Environ, Site Closure Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 11 August 2011. Environ, Risk Management Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 11 August 2011. 264 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 33 Environ, Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Report, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 6 October 2011. Environ, Site Closure Plan and Post Construction Maintenance Plan Letter to San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 26 February 2011. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck®: 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated 15 October 2020. EDR, The EDR Historical Topographic Map Report: 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated 15 October 2020. EDR, The EDR-City Directory Abstract: 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated 24 October 2020. EDR, The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package: 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated 15 October 2020. EDR, The Sanborn® Map Report: 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated 15 October 2020. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (Langan), Final Closure Plan, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California dated 8 September 2017. Langan, Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance Report, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California dated 8 September 2017. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) San Francisco Bay Region, Order No. 00-046, Updated Waste Discharge Requirements and Rescission of Order No. 77-19 for City of South San Francisco Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California dated 21 June 2000. RWQCB, Order No. R2-2017-0046, Amendment of Waste Discharge Requirements for City of South San Francisco Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California dated 15 December 2017. San Mateo County Environmental Health Services, Amended Site Closure Plan and Post- Construction Maintenance Plan Review Letter, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 25 April 2017. San Mateo County Environmental Health Services, Case Closure of One 2000 Gallon Steel Diesel UST at 366 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San Francisco, California, Case No. 550023 dated 1 November 1995. 265 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 34 San Mateo County Environmental Health Services, Case Closure of One Heating Fuel UST of Unknown Size, Wildberg Brothers, 349 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San Francisco, California, SMco Site: #559014 dated 17 July 2001. SCS Engineers, Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Construction Maintenance Plan, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 5 April 2017. SCS Engineers, Completion Report – Monitoring Well Abandonment/Destruction, Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-1 and MW-2, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 29 May 2018. SCS Engineers, Completion Report – Monitoring Well Abandonment/Destruction, Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-4 and MW-5, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 3 October 2018. SCS Engineers, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Landfill Due Diligence Report, 560 Eccles Avenue dated 21 June 2017. SCS Engineers, Soil Management Plan, 560 Eccles Avenue dated 22 February 2018. SMPO ELS, LLC and San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division, Covenant to Restrict Use of the Property, Environmental Restriction, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 4 April 2019. United States Geological Survey, Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary geologic map of the San Francisco South 7.5' quadrangle and part of the Hunters Point 7.5' quadrangle, San Francisco Bay area dated 1998. 13.0 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS The signatures of the environmental professional(s) responsible for this Phase I ESA are provided on the submittal letter and/or cover page of this report. 14.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS The qualifications of the environmental professionals that conducted this ESA are presented in the resumes provided in Appendix H. Langan declares that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in #312.10 of 40 CFR 312. Langan has the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Site. Langan has developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in general conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. 266 FIGURES 267 Project Figure Title SITE LOCATION MAP Path: \\langan.com\data\SFO\data6\731747601\Project Data\ArcGIS\MXD\Environmental_Figures\Figure 1- Site Location.mxd Project No. Date Scale Drawn By Figure 12/21/2020 Notes:1. Site located in the San Francisco South USGS Quadrangle.2. Topographic basemap is provided through Langan’s Esri ArcGIS software licensing and ArcGIS online, National Geographic Society, i-cubed.3. Site boundary is based on the San Mateo County parcel dataset, September 2020. 4. All features shown are approximate. 1 2,000 0 2,000 SCALE IN FEET Legend Approximate Site Boundary 1 " = 2,000 '© 2020 LanganSITE . Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 135 Main Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 T: 415.955.5200 F: 415.955.5201 www.langan.com 731747601 CALIFORNIA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 101 GULL DRIVE/560 ECCLES AVENUE SAN MATEOCOUNTY NB 268 Project Figure Title SITE PLAN Path: \\langan.com\data\SFO\data6\731747601\Project Data\ArcGIS\MXD\Environmental_Figures\Figure 2 - Site Plan.mxd Project No. Date Scale Drawn By Figure 2 200 0 200 SCALE IN FEET 1 " = 200 '© 2020 LanganNotes:1. Aerial imagery provided by Near Map, 10/14/2020.2. Site boundary is based on the San Mateo County parceldataset, September 2020.3. Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Report, Figure 2 - WellLocations, prepared by Environ, 2011.4. Passive Landfill Gas Venting Trench not drawn to scale andis for reference purposes only. 5. All features shown are approximate. !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( &! Oyster Point Boulevard Gull DriveForbes Boulevard Former Oyster Point Landfill(Oyster Point Boulevard) 015010500(349 Oyster Point Boulevard) 015190090 015082180(336 Oyster Point Boulevard) 015082200(584 Eccles Avenue) 015231430 015082170(573 Forbes Boulevard) 015082260 015082250 015082240(560 Eccles Avenue) 015190180 015190999 015010980 015010950 LFG-9 PVT-1LFG-10 MW-5 MW-4 MW-2 MW-3 MW-1 LFG-1 LFG-8 LFG-2 . Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.12/21/2020 135 Main Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 T: 415.955.5200 F: 415.955.5201 www.langan.com CALIFORNIA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEOCOUNTY NB 731747601101 GULL DRIVE/560 ECCLES AVENUE Legend Approximate Site Boundary Surrounding Parcel Boundary !(560 Eccles Property Former Groundwater Monitoring Wells (Abandoned in 2018) !(Oyster Point Landfill Perimeter Landfill Gas Monitoring Wells Oyster Point Landfill Passive Landfill Gas Venting Trench&! 269 EXHIBITS 270 APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARYEXHIBIT 1271 APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARYEXHIBIT 2272 273 274 275 276 APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARYEXHIBIT 3277 APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARYEXHIBIT 4278 APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY EXHIBIT 5 279 APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARYEXHIBIT 6280 EXHIBIT 7APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARY281 EXHIBIT 8APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARY282 101 Gull Drive Project - Draft EIR Appendices Appendix C Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 283 284 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California Prepared For: SRE Acquisitions III, LLC c/o Singerman Real Estate, LLC 980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Prepared By: Langan Engineering and Environmental 135 Main Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, California 94105 Hayley Farr, EIT Senior Staff Engineer Jeffrey Ludlow, PG Principal/Vice President 22 December 2020 731747601 285 22 December 2020 Kiley Carter SRE Acquisitions III, LLC c/o Singerman Real Estate, LLC 980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60611 Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California Langan Project: 731747601 Dear Ms. Carter: Langan Engineering and Environmental (Langan) is pleased to submit this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), for the property located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue, in South San Francisco, California. In performing this Phase I ESA, we have endeavored to observe the degree of care and skill generally exercised by other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time, under similar circumstances and conditions, and in the same geographical area. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. If you have any questions or need any information clarified, please call Mr. Jeffrey Ludlow at (415) 717-0263. Sincerely yours, Langan Engineering and Environmental Hayley Farr, EIT Jeffrey Ludlow Senior Staff Engineer Principal/Vice President cc: Mike Sanford – Sanfo Group Lindsay Florin – LBF Consulting Group 731747601.02 HF_Phase 1 ESA 101 Gull-560 Eccles_122220 286 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS E1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 E1.1 Site Description.................................................................................................. 1 E1.2 Environmental Database and File Review ........................................................ 1 E1.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Scope of Phase I ESA ......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Assumptions, Limitations and Exceptions ....................................................... 4 1.4 Special Terms and Conditions and User Reliance ........................................... 5 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Location and Legal Description ........................................................................ 6 2.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics ......................................................... 6 2.3 Current Use of the Site and Adjoining Properties ........................................... 6 2.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads, and Other Site Improvements ................ 7 3.0 PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................. 7 4.0 CLIENT-PROVIDED INFORMATION ............................................................................ 12 4.1 User/Owner Questionnaire ............................................................................. 12 4.2 Title Records .................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ................................... 12 4.4 Specialized Knowledge ................................................................................... 12 4.5 Commonly Known and Reasonable Ascertainable Information ................... 13 4.6 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ............................................. 13 4.7 Owner, Site Manager, and Occupant Information ........................................ 13 4.8 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA ................................................................ 13 5.0 RECORDS REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 13 5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources ...................................................... 13 5.1.1 Site – 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue ............................................ 15 5.1.2 Off-Site Database Listings ................................................................... 16 5.2 Physical Setting Sources ................................................................................. 22 5.3 Historical Use Information on the Site and Adjoining and Surrounding Properties ......................................................................................................... 23 6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ............................................................................................ 24 6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions........................................................... 24 6.2 General Site Setting and Reconnaissance Observations .............................. 25 6.3 Site Observations ............................................................................................ 25 7.0 INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................ 27 7.1 Subject Site User ............................................................................................. 27 7.2 Owners of Current and Adjacent Properties .................................................. 27 287 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 8.0 PHASE I ESA FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ............................................................. 28 8.1 Known or Suspect RECs and COEIs ................................................................ 28 8.2 De Minimis Conditions .................................................................................... 29 8.3 Data Gaps ......................................................................................................... 29 8.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 29 9.0 DEVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ 31 10.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .............................................................................................. 31 11.0 EXCEPTIONS ................................................................................................................ 31 12.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 32 13.0 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS ............................................. 34 14.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS .................................... 34 FIGURES EXHIBITS APPENDICES 288 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page iii ATTACHMENTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Plan LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 560 Eccles Limits of Burn Ash Material Exhibit 2 560 Eccles Cross Sections Exhibit 3 Oyster Point Landfill Remedial Activities Exhibit 4 Oyster Point Landfill Grading Plan Exhibit 5 Oyster Point Landfill City Disposal Area Plan Exhibit 6 Oyster Point Landfill Sump 2 Excavation Area Exhibit 7 Oyster Point Landfill – Landfill Gas Monitoring Locations Exhibit 8 Oyster Point Landfill – Groundwater Monitoring Locations LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B User/Owner Provided Information Appendix C EDR Database Report Appendix D Sanborn Maps Appendix E Topographic Maps Appendix F City Directory Report Appendix G Aerial Photographs Appendix H Resumes of Environmental Professionals 289 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 1 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California E1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Langan Engineering and Environmental (Langan) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue (Site) in South San Francisco, California (Figure 1). The ESA was performed on behalf of the SRE Acquisitions III, LLC (Client) to assist them with their due diligence for the Site. This Phase I ESA was conducted in substantial conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E1527-13 (Standard Practice for ESA: Phase I ESA Process), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 2006 All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) Rule (40 CFR Part 312) now in effect. Completion of a Phase I ESA in accordance with the ASTM Practice and AAI Rule is needed to qualify for the bona fide prospective purchaser liability protections available under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The objective of this Phase I ESA was to identify the presence or likely presence, use, or release on the Site of hazardous substances or petroleum products as defined in ASTM E1527-13 as a recognized environmental condition (REC). E1.1 Site Description The Site is located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California and is identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 015-082-250. The Site is bound by commercial and light industrial properties to the north, commercial and light industrial properties west and south, and Gull Drive and commercial and light industrial properties to the east. As shown on Figure 2, the Site is currently undeveloped vacant land with an area of approximately 160,000 square feet (3.68 acres). E1.2 Environmental Database and File Review As part of the Phase I ESA, we have reviewed the environmental database report prepared by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The EDR report contains information from the environmental databases maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), state, and local agencies within the approximate minimum search distance. The database review indicated that the property is not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. 290 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 2 Inquiries were made and records searched at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division (SMCEHD), the City of South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regarding any additional files related to fuel and hazardous materials leaks reported at the Site. E1.3 Conclusion Based on the databases searched by EDR, requests made for public documentation related to past or present environmental conditions at the Site and surrounding area, review of previous Site reports, and our Site reconnaissance, Langan has identified one REC associated with the Site during this Phase I ESA:  REC-1 – Historical Site Operations and Impacted Shallow Site Soil, Groundwater, and Soil Vapor: The Site was previously occupied by a portion of a former landfill that was utilized as a burn dump facility in the 1950s. The CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database lists the facility as a former “Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” Records indicate that residual burn ash material underlies the western portion of the Site and that after burn dump operations at the Site ceased in the late 1950s, additional fill material was placed over the burn ash material to raise the Site to the current grades. Records for the source of the fill material placed at the Site are unavailable; therefore the material is considered undocumented fill. Previous Site investigations indicate metals concentrations in shallow fill soil and burn ash material exceeding the 2019 RWQCB commercial shallow soil Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Shallow groundwater at the Site appears to have been impacted with metals (consistent with the presence of burn ash material below the water table) and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) in a limited area in the southeast portion of the Site; however, there are not RWQCB vapor intrusion ESLs established for metals or TPH. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were detected in soil vapor exceeding the 2019 RWQCB commercial vapor intrusion environmental screening levels and methane was also detected at concentrations up to 41% by volume. The residual burn ash from former landfill operations and impacted shallow Site soils, groundwater, and soil vapor are considered a REC for the Site. Future Site development will require mitigation measures to be established and implemented per California Code of Regulations Title 27 (27 CCR) §21190 governing redevelopments on closed landfills. 291 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION Langan Engineering and Environmental (Langan) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue (Site) in South San Francisco, California (Figure 1). The ESA was performed on behalf of the SRE Acquisitions III, LLC (Client) to assist them with their due diligence for the Site. The Site is located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California and is identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 015-082-250. The Site is bound by commercial and light industrial properties to the north, commercial and light industrial properties west and south, and Gull Drive and commercial and light industrial properties to the east. As shown on Figure 2, the Site is currently undeveloped vacant land with an area of approximately 160,000 square feet (3.68 acres). 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to accomplish the following: (1) Identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) in connection with the Site, as defined in The Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, Designation E1527-13, which states: The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a Site: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. (2) Satisfy the criteria of United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 312 Subpart C Standards and Practices §312.20 AAI Rule. 1.2 Scope of Phase I ESA This Phase I ESA was conducted utilizing a standard of good commercial and customary practice that is consistent with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-13. Any 292 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 4 significant scope-of-work additions, deletions, or deviations to ASTM E1527-13 are noted in Section 9.0 of this report. In general, the scope of this assessment consisted of obtaining information from the User; reviewing reasonably ascertainable information and environmental data relating to the Site; reviewing maps and records maintained by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies; interviewing persons knowledgeable about the Site; and conducting a Site reconnaissance. The specific scope of this assessment included the following: 1. A Site reconnaissance to observe conditions and assess the Site’s location with respect to adjoining and surrounding property uses and natural surface features. The reconnaissance included the surrounding roads and observations of surrounding properties from public rights-of-way to identify obvious potential environmental conditions on neighboring properties. The Site reconnaissance was conducted in a systematic manner focusing on the spatial extent of the Site and then progressing to adjacent and surrounding properties. Photographs taken as part of the Site reconnaissance are provided in Appendix A. 2. As per ASTM E1527-13, a questionnaire was provided to the user and/or owner to obtain information related to the Site. A copy of the completed questionnaires are provided in Appendix B. 3. A review of environmental databases maintained by the USEPA, state, and local agencies within the approximate minimum search distance. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) prepared the environmental database report, which is included in Appendix C. 4. Physical characteristics of the Site were determined through referenced sources for topographic, geologic, soils, and hydrologic data. 5. A review and interpretation of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (Sanborn Maps), historical topographic maps, city directories, and aerial photographs to identify previous activities on and in the vicinity of the Site. Copies are included in Appendices D, E, F, and G, respectively. 1.3 Assumptions, Limitations and Exceptions This Phase I ESA report was prepared for SRE Acquisitions III, LLC (Client) for the property located at located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue (Site) in South San Francisco, California. The report is intended to be used in its entirety. Excerpts taken from this report are not 293 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 5 necessarily representative of the assessment findings. Langan cannot assume responsibility for use of this report for any property other than the Site addressed herein, or by any other third party without a written authorization from Langan. Langan’s scope of services, which is described in Section 1.2, was limited to that agreed to with the User and no other services beyond those explicitly stated are implied. The services performed and agreed upon for this effort comports to those prescribed in the ASTM Standard E1527-13. This Phase I ESA was not intended to be a definitive investigation of possible environmental impacts at the Site. The purpose of this investigation was limited to determining if there is reason to suspect the possibility of RECs at the Site. It should be understood that even the most comprehensive Phase I ESA may fail to detect environmental liabilities at a particular property. Therefore, Langan cannot “insure” or "certify" that the Site is free of environmental impacts. No expressed or implied representation or warranty is included or intended in this report, except that our services were performed, within the limits prescribed by our Client, with the customary standard of care exercised by professionals performing similar services under similar circumstances within the same jurisdiction. The findings and opinions provided in this report are based solely on the specific activities as required for the performance of ASTM E1527-13 and are intended exclusively for the purpose stated herein, at the specified Site, as it existed at the time of our Site reconnaissance. The services performed and agreed upon for this effort comports to those prescribed in the ASTM Standard E1527-13. Intrusive sampling (e.g., soil borings and groundwater sampling) was not performed as part of this Phase I ESA. 1.4 Special Terms and Conditions and User Reliance The Client requested no special terms or conditions regarding this Phase I ESA. Langan has prepared this report specifically for the use of the Client and SRE SSF Innovation, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The findings contained within the report shall not, in whole or in part, be disseminated or conveyed to any other party, nor be used by any other party, in whole or in part without written prior consent of the Client and Langan. Other parties cannot rely on this Phase I ESA and the conclusions therein, unless Langan receives a written request from the Client, at which time a “Reliance Letter” will be prepared for the interested party. The relying party will be subject to the same terms and conditions and limitations as agreed to by the Client. 294 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 6 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location and Legal Description The Site is located at 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California and is identified as APN 015-082-250. 2.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics As shown on Figure 2, the Site is currently undeveloped vacant land with an area of approximately 160,000 square feet (3.68 acres). The Site is located in an area zoned by the City of South San Francisco as Business Technology Park, which is designated for a wide range of commercial and light industrial activities. The Site is located approximately ¾ miles east of highway 101 and 1,500 feet west of the San Francisco Bay. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps, reviewed by Langan in EDR’s Historical Topographic Map Report, the Site is at an elevation of approximately 50 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The Site topography slopes down to the southeast. A detailed description the current Site uses observed during the Site reconnaissance are discussed in Section 6.0. Photographs showing the current Site use are provided in Appendix A. 2.3 Current Use of the Site and Adjoining Properties The following table summarizes the current ownership and use of the parcel within the Site. Parcel Number Current Address Site Owner Size (Acres) Current Parcel Use 015-082-250 101 Gull Drive/ 560 Eccles Avenue SMPO ELS LLC 3.68 Vacant undeveloped land = 295 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 7 The current uses of the adjoining and surrounding properties include: 2.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads, and Other Site Improvements There are no structures or roads on the Site; however, there is a sidewalk and an ingress/egress easement for vehicles and utilities along a portion of the northern boundary of the Site (Land Title Survey, Appendix B). Additionally, there is a storm drain easement along the eastern boundary of the Site that parallels Gull Drive (Land Title Survey, Appendix B). Within the southern portion of the eastern adjoining City of South San Francisco owned parcel (APN 015-190-180) are two perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells (LFG-9 and LFG-10) and a passive venting trench (PVT-1) related to the ongoing monitoring for the former Oyster Point Landfill (Figure 2). Further details regarding the former landfill and monitoring wells are provided in Sections 3.0 and 5.0. 3.0 PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS Langan reviewed the following environmental documents previously prepared for the Site and western adjoining property associated with the same address (560 Eccles Avenue):  1996 September 30, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Clayton Environmental Consultants; Direction Block/Lot Adjoining Properties Surrounding Properties North 015-082-180 Iron Mountain Records Management Warehouse (336-340 Oyster Point Boulevard) Commercial and light industrial properties 015-082-200 Plenty Unlimited Inc. Warehouse (584-590 Eccles Avenue) East 015-190-180 Vacant undeveloped land owned by the City of South San Francisco Commercial and light industrial properties Gull Drive 015-010-950 Former Oyster Point Landfill - Redevelopment under construction (Oyster Point Boulevard) South 015-231-430 UPS Shipping Facility Parking Lot (Address not reported) Commercial and light industrial properties 015-082-170 Apex Logistics Warehouse (573 Forbes Boulevard) West 015-082-240 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Office (560 Eccles Avenue) Commercial and light industrial properties 296 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 8  1998 March 16, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by AEI;  2006 June 14, Phase II Environmental Site Investigation Report, Vacant Land along Gull Drive between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2006 June 29, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vacant Land, Northwest of the Intersection of Gull Road and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2008 January 30, Preliminary Waste Characterization Study of Burn Ash Material, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2011 August 11, Site Closure Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2011 August 11, Risk Management Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2011 October 6, Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Report, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2014 February 26, Site Closure Plan and Post Construction Maintenance Plan Letter to San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by Environ;  2017 April 5, Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Construction Maintenance Plan, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by SCS Engineers;  2017 April 25, Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Construction Maintenance Plan Review Letter, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division;  2017 June 21, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Landfill Due Diligence Report, 560 Eccles Avenue, prepared by SCS Engineers;  2018 February 22, Soil Management Plan, 560 Eccles Avenue, prepared by SCS Engineers;  2018 May 29, Completion Report – Monitoring Well Abandonment/Destruction, Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-1 and MW-2, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by SCS Engineers;  2018 October 3, Completion Report – Monitoring Well Abandonment/Destruction, Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-4 and MW-5, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California prepared by SCS Engineers; and 297 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 9  2019 April 4, Covenant to Restrict Use of the Property, Environmental Restriction, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California between SMPO ELS, LLC and San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division. Relevant information based on our review of the above-listed reports is summarized below. Operational History of the Site The Site was historically undeveloped land on a hillside along the western margin of the San Francisco Bay. The Site contains fill material placed as part of modifications to the coastline of the Bay in the early 1900s and remained undeveloped through the 1950s. During the 1950s, a portion of the Site was reportedly used as a burn dump; this was common practice for waste management at the time, prior to phasing out in the early 1970s in response to federal and state air quality legislation. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database lists the facility as a former “Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility” under the name “USDA Building (41-CR-0028)” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” After burn dump operations at the Site ceased in the late 1950s, additional fill material was placed over the burn ash material to raise the Site to the current grades. Based on review of aerial photos, the property appears to have been graded to the current configuration by the 1980s. Records for the source of the fill material placed at the Site are unavailable; therefore the material is considered undocumented fill. From the 1980s through the present, the Site has been undeveloped, vacant land. Site Investigation History and Remedial Actions From the late 1990s through the present, several soil and groundwater investigations have been conducted to evaluate the former burn dump site and identify potential mitigative measures for future Site development. As shown in Exhibits 1 and 2, investigations previously conducted by Environ have identified burn ash material underlying the western portion of the Site. The areal extent of the residual ash material is approximately four acres, with an estimated in-place volume of 346,000 cubic yards (cy) (Environ, 2011). Within the Site boundaries, the burn ash material ranges from approximately 10 to 25 feet thick (Environ, 2011). Native clays and silts followed by bedrock were identified below the burn ash material (Environ, 2011). The thickness of fill material overlying the burn ash at the Site ranges from approximately 10 to 20 feet thick (Environ, 2011). Soil sampling conducted between 2006 and 2008 identified elevated concentrations of metals exceeding the 2019 RWQCB commercial shallow soil environmental screening levels (ESLs) 298 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 10 within the burn ash material including: arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc (Environ, 2008). Several metals were also detected within the shallow undocumented fill material overlying the burn ash at concentrations exceeding the 2019 RWQCB residential shallow soil ESLs, but below the commercial ESLs, including: antimony, arsenic, chromium VI, cobalt, and lead (SCS, 2018). Arsenic and lead were also detected within the fill samples at concentrations exceeding their respective 2019 RWQCB commercial shallow soil ESLs (SCS, 2018). Select shallow fill soil samples were tested for soluble metals (Environ, 2008). Multiple shallow soil samples had concentrations exceeding the soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC) for lead, indicating that it is likely some of the soil at the Site could potentially be classified as hazardous waste if exported from the property for off-Site disposal. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were not detected in shallow fill soil or burn ash samples at concentrations exceeding the 2019 residential or commercial ESLs, with the exception of TPH as diesel (TPHd) and motor oil (TPHmo) that were detected above both the residential and commercial ESLs in one sample at a depth of 25 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Environ, 2008). A soil vapor investigation was conducted in 2006 that included installation of 16 temporary soil vapor probes to depths of 5 and 10 feet bgs at each sample location. Methane was detected in soil vapor at five sample locations at concentrations ranging from 0.45% to 41% by volume (Environ, 2008). The methane compliance levels enforced by the San Mateo County Health Services Division (SMCEHD) Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) per California Code of Regulations Title 27 (27 CCR) §20921 are 5% at the property perimeter, and 1.25% within on-site structures. Several VOCs were also detected in soil vapor at concentrations below their respective 2019 RWQCB residential and commercial vapor intrusion (V/I) ESLs, with the exception of benzene and vinyl chloride that were detected above both the residential and commercial V/I ESLs. The highest concentrations of methane were detected in the northeastern corner of the Site across Gull Drive from the eastern adjoining property (APN 015-010-950) that is part of a former municipal Class III landfill (Oyster Point Landfill) that was operated by the City of South San Francisco from approximately 1956 until it stopped accepting waste in 1970 (Langan, 2017). As discussed further in Section 5.1.2, there are two perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells (LFG-9 and LFG-10) and a passive venting trench (PVT-1) related to the ongoing monitoring for the former Oyster Point Landfill within the southern portion of the eastern adjoining City of South San Francisco owned parcel (APN 015-190-180) (Figure 2). In 2008, five groundwater monitoring wells, designated MW-1 through MW-5 were installed at the property (Figure 2). Groundwater sampling was conducted between 2008 and 2009 as part 299 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 11 of ongoing Site investigations. The investigations concluded that shallow groundwater at the Site appears to have been impacted with metals consistent with the presence of burn ash material below the water table. It was also concluded that shallow groundwater in the vicinity of monitoring well MW-5 was impacted by low concentrations of TPH (Environ, 2011). RWQCB V/I ESLs are not established for metals or TPH. Due to the Site not being subject to any regulatory agency order or directive to perform water quality monitoring, the groundwater monitoring wells were abandoned in 2018 (SCS, 2018). The western adjoining property (APN 015-082-240) that also overlies a portion of the burn ash material was recently developed in 2018 with a commercial/industrial building that is utilized as a USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Office. In preparation for redevelopment, SCS Engineers (SCS) prepared an Amendment to the Site Closure Plan (SCP) and Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (PCMP) previously prepared by Environ in 2011 for a previous Site owner who intended to develop the property for commercial uses, but the development was not constructed (SCS, 2017). The Amended SCP and PCMP were prepared in accordance with 27 CCR §21190 requirements governing redevelopments on landfills and approved by the SMCEHD LEA, with concurrence from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (SCS, 2017). The remedial strategies in the SCP and PCMP included the following:  Proper decommissioning and abandonment of existing groundwater monitoring wells within the footprint of proposed improvement areas;  Localized excavations within shallow fill soil;  Placement of a new landfill cap consisting of concrete or asphalt slabs within hardscape areas, re-compacted and vegetated soil within perimeter slope softscape areas, and planters with impermeable geomembrane liners and subdrain systems within parking lot softscape areas;  Installation of a passive sub-slab methane mitigation system (MMS) and interior methane detection and alarm system; and  Adherence to applicable provisions of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HASP) included in the initial SCP prepared by Environ (Environ, 2011). Additionally, SCS prepared a Soil Management Plan (SMP) according to the revised development plans for the USDA building and Amended SCP and PCMP intended to guide the prime contractor and associated subcontractors to properly manage soils containing chemicals of concern (COCs) in a manner that is protective of human health during development and proposed future land use (SCS, 2018). At the time the SCP, PCMP, and SMP were prepared by SCS, the Site was part of 300 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 12 a larger parcel (APN 015-082-210-4), which was divided in 2018 into two parcels: APN 015-082- 240 (western adjoining property) and APN 015-082-250 (Site); therefore, the property boundary in the plans is inclusive of the larger former parcel as shown in Exhibit 1. On 4 April 2019, a deed restriction was recorded between SMPO ELS, LLC and SMCEHD for the western adjoining property (APN 015-082-240) which requires the property owner to maintain the integrity of the landfill cap per the Amended PCMP, obtain agency approval prior to any soil disturbance or groundwater drilling, and comply with land use limitations (development and use of the property is restricted to commercial and/or industrial use). 4.0 CLIENT-PROVIDED INFORMATION 4.1 User/Owner Questionnaire Per ASTM E1527-13, user and owner questionnaires were provided to the User to inquire about specialized information related to the Site. Ms. Lindsay Florin of LBF Consulting Group Inc. completed the User/Client questionnaire on behalf of Ms. Kiley Carter of SRE Acquisitions III, LLC. Ms. Florin has no-first-hand knowledge of the Site and is not aware of any environmental cleanup liens associated with the Site. Ms. Florin is aware of the deed restriction recorded for the western adjoining property on 4 April 2019 as discussed in Section 3.0. The completed User questionnaire is included in Appendix B. Mr. Steve Williams completed the owner questionnaire for the Site. Mr. Williams has no knowledge of environmental cleanup liens associated with the Site. Mr. Williams also provided several environmental documents to the Client, which are discussed in Section 3.0. The completed Owner questionnaire is included in Appendix B. 4.2 Title Records A Title Report provided by the Client for the Site parcel (APN 015-082-250) is included in Appendix B. 4.3 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations The Client is not aware of any environmental cleanup or liens in connection to the Site. 4.4 Specialized Knowledge The Client does not have any specialized knowledge of the Site. 301 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 13 4.5 Commonly Known and Reasonable Ascertainable Information The Client is not aware of any commonly known and reasonable ascertainable information regarding the Site. 4.6 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues The Client is not aware of any valuation reduction for environmental issues in connection with the Site and that the value of the Site reflects market value. 4.7 Owner, Site Manager, and Occupant Information The Client representative has indicated that the Site is owned by SMPO ELS, LLC. 4.8 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA It is our understanding that the Client has requested this study as part of their environmental due diligence regarding the Site. 5.0 RECORDS REVIEW 5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources Langan reviewed an environmental database search report, prepared by EDR, for the Site and surrounding area. The EDR report is a listing of properties identified on select federal and state standard source environmental databases within the approximate search radius specified by ASTM Standard Practice for E1527-13. A review of environmental regulatory agency lists and records was performed for the Site and vicinity to identify potential sources of or activities involving hazardous substances or petroleum products that might affect the soil and groundwater quality at the Site. The lists identify properties where underground storage tank (UST) leaks, chemical spills, or contamination of soil and/or groundwater have been reported and confirmed. The regulatory lists also include properties where above-ground or underground storage tanks are present, hazardous materials are generated and/or stored, and whether or not there has been an unauthorized release. This information is reported to Langan by EDR, and to EDR by government sources; therefore, neither Langan nor EDR can verify the completeness and accuracy of the database information. Langan reviewed each environmental database on a record-by-record basis to determine if certain 302 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 14 sites identified in the report are suspected to represent a potential impact to the Site. A copy of regulatory database information that was provided by EDR is included in Appendix C. The following summary table lists the number of properties by database within the prescribed search radius appearing in the EDR Radius Map Report: Database (Date of government version) Minimum Search Area Site Listed Properties within Search Area Federal Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Archive (10/25/2019) ½ mile radius No 3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTs) (12/16/2019) 1 mile radius No 2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Large Quantity Generators (RCRA – LQG) (12/16/2019) ¼ mile radius No 6 RCRA Small Quantity Generators (RCRA – SQG) (12/16/2019) ¼ mile radius No 13 State and Tribal RESPONSE – State and tribal equivalent NPL (10/28/2019) 1 mile radius No 2 DTSC EnviroStor (10/28/2019) 1 mile radius No 12 Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill (SWF/LF) (11/11/2019) 1/2 mile radius Yes 2 LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tank) (09/09/2019) ½ mile radius No 25 Cleanup Program Sites/Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (CPS-SLIC) (06/08/2020) ½ mile radius No 10 Underground Storage Tank (UST) (09/09/2019) ¼ mile radius No 1 Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) (07/06/2019) ¼ mile radius No 7 Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) (10/28/2019) ½ mile radius No 1 Brownfields (09/23/2019) ½ mile radius No 1 Additional Record Sources Historical (HIST) Cal-Sites (08/08/2005) 1 mile radius No 2 California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous (HAZ) Waste (10/21/2019) ¼ mile radius No 18 Toxic Pits 1 mile radius No 1 CA Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) UST (06/01/1994) ¼ mile radius No 8 CA HIST UST (10/15/1990) ¼ mile radius No 11 CA Facility Inventory Database (FID) UST (10/31/1994) ¼ mile radius No 7 CERS TANKS (10/21/2019) ¼ mile radius No 6 Deed Restriction Listing (DEED) (09/03/2019) ½ mile radius No 2 RCRA Non-Generator (NonGen)/No Longer Regulated (NLR) (12/16/2019) ¼ mile radius Yes 68 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDs) (05/15/2019) 1 mile radius No 1 Facility Index System (FINDS) (02/03/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 1 303 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 15 Database (Date of government version) Minimum Search Area Site Listed Properties within Search Area Enforcement and Compliance History Information (ECHO) (06/27/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 1 CA Bond Expenditure Plan (01/01/1989) 1 mile radius No 1 San Mateo County Business Inventory (02/20/2020) ¼ mile radius No 67 Cortese (09/23/2019) ½ mile radius No 17 Facility and Manifest Data (HAZNET) (12/31/2019) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 2 HIST CORTESE (4/1/2001) ½ mile radius No 15 Permitted Hazardous Waste Facility (HWP) (05/18/2020) 1 mile radius No 3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Sites (05/12/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 1 Proposition 65 Records (Notify 65) (09/16/2019) 1 mile radius No 2 California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) (06/01/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 1 California Environmental Protection Agency Regulated Sites (CERS) (07/20/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 2 Geotracker Non-Case Information Sites (06/08/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 1 Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) (04/08/2020) 1⁄8 mile radius Yes 3 A description of the reviewed databases is provided in the EDR Radius Map Report (Appendix C). A summary of Site database listings and other properties identified within the prescribed search area is presented below. A total of 326 listings within a one mile radius of the Site were found in various regulatory agency databases. Their database listings relative to the Site are shown in the maps found in the EDR Radius Map Report provided in Appendix C. Based on the large number of properties identified within one mile of the Site, Langan limited the review of surrounding properties to adjoining and upgradient properties. It is the environmental professional’s opinion that, based on the area, and former, current and proposed use of the Site, the review of the database pertaining to this more limited area is appropriate. Langan also requested and reviewed available environmental records from California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), RWQCB, CalRecycle, SMCEHD, the City of South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). A summary Site database listings and other properties identified within the prescribed search area is presented below. 5.1.1 Site – 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue The Site was identified in the following databases searched by EDR: SWF/LF, RCRA NonGen/NLR, FINDS, ECHO, HAZNET, NPDES, CIWQS, CERS, Geotracker Non-Case 304 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 16 Information Sites, and HWTS. Additionally, the Site was not listed in the DTSC EnviroStor database; however, it was listed in the RWQCB Geotracker database under the name “560 Eccles” with a status of “Informational Item as of 12/13/2018” and case number T10000012436. The records available on Geotracker were related to the abandonment of the former groundwater monitoring wells at the Site discussed in Section 3.0. The Site is also listed in the CalRecycle SWIS database as a former “Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility” under the name “USDA Building (41-CR-0028)” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” The records available on SWIS are related to the former Site use as a burn dump as discussed in Section 3.0. SMCEHD provided files related to the former Site use as a nonhazardous ash disposal/monofill facility under San Mateo County local oversight program (LOP) facility number FA0063171, including investigation and monitoring reports, postclosure development reports, and postclosure inspection reports related to the construction of the USDA building on the western adjoining property that also overlies a portion of the former burn ash material. No inspection violations were reported. SSFFD and BAAQMD had no records for the Site. 5.1.2 Off-Site Database Listings Based on our review of off-Site property listings, most of the nearby listings were either: (1) closed by the regulatory agency, (2) located in the inferred hydrologically down-gradient direction from the Site, (3) determined to be a significant distance from the Site, and/or 4) determined not to have a potential impact on the Site based on our review of available database information. However, the following properties in the surrounding area are of environmental interest. 560 Eccles Avenue (Western adjoining property, inferred up- to cross-gradient) SMCEHD records indicate that the USDA building owned by SMPO ELS, LLC is enrolled in the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) with a valid permit for the storage of small quantities of hazardous materials related to facility operations, specifically 309 gallons of diesel fuel in an aboveground storage tank for a backup generator. No violations, spills, or releases from facility operations were noted; therefore, the property is not anticipated to be an environmental concern for the Site. 336 Oyster Point Boulevard (Northern/western adjoining property, inferred up- to cross-gradient) This property was identified in the following databases searched by EDR: LUST, San Mateo County Business Inventory, Cortese, HIST CORTESE, and CERS. Additionally, this property is listed in the RWQCB Geotracker database as a LUST cleanup site under the name “Seaboard 305 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 17 Paper Co.” with case number T0608100451 and a status of “Completed - Case Closed as of 11/14/1995.” Alternative case numbers for property are San Mateo County LOP case number 550023 and RWQCB case number 41-0475. A No Further Action (NFA) letter issued by the SMCEHD indicates that the 2,000-gallon diesel UST was removed in 1987 and appeared to be in good condition with no holes (SMCEHD, 1995). Approximately 16 cy of soil were reportedly excavated and disposed. One water sample and one soil sample was obtained from the excavation, though no sample depths were recorded. An additional composite soil sample was collected from the excavated stockpile. TPHd was detected in the excavation soil sample and stockpile composite soil sample at concentrations of 3.4 parts per million (ppm) and 180 ppm, respectively, which are below the RWQCB 2019 residential and commercial shallow soil ESLs. Benzene, toluene, and xylenes were detected in the water sample at concentrations of 2,100 parts per billion (ppb), 22,000 ppb, and 42,000 ppb, respectively. TPHd and ethylbenzene were not detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in the water sample. In July 1987, two groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the 336 Oyster Point Boulevard property at depths of approximately 17 and 18 feet bgs, and quarterly monitoring was conducted for four consecutive quarters between May 1994 and May 1995. TPHd was detected in the wells at concentrations ranging between 120 ppb and 220 ppb during the four quarters of monitoring. The low levels of TPHd detected in groundwater are slightly above the RWQCB 2019 direct exposure human health risk ESL of 200 ppb; however, V/I ESLs are not established for TPHd. SMCEHD stated in the NFA letter that no further monitoring of the groundwater was required due to the low levels of TPHd in groundwater, further reduction of TPHd levels, the apparent asymptomatic trend in TPHd levels, and lack of technically feasible remediation. Therefore, due to the NFA determination, this property not expected to be an environmental concern for the Site. 349 Oyster Point Boulevard (approximately 350 feet northwest, inferred up- to cross-gradient) This property was identified in the following databases searched by EDR: RCRA NonGen/NLR, SEMS-ARCHIVE, RCRA-SQG, FINDS, CPS-SLIC, CERS, ENVIROSTOR, LUST, VCP, FINDS, ECHO, San Mateo County Business Inventory, Cortese, HIST CORTESE, CERS, CERS HAZ WASTE, and AST. Additionally, this property is listed in the RWQCB Geotracker database as a LUST cleanup site under the name “Wildberg Bros” with case number T0608114784 and a status of “Completed - Case Closed as of 7/17/2001”, and as a cleanup program site under the name “Wildberg Brothers” with case number T10000008176 and a status of “Completed - Case Closed as of 3/21/2018.” Alternative case numbers for property are San Mateo County LOP case number 306 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 18 559014 and RWQCB case numbers 41-1115 and 41S0028. The property is also listed in the DTSC Envirostor database as a voluntary cleanup site under the name “Wildberg Brothers (Boliden Metech)” with case number 41330049 and a status of “Certified as of 11/30/1987.” The Wildberg Brothers property (aka Boliden Metech) was formerly occupied by a metal reclamation plant which operated between 1907 and 1987. After operations of the facility ceased, several soil and groundwater investigations were conducted which identified heavy metals in shallow soils and trichloroethene (TCE) in groundwater at the Site related to former use as a metal reclamation facility. In 1995, Boliden Metech executed a voluntary cleanup agreement (VCA) with DTSC (DTSC, 1995). As part of the VCA activities, ACC Environmental Consultants collected soil samples from 19 locations and three groundwater monitoring wells (ACC, 1995). One soil sample collected from beneath a former laboratory building detected lead at a concentration of 930 ppm, which was above 800 ppm residential cleanup level at the time. Therefore, Boliden Metech removed approximately 10 cubic feet of soil from the impacted area in October 1995. Confirmation samples from these removal areas detected lead at a maximum concentration of 41 ppm, which is below the RWQCB 2019 residential and commercial shallow soil ESLs. TCE was detected in monitoring well MW-2 at a concentration of 2.5 ppb, which exceeds the RWQCB 2019 residential V/I ESLs, but is below the commercial V/I ESLs. In November 1995, DTSC issued a NFA letter indicating that all remedial actions conducted under the VCA had been completed (DTSC, 1995). During construction activities in 1997, soil that appeared to be impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons was encountered beneath a concrete slab. Reportedly, a heating fuel oil UST of unknown capacity was removed in 1982. Additional soil samples were collected in 1997 and TPHd, TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) were detected at concentrations of 730 ppm, 200 ppm, 0.024 ppm, 0.97 ppm, 0.240 ppm, 3.1 ppm, and 0.11 ppm, respectively. The concentration of TPHd exceeds the 2019 RWQCB residential shallow soil ESL, but is below the commercial ESL. Concentrations of TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and MTBE are below both the 2019 RWQCB residential and commercial shallow soil ESLs. Two groundwater samples were collected and analysis did not detect fuel constituents above the laboratory reporting limits. Excavation activities were performed, removing approximately 412 cy of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil. Based on the characterization and remedial actions performed, a NFA letter was issued by the SMCEHD in 2001 (SMCEHD, 2001). 307 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 19 Due to the NFA determinations for the VCA and the LUST, this property not expected to be an environmental concern for the Site. Former Oyster Point Landfill (eastern adjoining property across Gull Drive, inferred downgradient) This property was identified in the following databases searched by EDR: RCRA-LQG, RCRA NonGen/NLR, SWF/LF, and CERS. Additionally, this property is listed in the RWQCB Geotracker database as a land disposal site under the name “Oyster Point Landfill” with case number L10009323371 and a status of “Open as of 1/1/1965.” Alternative case numbers for property are RWQCB case number 2 417061001. The site is also listed in the CalRecycle SWIS database as a former “Solid Waste Disposal Site” under the name “So. San Francisco Municipal Dump/Oyster (41-AA-0065)” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” This property was formerly part of a municipal Class III landfill (Oyster Point Landfill) operated by the City of South San Francisco from approximately 1956 until it stopped accepting waste in 1970 (Langan, 2017). Prior to 1956, the existing landfill area consisted of tidal marshlands, upland bedrock and soils on the western part of the property, while the eastern part of the property was part of the San Francisco Bay. As a result of the waste disposal operations, the shoreline was extended approximately 3,000 feet to the east of the pre-landfill shoreline. Consistent with landfill practices at the time, no liner was installed underlying the refuse. Instead, the waste was placed directly onto the bay mud and soils overlying the bedrock. Two areas of the landfill, identified as Sumps 1 and 2, were reportedly used as hazardous waste disposal sites for industrial waste including drums, paints, thinners, and solvent sludge between 1961 and 1967. After landfill operations ceased in 1970, the City conducted various closure activities under RWQCB oversight and in accordance with the RWQCB regulatory guidelines that governed at that time; this was prior to the adoption of Title 27 CCR, the regulatory requirements currently governing Class III landfill closures. Between 1971 and 1976, the upper surface of the landfill was compacted, and a 2-foot layer of low-permeability soil was placed on top of the compacted fill. Additional mitigative measures were constructed between 1979 and 1981, including installation of a 2- to 3-foot-thick Bay Mud cap across the site, placement of additional riprap and Bay Mud along the Marina, construction of bentonite-cement trenches between the landfill and the drainage channel as well as along an approximately 300-foot length of shoreline on the west basin (beach area), and realignment of the drainage channel (Exhibit 3). In addition, Bay Mud was placed along the southern boundary of the landfill where leachate seepage had been observed. In 1987, a Bay Mud leachate cutoff trench was constructed along the northern landfill boundary, between the 308 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 20 mole and beach area. A gas barrier trench consisting of compacted soil and a CPE liner (20 mils thick) was also reportedly installed along the western landfill boundary to mitigate the lateral migration of landfill gas. As shown in Exhibits 4 and 5, the eastern adjoining parcel owned by the City of South San Francisco (APN 015-190-180) was formerly part of the Oyster Point Landfill property. In April 1995, waste material was encountered during the installation of eight test pits as part of an investigation of unstable soil conducted by the City in connection with the realignment of Gull Drive (CH2MHILL, 1996). The waste was encountered to the west of the capped landfill area. A subsequent investigation indicated that part of the new Gull Drive alignment was likely being constructed over part of Sump 2 (CH2MHILL, 1996). CH2MHILL concluded that the westernmost portion of this sump had not been included in previous landfill closure activities (the original landfill cap was completed in 1981). After waste was uncovered, roadway construction stopped and approximately 220 drums and approximately 4,000 cy of soil were removed and disposed of off- site as hazardous material. In January 1996, following removal of the drums and soil, the excavated area was graded and covered (see Exhibit 6 for the approximate area of the Sump 2 excavation). At the request of the RWQCB, CH2MHILL performed a limited field investigation including a geophysical survey and confirmatory trenching in February 1996 to define the extent of waste not covered by the existing cap and not removed during Sump 2 excavation activities (CH2MHILL, 1996). Before completing the construction of Gull Drive, the landfill cover was extended as described in the Construction Quality Assurance Report for the Gull Drive Final Cover Extension prepared by CH2MHILL in October 1996; however, drums and refuse may potentially remain in place beyond the cover extension below Gull Drive and within the eastern adjoining parcel owned by the City of South San Francisco since the excavation and removal effort in the vicinity of Sump 2 was limited to the minimum extent necessary to allow for continued construction of the new road. The perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells (LFG-9 and LFG-10) and passive venting trench (PVT-1) immediately outside the eastern Site boundary within the City of South San Francisco owned parcel (APN 015-190-180) were reportedly installed outside the footprint of the landfill; therefore, refuse related to the former Oyster Point Landfill is not anticipated to be present within the Site boundaries. Redevelopment of the landfill is currently ongoing as part of a larger, multi-phase development project by the City of South San Francisco and Kilroy Realty Corporation, including multiple office/research and development (R&D) buildings, infrastructure improvements, and open space areas. In anticipation of redevelopment of the landfill, Langan prepared a Final Closure Plan (FCP) and Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (PCMMP), dated 8 September 2017, 309 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 21 describing the project in more detail and procedures for closure and long-term monitoring and maintenance of the landfill pursuant to Title 27 CCR §21190 requirements (Langan, 2017). As detailed further in the PCMMP, the Oyster Point Landfill is regulated by Order Number 2000-046 issued by the RWQCB to the City of South San Francisco on 21 June 2000 (RWQCB, 2000). The Order includes Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for the landfill and imposes closure and postclosure requirements on the Discharger, including performing sampling, analyses, and observations of groundwater, leachate, and surface water and submitting the results in semi- annual and annual reports to the RWQCB. On 15 December 2017, the Order was amended to add Oyster Point Development, LLC as a discharger after they became the fee title owner of approximately 17.9 acres of the landfill property. In August 2018, Kilroy Realty assumed Oyster Point Development, LLC’s contracts for redevelopment of the property. Additionally, perimeter landfill gas is regulated by the San Mateo County LEA. The perimeter compliance level enforced by the LEA is 5% methane by volume in air (27 CCR §20921). Per the Final Closure Plan, the City shall retain responsibility for environmental conditions and continued compliance with landfill post-closure maintenance, monitoring, and reporting requirements of the Order during and following redevelopment of the property (Langan, 2017). As shown in Exhibit 7 and Figure 2, there are two perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells (LFG-9 and LFG-10) and a passive venting trench (PVT-1) related to the ongoing monitoring within the eastern adjoining City of South San Francisco owned parcel (APN 015-190-180). As documented in the 2019 Annual Monitoring Report for the former Oyster Point Landfill prepared by CSS Environmental, perimeter methane concentrations at LFG-9 and LFG-10 have largely been below the 5% threshold, with the exception of spikes in 2010 and 2011 up to 7.7% (CSS, 2020). In response, the City installed a passive wind turbine at the exhaust of the PVT-1 venting trench in 2011 to further enhance landfill gas venting, and methane concentrations at LFG-9 and LFG-10 have been below the 5% threshold since. Further, groundwater monitoring conducted at the landfill from 1999 through 2019 indicate that the concentrations of COCs within the perimeter compliance wells are below the Maximum Allowable Concentrations Limits (MACLs) established for the property and either steady, or following a decreasing trend. Groundwater monitoring locations are shown in Exhibit 8. Since the Oyster Point Landfill is downgradient of the Site, groundwater impacts are not anticipated to be a concern. However, due to the unknown extent of refuse potentially remaining in place beneath Gull Drive and further west within the eastern adjoining parcel owned by the City of South San Francisco (APN 015-190-180), and the ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements for the perimeter landfill gas monitoring features immediately outside the eastern Site boundary (LFG-9, LFG-10, and PVT-1), the Oyster Point Landfill is considered a Condition of Environmental Interest (COEI). 310 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 22 5.2 Physical Setting Sources The physical setting at the Site is based on the Physical Setting Source Addendum to the EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck report, topographic maps, and subsurface investigations previously conducted at the Site by others. Topography The Site elevation is approximately 50 feet above MSL. The Site topography slopes down to the southeast. Geology and Hydrogeology The Site is located along the western margin of the historic shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. Based on our review of available maps, the southeastern portion of the Site is bayward of the historic shoreline. The Site is underlain by fill placed during modifications of the San Francisco Bay shoreline and general grading beginning in the early 1900s, based on historical topographic maps (Appendix E). Based on available subsurface data at the site, the fill thickness increases from the northwest to the southeast, with the thickest fill in the southeastern portion of the Site that is bayward of the historic shoreline. According to the Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5’ Quadrangle, the fill is underlain by Quarternary deposits consisting of sandy clay and clayey sand and Franciscan Complex bedrock classified as sandstone and shale (USGS, 1998). As discussed in Section 3.0, the Site was formerly part of larger burn dump facility in the 1950s. According to previous subsurface investigations conducted by Environ, the burn ash material underlies the western portion of the Site and ranges from approximately 10 to 25 feet thick (Exhibits 1 and 2). Native clays and silts followed by bedrock were identified below the burn ash material (Environ, 2011). After burn dump operations ceased, additional fill material was placed over the burn ash material to raise the Site to the current grades. The thickness of fill material overlying the burn ash at the Site ranges from approximately 10 to 20 feet thick (Environ, 2011). Due to the steep slope of the native alluvium and bedrock underlying the Site and the current Site topography, the depth to groundwater is highly variable (Environ, 2011). At the western boundary of the Site, depth to groundwater is approximately 30 feet bgs at former MW-4 (25 feet above mean sea level [MSL]) (Exhibit 2). At the eastern boundary of the Site, groundwater is approximately 10 feet bgs at former MW-5 (10 feet above MSL) (Exhibit 2). According to investigations conducted by Environ in 2008 and 2009, groundwater flow direction at the Site is to the southeast, generally toward the San Francisco Bay (Environ, 2011). 311 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 23 Surface Water No surface water was observed at the Site at the time of this assessment. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 1,500 feet east of the Site. Wetlands and Flood Plain According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), there are no mapped wetlands at the Site. The closest mapped wetlands are approximately 50 feet east of the Site at the San Bruno Channel. The Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center indicates that the Site is not located in a flood hazard zone area. Water Wells, Injection Wells and Oil and Gas Wells and Facilities A review of the Geocheck section of the EDR Radius Map (Appendix C) and the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Well Finder did not identify any water, injection, or oil and gas wells on the Site or within 0.25-mile of the Site. 5.3 Historical Use Information on the Site and Adjoining and Surrounding Properties Sanborn Maps Review Sanborn maps were not available for the Site or surrounding properties. Appendix D contains a copy of the Sanborn Map Report indicating that fire insurance maps covering the target property were not found. Historical Topography Maps Review Langan reviewed the following Historical Topography Maps from EDR: 1896, 1899, 1915, 1939, 1947, 1950, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1995, 1996, and 2012. Appendix E contains copies of the Historical Topography Maps. From the 1880s through 1950s, the Site was located on a hillside along the margins of the San Francisco Bay. By the 1960s, portions of the surrounding marshland, including the Site, were filled during modifications to the coastline of the Bay. The Site appears to be graded in the current configuration from the 1980s through the present. City Directory Review Langan reviewed the following city directory abstracts obtained from EDR. Listings in the EDR City Directory were found for Eccles Avenue from 1972 until 2017; however, no records were 312 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 24 related to the Site address (560 Eccles Avenue). Appendix F contains a copy of the City Directory Report. Aerial Photograph Review Langan reviewed aerial photographs to evaluate past uses and relevant characteristics of the Site and surrounding properties. We reviewed the following aerial photographs from EDR: 1943, 1946, 1956, 1963, 1968, 1974, 1982, 1993, 1998, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2016. Appendix G contains copies of the aerial photographs from EDR. In the 1940s, the Site appears to be undeveloped vacant land on a hillside along the margins of the San Francisco Bay. Adjoining and surrounding properties appear to be undeveloped, with the exception of the Wildberg Brothers metal reclamation plant to the northwest of the Site. By 1956, the Site appears to be utilized as a burn dump as indicated by a smoke plume visible along the western Site boundary. Modifications to the coastline of the Bay due to landfilling operations at the eastern adjoining property (former Oyster Point Landfill) are visible in the 1963 Aerial Photograph. Between 1963 and 1974, further filling operations and modifications to the coastline of the Bay are apparent at surrounding area properties. From 1982 through the 2016, the Site appears to be graded to the current configuration. Additional commercial/industrial development has also occurred at adjoining and surrounding area properties from the late 1960s through the present. 6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions The Site reconnaissance was conducted in a systematic manner focusing on the spatial extent of the Site and then progressing to the adjacent and surrounding properties. The assessment of the adjacent and surrounding properties was limited to identifying, if possible, any indications of past or current use that may involve the use, storage, disposal, or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products; noting the general type of current use; the general topography of the surrounding area; and providing a general description of adjoining or adjacent structures. Mr. Jeffrey Ludlow and Ms. Stephanie Lee of Langan performed a Site and vicinity reconnaissance on 20 October 2020. Appendix A contains photographs from the Site reconnaissance. 313 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 25 6.2 General Site Setting and Reconnaissance Observations As shown on Figure 2, the Site is currently undeveloped vacant land with an area of approximately 168,500 square feet (3.9 acres). The Site is located in an area zoned by the City of South San Francisco as Business Technology Park, which is designated for a wide range of commercial and light industrial activities. Photographs showing the current Site use are provided in Appendix A. Past Use of Site No other evidence of past use of the Site was observed during the Site reconnaissance. Description of Structures There are no roads or structures on the Site; however, there is a sidewalk along the eastern and northern Site boundaries for adjoining properties ingress/egress. 6.3 Site Observations Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products in Connection with Identified Uses Langan did not observe hazardous substances or petroleum products in connection with identified uses at the Site during the reconnaissance. Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Containers in Connection with Unidentified Uses Langan did not observe hazardous substances or petroleum products in connection with unidentified uses at the Site during the reconnaissance. Storage Tanks Langan did not observe any storage tanks at the Site during the reconnaissance. Odors Langan did not notice any noxious odors at the Site during the reconnaissance. Pools of Liquids Langan did not observe any pools of liquids at the Site during the reconnaissance. Drums Langan did not observe any drums at the Site during the reconnaissance. 314 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 26 PCBs Langan did not observe PCBs or PCB-containing equipment at the Site during the reconnaissance. Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons Langan did not observe any pits, ponds, or lagoons at the Site during the reconnaissance. Stained Soil or Pavement Langan observed minor staining of the soil, including an approximately 5 by 10 foot area where an aggregate base patch appeared to be placed. Additionally, chunks of glass and porcelain were observed within shallow surface soils, indicating the potential presence of undocumented fill material. Stressed Vegetation Langan did not observe stressed vegetation at the Site during the reconnaissance. Solid Waste Langan observed solid waste in the form of trash, including abandoned piping, a refrigerator, and other miscellaneous debris, at the Site during the reconnaissance. These observations do not represent a concern at the Site. Wastewater Langan did not observe wastewater discharges at the Site during the reconnaissance. Wells Along the eastern Site boundary, Langan observed two perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells (LFG-9 and LFG-10) and a passive venting trench (PVT-1) related to the ongoing monitoring for the former Oyster Point Landfill located to the east of the Site (Appendix A). The wells are assumed to be located within the eastern adjoining City of South San Francisco owned parcel (APN 015-190-180). Abandoned groundwater monitoring well MW-3 was observed at the southeastern corner of the Site. Further details regarding the former landfill and monitoring wells are provided in Section 3.0. Septic Systems Langan did not observe septic systems at the Site during the reconnaissance. 315 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 27 Utilities In the northeastern portion of the Site, Langan observed riser pipes and utility vaults assumed to be related to water and irrigation lines. Additionally, a concrete lined channel along the southern and eastern boundaries of the Site, a culvert, and a drain with a grate were observed that are assumed to be related to storm water drainage (Appendix A). Langan also observed what appeared to be a post indicator valve and a stub up for unused water utilities in the northern portion of the Site (see Appendix A, Photographs 28 and 35). According to the Site Owner and available records, three laterals connected to the water line running along the northern Site boundary were reportedly installed for fire protection for a planned warehouse building at the Site that was never constructed (see SMPO Title Survey in Appendix B). The lateral furthest west was capped during development of the western adjoining property, but the other two laterals on Site are assumed to remain in place. 7.0 INTERVIEWS 7.1 Subject Site User For the Phase I ESA, Langan was introduced to and interviewed the User of this report, as defined in ASTM 1527-13. The object of the interviews is to obtain information indicating RECs in connection with the Site and to provide further details regarding historical use of the Site. Mr. Mike Sanford with the Sanford Group was interviewed as the User on behalf of Ms. Kiley Carter of SRE Acquisitions III, LLC. as part of this Phase I ESA. Mr. Sanford stated that he has no-first-hand knowledge of the Site and is not aware of any environmental cleanup liens associated with the Site. Mr. Sanford is aware of the Deed Restriction recorded for the western adjoining property on 4 April 2019 as discussed in Section 3.0. Mr. Sanford also indicated that he was not aware of any current government notifications, violations of environmental laws, or litigation at the Site. 7.2 Owners of Current and Adjacent Properties Mr. Oscar Romero, the site engineer for SMPO ELS, LLC, was interviewed as part of this Phase I ESA. Mr. Romero stated that the Site was previously used as a staging area for construction office trailers and equipment storage during the construction of the USDA Building adjoining the Site to the west. Mr. Romero indicated that he has no actual knowledge whether the purchase price of the Site was below the fair market value due to environmental conditions. 316 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 28 Mr. Romero stated that he has no actual knowledge of any environmental liens or Activity and Use Limitations encumbering the Site or in connection with the Site and that he was not aware of any current government notifications, violations of environmental laws, or litigation at the Site. Owners of adjacent properties were not available for interview. 8.0 PHASE I ESA FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Langan’s findings with respect to known and suspect RECs and COEIs, and our opinion of these findings are as follows: 8.1 Known or Suspect RECs and COEIs Based on the databases searched by EDR, requests made for public documentation related to past or present environmental conditions at the site and surrounding area, review of previous Site reports, and our Site reconnaissance, Langan has identified one REC associated with the Site during this Phase I ESA:  REC-1 – Historical Site Operations and Impacted Shallow Site Soil, Groundwater, and Soil Vapor: The Site was previously occupied by a portion of a former landfill that was utilized as a burn dump facility in the 1950s. The CalRecycle SWIS database lists the facility as a former “Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility” with an operational status of “Closed” and a regulatory status of “Unpermitted.” Records indicate that residual burn ash material underlies the western portion of the Site and that after burn dump operations at the Site ceased in the late 1950s, additional fill material was placed over the burn ash material to raise the Site to the current grades. Records for the source of the fill material placed at the Site are unavailable; therefore the material is considered undocumented fill. Previous Site investigations indicate metals concentrations in shallow fill soil and burn ash material exceeding the 2019 RWQCB commercial shallow soil ESLs. Shallow groundwater at the Site appears to have been impacted with metals (consistent with the presence of burn ash material below the water table) and TPH in a limited area in the southeast portion of the Site; however, there are not RWQCB vapor intrusion ESLs established for metals or TPH. VOCs were detected in soil vapor exceeding the 2019 RWQCB commercial vapor intrusion environmental screening levels and methane was also detected at concentrations up to 41% by volume. The residual burn ash from former landfill operations and impacted shallow Site soils, groundwater, and soil vapor are considered a REC for the Site. Future Site development will require mitigation measures to be established and implemented per 27 CCR §21190 governing redevelopments on closed landfills. 317 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 29 Langan also identified one COEI associated with the eastern adjoining property during this Phase I ESA:  COEI-1 – Historical Operations at Eastern Adjoining Property: The eastern adjoining property was formerly part of a municipal Class III landfill (Oyster Point Landfill) operated by the City of South San Francisco from approximately 1956 until it stopped accepting waste in 1970. Since the Oyster Point Landfill is downgradient of the Site, groundwater impacts to the Site from this landfill are not anticipated to be a concern. However, due to the unknown extent of refuse potentially remaining in place beneath Gull Drive and further west within the eastern adjoining parcel owned by the City of South San Francisco (APN 015-190-180), and the ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements for the perimeter landfill gas monitoring features immediately outside the eastern Site boundary (LFG-9, LFG-10, and PVT-1), the Oyster Point Landfill is considered a COEI. 8.2 De Minimis Conditions No de minimis conditions were discovered during this study. 8.3 Data Gaps The Site history could not be researched in five-year intervals back to 1940 because of a lack of readily available information. It is Langan’s opinion that this variation from the ASTM standard does not significantly affect the results of this Phase I ESA or the ability to assess the presence of a REC at the Site, because land use did not change frequently enough to warrant a five year interval Site history evaluation. 8.4 Conclusion Langan conducted this Phase I ESA with a standard of commercial and customary practice using the local standard of case that is consistent with ASTM E1527-13. Any significant scope-of-work deviations, deletions, or additions to ASTM E1527-13 are noted in Sections 8.0 and 9.0 of this report. This Phase I ESA identified that most of the Site is underlain by burn ash from the Nonhazardous Ash Disposal/Monofill Facility, as regulated by the San Mateo County LEA and CalRecycle. Since the Site is underlain by a former landfill, development activities will be subject to 27 CCR §21190 governing redevelopments on landfills. This regulation requires that a new Postclosure Development Plan (PCDP) and Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (PCMMP) be prepared for regulatory agency approval prior to any Site development activities. As detailed further below, these documents will outline mitigation measures and ongoing monitoring and 318 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 30 maintenance requirements to be implemented per 27 CCR §21190. In general, the PCDP and PCMMP will contain information on the following topics:  Introduction and Background  Regulatory Requirements - RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements - Title 27 CCR §21190 Landfill Postclosure Land Use  Soil Management Plan - Landfill Final Cover Requirements  Criteria for final cover components including concrete building slabs, asphalt parking lots, landscaped areas etc. - On-Site Soil Reuse Criteria - Import Fill Criteria - Foundation Installation - Dust Control and Monitoring - Stormwater Management  Landfill Gas Mitigation and Monitoring - Sub-slab Methane Mitigation System - Building Interior Methane Detection System  Health and Safety Plan  Construction Quality Assurance Plan  Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance - Landfill Final Cover  Periodic visual inspections of landfill cover integrity  Repair of landfill cover components as needed to maintain condition - Landfill Gas Mitigation and Monitoring Systems  Periodic inspections of visible Methane Mitigation System components (risers at the roof level, perimeter fresh air inlet vents etc.)  Testing and calibration of interior methane detection system  As needed replacement of landfill gas mitigation and monitoring system components 319 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 31 - Utilities  Periodic inspections of flexible connections or other settlement mitigation devices for utilities  Modification to utilities as necessary depending on settlement  Periodic inspections and maintenance of stormwater drainage systems  Emergency Response Plan 9.0 DEVIATIONS This Phase I ESA has been performed without deviation to, and in conformance with, ASTM Practice E 1527-05 and E1527-13 (Standard Practice for ESA: Phase I ESA Process) except as noted. No expressed or implied representation or warranty is included or intended in the report, except that the services were performed within the limits prescribed by the Client, and with the customary thoroughness and competence of our profession. 10.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The scope of services performed for this study did not include the following non-ASTM required Phase I ESA items: radon, asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP), lead in drinking water, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing material, wetlands, cultural and historical resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, mold, indoor air quality, and biological agents. 11.0 EXCEPTIONS The exceptions to the ASTM standards for this Phase I ESA include not assessing the Site history on five-year intervals from its initial development to its current land use. The format of this report also varies from the format presented in the ASTM standard for Phase I ESAs. It is Langan’s opinion that neither of these variations from the ASTM standard significantly affects the results of this Phase I ESA or the ability to assess the presence of a recognized environmental condition at the Site because land use did not change frequently enough to warrant a five year interval Site history evaluation. 320 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 32 12.0 REFERENCES The sources below were used during the performance of this Phase I ESA: AEI, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 16 March 1998. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 2013), Designation: E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. ACC Environmental Consultants, Letter Report of Limited Soil Investigation/Remediation, 349 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San Francisco, California dated 19 October 1995. CH2MHILL, Construction Quality Assurance Report City of Landfill, City of South San Francisco Landfill, Gull Drive Final Cover Extension, South San Francisco, California dated October 1996. Clayton Environmental Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 30 September 1996. CSS Environmental Services, Inc. 2019 Annual Report, Former Oyster Point Landfill, City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco, California dated 31 January 2020. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Wildberg Brothers (Boliden Metech) Oyster Point Facility Voluntary Cleanup Action Completion Letter, Five Year Review, South San Francisco, California dated 22 November 1995. DTSC, Wildberg Brothers (Boliden Metech) Oyster Point Facility Voluntary Cleanup Action Completion Letter, Five Year Review, South San Francisco, California dated 29 November 1995. Environ, Phase II Environmental Site Investigation Report, Vacant Land along Gull Drive between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California dated 14 June 2006. Environ, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vacant Land, Northwest of the Intersection of Gull Road and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California dated 29 June 2006. Environ, Preliminary Waste Characterization Study of Burn Ash Material, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 30 January 2008. Environ, Site Closure Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 11 August 2011. Environ, Risk Management Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 11 August 2011. 321 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 33 Environ, Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Report, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 6 October 2011. Environ, Site Closure Plan and Post Construction Maintenance Plan Letter to San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 26 February 2011. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck®: 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated 15 October 2020. EDR, The EDR Historical Topographic Map Report: 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated 15 October 2020. EDR, The EDR-City Directory Abstract: 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated 24 October 2020. EDR, The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package: 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated 15 October 2020. EDR, The Sanborn® Map Report: 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated 15 October 2020. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (Langan), Final Closure Plan, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California dated 8 September 2017. Langan, Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance Report, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California dated 8 September 2017. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) San Francisco Bay Region, Order No. 00-046, Updated Waste Discharge Requirements and Rescission of Order No. 77-19 for City of South San Francisco Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California dated 21 June 2000. RWQCB, Order No. R2-2017-0046, Amendment of Waste Discharge Requirements for City of South San Francisco Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California dated 15 December 2017. San Mateo County Environmental Health Services, Amended Site Closure Plan and Post- Construction Maintenance Plan Review Letter, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 25 April 2017. San Mateo County Environmental Health Services, Case Closure of One 2000 Gallon Steel Diesel UST at 366 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San Francisco, California, Case No. 550023 dated 1 November 1995. 322 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 101 Gull Drive/560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 22 December 2020 731747601 Page 34 San Mateo County Environmental Health Services, Case Closure of One Heating Fuel UST of Unknown Size, Wildberg Brothers, 349 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San Francisco, California, SMco Site: #559014 dated 17 July 2001. SCS Engineers, Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Construction Maintenance Plan, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 5 April 2017. SCS Engineers, Completion Report – Monitoring Well Abandonment/Destruction, Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-1 and MW-2, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 29 May 2018. SCS Engineers, Completion Report – Monitoring Well Abandonment/Destruction, Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-4 and MW-5, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 3 October 2018. SCS Engineers, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Landfill Due Diligence Report, 560 Eccles Avenue dated 21 June 2017. SCS Engineers, Soil Management Plan, 560 Eccles Avenue dated 22 February 2018. SMPO ELS, LLC and San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division, Covenant to Restrict Use of the Property, Environmental Restriction, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated 4 April 2019. United States Geological Survey, Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary geologic map of the San Francisco South 7.5' quadrangle and part of the Hunters Point 7.5' quadrangle, San Francisco Bay area dated 1998. 13.0 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS The signatures of the environmental professional(s) responsible for this Phase I ESA are provided on the submittal letter and/or cover page of this report. 14.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS The qualifications of the environmental professionals that conducted this ESA are presented in the resumes provided in Appendix H. Langan declares that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in #312.10 of 40 CFR 312. Langan has the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Site. Langan has developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in general conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. 323 FIGURES 324 P roje c t Figure Title SITE LOCATION MAP P ath: \\langan.c om \d ata\SFO\d ata6\731747601\P roje c t Data\Arc GIS\MXD\Environm e ntal_Figure s \Figure 1- Site Loc ation.m xd P roje c t No. Date Sc ale Drawn By Figure 12/21/2020 Note s :1. Site loc ate d in the San Franc is c o South USGS Quad rangle .2. Topographic bas e m ap is provid e d through Langan’s Es ri Arc GIS s oftware lic e ns ing and Arc GIS online , National Ge ographic Soc ie ty, i-c ube d .3. Site bound ary is bas e d on the San Mate o County parc e l d atas e t, Se pte m be r 2020. 4. All fe ature s s hown are approxim ate . 1 2,000 0 2,000 SCALE IN FEET Legend Approxim ate Site Bound ary 1 " = 2,000 '© 2020 LanganSITE . Langan Engine e ring and Environm e ntal Se rvic e s , Inc . 135 Main Stre e t, Suite 1500 San Franc is c o, CA 94105 T: 415.955.5200 F: 415.955.5201 www.langan.c om 731747601 CALIFOR NIA SOUTH SAN FR ANCISCO 101 GULL DRIVE/560 ECCLES AVENUE SAN MATEOCOUNTY NB 325 Project Figure Title SITE PLAN Path: \\langan.com\data\SFO\data6\731747601\Project Data\ArcGIS\MXD\Environmental_Figures\Figure 2 - Site Plan.mxd Project No. Date Scale Drawn By Figure 2 200 0 200 SCALE IN FEET 1 " = 200 '© 2020 LanganNotes:1. Aerial imagery provided by Near Map, 10/14/2020.2. Site boundary is based on the San Mateo County parceldataset, September 2020.3. Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Report, Figure 2 - WellLocations, prepared by Environ, 2011.4. Passive Landfill Gas Venting Trench not drawn to scale andis for reference purposes only. 5. All features shown are approximate. !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( &! Oyster Point Boulevard Gull DriveForbes Boulevard Former Oyster Point Landfill(Oyster Point Boulevard) 015010500(349 Oyster Point Boulevard) 015190090 015082180(336 Oyster Point Boulevard) 015082200(584 Eccles Avenue) 015231430 015082170(573 Forbes Boulevard) 015082260 015082250 015082240(560 Eccles Avenue) 015190180 015190999 015010980 015010950 LFG-9 PVT-1LFG-10 MW-5 MW-4 MW-2 MW-3 MW-1 LFG-1 LFG-8 LFG-2 . Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.12/21/2020 135 Main Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 T: 415.955.5200 F: 415.955.5201 www.langan.com CALIFORNIA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEOCOUNTY NB 731747601101 GULL DRIVE/560 ECCLES AVENUE Legend Approximate Site Boundary Surrounding Parcel Boundary !(560 Eccles Property Former Groundwater Monitoring Wells (Abandoned in 2018) !(Oyster Point Landfill Perimeter Landfill Gas Monitoring Wells Oyster Point Landfill Passive Landfill Gas Venting Trench&! 326 EXHIBITS 327 APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARYEXHIBIT 1328 333 APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARYEXHIBIT 3334 APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARYEXHIBIT 4335 APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY EXHIBIT 5 336 APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARYEXHIBIT 6337 EXHIBIT 7APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARY338 EXHIBIT 8APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARY339 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-70 Agenda Date:2/3/2022 Version:1 Item #: Annual Reorganization of the Chair and Vice Chair of the South San Francisco Planning Commission and Standing or Ad Hoc Committee Assignments (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commissioners discuss and appoint a Chair and Vice Chair by motion for the Planning Commission and discuss and assign members of the Joint Housing Standing Committee and Historic Preservation Ad-Hoc Committee. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Planning Commission selects a Chair and Vice Chair at the first regular meeting held in the year.As such, staff is requesting that the Commissioners discuss and appoint a Chair and Vice Chair.Traditionally,the Vice Chair is recommended for the Chair role and a Vice Chair is selected from the remaining Commissioners that did not serve during the previous calendar year in either the Chair or Vice Chair role. The Joint Housing Standing Commission is comprised of two (2)members of the City Council and two (2) members of the Planning Commission with an alternate selected.The current members are Vice Chair Michelle Evans,Commissioner Shihadeh,and Commissioner Faria as the alternate.This meeting is scheduled for the third Monday of each month at 5PM. The Historic Preservation Ad-Hoc Committee is comprised of (3)members,including Commissioners JulieAnn Murphy,Alex Tzang,and Norm Faira.This Ad-Hoc Committee is not expected to meet unless funding is provided for another round of historic preservation homeowner grants but could remain in place and available for periodic feedback on potential historic property redevelopment of the companion Historic Survey for the General Plan Update. CONCLUSION The year 2021 remained incredibly challenging for local governance and public review during the COVID-19 pandemic.Despite new technological challenges,the Planning Commission conducted successful remote public hearings and the review of several significant entitlement projects.Under Chair Michele Evan’s leadership,the Planning Commission remote public hearings were efficient,inclusive,and remarkably effective for public comment.Staff congratulates her effort and looks forward to in-person recognition when it becomes safe to do so. Staff anticipates that remote public hearings will be a primary engagement and review tool for 2022. As stated above,staff recommends the selection of a new Chair and Vice Chair for the Planning Commission and assignment of two members and an alternate for the Joint Housing Standing Committee. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/13/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™340