Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-04-20 Planning Commission AgendaThursday, June 4, 2020 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 1 June 4, 2020Planning 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. Please note that due to the COVID-19 outbreak, this meeting is teleconference only, and will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Order N29-20 issued on March 17, 2020 allowing for deviation of teleconference rules required by the Brown Act and pursuant to the Order of the Health Officer of San Mateo County dated March 31, 2020. The public may view or comment during this meeting from a computer, laptop,tablet, or smartphone: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/795557397 You may need to also install the GoToMeeting app on your device prior to joining the meeting: Https://global.gotomeeting.com/install/795557397 You can also dial in using your phone: United States: +1 (571) 317-3129 / 795-557-397 Toll Free: 1 877 568 4106 Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the GoToMeeting 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. 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. 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 Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022 2 June 4, 2020Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Thursday, June 4, 2020, 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 webecd@ssf.net. If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about our procedure. 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 Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022 3 June 4, 2020Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 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. 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 webecd@ssf.net. Alan Wong, Chairperson Michele Evans Vice Chairperson Norm Faria, Commissioner JulieAnn Murphy, Commissioner Alex Tzang, Commissioner Sam Shihadeh, Commissioner Robert Bernardo, Commissioner Sailesh Mehra, Secretary to the Planning Commission Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner Billy Gross, Senior Planner Adena Friedman, Senior Planner Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner Michele Clary, 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. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022 4 June 4, 2020Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 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 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022 5 June 4, 2020Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding consideration of a Design Review Modification, Development Agreement Amendment and Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the previously approved Research & Development project at 233 East Grand Avenue/328-340 Roebling Road in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner) 1. Att 1 - 2012 Approved Project Plans Att 2 - DRB Minutes of 4-21-2020 Att 3 - 2012 Approved Preliminary TDM Plan Att 4 - 2012 Approved Development Agreement Attachments: Resolution making findings and determining that the 233 East Grand/ 328-340 Roebling Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2012 Recirculated Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and that the 2020 Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. 1a. Exhibit A - 2012 Recirculated IS-MND & Appendices Exhibit B - 2020 Addendum_May2020 Attachments: Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council take the following actions: (1) introduce an ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (DAA20-0001) between Bayside Area Development LLC and the City, and (2) adopt a resolution approving a Design Review Modification (DR20-0016) for the development of 233 East Grand Avenue / 328-340 Roebling Road in the Business and Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District, subject to the Draft Conditions of Approval. 1b. Exhibit A1 - Draft City Council Ord for First Amendment to the DA Exhibit A2- Draft 328 Roebling_1st DA Amendment Exhibit B1 - 2020 Draft Revised Project COAs Exhibit B2 - 2012 Adopted COAs Exhibit C - Revised Project Plans Attachments: Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022 6 June 4, 2020Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022 7 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-315 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. Report regarding consideration of a Design Review Modification,Development Agreement Amendment and Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the previously approved Research &Development project at 233 East Grand Avenue/328-340 Roebling Road in the Business Technology Park (BTP)Zone District. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1)Approve a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council make a determination that the 233 East Grand Avenue/328-340 Roebling Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the previously certified 2012 Mitigated Negative Declaration and that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and 2)Approve a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council take the following actions:(1)introduce an Ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement between Bayside Area Development,LLC,and the City;and (2)adopt a Resolution approving the Design Review Modification to allow for an increase in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.81 to 1.0 for the project at 233 East Grand Ave /328-340 Roebling Road in the Business and Technology Park (BTP)Zoning District,subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND Overview The project site is located on Roebling Road,at the eastern corner of East Grand Avenue,and is currently fully developed.The site is sloped,with the rear of the site being approximately 23 feet higher than the frontage on East Grand Avenue.The existing 2.97 acre site is comprised of three separate parcels,each containing one office/warehouse building.The warehouse building located at 233 E.Grand Avenue was constructed in 1947 and the warehouse buildings located at 328 and 340 Roebling Road were constructed in 1958. On November 12,2012,the City Council approved entitlements to allow the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a campus-style Research &Development (R&D)complex with two 2-story office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 105,536 square feet,with a combination of at-grade and subterranean parking (Entitled Project). Specific entitlements included in the approval include: ·Design Review for the construction of the two separate buildings and on-site amenities. ·Use Permit to allow a reduction from the standard parking ratio,with an approved ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. ·Parcel Map to reconfigure the site to create two parcels. ·Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Plan to require a 35%alternative mode split for the project. ·Development Agreement to clarify and obligate several Project features and mitigation measures, City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™8 File #:20-315 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. ·Development Agreement to clarify and obligate several Project features and mitigation measures, including transportation impact fees,rails to trails improvements (which have been constructed),transit station enhancements fee,park fees,public safety impact fee,and TDM reporting and monitoring requirements while simultaneously vesting the applicant’s approvals for 10 years. ·Certification of the 2012 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2012 Recirculated IS/MND). PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ DISCUSSION As with similar projects that were entitled in the early 2010s,the architectural and site planning expectations for bio-technology campuses has evolved since the project was originally entitled.Accordingly,Healthpeak Properties submitted an application in February 2020 for a Design Review Modification and a First Amendment to the DA (Revised Project).The Revised Project would include the following changes to the Entitled Project: ·Revise the site plan to have a five-story stand-alone R&D building fronting on East Grand Avenue and Roebling Avenue, with a three-story parking structure at the rear of the site. ·Increase the entitled square footage to 129,919 square feet of R&D space,increasing the density of development on the site from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.81 to the maximum allowed of 1.0. The Revised Project would continue to be in keeping with the Use Permit,Parcel Map and TDM Plan as previously approved,and the original conditions of approval related to these items would continue to apply to the Revised Project. Proposed Design Review Modifications The Entitled Project includes two separate office/R&D buildings;the Revised Project would combine the office/R&D area into one building that would be located at the front of the lot,with a more modern architecture in keeping with recent buildings completed in the general area.Architectural materials will include multiple types of glass walls with vertical fins interspersed,and a metal screen system for rooftop mechanical equipment. Parking for the Revised Project will be consolidated into one parking structure located at the rear of the site, behind the office building.The parking structure will be constructed using structural concrete with aluminum fins and infill wire mesh.All of the site parking will be located inside the parking structure,which allows for an improved site/landscape plan by removing at-grade parking close to the buildings,to be replaced with enhanced tenant open spaces and landscape areas. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant’s request for a First Amendment to the Development Agreement (First Amendment to the DA) seeks only minor modifications to the agreement. The modifications include: ·Update to the Project Description to reflect the Revised Project ·Update to the project fees to apply the Commercial Linkage Fee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee for only the approximately 25,000 square feet of additional building area proposed ·Agreement by the developer to participate in a Community Facilities District,if formed,at an annual tax rate equivalent to no more than $1.00 per gross project square foot on the Roebling Road property or such annual tax rate that applies to similarly situated Life Sciences projects in the East of 101 The proposed First Amendment to the DA is included as Attachment 1 to the draft City Council Ordinance, City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™9 File #:20-315 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. The proposed First Amendment to the DA is included as Attachment 1 to the draft City Council Ordinance, which is attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A.Note that following a recommendation by the Planning Commission,the First Amendment to the DA will be considered by the City Council through adoption of an Ordinance. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD On April 21,2020,the Design Review Board reviewed the Revised Project application and recommended approval with the following suggestions: 1.Consider revising the eastern elevation to make it less monotonous. 2.Revise the proposed planting plan to include tree species that scale to the height of the buildings. 3.Consider the following additional revisions to the planting plan: ·Excessive use of alders and poplars which are medium and high water use species.Honey Locust does not like the wind and Cordyline is not a tree. ·The poplar,Buckeye and Adler that are being proposed at the parking and service areas are all deciduous and will provide no visual screening in the winter months. ·The Samual Sommers Magnolia is a medium water use and too small in scale with the building. ·There are too many species on the list that are medium water,which will not meet the WUCOLS requirements. ·The proposed White Rockrose will require fast draining sandy soils to survive.Soils locally are too clayey. ·The applicant has the opportunity to provide tall 75 ft.-100 ft.species that will help scale the large buildings.Consider some clumps of taller evergreen trees such as Monterey Cypress planted in loamy sand,Canary Island Pine,Aleppo Pine,Bishops Pine,Deodar Cedar,Eucalyptus,if the existing poor soil is not changed. ·Adding height with some evergreen species will help scale the tall buildings. 4.Consider how the wind from the West &Northwest will be mitigated at the main plaza.If appropriate, incorporate wind screens or other mitigating measures to make the plaza with outdoor seating useable space. 5.Consider shifting the drop off area to the south away from the parking entry and use the extra space for wind mitigation at the plaza. 6.Provide a section showing the relationship of the parking structure to the adjacent solar farm to the east, to be sure a permanent building shadow does not interfere with the solar system. 7.Consider adding solar panels to the parking structure. Draft condition of approval A-2 requires that the applicant incorporate the DRB’s recommendations prior to the issuance of building permits. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The Project site is located in the Business and Technology Park land use category and zoning district,and is part of the “East of 101” Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan. The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan as it has been designed to promote campus-style uses,such as biotechnology,high-technology and research and development uses.The site layout and overall architecture would help shape the urban character of the East of 101 Area.The Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment will not result in any substantive changes,and City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™10 File #:20-315 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment will not result in any substantive changes,and the overall project will remain consistent with the intent and purpose of the General Plan land use designation and comply with all development standards of the Zoning Ordinance.The BTP Zoning District allows for a maximum FAR of 1.0 and the applicant’s request to increase the FAR to 1.0 meets the FAR criteria per Section 20.110 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2012 Recirculated IS/MND)was prepared for the original entitlements by the environmental consulting firm Lamphier Gregory.The 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was circulated on February 17,2012 for a thirty-day review period.A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 4,2012 to receive comments from the public.The City Council adopted the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND (State Clearinghouse Number 2009022013) on November 14, 2012. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15162,when an IS/MND has been adopted for a project,the City is not required to prepare a subsequent negative declaration or EIR for that project unless there are substantial changes proposed to the project that would require major revisions to the prior environmental document,or that new information is discovered that was not known and could not have been known with due diligence at the time the prior environmental document was adopted.Instead,under section 15164,if certain changes are made to the project that do not rise to the level of substantial change or new information,the City would prepare an addendum to the IS/MND. In this case,for the proposed modifications to the 233 East Grand Ave/328-340 Roebling Project,an addendum to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was prepared (2020 Addendum)to evaluate whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required.The 2020 Addendum concludes that the implementation of the modified project will not cause significant impacts,that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND,and that no significant information has come to light since the MND was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts.The 2020 Addendum further concludes that the proposed modifications to the Project do not represent a substantial change to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND and that the Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis as described in the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND.Consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164,the City has reviewed the 2020 Addendum and supplemental analysis (Exhibit B to the accompanying CEQA resolution)and has determined that the Project is consistent with previously adopted environmental documents and that the 2020 Addendum serves as the appropriate environmental document without necessitating the preparation of a supplemental EIR or subsequent negative declaration. CONCLUSION The Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment is in keeping with the previously approved 233 East Grand Ave/328-340 Roebling Road entitlements,and will continue the transformation of this previously underutilized site to a high density state-of-the-art Office/R&D campus in keeping with the vision of the General Plan,East of 101 Area Plan and Business &Technology Park Zoning District.There are no new or increased environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. For these reasons,staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council make a determination that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the project,and approve a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve the First Amendment to the DA (DAA20-0001)and Design Review Modification (DR20- 0016), subject to the Draft Conditions of Approval. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™11 File #:20-315 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. ATTACHMENTS 1.233 East Grand / 328-340 Roebling Approved Drawings (2012) 2.Design Review Board Minutes - April 21, 2020 3.Approved TDM Plan 4.Original Development Agreement ASSOCIATIONS 1.Draft CEQA Resolution (File 20-316) A.Exhibit A - 2012 Recirculated IS/ MND B.Exhibit B - 2020 Addendum 2.Draft Entitlements Resolution (File 20-317) A.Exhibit A - Draft City Council Ordinance i.Attachment 1- First Amendment to the Development Agreement B.Exhibit B -Revised Project Draft Conditions of Approval and 2012 Entitled Project Adopted Conditions of Approval C.Exhibit C - 233 East Grand /328-340 Roebling Revised Project Plans City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 - 3 - 20 2 - 3 - 21 22 1 23 24 ABCDEFECEE EAE!"#$EE%&&EE’%&E(EE)*ABCDEF ABC ’BE+EC%D&’, E’BE+EC%’%D& AE-E(ED%%BC CCBEEA".EA-EAEBB AB CADEFDA ADA 25 ABCDEFECEEAEF !E"#$ EE%&EE&&’&E(EE)!ABCDEF ABC ’BE*EC%D&’&+,E’BE*EC%’%D& AE-E(ED%%BC C&CBEEA#.EA-EAE&BB ABCDEFBAE EAFBAE 26 ABCDEFECECE E EE!"#$EE%&’&EE’&BB’&E!EE()ABCDEF ABC *BE+EC%D&’*’,-E*BE+EC%*%D&’ AE.E/ED%%BC C’CBEEA"0EA.EAE’BB AB ACDABAEFAABCDEDF B BFEFBE EBFBE 27 ABCDEFECEEE E! "#EE$%$EE%$B$$E!EE&’ABCDEF ABC (BE)ECD$%(%*+E(BE)EC(D$% AE,E-EDBC C%CBEEA .EA,EAE%BB ABBCDE ABBCDE ABDFAB DCADDABCDEFBAE EAFBAE 28 2 ALUMINUM WINDOW WALL SYSTEMS-FOR ENTRANCE ONLY METAL CANOPY AND COLUMN RECESSED ENTRY FINISHES:METAL PANELS SNAP-ON ACCENT ALUMINUMMULLIONS, TYP. VISION GLASS METAL RIB PANEL -ROOF SCREEN WALL SYSTEM ADD-ON METAL SUN-SHADE 10"-12" THK CAST CONC.PANELS, PAINTED WITH REVEALS METAL RIB-PANELTOP OF CONCRETE WALL STAINLESS STEEL ORALUMINUM HANDRAILS STONE WALL AT ENTRY, TYP. GROUND FLOOD LIGHT FORSIGNAGE, TYP.SPANDREL GLASS WITHCERAMIC FRIT 10"-12" THK CAST CONC.PANELS, PAINTED WITH REVEALS PAINTED METAL SECURITYWIRE-SCREEN, TYP."AMERISTONE" FINISHESAT BASE OF CAST CONCRETEWALLS REVISED 04/26/2012 29 3 ALUMINUM WINDOW WALL SYSTEMS -AT BALCONY, TYP. METAL CANOPY AND COLUMN METAL RIB PANEL -ROOF SCREEN WALL SYSTEM ADD-ON METAL SUN-SHADE VISION GLASS, TYP. STAINLESS STEEL OR ALUMINUMRAILING "AMERISTONE" FINISHES AT BASEOF CAST CONCRETE WALLS PAINTED METAL SECURITYWIRE-SCREEN, TYP. PAINTED METAL DOOR REVISED 04/26/2012 30 4 REVISED 04/26/2012 10"-12" THK CAST CONC.PANELS, PAINTED WITH REVEALS ADD-ON METAL SUN-SHADE SNAP-ON ACCENT ALUMINUM MULLIONS, TYP. VISION GLASS "AMERISTONE" FINISHES AT BASEOF CAST CONCRETE WALLS PAINTED METAL SECURITYWIRE-SCREEN, TYP.SPANDREL GLASS WITHCERAMIC FRIT, TYP. METAL FINISH ALUMINUM WINDOW WALL SYSTEMS - FOR GARAGE EXIT 31 5 10"-12" THK CAST CONC.PANELS, PAINTED WITH REVEALS METAL RIB PANEL -ROOF SCREEN WALL SYSTEM VISION GLASS, TYP. METAL RIB-PANEL - OF CONCRETE WALL UTILITY/TRASH ENCLOSURE:10" THK SITE CAST CONC. PANELSW/INTEGRAL COLOR, AND REVEALS PAINTED METAL DOOR "AMERISTONE" FINISHES ATBASE OF SITE CAST CONCRETEWALLS PAINTED METAL ROLLING DOORWITH MAN DOOR SPANDREL GLASS WITH CERAMICFRIT REVISED 04/26/2012 32 6 REVISED 04/26/2012 33 7 REVISED 04/26/2012 34 8 REVISED 04/26/2012 35 9 REVISED 04/26/2012 36 10 REVISED 04/26/2012 37 11REVISED 04/26/2012 REVISED 01/11/2010 38 1112REVISED 04/26/2012 39 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES  CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: April 21, 2020 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Mateo, Nelson, Vieira & Winchester MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF PRESENT: Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager Billy Gross, Senior Planner Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business – None 2. OWNER Gladys Ann Callan TR ET AL APPLICANT Proto Architecture LLP - Alan Cross ADDRESS 2211-2245 Gellert Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P20-0002: UP20-0001, DR20-0002, TDM20-0002 & ND20-0001 PROJECT NAME New Automotive Car Sales Lot (Case Planner: Gaspare Annibale) DESCRIPTION Use Permit, Design Review and Transportation Demand Program to allow a new automotive car sales lot at 2211 & 2245 Gellert Blvd in the Community Commercial (CC) Zone District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design concept. 2. Aesthetically the design was well presented. 3. The Board is concern with the location of a car sales lot across from a residential development. 4. The Board sees the beacon as a possible architectural feature, while others felt the beacon to be a tall monument or a billboard sign. 5. The beacon element needs additional details to include dimensions and material finish with updated renderings. 6. The Mercedes logo presented on the plans is considered signage. 7. The site is lacking the appropriate landscaping screening and is not sufficient. 8. The proposed lighting for the campus is excessive and not appropriate for nighttime. 9. The proposed lighting will glare directly into the residential development that is located across the street, as well into the surrounding area. 10. The proposed plan is lacking street trees along Gellert Blvd, as well as on-site. 41 11. The plan needs to incorporate trees within the development. 12. The Board needs to see larger deliberate landscape treatment along all perimeter edges and the trees closer spaced. 13. The proposed tree species selected will not grow to scale the height of the buildings or to help soften the view to the 4-story residential properties located uphill to the west. 14. The proposed Brisbane Box and Fern Pine will not reach its potential height to scale the buildings and will not survive with the SSF Wind Element. 15. The number and placement of trees and planter islands within the plan, do not meet code. 16. Consider wide finger planters that will run the length of the site with large deep soil pits that will be capable of supporting large trees. 17. The large existing trees along Gellert Blvd should be protected in place and incorporate taller evergreen species with a street tree pattern. 18. The soil on this site is poor and not deep enough to support large growth of the trees that are being proposed. 19. Consider hardy species such as Pine, Cypress, Eucalyptus, which are growing well within the surrounding area. 20. The proposed tree pit should be large enough to support mature tree size. The planting holes should be 10’ x 10’ x 3’ in depth. 21. The proposed shrubs listed are too small and will not provide any screening or visual interest along Gellert Blvd. 22. The night light levels are a big concern and any overly bright light should be avoided in both the parking lot and the signage light levels. 23. The proposed light levels are too high for the site. The typical lighting in parking lots in SSF are1 fc. 24. The photometric plan is showing 22 fc and higher along Gellert Blvd. The site is located across from residential units, which will impair their main view to the bay. 25. Consider reducing the fc levels. 26. The proposed plans are lacking an ADA accessible path to the buildings and to the public right of way. 27. The main existing sidewalk from the showroom to Gellert Blvd does not show a grading plan. 28. The main existing sidewalk from the showroom to Gellert Blvd does not clearly show the proposed grading. This appears to be an internal walkway and therefore must meet code for the slope to Gellert Blvd ROW. 29. Consider separating the sidewalk route to public ROW, from the curb, to lengthen and flatted, if you are required to meet code. 30. Consider cutting a section from the residential units west of Gellert Blvd, and through the site and Caltrans ROW to 280 to help show the relationship of the views, the trees, the open parking and lighting. 31. Show on the plans, the locations of the light poles and heights. Resubmittal required. 3. OWNER Bayside Area Develp. LLC APPLICANT Bayside Area Develp. LLC ADDRESS 328 Roebling Rd (233 East Grand Avenue) PROJECT NUMBER P07-0077: PP20-0003 & DR20-0013 PROJECT NAME Precise Plan (Case Planner: Billy Gross) 42 DESCRIPTION Precise Plan Modification to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of a previously entitled project to construct one x-story new office/R&D building totaling xxx sf, and a x-level parking structure on a 2.97 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District and determination that the project is consistent with the previously adopted EIR. The Board had the following comments: 1. Consider revising the eastern elevation to make it less monotonous. 2. Revise the proposed planting plan to include tree species that scale to the height of the buildings. 3. Consider the following additional revisions to the planting plan:  Excessive use of alders and poplars which are medium and high water use species. Honey Locust does not like the wind and Cordyline is not a tree.  The poplar, Buckeye and Adler that are being proposed at the parking and service areas are all deciduous and will provide no visual screening in the winter months.  The Samual Sommers Magnolia is a medium water use and too small in scale with the building.  There are too many species on the list that are medium water, which will not meet the WUCOLS requirements.  The proposed White Rockrose will require fast draining sandy soils to survive. Soils locally are too clayey.  The applicant has the opportunity to provide tall 75 ft. – 100 ft. species that will help scale the large buildings. Consider some clumps of taller evergreen trees such as Monterey Cypress planted in loamy sand, Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Eucalyptus, if the existing poor soil is not changed.  Adding height with some evergreen species will help scale the tall buildings. 4. Consider how the wind from the West & Northwest will be mitigated at the main plaza. If appropriate, incorporate wind screens or other mitigating measures to make the plaza with outdoor seating useable space. 5. Consider shifting the drop off area to the south away from the parking entry and use the extra space for wind mitigation at the plaza. 6. Provide a section showing the relationship of the parking structure to the adjacent solar farm to the east, to be sure a permanent building shadow does not interfere with the solar system. 7. Consider adding solar panels to the parking structure. Recommend Approval with Conditions 4. OWNER BioMed Realty – Railroad Spur LP APPLICANT BioMed Realty – Railroad Spur LP ADDRESS APN #: 015-071-220 PROJECT NUMBER P20-0013: PP20-0002 & DR20-0014 43 PROJECT NAME GOP 5 / Rail Spurs (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Precise Plan and Design Review to construct site and landscape improvements and retaining walls to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections and site infrastructure for adjacent parcels within the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District (GSPD) and Business and Technology Park Zoning District (BTP) in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and determination that the 2020 Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Board had the following comments: 1. Revise the Park Street frontage to include a sidewalk along the southern side to connect the accessible paths. 2. Provide a detail on the proposed cantilever ramp materials and finishes. 3. Revise the plans to show a consistent trail width, either 12 ft. or 14 ft. 4. Revise the landscape plans to indicate the plant species on the slopes, the planting areas and irrigation. 5. Revise the landscape plan to show the root spaces for the proposed trees in relation to the retaining wall foundations and footing widths. 6. Consider how wind will affect the design and indicate any proposed mitigation measures. 7. Provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures prior to the issuance of building permits. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 5. OWNER BioMed Realty APPLICANT BioMed Realty ADDRESS 475 Eccles Avene PROJECT NUMBER P11-0101: UPM20-0001& DR20-0012 PROJECT NAME GOP 5 – R&D Campus (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Use Permit Modification and Design Review Modification to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of a previously entitled project to construct two 4-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 sf, and a 5-level parking structure on a 6.1 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District and determination that the project is consistent with the previously adopted EIR. 44 The Board had the following comments: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, provide accessibility plans from the parking garage to the buildings and public right-of-way. 2. Provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures prior to the issuance of building permits.. 3. Revise the proposed planting plan to include tree species that scale to the height of the buildings. 4. Consider the following additional revisions to the planting plan: a. The tree species in zone 2 are not sufficient to create any affective wind mitigation. b. Alder, Birch and Pear are especially subject to wind damage. c. Trees to consider: Monterey Cypress (planted in loamy sand), Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Norfolk Island Pine, Eucalyptus – if the soil is not changed. d. Westringia fruiticosa may not survive a frost. e. Ceanothus “Yankee Point” is not a long lived species, consider Ceanothus “Anchor Bay”. f. Muhlenbergia Rigens does poorly in the cold windy SSF climate. Muhlenbergia Capillaris is very successful, as well as the other clump grasses. g. Cistus X Hibridus is often short lived and requires fast draining sandy soil to survive. 5. Provide details regarding the proposed depths of the topsoil and clean subsoil in the landscape areas? The success of proposed trees will depend on deep low clay soils, best is loamy sand with less than 10% clay. 6. Consider revising the connection between the promenade and Eccles Ave to make it more prominent and visible from Eccles.. Recommend Approval with Comments 6. OWNER BioMed Realty- Salil Payappilly APPLICANT BioMed Realty- Salil Payappilly ADDRESS 850-900 Gateway Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P08-0034: PP20-0001 & DR20-0013 PROJECT NAME Precise Plan GOP 4 (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Precise Plan and Design Review to construct Phase 4 of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project, including 182,000 sf of Office/R&D development, a 6-story parking structure, surface parking, and other on- and off-site improvements, at 850-900 Gateway Blvd in the Gateway Specific Plan District, and determination that the project is within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2010 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that the 2020 Addendum to the EIR is consistent with CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 45 1. The Venturi effect of wind speeds at the southwest corner of GOP-4-N will likely render the adjacent seating to be un-useable. Concern for the wind in this portion of the plan may require a design for some wind attenuation. 2. Consider the following revisions to the planting plan:  The California Sycamore is subject to mildew, consider a different species.  The Groves are planted too small to medium size trees. The applicant has the opportunity to provide tall 75 ft. – 100 ft. species that will help scale the large buildings.  Consider these trees: Monterey Cypress planted in loamy sand with proper and good drainage, Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Norfolk Island Pine, Eucalyptus – if the existing poor soil is not changed.  The large planter west of GOP-4-S should also be planted with 75 ft. – 100 ft. species.  Pinus Elderica, Afghan Pine to the northeast at the garage entry will be unsuccessful at the adjacent property. Consider an alternate species.  Brisbane Box will likely not do well in the wind and should be changed to a more wind tolerant species. The tree species in zone 2 are not sufficient to create any affective wind mitigation.  Alder, Birch and Pear are especially subject to wind damage  Westringia fruiticosa may not survive a frost.  Ceanothus “Yankee Point” is not a long lived species, consider Ceanothus “Anchor Bay”.  Muhlenbergia Rigens does poorly in the cold windy SSF climate. Muhlenbergia Capillaris is very successful, as well as the other clump grasses.  Cistus X Hibridus is often short lived and requires fast draining sandy soil to survive. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, provide accessibility plans from the parking garage to the buildings and public right-of-way. Consider relocating the access to the outer edges of the structure with direct access out of the building. Also consider putting accessible parking in a smaller footprint at the upper levels near the elevators, if not enough accessible space is on the ground floor. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 46 Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan (TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN) Prepared for HCP – Life Science Estates and City of South San Francisco Originally Prepared: March 5, 2009 Updated: August 27, 2012 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Prepared by 916.448.2440 47 BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3 (ROEBLING) PRELIMINARY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN) Prepared for: HCP – Life Science Estates Prepared by: In association with TDM Specialists, Inc. (408) 420-2411 Originally Prepared: March 5, 2009 Updated: August 27, 2012 48 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ................................................................................... 1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS .................................................. 3 3.0 EMPLOYEE MODE SPLIT EAST OF HIGHWAY 101.......................................................... 4 Table 1 - Comparable Transportation Mode-Use Rates ..................................................... 4 Table 2 - Estimated Alternative Transportation Modes ..................................................... 5 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 5 Table 3 - Britannia Modular Labs 3 Project Specifics .......................................................... 6 Project Location Map .......................................................................................................... 7 TDM Site Plan – Britannia Modular Labs 3 (Roebling) ........................................................ 8 5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................ 9 5.1 Reduced Parking Supply ............................................................................................. 9 5.2 Carpool and Vanpool Designations ............................................................................ 9 5.3 Preferential Parking Space Placement ....................................................................... 9 5.4 Free Parking for Car and Vanpools and Clean Fuel Vehicles ................................... 10 5.5 Passenger Loading Zone .......................................................................................... 10 6.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDEMATCHING SERVICE .................................................. 10 Britannia South San Francisco Commute Website ........................................................... 11 7.0 TRANSIT ................................................................................................................... 12 7.1 Shuttle Services to Britannia Modular Labs 3 .......................................................... 12 Table 4 - Shuttle Service to Britannia Modular Labs 3...................................................... 12 7.2 Shuttle/Bus Stops ..................................................................................................... 13 7.3 Additional Shuttle Services to Britannia Modular Labs 3 ........................................ 13 7.4 Caltrain ..................................................................................................................... 13 Shuttle Service Maps (Caltrain, BART and Ferry) .............................................................. 14 7.5 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) ................................................................................. 15 7.6 SamTrans .................................................................................................................. 15 7.7 Downtown Dasher Taxi Service ............................................................................... 15 7.8 Ferry Service ............................................................................................................. 15 49 8.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE AMENITIES ...................................................................... 16 8.1 Onsite Pedestrian Connections ................................................................................ 16 8.2 Enhanced Bicycle Parking – Long-Term and Short-Term ......................................... 16 Table 5 - Bicycle Parking Recommendation ...................................................................... 16 8.3 Bicycle Connections ................................................................................................. 17 8.4 Bicycle Resources ..................................................................................................... 17 8.5 Showers and Clothes Lockers .................................................................................. 18 Table 6 - Proposed Shower and Locker Facilities.............................................................. 18 City of South San Francisco Bicycle Map .......................................................................... 19 Subsection of City of South San Francisco – East of Highway 101 ................................... 20 Bay Trails Bicycle Map ....................................................................................................... 21 9.0 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR/COMMUTER ASSISTANCE ................................... 22 10.0 COMMUTE INCENTIVES AND PROMOTIONS .............................................................. 23 10.1 Commuter Choice – Pre Tax Options ....................................................................... 23 10.2 Commute Allowances and Subsidies ....................................................................... 23 10.3 Try Transit Program ................................................................................................. 23 10.4 Carpool Incentive Programs ..................................................................................... 24 10.5 Vanpool Incentive Programs .................................................................................... 25 10.6 Free Bridge Toll ........................................................................................................ 26 10.7 Trip Planner .............................................................................................................. 26 11.0 GUARANTEED EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM .................................................. 26 12.0 ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULE INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................... 27 12.1 Flextime .................................................................................................................... 27 12.2 Teleworking Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 28 12.3 Compressed Work Week ......................................................................................... 28 13.0 TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE INFORMATION .......................................................... 28 13.1 Transportation Kiosk ................................................................................................ 29 Figure 1 - Sample Transportation Information Board ...................................................... 29 13.2 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Commute Website and Resources ................................. 30 Figure 2 - Sample HCP Britannia Modular Labs 3 Commute Website .............................. 30 13.3 Employee Transportation Flier ................................................................................ 31 13.4 Designated Employer/Tenant Contact .................................................................... 31 50 13.5 Promotional Programs ............................................................................................. 31 13.6 Tenant Training and Resource Representatives ...................................................... 32 Employee Transportation Flier ......................................................................................... 33 14.0 PROJECT AMENITIES ................................................................................................. 34 15.0 KICK-OFF EVENT ....................................................................................................... 35 16.0 ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION FAIR AND SPECIAL PROMOTIONS .................................. 35 17.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION ..................................................... 35 18.0 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT ..................................................... 37 18.1 Annual Employee Commute Survey ........................................................................ 37 18.2 Annual Summary Report .......................................................................................... 37 18.3 Triennial Audit Report .............................................................................................. 38 18.4 Penalty for Noncompliance ..................................................................................... 38 18.5 Tenant Performance and Lease Language ............................................................... 38 19.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 39 EXHIBIT A – Accounting of C/CAG Off-Peak Trip Credits ATTACHMENTS: Employer Shuttle Rider Pass Program Flier Mid-day Taxi Service – Downtown Dasher Program Flier Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Flier Free Transit Ticket Distribution Program – Try Transit Registration Carpool Incentive Flier – You Pool, We Pay! Vanpool Incentive Flier Emergency Ride Home Program – Employee Focus Emergency Ride Home Program – Employer Focus List of Nearby Amenities (food service, restaurants, coffee, rental car, etc.) 51 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Traffic congestion and air pollution are critical concerns in maintaining a healthy economy and lifestyle for the City of South San Francisco. Traffic congestion results in time lost to residents and commuters and increased demand on City fiscal resources for roadway construction and maintenance. It is estimated that mobile sources, such as automobiles, account for 50% of all air pollution in the City of South San Francisco. As a leader in sustainable commute-friendly projects, HCP-Life Science Estates has prepared an aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project. HCP has consistently designed their San Francisco Bay Area projects to meet commute- sustainable standards by incorporating TDM elements in their projects. This dedication to reducing trips, air pollution, traffic congestion, and parking demand contributes to successful carbon footprint and greenhouse gas reductions of each project’s construction and long-term operations. As implementation and monitoring requirements stemming from AB32 and SB375 are pending, developers and employers are going to be required to reduce impacts from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. By reducing emissions now, projects like Britannia Modular Labs 3 will be ahead of the mitigation process. HCP has prepared this TDM plan in compliance with Chapter 20.400 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The mitigation measures are also consistent with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Guidelines for the Implementation of the Land Use Component of the Congestion Management Program. This plan identifies a 35% alternative mode-use goal that addresses both traffic and air quality concerns in the City of South San Francisco. In addition, this document provides supporting justification for the current reduced parking feature of this project. The plan assumes project occupancy based on future tenancy of a research and development (R&D) uses totaling 105,536 square feet with a 0.8123 floor area ratio (FAR) – increased from 050. Total surface and garage parking is estimated at 288 spaces. The proposed parking ratio for the development is a rate of 2.70 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This plan includes TDM measures specifically developed for the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project. Measures include mid-day shuttle services, secure bicycle parking, on-site commuter kiosk, trial transit pass programs, and an emergency ride home program for alternative transportation users. The plan has a variety of infrastructure and incentive-based measures, which encourage all forms of alternative mode-use, such as carpool and vanpool, transit, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting. HCP is committed to encouraging tenant participation and will strongly recommend and support any enhanced tenant-sponsored employee commute programs. 52 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page ii This project plan is designed to address the trip reduction requirement and reduced onsite parking for the project. According to the Traffic Impact Study for the 328 Roebling Road project, prepared by Mark D. Crane, P.E., the peak-hour trip assessment for the project was 127 p.m. trips. The Britannia Modular Labs 3 TDM Plan achieves mitigation for all peak-hour trips as shown in the C/CAG mitigation matrix presented in Exhibit A. The matrix shows total mitigation of 326 peak-hour trip credits. The transportation mode-use rate will be monitored annually with the first employee commute survey to be conducted one year after occupancy of the project. An alternative mode-use summary report will be submitted to the City’s Principal Planner after the annual employee commute survey has been conducted. Efforts to reduce employee drive-alone commuting and expand the mode options available to commuters can take several years to develop and mature. However, if a TDM Plan is implemented aggressively and with management support, results can be immediate. According to regional surveys, the current commute environment in San Mateo County and the City of South San Francisco offers project commuters lower levels of roadway congestion and higher highway travel speeds. Reduced traffic congestion contributes toward single-occupant vehicle (SOV) usage. Conversely, higher fuel costs encourage greater use of travel alternatives such as carpooling and transit. The measures and elements contained in this plan are consistent with other employee commute programs in the San Francisco Bay Area and other well-performing HCP projects. This plan reflects the 18 measures required by the City of South San Francisco and nine additional supporting TDM measures. These measures include: Required TDM Measures 1. Bicycle Parking: Long-Term 2. Bicycle Parking: Short-Term 3. Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service 4. Designated Employer/Tenant Point of Contact 5. Direct Route to Transit (well-lit path or sidewalk to shuttles) 6. Free Parking for Carpools and Vanpools 7. Emergency Ride Home Program 8. Information Board/Kiosks 9. Passenger Drop Off and Loading Area 10. Pedestrian Connections 11. 10% Preferred Location Carpool and Vanpool Parking 12. Promotional Programs and Events – Ridesharing 13. Showers and Clothes Lockers 14. Shuttle Programs (Utah-Grand Shuttles and Downtown Dasher) 15. Transportation Management Association Participation 16. Annual Employee Commute Survey (100% participation, non response = SOV) 17. Annual TDM Summary Report to City Council & Planning Commission 18. TDM Site Plan 53 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page iii Additional TDM Measures 19. Commute incentives and promotions (Commuter Choice, Try Transit, Carpool Incentives, etc.) 20. Reduced parking 21. Alternative Work Schedule Infrastructure (flextime, telework, compressed work week) 22. Britannia commuter resource Website 23. Employee Transportation Flier 24. Tenant Training and Owner-Provided Resource Representative 25. Onsite Kick-off Event 26. Annual Onsite Transportation Spare the Air Fair 27. Tenant Performance Requirement and Lease Language 54 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Britannia Modular Labs 3 project supports clustered development that includes various Research and Development (R&D), office and commercial projects along major transportation corridors. Clustered developments in the City further enhance the efficiency of the existing transportation systems. This project is located near, and is served by, U.S. Highway 101 and nearby Interstate 280, a Caltrain station, BART station, and a water ferry terminal. The comprehensive plan of trip reduction measures identified in this report is essential to realizing the trip reduction potential of the project. The combination of these factors will provide the momentum to achieve a 35% alternative mode-use rate for this project. Through monitoring efforts, such as the annual survey of employees to determine transportation mode split, the project will be able to better focus transportation coordination efforts and encourage tenant-employees to use alternative transportation. The first travel mode-use survey report will be submitted to the City of South San Francisco after one year of occupancy of any portion of the project. Local Regulatory Setting Chapter 20.400 of the Zoning Code outlines the TDM objectives for the City of South San Francisco. The specific purposes of Chapter 20.400 are to: A. Reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development, pursuant to the City’s police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. B. Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. C. Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. D. Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. E. Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the desired alternative mode use percentages are achieved. The TDM requirements apply to all non-residential developments located on lands within the jurisdiction of the City of South San Francisco expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips. Additionally, developments with a FAR above minimum (0.50) are subject to further alternative mode-use requirements. The Britannia Modular Labs 3 campus is proposed to have an increased FAR of 0.8123 and meets the expanded requirements for a 35% TDM Plan. 55 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 2 Using the City of South San Francisco’s TDM Ordinance as the guideline, the estimated number of trips needed to meet a 35% reduction for the number of employees estimated to work at the Britannia Modular Labs 3 would be 111. The estimated employees were calculated using an employee ratio of three employees per 1,000 square feet. This TDM Master Plan also meets many requirements of the Revised C/CAG Guidelines for the Implementation of the Land Use Program approved by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County. State Regulatory Setting California is the 12th to 16th largest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) and is responsible for approximately 2% of the world’s CO2 emissions. The natural environment in California may be substantially impacted due to increased in temperature and deteriorating air quality. The State of California has given many organizations and agencies the responsibility of creating guidelines, policies, and thresholds that meet the intent of legislature: Office of Planning and Research (OPR), California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Air Pollution Control Officers' Association (CAPCOA), Council of Governments, and the Attorney Generals office. ♦ Assembly Bill 1493 - required that CARB develop and adopt regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other vehicles and to adopt the nation’s first GHG emission standards for automobiles. ♦ Executive Order S-3-05 - directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) to initiate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. ♦ Assembly Bill 32, California Climate Solutions Act of 2006 - requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of GHG makes CARB responsible for monitoring and reducing GHG emissions. ♦ Senate Bill 375 - establishes improved land use and transportation policy supporting AB32; providing a means for achieving the AB 32 goals for cars and light trucks through land use changes. This Bill creates potentially revolutionary changes in California's regional planning processes for housing and transportation, SB 375 mandates the creation of sustainable regional growth plans. These plans are expected to double the GHG emission reduction targets that local governments must meet through land use planning. Estimated Total Employees 317 Trip Reduction Requirement 35% Employee Mode-Use Requirement 111 56 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 3 A CEQA streamlined review process for developers is the most significant provision of the bill. If projects meet certain criteria such as containing at least 50% residential use, high densities, and located within 1/2 a mile from rail, ferry, or bus line with 15 minute headways or less, then the projects can qualify for a CEQA review exemption. 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS The basic premise of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the maximum utilization of existing transportation resources. The City of South San Francisco, as is typical of other urban areas in the United States, has millions of dollars invested in roadway infrastructure and public transit infrastructure. The goal of TDM is to more efficiently and economically take advantage of these major capital investments. The following are three basic goals that can be achieved through effective utilization of TDM measures: 1) Convert trips to an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., transit, carpools or vanpools, bicycling or walking) 2) Support technological solutions (e.g., compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid vehicles, or other zero emission vehicles) 3) Eliminate trips (e.g., compressed work weeks or telecommute) Until recently in the United States, the answer to relieving congestion on roads, and in parking structures, was to build more roads and parking structures (similar in concept to building another manufacturing plant to expand productivity on levels). Current economics and limited resources affect the ability to build and maintain more roads or parking structures. This reality necessitates better utilization of the existing transportation infrastructure (similar to adding a second shift at an existing plant). To this end, TDM measures support the transition to a greater use of existing alternative transportation options. The measures and programs outlined in this plan address Chapter 20.400 of the City’s Zoning Code. These mitigation measures are also consistent with the C/CAG Guidelines for the Implementation of the Land Use Component of the Congestion Management Program. The C/CAG guidelines require mitigation of 1-to-1 peak-hour trip mitigation. The estimated numbers of peak-hour trips for the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project are 127. C/CAG mitigation credits identified in this TDM Plan total 326 trips. The C/CAG accounting of all trip credits applicable in this updated Preliminary TDM Plan is provided in Exhibit A. 57 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 4 3.0 EMPLOYEE MODE SPLIT EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 According to the Commute Profile 2005 Regional Report, prepared by RIDES Associates, the San Mateo County alternative mode-use rate was approximately 29%, with the Bay Area regional rate comprising approximately 34% alternative mode-use. The larger Bay Area alternative mode-use rate is indicative of paid parking in more urban core areas with abundant and close proximity of public transit resources, whereas parking is free or much less expensive in many areas of San Mateo County (e.g., the City of South San Francisco). The 2005 Employee Transportation Survey conducted by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) identified the San Mateo County alternative mode-use rate at 29.9%. However, the overall alternative mode-use rate for the City of South San Francisco was identified at 20.1%. In fall 2008, an employee commute survey was conducted at another well-performing HCP project site in South San Francisco. Results from the survey indicated an alternative commute mode-use rate of 37%. However, it should be noted that tenants in this neighboring employment site offer their employees substantial commute subsidies and financial incentives, above and beyond typical levels, that greatly enhance the alternative mode-use performance for that project. It is possible, although unknown at this time, that future employers at the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project will also offer subsidies and or allowances to their employees. Table 1 shows the comparison of alternative mode-use rates for the Bay Area Region, County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco, and another South San Francisco employer site. Table 1 Comparable Transportation Mode-Use Rates Based on current and historical alternative mode-use data for east of Highway 101 business areas, an example of estimated employee alternative mode-use distribution was calculated. This estimate reflects the TDM measures as they are described in this plan and assumes that commute subsidies may be provided by future tenants to their employees Commute Survey Locations Commute Profile 2005 Regional Report - RIDES 2005 Employee Transporation Survey - Alliance 2007 Transportation Survey TDM Report - HDR|The Hoyt Company San Mateo County 29.0%29.9% Bay Area Region 34.0% City of Brisbane 20.1% South San Francisco - Britannia Oyster Point Campus 31.2% to 43.1% 58 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 5 Table 2 shows the estimated various alternative transportation modes for an office project using an employee population assumption based on a highest and best use. Table 2 Estimated Alternative Transportation Modes for a Typical Office Project The implementation of TDM measures identified in this plan are expected to result in an estimated 35% alternative mode-use rate representing approximately 111 employees from a total of 317 as determined by a calculation of 3 employees per 1,000 square feet of building area. This sample scenario provides a distribution example of employee alternative transportation choices, depicting a typical workweek day for the project. Note: This distribution is provided as an example only. The actual distribution of transportation modes could vary and will be clarified in future survey results. 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a 2.97-acre project owned by HCP – Life Science Estates (HCP) in the City of South San Francisco located south of the U.S. Highway 101, south of San Francisco. The proposed project accommodates two biotech office/R&D buildings totaling 105,536 square feet. The project FAR is 0.8123. In addition to surface lot parking, each building is proposed to include garage parking. Garage and surface parking will accommodate 288 vehicles. Parking for this project will be provided at a ratio of 2.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The project is designed to maximize opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, transit and shuttle connectivity. Typical Transportation Modes Mode Rate Employees 3/1,000 Total Employees Assumed 317 Drive alone to work site 61.00%193 Carpool 15.70%50 Transit 11.50%36 Other (motorcycle, hybrid, telecommute, compressed workweek)4.00%13 Bicycle 2.50%8 Vanpool 0.65%2 Walk 0.65%2 Non-commuting (sick, vacation, business travel)4.00%13 100.00% Alternative Mode Use Rate 35.00%111 59 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 6 As an R&D project, 29 reserved carpool parking spaces are planned with one space designated for a vanpool. A total of eight Class I bicycle lockers and four bicycle racks will be provided near the buildings and in the garage for bicycle commuters at no charge to employees. Showers and lockers will also be provided for bicycle, pedestrian, and other alternative commuters. Shuttle services to BART and Caltrain are located one block from the site on Britannia Modular Labs 3, near the project site. There are a number of nearby restaurant and food services establishments for employees at this project. Anticipated on-site vending food service and possible tenant-provided mobile services (e.g., haircuts, dentistry, dry cleaning, etc.) will help to create a self-sufficient development, reducing the number of trips made daily to and from the project. A project location map is provided on page 7. The HCP Britannia Modular Labs 3 TDM site Plan is provided on page 8. This TDM site plan shows the tentative and conceptual locations of preferential parking, bicycle facilities, pedestrian connections and direct routes to transit. It also depicts that showers, lockers and information kiosks will be provided in the buildings. It should be noted that the TDM site plan shows conceptual infrastructure placement and actual placement and final locations will be shown in the permit set of drawings. Table 3 shows a summary of expected R&D project specifics. Table 3 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Project Specifics Project Information Application R&D Use 100% Employees Estimated (3/1,000')317 Square Feet 105,536 Parking Ratio 2.7/1,000 Parking Spaces Provided 288 FAR 0.81 TDM Goal 35% Employee Mode-Use Requirement 111 60 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 7 Project Location Map 61 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 8 TDM Site Plan – Britannia Modular Labs 3 (Roebling) It should be noted that the TDM site plan shows conceptual infrastructure placement and actual placement and final locations will be shown in the permit set of drawings. 62 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 9 5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT The ability and willingness to rideshare is directly linked to parking cost and parking availability. 5.1 Reduced Parking Supply As a biotech office/R&D project, there will be a total of 288 surface and garage parking spaces. The City parking code for this type of project is one space for each 250 square-feet for the first 50,000 square feet and 3/1,000 square feet thereafter for the remaining 75,000 square feet. Stated another way, the City parking code for is one space for each 333 square feet. The Britannia Modular Labs 3 project is proposing to provide a reduced parking ratio equivalent to one space for each 366 square feet for the entire project. Reduced parking supports trip reduction and TDM efforts and discourages single-occupant drivers (SOV) by not creating an abundance of easy and convenient parking options. Reduced availability enhances other alternative mode options. The Britannia Modular Labs 3 project has reduced onsite parking by 31 spaces to enhance its TDM efforts. 5.2 Carpool and Vanpool Designations Upon completion of this project, there will be a minimum of 29 designated carpool/vanpool vehicle parking spaces (10% of vehicle parking spaces). These carpool parking spaces may require employee registration and permitting. These special designated parking space include at least one vanpool parking space. HCP will be responsible for construction, striping, and signage for the parking spaces. The tenants will also be responsible for monitoring the appropriate use of these specially designated parking spaces. 5.3 Preferential Parking Space Placement One effective means of encouraging employees to rideshare and/or use a clean-fuel vehicle is to reserve the most preferred parking spaces (premium, convenient locations, close to buildings, in the shade or within 100 feet of building entrances) for the exclusive use of carpool, vanpools, and clean-fuel vehicles. These preferred parking spaces will be designated with signage and pavement striping and will be located throughout the project. Preferential parking spaces are an excellent incentive that sends a clear visual message to employees and the community that alternative transportation is important. HCP will be responsible for striping the pavement and providing appropriate signage for preferential parking throughout the site. 63 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 10 5.4 Free Parking for Car and Vanpools and Clean Fuel Vehicles As required by the City’s TDM Ordinance, parking will be free for all carpool, vanpool and clean- fuel vehicle participants (if any). 5.5 Passenger Loading Zone In order to facilitate disembarking and embarking of rideshare passengers, passenger loading/unloading areas will be provided. A passenger loading zone for carpool and vanpool drop off will be located close to the entrance of the buildings. HCP will be responsible for the construction of a passenger loading zone and appropriate signage at the site. 6.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDEMATCHING SERVICE The Regional 511 Rideshare Ridematch Service, via 511.org and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance), provide free car and vanpool matching services. On-site employer contacts will promote the on-line 511 service directly to employees on a regular basis and allow the Alliance to solicit carpool sign-up at on-site employer events, such as annual Transportation Fairs, Wellness or Benefits events, etc. Tenant/employer contacts can also research employee ZIP code data from Human Resource records and offer to match up employees who live near each other. Car and vanpooling will be strongly encouraged at the project. An Employee Transportation Flier will be designed to promote the free personalized matching assistance through the 511 Rideshare and Alliance programs. This car and vanpool ridematching service provides individuals with a computerized list of other commuters near their employment or residential ZIP code, along with the closest cross street, phone number, and hours they are available to commute to and from work. Individuals are then able to select and contact others with whom they wish to car or vanpool. They will also be given a list of existing car and vanpools in their residential area that they may be able to join if vacancies exist. The 511 system gives commuters the information they need to make more informed choices when planning trips. By calling in or logging on, commuters can get up-to-the-minute information about traffic conditions, public transportation options, ridesharing, and bicycling anytime, anywhere throughout the greater Bay Area Region and Northern California. The 511 system offers one-stop shopping for traffic, transit, rideshare, and bicycle information in the region. The nine-county system is the first 511 service to go online in California. It provides links to 511 systems in Sacramento, Oregon, and Nevada, and is available from any phone provided the carrier supports 511. Most counties in the region have wireless and landline access to the service through major carriers. 64 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 11 The project tenants will be responsible for marketing the 511 Rideshare and Alliance carpool programs to their employees. The project tenants will be responsible for marketing the 511 Rideshare and Alliance carpool programs to their employees. To more easily assist tenant marketing, HCP also provides the 511 ride-matching services directly through the Britannia South San Francisco Commute Website. Britannia South San Francisco Commute Website 65 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 12 7.0 TRANSIT Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and SamTrans provide transit service to the City of South San Francisco in proximity to the project site. Shuttle services, managed by the Alliance, are provided from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and BART Station providing links for transit riders near the project site. A copy of the Alliance shuttle pass flier is provided as an attachment. 7.1 Shuttle Services to Britannia Modular Labs 3 The project tenants will be encouraged to participate in the Alliance’s shuttle system with both commute peak-period and lunchtime service (via the Free Downtown Dasher). The Utah-Grand Caltrain, BART, and Ferry shuttles offer combined daily shuttle service totaling 37 trips. The Utah-Grand BART shuttle circulates between the South San Francisco BART station and the project at 15, 20, and 30-minute frequencies. There are currently a total of 15 BART shuttle trips to and from the project site. The Utah-Grand Caltrain shuttle service circulates between the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and the project during the morning and evening peaks at 20, 25 and 35-minute frequencies. Seventeen (17) Caltrain shuttle trips provide connecting service to and from the project site. The Utah-Grand Ferry Shuttle provides four a.m. and three p.m. trips to the water ferry terminal. Table 4 shows the number of shuttle trips provided to the project site for connectivity to the South San Francisco BART and Caltrain stations, and the Water Ferry station. Table 4 Shuttle Service to Britannia Modular Labs 3 Shuttle Service Morning Trips Afternoon Trips Total Trips Utah-Grand Area Caltrain Shuttle 8 7 15 Utah-Grand Area BART Shuttle 8 7 15 Utah-Grand Area Ferry Shuttle 4 3 7 Total Shuttle Trips 20 17 37 The South San Francisco Employer Shuttles, including the Utah-Grand shuttles, operate using an employee pass program. Participating projects and developments, tenants or employers who contribute funding for the shuttles are provided with free passes for their employees. Shuttle route maps are provided on page 14. 66 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 13 7.2 Shuttle/Bus Stops Shuttle drop-off and pick-up locations for BART and Caltrain commuter service are located off- site, within one block of the project at 230 East Grand Avenue. Should the Alliance pursue additional shuttle stops at or near the project site, the developer would be amenable to providing designated street side space for the Alliance shuttle stop. 7.3 Additional Shuttle Services to Britannia Modular Labs 3 Free shuttle resources are provided by the Gateway Campus shuttle (Genenbus) which provides service to the Millbrae Caltrain and BART Intermodal Station. This shuttle provides ten (10) a.m. and ten (10) p.m. shuttle trips from the station. Caltrain operates Baby Bullet express services from the Millbrae Intermodal Station which creates a time-savings advantage for some Caltrain riders. The Genenbus also serves the Glen Park BART Station in the City of San Francisco. This shuttle provides 16 a.m. and 16 p.m. shuttle trips from the BART Station. The Glen Park BART Station creates a cost-savings advantage for some BART riders. The Genenbus shuttle services are provided within a fourth (0.38) of a mile from project site at 330 Gateway Boulevard. 7.4 Caltrain Caltrain operates a frequent fixed-route commuter rail service seven days a week between San Francisco and San Jose, as well as limited service to and from Gilroy on weekdays. Caltrain operates on 15- to 30-minute frequencies during the peak periods in the morning and evening. Midday service operates approximately every hour. Service is less frequent during weekends and holidays. Bicycles are permitted on Caltrain. Caltrain service is available approximately 0.64 miles from the project at the South San Francisco station located at 590 Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue. Caltrain services were enhanced in 2004 to add express trains during peak hours. However, this new service does not provide an express stop to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and hence will not benefit employees in the Britannia Modular Labs 3 area. 67 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 14 Shuttle Service Maps (Caltrain, BART and Ferry) 68 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 15 7.5 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) BART is a 92.7-mile, 43-station automated rapid transit system located along five lines of double track. Trains traveling up to 80 mph connect San Francisco to Colma and other East Bay communities – north to Richmond, east to Pittsburg/Bay Point, west to Dublin/Pleasanton, and south to Fremont. Service is scheduled every 15 minutes during peak periods. Service during holidays and weekends are modified. Bicycles are permitted on BART. BART-to-the-Airport expanded the system by 8.7 miles along the peninsula from Colma to a new intermodal station in Millbrae. Four new stations were created, including the South San Francisco Station located between El Camino Real and Mission Road to the south of Hickey Boulevard. The project is approximately 2.75 miles from the South San Francisco Station in the City of South San Francisco. The San Francisco Glen Park BART Station is nearly nine miles from the project. 7.6 SamTrans SamTrans provides bus service throughout San Mateo County, with connections to the Colma, Daly City, and South San Francisco BART stations; San Francisco International Airport; peninsula Caltrain stations; and downtown San Francisco. However, there is no direct SamTrans service east of Highway 101 area. SamTrans service does connect at the South San Francisco BART Station and subsequently the Utah-Grand Area Shuttle Service that drops off and picks up within one block at 230 East Grand Avenue. SamTrans does not provide a direct connection to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, however; Routes 130, 292, 133, and 132 are within approximately 1/4-mile walking distance from this station and the connecting shuttle services near the project site. Bicycles are permitted on SamTrans buses. 7.7 Downtown Dasher Taxi Service This free taxi service provides an 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. demand-driven pick-up service throughout the East Highway 101 business parks in South San Francisco. Using existing shuttle stops, taxis drop off riders at locations in the downtown retail area. The Downtown Dasher, operated by the Peninsula Yellow Cab of South San Francisco and managed by the Alliance, requires an employer-provided voucher and an employee trip reservation before 10:00 a.m. This midday service is currently free to participating employers and employees. This service is not a fixed route or fixed schedule service. A detailed Downtown Dasher flier is provided as an attachment. 7.8 Ferry Service New East Bay to South San Francisco water ferry services was launched during the summer of 2012. Ferry service schedules and Utah-Grand shuttle information will be provided to tenants for distribution to their employees. 69 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 16 8.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE AMENITIES The project has pedestrian and bicycle connections to regional facilities along East Grand Avenue, Allerton Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, and the San Francisco Bay Trails via the San Bruno Point area. A map of the City bicycle and pedestrian routes is provided on page 19. The a section of San Mateo county bikeways map, showing the South San Francisco east of Highway 101 area, is provided on page 20. A map of the Bay Trails is provided on page 21. 8.1 Onsite Pedestrian Connections A safe, convenient and well-lit pedestrian path will be provided, utilizing the most direct route, to the nearest shuttle stop close to the project. Lighting, landscaping and building orientation is designed to enhance pedestrian safety. There will be patio space provided just outside of each building on the north. This pedestrian space can be used for recreation, eating, or other outdoor activities. 8.2 Enhanced Bicycle Parking – Long-Term and Short-Term Free Class I and Class II bicycle parking facilities will be provided on-site for bicycle commuters. Table 5 shows the recommended and actual expanded number of bicycle facilities planned for the proposed project. Table 5 Bicycle Parking Recommendation Estimated Number Parking Spaces 288 Bicycle Parking Ratio 1:50 Bicycle Parking Needed 6 Bicycle Parking Distribution 6 Class I - long-term 8 Class II - short-term 4 Total Bicycle Parking 12 Given the proximity to the Bay Trails facilities, HCP has opted to exceed the level of bicycle parking that required by code. Eight Class I (long-term) bicycle lockers or a covered, enclosed, secure area will be provided to enhance the viability for bicycle commuters. These eight Class I bicycle lockers and four Class II (short-term) bicycle racks will be placed at the building sites. Traditionally, bicycle parking is calculated at one bicycle space for every 50 spaces required for vehicles. Using these guidelines, the required amount of bicycle parking would be six spaces. HCP exceeds this requirement by 100%. 70 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 17 8.3 Bicycle Connections The 2009 City of South San Francisco Walking & Biking Map identifies Class III bicycle routes along Forbes Boulevard, Allerton Avenue, and Littlefield Avenue. Some Class II bicycle lanes are provided on Oyster Point Boulevard and parts of Gateway Boulevard. City bicycle routes on East Grand Avenue near the project are designated as “routes with higher traffic volumes” and cyclists should use extra caution in these areas. The project has bicycle connections to regional bicycle facilities along East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue, and the San Francisco Bay Trails via the San Bruno Point area. Access to the Bay Trails is located along the bay at Colma Road, Littlefield and the San Bruno Point area. The Bay Trail is a network of multi-use pathways circling the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The ultimate route is planned to be a 400-mile route through nine Bay Area counties and 42 shoreline cities.1 8.4 Bicycle Resources Bicycle commuters looking to find a riding partner can log on to http://bicycling.511.org/ for more information about how to find a Bike Buddy. The 511 system also provides significant resources for bicycle commuters including: ♦ Free Bike Buddy matching ♦ Bicycle maps ♦ Location of lockers ♦ How to take your bike on public transit ♦ How to take your bike across Bay Area toll bridges ♦ How to ride safely in traffic ♦ Tips on commuting ♦ Tips for bike selection ♦ Links to bicycle organizations ♦ Bike to Work Day ♦ Other bicycle resources Additional bicycle resources are provided by the Alliance such as a free one-hour, on-site Bike and Pedestrian Safety Program for employees. This workshop teaches commuters about bicycling and walking as a safe, stress-relieving commute mode; traffic laws for bicyclists and pedestrians; and bicycle maintenance tips. It also offers a drawing for free bicycle-related prizes. A copy of the Alliance Safety Program flier is provided as an attachment. The tenant coordinators will promote and market the available bicycle resources to their employees. 1 www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/baytrail/overview.html 71 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 18 8.5 Showers and Clothes Lockers Showers and clothing lockers will be installed for the use of employees walking and bicycling to work, as well as for others who wish to change after commuting via an alternative mode of transportation. Eight showers (four for each gender) and 32 locker facilities are recommended for installation among the buildings. Shower and locker facilities will be provided free of charge for all employees. Table 6 shows the number of proposed shower and locker facilities planned for the project for both office and R&D uses. Table 6 Proposed Shower and Locker Facilities Britannia Modular Labs 3 Showers Lockers Male 4 16 Female 4 16 Total Shower and Locker Facilities 8 32 72 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 19 City of South San Francisco Bicycle Map 73 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 20 Subsection of City of South San Francisco – East of Highway 101 74 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 21 Bay Trails Bicycle Map 75 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 22 9.0 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR/COMMUTER ASSISTANCE The Britannia Modular Labs 3 project will provide a Transportation Coordinator (TC) who will have the primary responsibility for implementing this Plan. The TC may be a part-time or outsourced coordinator who manages the TDM Program. The TC will be responsible for providing employee commute program assistance to tenants and employees, producing on-site transportation fairs and promotional events, collaborating with the Alliance to maximize employer resources, conducting the annual survey, and producing the triennial report. TDM industry data supports that having a TC has a very positive impact on increasing alternative mode use. This position may be filled by: Name: Elizabeth Hughes, Transportation Coordinator TDM Specialists, Inc. Address: South San Francisco Phone: (408) 420-2411 The TC will provide the following services: • Promote trip reduction and air quality strategies to employees at the project site. • Be the main point of contact for employer contacts and employees wanting to commute using an alternative. • Conduct annual employee surveys and provide reports to the City of South San Francisco, which will include commute patterns, mode splits, and TDM program success (process includes annual surveying of employees, tabulation of data, and provision of results in report format). • Evaluate survey results for alternative transportation potential and/or changes to current program. • Catalog all existing incentives that encourage employees to utilize alternative transportation programs. • Work with local agencies such as Caltrain, SamTrans, BART, the Alliance, 511, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Post informational materials on transportation kiosks in employee common areas, as well as disperse alternative program information to employees via designated employer contacts, posters, fliers, banners, campus newsletter, new employee orientation, etc. • Participate in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Spare the Air program. Spare the Air day notices will be forwarded to employees to encourage not driving to work alone. • Coordinate and manage various aspects of the plan that require periodic updating or monitoring, such as the guaranteed ride home (ERH) program, car and vanpool registration, parking enforcement, and locker assignment and enforcement. 76 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 23 10.0 COMMUTE INCENTIVES AND PROMOTIONS23 Tenants at the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project will be encouraged to offer their employees some form of alternative commute incentive. Incentives may include a pre-tax payroll deduction (Commuter Choice) for transit and vanpool users, transit subsidies, and/or commute allowances. Other carpool, vanpool, and transit incentives are available to encourage employees to try to use alternative transportation options. The project tenants will offer all available commuter programs and promotions for their employees, including the items listed below. 10.1 Commuter Choice – Pre Tax Options On January 1, 2012, the transit benefit pre-tax option reverted back to $125/month and the parking benefit increased to $240/month (up from $230). Commuters may take a tax-free salary payroll deduction up to $125 per month per employee for vanpool and rail transit pass fares through a voucher program (Commuter Check). Annually, this deduction offers the use of up to $1,500 a year from salary as a pre-tax payroll deduction. This program encourages non- drive-alone commute trips. Employers also receive a tax savings as a benefit of this program. A $20 per month tax-free payroll deduction is now available to bicycle commuters. Bicycle commuters can deduction up to $240 per year in pre-tax bicycle expenses. 10.2 Commute Allowances and Subsidies Commute allowances can be a set amount, usually taxable, for employees who use any type of transportation option (except drive alone) including those who walk, bicycle or carpool. Allowances can be cash, gift cards, gift certificates, cafeteria/café vouchers, movie tickets, or other employee desired item. Employment sites that offer transit or commute subsidies generally tend to have higher levels of alternative mode-use. Subsidies can be provided in tandem with the pre-tax option. Tenant-employers of the project will be encouraged to offer their employees commute allowance to encourage them to use alternative transportation options and reduce the demand for parking at the site. 10.3 Try Transit Program The Alliance offers a Try Transit Program that provides free transit tickets to people who are interested in trying public transit to get to work. These tickets are meant for people who are 2 www.commute.org 3 www.511.org 77 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 24 new to transit. Commuters requesting tickets must work, live in, or drive through San Mateo County. A copy of the Try Transit Program is provided as an attachment. Transit ticket options include: • One BART ticket • Three round-trip Caltrain tickets • Six one-way SamTrans tickets • Six Dumbarton tickets • Three round-trip VTA tickets 10.4 Carpool Incentive Programs • You Pool, We Pay! – Employees at the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project can participate in the “You Pool, We Pay!” program offered by the Alliance. Employees who are currently driving alone and are commuting to, from, or through San Mateo County are encouraged to try carpooling. When employees form a new carpool with two or more people over the age of 18, or add a new member to an existing carpool, all carpool participants will each receive a $60 gas card incentive. A carpool incentive flier is provided as an attachment. • Hybrid and Clean Air Vehicle – Employees who participate in the “You Pool, We Pay!” program with a hybrid or clean air vehicle (Clean Air Vehicle decal required) will receive an $80 gas card incentive or a gift card. Single-occupant hybrid vehicles are also permitted in carpool lanes during designated commute hours (restrictions apply). • Carpool Rideshare Reward$ – Employees at the project can participate in the 511 Rideshare Reward$ program for carpoolers. Eligible carpoolers can earn $10 in gas or Safeway gift cards for every five days carpooled, up to $100 over three months. As an added bonus, commuters who carpool 40 or more days during the program can enter a year-end drawing for $1,000 in gift cards. Rideshare Reward$ for carpoolers are available from 511 for a limited period each year (typically in spring) and are provided on a first-come, first-served basis until funds are depleted (typically in June). • Carpool (HOV) Lanes – Carpool lanes, also known as high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, can reduce your commute time. To drive in carpool lanes during your commute, you must be in a carpool, vanpool, public transit vehicle, or riding a motorcycle. Single- occupant hybrid vehicles are also permitted in carpool lanes during designated commute hours. Carpool lanes vary in their hours of operation and the minimum number of people per car. A list of HOV hours of operation and required number passengers can be found at www.rideshare.511.org. A violation of HOV lane use can result in a minimum $381 fine. During non-commute hours, carpool lanes revert to general traffic use. 78 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 25 • Park and Ride Lots – There are 150 free Park and Ride lots conveniently located throughout the Bay Area, where you can meet carpool partners or your vanpool in a central location. Many lots also feature easy access to transit connections. You do not even need a car to use a Park and Ride lot since many lots offer bike lockers. Park and Ride Lot amenities and facilities vary as does the availability of security. Use common sense and good judgment when choosing a lot and securing your vehicle. Vehicle safety is neither guaranteed nor implied by the 511 Regional Rideshare Program. Lots listed on this site may be operated by government agencies, private businesses or community organizations. Your are encouraged to visit the Lot before using it to review any posted information and call the lot operator for overnight/extended parking restrictions.4 10.5 Vanpool Incentive Programs • $800 New Vanpool Participant Rebates – As an incentive for vanpooling, the Alliance will pay half of the cost for the first three months of vanpooling, up to $100 per month per employee (up to $300). New vanpool groups (or the driver) that stay on the road for at least six months can receive a one-time rebate of $500. This one-time incentive is provided for those who join a new vanpool in the last six months and have not vanpooled for a three-month period before joining a new van. A vanpool program flier is provided as an attachment. • $900 New Vanpool Formation Incentive – Newly formed vanpools are eligible to receive up to $900 for starting a vanpool. Vanpooling is an inexpensive, relaxing way to get to work, and the 511 Rideshare program offers the perfect excuse to start a vanpool – cash! The vanpool reward provides $300 to $900 in gas cards to new vans that meet all eligibility requirements and successfully complete three to nine consecutive months of operation. The gas cards are offered on a first-come, first-served basis, until the funds are exhausted. Employers and/or individuals who start a new vanpool may be eligible to receive the gas cards, which will be awarded to the party designated to handle the vanpool’s finances.5 • $300 Vanpool Seat Subsidy – The 511 Regional Rideshare Program also offers a vanpool seat subsidy in the form of gas cards. The seat subsidy will provide $100 per month, with a limit of three months per van during the program year, to help cover the fare of a lost participant. The gas cards will be offered to eligible vans on a first-come, first-served basis, until the funds are exhausted. 4 http://rideshare.511.org/511maps/PandRText.asp 79 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 26 10.6 Free and Discounted Bridge Toll Commuters can save time and commute toll-free or receive a toll discount by carpooling, vanpooling, or taking transit over one of the Bay Area’s eight bridges during peak commute hours. Specific Bay Area bridge toll information can be found at 511.org (e.g., minimum requirements for discounted tolls are two-person or three-person carpools). Free toll passes are also available to vans with 10 or more passengers during non-commute hours on all bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge. 10.7 Trip Planner • 511 TakeTransitSM The greater San Francisco Bay Area is currently serviced by the 511 TakeTransitSM Trip Planner. TakeTransitSM is a useful tool for planning public transit trips. The 511 TakeTransitSM Trip Planner can build an itinerary that suits the need of the transit user. An itinerary can be built that can identify the fastest commute, with the least amount of transfers or the cheapest fares. The 511 TakeTransitSM Trip Planner, by default, will generate the fastest itinerary between the origin and destination. • Google Transit Google has partnered with the Bay Area Transit agencies to provide a public transit planner for riders of BART, Caltrain, and VTA. This free service can be found on-line at www.google.com/transit. 11.0 GUARANTEED EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM Tenants of the project are eligible to participate in the Emergency Ride Home (ERH) program managed by the Alliance. The Alliance covers 75% of the cost for ERH services. The employer pays the remaining 25%. A sample Alliance ERH program flier is provided as an attachment. All employees who commute to work using transit, bicycle, or carpool or vanpool will be guaranteed a ride home in the case of a personal emergency, or when they unexpectedly have to work late thereby missing the last bus or their normal carpool home. The ERH program has proven very successful as it removes one of the major objections employees have to giving up their private automobile, especially those with young families. The ERH program provides employees with a security blanket, a feeling of reassurance that if a child becomes ill or injured during the day the employee can get to them quickly. If employees need to work late and miss their bus or carpool, or if their vanpool breaks down, they are guaranteed a ride home. The project tenants can participate in the Alliance ERH program for their respective employees at the site. 80 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 27 12.0 ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULE INFRASTRUCTURE An alternative work schedule (flextime, compressed work week, or telework programs) can be beneficial in a number of ways. It can provide versatility, enabling employees to more conveniently use rideshare options and avoid traffic congestion and transit crowding. It can also be an attractive employee recruitment tool that allows employees to work around childcare or school schedules. Employees may view alternative work schedule programs as a highly desirable benefit. The following issues need to be considered for implementation of flextime work schedules: • Can heating, cooling, and ventilation systems be adjusted for longer hours? • Can security hours be adjusted? • Will parking policies need to be changed to ensure parking for all shifts? • Is building access flexible? To maximize alternative mode-use, the project tenants/employer may offer or give preference for alternative work schedules to employees who use or will use an alternative transportation mode. The TC will provide information to tenants regarding alternative work schedule options and implementation formats. The project tenants may promote and market the available alternative work schedule programs listed below to their employees as part of their on-site commute program. 12.1 Flextime In order to use alternative modes of transportation, employees may need special consideration for their work start and finish times. For example, if an employee’s workplace opens at 8:00 a.m. and the carpool drops the employee off at 7:45 a.m., he/she must wait until the building opens. Many employees may choose to drive alone given those conditions. Flextime allows the employer to adjust business open and close times to facilitate the use of alternative commute modes. A flextime program permits employees to set or modify their arrival and departure times. Flextime policies usually state that the flexibility in scheduling must not conflict with workflow. Most flextime programs establish a core period of time during which all employees must be present. Employees can then adjust their start and finish times around this period. Supervisors usually retain a significant degree of control over scheduling. The project tenants/employers could offer flextime to employees wishing to commute via alternative transportation rather than single occupancy vehicle (SOV). Project buildings will be open and accessible in the early morning and early evening hours to support an active flextime program. Flextime can positively influence travel behavior by allowing employees to adjust their work schedules to meet their transportation needs (i.e., to match a bus, car, or vanpool schedule). The TC will provide information to tenants regarding flextime work schedules and implementation formats. 81 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 28 12.2 Teleworking Infrastructure The project may provide the infrastructure necessary to support teleworking options. Teleworking can be promoted by the project tenants/employers. If the tenant chooses to connect to the fiber optics network, the infrastructure allows multiple data transmissions. Provision of this equipment is part of ensuring that teleworkers enjoy fast, smooth data transmission between their workplace and telework office. The TC will provide information to tenants regarding teleworking and implementation formats. The project tenants may offer teleworking opportunities to their employees as an alternative to commuting to the project site. 12.3 Compressed Work Week Tenant/employers may allow compressed workweek options for employees as needed. A compressed workweek allows employees to work longer hours but shorter weeks. The shortened workweek and shifted hours may help employees avoid rush-hour traffic and reduces the number of commute days. Employees also have an additional day for leisure activities, personal business, and family time. Compressed workweek systems can include: • “9/80” schedule, in which employees work eight 9-hour days (72 hours) plus one 8-hour day, totaling 80 hours over two weeks. This program allows employees to have one day off every two weeks. • “4/10” schedule, in which employees work four 10-hour days per week. Employees typically are divided into two groups. One group works Monday through Thursday, the other group works Tuesday through Friday. • “3/36” schedule, in which employees work three 12-hour days per week. This plan allows for days off other than just Monday or Friday. Employees are divided into five groups and each group is assigned different days off. The Britannia Modular Labs 3 TC will provide information to tenants regarding compressed work week schedule options and implementation formats. The tenants may offer this work schedule option to their employees. 13.0 TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE INFORMATION A supportive TC, cooperative property management, and involved tenant/employers will generate positive impacts toward the success of the TDM goals and elements that are implemented. TDM commute programs and benefits must be presented to the employees in a comprehensive and proactive manner along with other employee programs. This can be done via participation and support of employee orientation forums or transportation fairs, transportation kiosk posting, employee newsletters, management bulletins, e-mails, etc. 82 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 29 From a practical standpoint, management support must be twofold: 1) Upper and middle management will encourage alternative modes whenever possible. 2) Managers and supervisors need to be supportive of employees who try alternative modes, even if it means initial minor adjustments to their work schedule. TDM should be viewed as a big picture process. This includes explaining the area's air quality problems and how fighting air pollution ties in with being a good corporate citizen. It is important that the employees see how both they and the community benefits (e.g., better air quality and less traffic congestion on the highways and the surrounding neighborhoods, less parking hassles, cost savings for employees, etc.). Synergistic measures that support these efforts include the transportation kiosk, employee fliers, resource Websites, promotional programs and incentives, and employer training and employee outreach. 13.1 Transportation Kiosk An information board or kiosk will be located in each of the buildings in a common gathering area (e.g., lobby, employee entrance, break or lunch room) and in the garage structure. The kiosk will contain transportation information, including Emergency Ride Home (ERH) information, transit and shuttle schedules, SamTrans, Caltrain, BART, Downtown Dasher, 511 ridematching, and other related information. Information will be updated periodically by the TC or designated employer contact. The garage kiosk will be located near a highly traveled access point. The kiosks can be wall-mounted or freestanding, rotating units. Figure 1 shows a sample of a wall-mounted transportation information board. HCP will provide two transportation kiosks for the project site (at build out). Figure 1 Sample Transportation Information Board 83 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 30 13.2 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Commute Website and Resources A comprehensive Britannia Modular Labs 3 transportation and commute information Website will be developed for use by all tenants and their employees. The Website will contain transportation information, resources, and links, including promotions, incentives, prices, spare the air notices, ERH information, shuttle schedules, 511 ridematching, and other related information. Commuters without personal vehicles can also find a comprehensive list of providers who can deliver, perform, or offer on-demand and on-site supporting services via the e-Concierge Services link. The Britannia Modular Labs 3 e-Concierge Services may include food, catering, groceries, banking, real estate, hair cut and salon, laundry and dry cleaning, errands, daycare, and many other convenience vendors. A sample home page for the HCP Britannia Modular Labs 3 commute Website is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 Sample HCP Britannia Modular Labs 3 Commute Website 84 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 31 13.3 Employee Transportation Flier At the time of occupancy, all tenants and employees will be provided with an Employee Transportation Flier. This flier will include (but not be limited to) information about carpool parking, transit opportunities, shuttle services, bicycle routes, and ERH. A sample flier is provided on page 33. HCP will provide the project tenants with an original (editable), reproducible employee transportation flier for their use and distribution to employees. 13.4 Designated Employer/Tenant Contact The developer will require a designated contact be identified for all future tenants/occupants. The designated tenant/employer contact will be the official contact for the Britannia Modular Labs 3 TDM program described in this plan. The designated employer contact will coordinate closely with the project TC, maintain on-site TDM programs and employee education and marketing, administrate the annual surveys, and provide information continuity for the developer/landlord and the City of South San Francisco. The project tenant will designate staff to coordinate with HCP to implement commuter programs and coordinate City reporting. 13.5 Promotional Programs If possible, prior to occupancy, the future tenants will host a pre-move Transportation Fair or conduct a pre-move marketing campaign, with a heavy emphasis on carpooling, transit, and shuttle resources. Throughout the year, tenants will be encouraged to maintain employee awareness by hosting other transportation fairs. As lunch-time events, these fairs will highlight transit and trip- planning services, and rideshare matching, and other commute opportunities at the new site. The Transportation Fairs will bring together transit and transportation providers (Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and the Alliance), bicycle advocates, ridematching organizations (511), and the Employee Commute Program for a comprehensive presentation. Other events and promotions on-site at the project may include Bike-to-Work Week, Caltrain Day, Rideshare Thursdays or a comprehensive Transportation/Commute Fair. During the year, various transit and rideshare organizations will be invited to set-up a marketing booth during lunchtime at a central location at the building to promote the alternative commute options available to employees. Free trial transit passes will be available for first-time riders. Periodic on-site tabling would also be recommended throughout the year in concert with other employer events such as health fairs, benefits fairs, etc. 85 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 32 13.6 Tenant Training and Resource Representatives A TDM resource representative can provide TDM support, training, and planning assistance for the tenant’s employee programs and annual survey compliance. The overarching goals of this implementation effort are to reduce commute trips for project employees, train tenants to formalize company commute programs, and assist in the first year’s employee marketing and outreach. Commute program implementation and TDM resource support can include targeted rideshare program development, establishment of the emergency ride home program, formalization of the preferential carpool/vanpool parking program, and integration assistance with the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief and San Francisco Bay Area 511.org regional rideshare programs. A TDM resource representative can assist tenants in the preparation of their new employee orientation materials, production of the kick-off event, commute articles, employee assistance, and coordination of the annual transportation and commuter fair. 86 511 is the regional ridesharing service that will help you to find a vanpool or carpool partner. Please call 511 or log on to www.511.org for ridematching services and other alternative transportation options. Transit services to South San Francisco areas are provided by Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans. Visit www.caltrain.com, www.bart.gov, and www.samtrans.com for updated schedule and service information. Employees who work at Britannia Modular Labs 3 and primarily use alternative transportation (transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycle, or walk) for their monthly commute can obtain a FREE Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH). In the event of an emergency or illness, the GRH program provides a free taxi or rental car for your return trip home (*requires employer registration). See your company representative for more information. Regional bicycle route maps are available to bicycle commuters and recreational bicycle users. To view a map, log on to www.511.org. Bicycles are allowed on SamTrans buses, Caltrain, and BART trains. Secure bicycle parking is available at stations and at the Britannia Modular Labs 3 site. The Utah-Grand BART shuttle offers 18 daily trips from the BART Stations to the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project. The Utah-Grand Caltrain shuttle offers 17 trips per day from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. SamTrans routes 130, 132, 133, 35 and 36 connect with the Utah-Grand Area BART shuttles at the South San Francisco Station. The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides commute incentives such as FREE gas for carpoolers, FREE trial transit tickets (Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and others), vanpool rebates, and bike locker subsidies. For more information, log on to www.commute.org or call (650) 588-8170. guaranteed ride home bicycle routes south san francisco rideshare bay area rideshare shuttle services 3/5/09 regional transit Britannia Modular Labs 3 87 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 34 14.0 PROJECT AMENITIES Amenities provide employees with a full-service work environment. Eliminating or reducing the need for an automobile to make midday trips increases non-drive-alone rates. Many times, employees perceive that they are dependent upon the drive-alone mode because of the number of errands and activities that must be carried out in different locations. By reducing this dependence through the provision of services and facilities at the work site, an increase in alternative mode usage for commute-based trips should be realized. HCP will encourage tenants to offer their employees convenience amenities. A list of proposed onsite amenities for the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project includes: Britannia Modular Labs 3 Project Amenities • Recreational greenbelt and patio area • Showers and clothes lockers • Abundant Bicycle lockers • Transportation and commute kiosks • Transportation resource Website • Links to e-Concierge personal services6 e-Concierge and personal services offers commuters without personal vehicles with a comprehensive list of providers who can deliver, perform, or offer on-demand and on-site supporting services. e-Concierge services include food, catering, groceries, banking, real estate, hair cut and salon, laundry and dry cleaning, errands, daycare, and many more convenience vendors. At the tenant’s option, additional amenities for consideration include: Tenant-Driven Amenities • Food service, café, beverage and food vending machines • Postage and mail outlet • On-site credit union/ATM • Exercise facility • Wi-Fi access throughout campus Potential Valet Amenities (tenant-driven) • Mobile massage • Mobile dry cleaning, shoe shine and repair, laundry, eyeglass repair • Mobile dentist • Mobile hair and nail salon • Mobile car care (oil change, cleaning, etc.) A list of nearby amenities and personal services within a 0.50 mile walk from the project site is provided as an attachment. 6 http://www.britanniassfcommute.org/concierge.html 88 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 35 15.0 KICK-OFF EVENT Upon 75% occupancy, HCP will host a commute alternative kick-off event/celebration or employee marketing campaign. Transportation service providers, such as BART, SamTrans, Caltrain, water ferry and the Alliance, will be invited to set up exhibit booths/tables. To encourage employee participation in the event, the developer and/or tenants will provide food; (e.g., such as popcorn, hot dogs and refreshments), and possible give-a-ways; (e.g., commuter mugs, water bottles, t-shirts, etc.). The tenants will help set the date for the event and advertise the event at least two weeks in advance. 16.0 ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION FAIR AND SPECIAL PROMOTIONS The Britannia Modular Labs 3 tenant(s) will host an annual commute alternative event or fair. Transportation service providers (BART, Caltrain, water ferry, 511 Regional Rideshare, and the Alliance) will be invited to set up exhibit booths/tables. To encourage employee participation in the event, the tenants will provide food; (e.g., such as popcorn, hot dogs, ice cream or other refreshments), and give-a-ways; (e.g., such as commuter mugs, water bottles, t-shirts, etc.). The tenant coordinator will set the date for the event and advertise the event at least two weeks in advance. Periodic rideshare articles will be written by the project TC for internal employee newsletters with ongoing highlights of alternative commuters and their successes. Internal company notices and incentive promotions about Spare the Air (June through October), Bike to Work (May), and Rideshare Thursdays should attract attention of commuters, generate excitement about the use of commute alternatives, and reward those who rideshare. These promotions are often sponsored in conjunction with 511, the Regional Rideshare Program, or the Air District. The project TC and tenant coordinator will register with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for the Spare the Air program in order to receive regional air quality forecast bulletins about poor and unhealthy air quality days. These direct e-mail updates will be forwarded to all employees to encourage the use of alternative transit modes during peak advisory periods. 17.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) are typically private, nonprofit organizations run by a voluntary Board of Directors and a small staff. They help businesses, developers, building owners, local government representatives, and others work together to collectively establish policies, programs, and services to address local transportation problems. The key to a successful TMA lies in the synergism of multiple groups banding together to address and accomplish more than any single employer, building operator, developer, or resident could do alone. 89 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 36 In South San Francisco, the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance operates as a TMA organization. The Alliance provides: • Shuttle programs • Transit advocacy • Carpool and vanpool matching • Information on local issues • Parking management programs • Teleworking • Trial transit passes • Training • Emergency ride home programs • Marketing programs • Enhanced bicycle facilities • Promotional assistance • Car and vanpool incentives • Newsletter Project tenants will register in the Alliance ERH program for their employees and use the resources and services available. Participating with the Alliance is a valuable asset for project tenants. The Alliance is a clearinghouse for information about alternative commute programs, incentives, and transportation projects affecting San Mateo County businesses. 90 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 37 18.0 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT The intent of the City of South San Francisco’ Municipal Code is to reduce SOV trips, and in so doing lessen the resulting traffic congestion and mobile source-related air pollution. It is important to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented and effective. Therefore, a monitoring and enforcement program is necessary for each application. Because the City’s TDM Program is performance based (i.e., project alternative mode usage and corresponding trip reduction at 35%), an annual evaluation program will allow the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project, HCP, and the City to assess the effectiveness of the unique program designed for their project and to make adjustments as necessary to consistently meet or exceed the requirement. HCP’s Britannia Modular Labs 3 project will establish and maintain a 35% trip reduction at the proposed project site that is subject to annual monitoring. Annual monitoring and penalty programs are consistent with previously approved methodologies implemented by the City of South San Francisco at other project sites in the east of Highway 101 area. HCP plans to promote, encourage, and support alternative commute mode usage for employees at the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project. 18.1 Annual Employee Commute Survey An employee commute survey will be a critically important part of the monitoring process to determine the success of TDM measures. A report summarizing results from an employee survey distributed and collected by the TC will provide both quantitative data (e.g., mode split) and qualitative data (e.g., employee perception of the alternative transportation programs). Employees who do not participate in the commute survey will be counted as drive-alone or SOV commuters by default. The tenants will be strongly encouraged to support and participate in the promotion and marketing of the annual employee survey. Lease language will identify this requirement. Survey data may then be used to focus TDM marketing and the efforts of the TC. The TDM program could be re-tooled, if necessary, to maintain the project’s 35% peak hour alterative commute use rates and commitment at the site. A summary report based on results from the employee commute survey will be submitted to the City of South San Francisco and, if requested, presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. 18.2 Annual Summary Report Each year, HCP, via tenant-employee survey data, will prepare an annual TDM summary report to be submitted to the City to document the effectiveness of the TDM Plan in achieving the goal of the alternative mode usage and 35% trip reduction by employees within the Project. The TDM summary report will be prepared by an independent consultant or TMA that will work in concert with the Britannia Modular Labs 3 TC. The TDM summary report will include a determination of historical employee commute methods provided by information obtained from a survey of all employees working in the building. 91 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 38 If the trip reduction rates have not been achieved, the report will explain how and why the goal was not reached and specify additional measures and activities that will be implemented in the coming year to improve the modes use rate. The initial baseline TDM summary report will be submitted within one year (and each year thereafter) of occupancy. The survey reporting will be targeted for the fourth quarter of each year. 18.3 Triennial Audit Report For projects with increased FAR, a triennial report may also be required and would be conducted by the City at the City’s discretion. The triennial report will audit the project’s TDM activities and state whether the development has or has not achieved the required percent alternative mode-use rate. If the development has not achieved the required mode-use rate, the applicant will be asked to: • Explain how and why the goals have not been reached • Describe additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the required mode-use rate • Provide an implementation schedule by month of additional measures If desired by the City, the triennial report will also include a comparison of historical responses on the survey and identify if mode share has changed significantly and describe in detail as to why the mode share changed. The Chief Planner will review reports. Reports that indicate failure will be submitted to the City Council. (Note: city audit methodology will be consistent or similar to the TDM zoning ordinance requirements for annual reporting.) 18.4 Penalty for Noncompliance If after the initial triennial report, the subsequent triennial report indicates that, in spite of the changes in the Final TDM Plan, the required alternative mode-use is still not being achieved, or if the applicant fails to cooperate with the triennial audit report, the City may assess a penalty. The penalty shall be established by City Council resolution on the basis of the project size and actual percentage alternative mode use as compared to the percent alternative mode use established in the TDM Plan.7 18.5 Tenant Performance and Lease Language The developer (and/or all future owners) will draft lease language or side agreements for all tenants that require the identification of a designated employer contact responsible for compliance and implementation of the TDM program (including annual survey and reporting and registration in the Alliance’s ERH program). The agreement language may also identify the 7 Ordinance No. 1300-2001, Chapter 20.120, Transportation Demand Management, South San Francisco Municipal Code, October 2001. 92 Britannia Modular Labs 3 Preliminary TDM Plan August 27, 2012 Page 39 tenant’s share of potential penalties for failure to achieve the 35% alternative mode-use rate, failure to participate in the annual employee commute survey, or failure to submit the annual report as identified by the City of South San Francisco. The developer will guarantee project- wide tenant performance. The lease language may be worded as follows: Tenant hereby agrees to designate one of its employees to act as a liaison with Landlord to facilitate and coordinate such programs as may be required by governmental agencies to reduce the traffic generated by the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project as required by the City of South San Francisco as part of conditions of approval and to encourage the use of public transportation and ridesharing. 19.0 CONCLUSION The developer is committed to achieving and maintaining a 35% employee alternative mode- use at the proposed project for R&D development. This TDM Plan provides the details of the developer’s commitment to the City of South San Francisco and responsibility for joint implementation with the future project tenant(s). The Britannia Modular Labs 3 project supports the policies of focusing clustered development along transportation corridors (Highway 101 and I-280) and transit corridors (Caltrain and BART), as well as reinforces the City of South San Francisco’s TDM Standards. In order to be part of the transportation solution, this project contains the density and critical mass necessary to encourage the use of all alternative modes of transportation, including bicycling, carpooling, vanpooling, and public transit. By balancing air quality with economic growth, the Britannia Modular Labs 3 project will help South San Francisco thrive as a community. It is projects like these that will contribute to the City of South San Francisco’s future livelihood. 93 EXHIBIT A Accounting of C/CAG Off-Peak Trip Credits 94 Required TDM Program Measures - SSF Ordinance Quantity Credit Ratio Credit Bicycle Parking - long-Term (Class I) (8) Bicycle Parking - Short-Term (Class II) (4) Total Bicycle Storage 12 0.33 4 Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service 1 0 0 Designated Employer Contact 1 5 5 Direct Route to Transit 1 0 0 Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools 100%0 0 Guaranteed Emergency Ride Home program 81 1 81 Information Boards/Kiosks 2 5 10 Passenger Loading Zone 1 0 0 Pedestrian Connections 1 5 5 Preferential Carpool Parking (29)29 2 58 Preferential Vanpool Parking (1)1 7 7 Promotional Programs 1 0 0 Showers (4)/Clothes Lockers (32)4 10 40 Additional Credit for combination with bicycle lockers 1 5 5 Shuttle Program (assumes 36 ridership)36 1 36 Additional Credit for Emergency Ride Home program 36 1 36 Transportation Management Association Participation 1 5 5 Annual Employee Commute Survey 1 1.5 1.5 Subtotal of C/CAG Trips Credited 293 Additional TDM Measures Bicycle Connections 1 1 1 On-site and nearby amenities 2 5 10 Additional Credit for combination of any 10 elements 1 5 5 Other Measures - to be Deemed Consistent by Chief Planner TDM Plan/Transportation Action Plan 1 0 0 Tenant Training and Owner-Provided Resources 1 1 1 Coordinate TDM programs w/existing developments/employers 1 5 5 Tenant Performance Requirement and Lease Language 1 10 10 Onsite Kick-off Event 1 1 1 Subtotal of Additional and Other Measures 33 Total C/CAG Trips Credited 326 95 ATTACHMENTS Employer Shuttle Rider Pass Program Flier Mid-day Taxi Service – Downtown Dasher Program Flier Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Flier Free Transit Ticket Distribution Program – Try Transit Registration Carpool Incentive Flier – You Pool, We Pay! Vanpool Incentive Flier Emergency Ride Home Program – Employer Focus Emergency Ride Home Program – Employee Focus List of Nearby Amenities (food service, restaurants, coffee, rental car, etc.) 96 97 98 99 100 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Attention Bicycle Commuters Get A Free One Hour Bike And Pedestrian Safety Workshop At Your Jobsite This Fun, Energizing Workshop Includes: · Tips on including Bicycling as a safe, stress relieving commute mode · Coverage of Traffic Laws for Bicyclists, Pedestrians, and Motorists around Bicyclists and Pedestrians · Basic Bicycle Maintenance Tips · Free bicycle related Door Prizes Ask Your Employer To Give Us A Call, And The ALLIANCE Will Do The Rest!!! If you would like more information on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program, please call The ALLIANCE at 650-588-8170, visit our website at www.commute.org , or e-mail us at ALLIANCE@commute.org Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • E. Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • Millbrae • Pacifica • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • S. San Francisco Rev 2 101 QuickLinksQuickLinks AlliancePrograms FREE TransitTickets Get an EmergencyRide Home Rebates for newvanpoolparticipants Carpool IncentiveProgram Bike Parking atHalf Cost Develop AShuttle Program The Bike andPedestrianSafety Program Tired and frustrated with driving alone on your long commute to work every day? Interested in public transportation options, but never taken the time to try it? If you’re over 18, live or work in San Mateo County and have not used public transportation to commute to work, you could be eligible for a free ticket on BART, SamTrans, Caltrain, VTA, Dumbarton Express or M Line. Just complete the questionaire below and we’ll mail you a free ticket from the transit agency of your choice. Despite what you might think, public transit is very convenient. When you try public transportation you can: Save hundreds of dollars a year in auto expenses (gas, insurance, maintenance, tolls, etc.) Work or relax during your commute and reduce the amount of stress you feel Use the new found time you have to read, talk with friends, or get ahead at workGet to work and get home on time regardless of the weather, traffic accidents, breakdowns, etc. Help reduce environmental pollution and overcrowded roadsUse pre-tax dollars to pay for your public transportation expenses Be one of the first to complete the questionnaire below and we’ll mail you free transit tickets from the transit agency of your choice as mentioned below. Please note that this offer is for one ticket request, per person, one time only. Try Transit Free Tickets Order Form First Name: Last Name: Home Address: City: State: Zip: Phone number: 102 Email Address: Employer Name: Employer Address: City: State: Zip: How do you usually get to work? Drive alone Carpool / vanpool Transit: BART Caltrain Dumbarton Express SamTrans VTA M Line Bike / walk Other:Description I would like a free ticket for: Caltrain (3 round-trip tickets) SamTrans (6 one-way tickets) BART (one $9 BART ticket) VTA (3 round-trip tickets) M Line (6 one-way tickets) Dumbarton Express (6 one-way tickets) What is the one-way mileage from your home to your worksite? How did you hear about this program? www.commute.orgwww.commute.org If "Other", then please state how you heard about it: How many days per week do you commute? I certify that I am over 18 years of age, live or work in San Mateo County, and have not used public transit to commute to work in the past. A Joint Powers Authority of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo and South San Francisco. © 2002 Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance 103    QuickLinks Alliance Programs Carpool Program Form FREE Transit Tickets Get an Emergency Ride Home Rebates for new vanpool participants Carpool Incentive Program Bike Parking at Half Cost Develop A Shuttle Program The Bike and Pedestrian Safety Program You Pool, We Pay! If you currently drive alone, and you commute to, from or through San Mateo County, we invite you to try carpooling to work. The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance is offering:  gas cards worth $60.00 for commuters with standard cars  gas cards worth $80.00 for commuters with hybrid cars (Clean Air Vehicle decal required)  gift cards worth $80.00 for commuters with clean air vehicles (Clean Air Vehicle decal required) to commuters who pledge to carpool to work a minimum of two days per week, for an eight week period instead of driving alone. Each member of the carpool is eligible for this offer! To find out if your vehicle qualifies for the Clean Air Vehicle decal, please visit the California Air Resource Board (ARB) website at: www.arb.ca.gov Visit the www.dmv.ca.gov to find out how to apply for Clean Air Vehicle decal. Please read the section about the FasTrak requirement carefully. If you need a carpool partner or want to find a new member for an existing carpool, call 511 or visit the 511.org website. Commute by carpool ... and we'll buy the gas Now is the time to try carpooling! The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance is offering a $60.00 to $80.00 gas card incentive to help you. Start here:  Form a NEW carpool with two or more people over the age of 18 or  Add a NEW member to an existing two-person carpool.  Then, register yourself (the carpool coordinator) and the names and emails of your carpool partners below.  The carpool coordinator is the only person required to complete this form to start the process which includes completing the carpools partners’ information accurately on this one form.  Select the type of vehicle from the drop-down box at the top of the application area.  Special requirements state that Hybrid and CAV carpoolers must drive through carpool lanes.  Hybrid or CAV incentive applicants will need to mail or fax us a copy of the Clean Air decal.   104 About Rideshare Rewards Welcome carpoolers! Earn rewards and enjoy time with friends and colleagues as you beat the rush hour blues. Carpooling saves you money on gas and car wear - and now it pays! Listen up dolo commuters! If you switch to carpooling and work in the nine-county Bay Area you can win FREE gas or grocery gift cards. Earn $10 for every ve days you carpool within a 90-day period, up to $100. And one lucky commuter wins $1,000 in gift cards in a grand prize drawing. Rideshare Rewards starts April 21st and runs until funds are depleted. It’s rst come, rst serve, so sign up now! Need to nd a carpool partner? Sign up for our FREE on-line RideMatch Service. Who is Eligible Drive-alone commuters who switch to carpooling and work in the nine- county Bay Area. This is for NEW carpoolers only. Read eligibility guidelines. Spin the Wheel Prizes Rideshare Rewards 2006 and 2007 carpoolers can spin the wheel weekly for prizes. Gas cards! Drinks from Peet’s Coee & Tea! Spin the wheel and win, as long as you carpool at least once a week. Read eligibility guidelines. Get started Step one: Find a carpool partner! Sign up in our free online RideMatch Service to nd potential matches, or recruit co-workers, friends and family. Step two: Register for Rideshare Rewards. Log carpool days in your online Commute Diary. Step three: Receive your gas or grocery gift card! Start a vanpool Get $900 Learn more http://www.rideshare.511.org/rideshare_rewards/rewards.asp 105 EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM Are you ready to improve recruitment and retention rates, reduce parking congestion, and attract employees from a wider area, while providing a subsidized, low cost benefit to your employees? Do it all with the Alliance’s Emergency Ride Home Program Most employees choose to drive their own personal vehicle to work because they don’t want to be stranded at work should an emergency arise. With the Emergency Ride Home program, employees are given the assurance that, in the case of an emergency, they will be provided with a free taxi ride or a 24-hour car rental. We pay 75% of the ride! The participating employer pays the remaining 25%. Historically, program costs remain very low because emergencies are infrequent. The Alliance can help you design easy administration policies that prevent program abuse. Employer cost of one Emergency Ride Home: average $12 Trusting your employer will be there for you in an emergency: Priceless The Alliance does all the work. If you have any questions or are unsure if your company could benefit from this or other no to low cost commute programs, contact us at 650-588-8170 or via email at alliance@commute.org. 106 EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM Don’t Get Stranded At Work! Do you want to bike, walk, carpool, vanpool, or take public transit; but are worried about becoming stranded if an emergency arises while you are at work? The Emergency Ride Home gives you the peace of mind necessary to get out of traffic and save money, time and stress. When your Employer signs up for The Emergency Ride Home program, you have a reliable way to get home quickly in the event of an emergency. Most people choose to drive their own personal vehicle to work because they don’t want to be faced with a dilemma should an emergency arise. Be certain that, in the case of an emergency, your employer will support you with a free taxi ride or a 24-hour car rental. You have the freedom to carpool, vanpool, bus, bike or walk to work without the fear of becoming stranded in an emergency. How do I get my employer involved? You can provide your employer with information about the program by printing out the Emergency Ride Home section of this website at www.commute.org Otherwise, send us a contact name, number and address to alliance@commute.org or call us at 650-588-8170 and we’ll be happy to contact them for you. 107 List of Nearby Amenities Located 0.50 or Less Miles Britannia Modular Labs 3 (328 Roebling Road) Restaurants, Cafes/Delis, Coffee, and Bakeries A-1 Sandwich Company 429 Cabot Road, S San Francisco, CA – 650-869-7090 (0.20 miles way) Deli (located inside Golden Gate Petroleum) 114 Harbor Way, S San Francisco, CA – 650-737-9675 (0.20 miles away) The Patio Café 601 Gateway Boulevard, #190, S San Francisco, CA – 650-872-0111 (0.22 miles away) The Great American Grill Restaurant (located inside the Hilton Garden Inn) 670 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-872-1515 (0.23 miles away) Two Fifty Restaurant (located inside Embassy Suites) 250 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-589-3400 (0.25 miles away) Wendy’s 176 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-866-4460 (0.28 miles away) Starbucks 176 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-866-3904 (0.28 miles away) Specialty’s Café & Bakery 701 Gateway Boulevard, #150, S San Francisco, CA – 650-634-0851 (0.30 miles away) Deli (located inside Flyers South San Francisco) 176 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-737-9800 (0.30 miles away) Luigi’s Sandwich Palace 326 Littlefield Avenue, S San Francisco, CA – 650-952-4633 (0.50 miles away) 108 Convenience Stores Golden Gate Petroleum 114 Harbor Way, S San Francisco, CA – 650-737-9675 (0.20 miles away) The Pavilion Pantry (located inside the Hilton Garden Inn) 670 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-872-1515 (0.23 miles away) Flyers South San Francisco 176 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-737-9800 (0.30 miles away) Hotels Hilton Garden Inn 670 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-872-1515 (0.23 miles away) Embassy Suites 250 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-589-3400 (0.25 miles away) Health, Fitness & Entertainment Henry’s Entertainment 419 Littlefield Avenue, S San Francisco, CA – 650-583-1623 (0.40 miles away) Shisei Aiki Dojo 130 East Grand Avenue, S San Francisco, CA – 650-871-4443 (0.40 miles away) Fitness West 720 Dubuque Avenue, S San Francisco, CA – 650-588-9378 (0.50 miles away) Transportation & Gas Stations Golden Gate Petroleum 114 Harbor Way, S San Francisco, CA – 650-737-9675 (0.20 miles away) Flyers South San Francisco 176 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-737-9800 (0.30 miles away) Avis Rent-a-Car 230 Harbor Way, S San Francisco, CA – 650-873-4586 (0.40 miles away) 109 Banks & ATMs Golden Gate Petroleum (ATM inside) 114 Harbor Way, S San Francisco, CA – 650-737-9675 (0.20 miles away) Flyers South San Francisco (ATM inside) 176 Gateway Boulevard, S San Francisco, CA – 650-737-9800 (0.30 miles away) Other Inspiration Floral Design 396 Forbes Boulevard, #D, S San Francisco, CA – 650-588-1822 (0.10 miles away) South San Francisco Tire Services 282 E Grand Avenue, S San Francisco, CA – 650-588-4596 (0.20 miles away) Belline Baskets 449 Forbes Avenue, S San Francisco, CA – 650-952-3170 (0.30 miles away) 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-316 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1a. Resolution making findings and determining that the 233 East Grand/328-340 Roebling Project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2012 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and that the 2020 Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. WHEREAS,in 2012 the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted (1)Resolution No.94-2012 certifying the 2012 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“2012 Recirculated IS/MND”)(State Clearinghouse No.2009022013),(2)Resolution No.93-2012 approving a use permit,parcel map,master sign permit,preliminary transportation demand management (TDM)plan,and design review,and (3)Ordinance No. 1460-2012 approving a development agreement with Bayside Area Development,LLC,for the construction of two new 2-story office/R&D buildings totaling 105,536 square feet,with a combination of at-grade and subterranean parking at a ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet (“Entitled Project”)on an approximately 2.97 -acre site located at 233 East Grand Avenue /328-340 Roebling Road (“Project Site”)in the City of South San Francisco; and WHEREAS,Bayside Area Development LLC (“Owner”or “Applicant”)submitted an application requesting approval of a Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment to increase the entitled square footage to 129,919 square feet of office/R&D space,increasing the density of development on the site from a Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”)of 0.81 to a 1.0 FAR,and revise the site plan to have a five-story stand-along office/R&D building with a three-story parking structure (“Revised Project”); and WHEREAS,approval of the Applicant’s Revised Project is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,§§21000,et seq.,“CEQA”)and CEQA Guidelines,which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164,an addendum to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was prepared for the Project (“2020 Addendum”)which evaluates whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and WHEREAS,the 2020 Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162,the implementation of the Revised Project will not cause significant impacts,that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2012 Recirculated IS/MND,that no substantial changes in the project or circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous MND have occurred,and that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts nor shows new,different or more feasible mitigation measures; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 4,2020,at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to consider the Project and the 2020 Addendum,as well asCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™240 File #:20-316 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1a. interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to consider the Project and the 2020 Addendum,as well as supporting documents, prior to the Planning Commission making its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW THEREFORE,based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.(“CEQA)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan,and General Plan Environmental Impact Report;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;2012 Recirculated IS/MND,and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs;2020 Addendum to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND;the Project applications;the 233 East Grand/328-340 Roebling Project Plans,as prepared by Flad Architects,dated March 23,2020;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 4,2020 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND (Exhibit A)and the 2020 Addendum (attached as Exhibit B)are each incorporated by reference as if they were each set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. B.General Plan Consistency Findings 1.The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the land use, development standards,densities and intensities,buildings and structures proposed continue to be compatible with the goals,policies,and land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov’t Code,§65860). The Project site is located in the Business and Technology Park land use category and zoning district,and is part of the “East of 101”Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan.The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan as it has been designed to promote campus-style uses,such as biotechnology,high-technology and research and development uses.The site layout and overall architecture would help shape the urban character of the East of 101 Area.The proposed modifications would not result in any substantive changes,and the overall project would remain consistent with the intent and purpose of the General Plan land use designation and comply with all development standards of the Zoning Ordinance. C. CEQA Findings 1.The Planning Commission,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164,subsection (d),has considered the 2020 Addendum prepared for the Project including the related environmental analysis,along City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™241 File #:20-316 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1a. with the previously certified 2012 Recirculated IS/MND. 2.Upon consideration of the 2020 Addendum,the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Project will not result in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 that would require further environmental review through preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 3.The Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND.Further,the Planning Commission finds that there is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new or substantially more severe significant effects,as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA documents. Nor are any new,additional,or more feasible mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Project. 4.For the reasons stated in this Resolution,the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that approval of the Project will result in a significant environmental effect. 5.Accordingly,the Planning Commission finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any further CEQA review,and that the 2020 Addendum,prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution,and recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution making a determination that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project and no subsequent environmental analysis is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™242 RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MND STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2009022013 328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3) PREPARED FOR: City of South San Francisco Originally Circulated: February 2009 Revised and Recirculated: July 2009 Revised and Recirculated: February 2012 Prepared by Lamphier – Gregory 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606 243 244 328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page i Table of Contents Page RECIRCULATION .....................................................................................................................................................1  INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................3  MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ........................................................................................................19  INITIAL STUDY .......................................................................................................................................................33  AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................................................................... 36  AGRICULTURE RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................. 39  AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................................. 40  BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 47  CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................... 50  GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..................................................................................................................................... 53  GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 64  HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................................................................ 69  HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 79  LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................................................. 92  MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................... 95  NOISE ............................................................................................................................................................. 96  POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................................................................................... 99  PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................... 102  RECREATION ................................................................................................................................................. 105  TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................................... 106  UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................... 117  MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................... 123  245 328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3) Page ii Recirculated IS/MND Figures Figure 1: Site Location and Vicinity ......................................................................................................................5 Figure 2: Existing Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................9 Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................................................11 Figure 4: Proposed Building Elevations, Building A (Building B is Similar) .....................................................13 Figure 5: Proposed Landscape Plan .....................................................................................................................15 Figure 6: Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan ...................................................................................................17 Figure 7: Colma Creek Flood Protection Zone ....................................................................................................81 Tables Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................19 Table 2: Air Quality Data Summary for Closest Monitoring Sites, 2007-2009 ...................................................41 Table 3: Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions for Project Operations ........................................................................44 Table 4: Nearest Active Faults .............................................................................................................................58 Table 5: Annual Operational GHG Emissions .....................................................................................................67 Table 6: Potential Pollutants From Industrial Activities ......................................................................................86 Table 7: Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions for the 10-Year Design Storm .........................................89 Appendices Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Modeling Appendix B: Traffic Study 246 328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 1 RECIRCULATION RECIRCULATION On January 28, 2009, the City of South San Francisco published an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Project in the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco. That document concluded that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, the potentially significant effect could be reduced to less than significant levels through incorporation of mitigation measures. A Recirculated IS/MND was subsequently circulated on July 2009. This document had been revised in response to comments received from public agencies and recirculated per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15073.5(b)(1) because a new potentially significant effect was identified (vehicle queuing at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue U.S. 101 off-ramp) along with mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant. Neither the original January 2009 IS/MND, nor the July 2009 Recirculated IS/MND were adopted by the Lead Agency. During the intervening time, the area-wide East of 101 traffic was re-modeled and the East of 101 Traffic Improvement Program was revised, changing some of the assumptions used in the previous traffic analyses. Additionally, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has published thresholds and guidelines for analyzing GHG emissions, which had not previously been in place, and revised threshold levels for criteria air pollutants. Because of the time that has gone by and the magnitude of traffic, air quality and GHG emissions impacts that have changed, the Lead Agency decided to recirculate this document. Additional minor clarifying revisions have been made to other discussions and/or mitigation measures to be consistent with current documents, regulations and policies. However, these other minor clarifying revisions are not considered “substantial revisions” that would otherwise have necessitated recirculation of this document. 247 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 2 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank 248 328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 3 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT This document serves as the IS/MND for the 328 Roebling Road Project. Per CEQA Guidelines (Section 15070), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared to meet the requirements of CEQA review when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant environmental effects, but revisions in the project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. This document is organized in three sections as follows:  Introduction and Project Description. This section introduces the document and discussed the project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts.  Mitigated Negative Declaration. This section lists the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and proposes findings that would allow adoption of this document as the CEQA review document for the proposed Project.  Initial Study. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions and identifies the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures to avoid these impacts. PUBLIC REVIEW The IS/MND will be circulated for a 30-day public review period. Written comments may be submitted to the following address: Linda Ajello, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Telephone: 650-877-8535 Fax: 650-829-6639 Linda.Ajello@ssf.net Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the Project itself, which is a separate action to be taken by the Planning Commission. Approval of the Project can take place only after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted. 249 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 4 Recirculated IS/MND GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS Development of the Project as proposed would require a Lot Consolidation, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. LEAD AGENCY City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 CONTACT PERSON Linda Ajello, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Department P.O. Box 711/315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 650-877-8535 Linda.Ajello@ssf.net PROJECT SPONSOR HCP, Inc. 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 409 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Contact: Jonathan M. Bergschneider, Vice President PROJECT LOCATION The approximately 3 acre Project site is located at 328 Roebling Road, in South San Francisco’s East of 101 Area, in San Mateo County. The Project would occupy three adjacent parcels that are currently occupied by warehouse, office, and industrial uses. The assessor’s parcel numbers (APNs) are 015041290, 015041250, and 015041110. Figure 1 shows the Project location. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Business and Technology Park ZONING Business Technology Park (BTP) 250 328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 5 FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION 251 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 6 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank. 252 328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 7 EXISTING USES Three office/warehouse buildings currently occupy the Project site as shown in Figure 2 and described as follows: 233 East Grand Avenue APN: 015-041-290 Site Area: 1.18 acres Overall Building Square Footage: 40,423 square feet Office Use Square Footage: 1,287 square feet Warehouse Use Square Footage: 39,136 square feet Tenant(s): United Cold Storage (Warehouse) 328 Roebling Road APN: 015-041-250 Site Area: 1.1 acres Overall Building Square Footage: 18,636 square feet Office Use Square Footage: 1,340 square feet Warehouse Use Square Footage: 17,296 square feet Tenant(s): Slakey Brothers (Warehouse) 340 Roebling Road APN: 015-041-110 Site Area: 0.7 acres Overall Building Square Footage: 20,442 square feet Office Use Square Footage: 5,088 square feet Warehouse Use Square Footage: 15,354 square feet Tenant(s): William Tuck (Attorney), Melon’s Catering, Atlas Heating The site is currently industrial in design with buildings and paved areas covering the majority of the site. The leases currently in place will extend for no more than 1 year from January 2012. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The Project site is located on Roebling Road, a cul-de-sac off of East Grand Avenue, in the “East of 101 Area”, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and technology businesses, including Research and Development (R&D) offices. The site is in a Business and Technology Park area, with Business Commercial and Mixed Industrial uses nearby. The East of 101 Area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east side, Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The area has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. The area is separated from the majority of residential uses by U.S. 101, though some houseboats are permitted at the nearby Oyster Point. While the East of 101 Area is almost completely built out, redevelopment remains extremely active as existing facilities are upgraded as industry continues to evolve toward high- technology and research and development uses. Adjacent and to the east of the Project site is the location of a recently developed office R&D project at 249 East Grand Avenue. The property to the west of the Project site, across Roebling Road, includes a number of buildings housing light industrial/warehousing/office uses, the majority of which is the site of 253 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 8 Recirculated IS/MND the 213 – 221 East Grand Avenue office and R&D redevelopment project, which obtained its entitlements from the City of South San Francisco in late 2008, including the approval of a 10 year development agreement. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes the removal of 3 existing office/warehouse buildings containing 79,501 square feet total on an approximately 3 acre site at 328 Roebling Road, and the construction in their place of two 2- story office/R&D buildings each containing 52,768 square feet (105,536 square feet total) of office/laboratory space over a basement garage. The Project would also entail the development of at- grade and subterranean parking at a ratio of 2.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The site plan is included as Figure 3. Proposed Aesthetics The applicants have stated that this Project is intended to help diversify the office/research and development inventory in the East of 101 Area and provide a place for young life-sciences companies to grow. With a target of younger-stage companies, the Project includes smaller, more modest buildings (see Figure 4) than seen in other recent campus-style developments. The landscaping plan includes perimeter and frontage trees, additional parking lot trees for accent and shading, and a vegetated swale (see Figure 5). Usable outdoor open space is provided for each building in the form of first and second floor balconies along the northeastern side of each building. Proposed Phasing The Project is intended to be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 would involve demolition of the two buildings at 328 and 340 Roebling Road and grading and construction of Building A on that back (northeast) portion of the site. Phase 2 would complete the Project with demolition of the building at 233 Grand Avenue and grading and construction of Building B on that front (southwest) portion of the site. Proposed Grading The rear of the site is approximately 23 feet higher than the frontage along East Grand Avenue. The proposed grading plan shows a vegetated swale taking advantage of this existing elevation change to treat stormwater as it runs downward along the grade toward East Grand Avenue. The proposed grading would be generally similar to what it is now, with grades varying between 1% and 4.4% from northeast to southwest. From east to west, the site currently drains to Roebling Road. The grading of the site will be changed to allow drainage to the swale that is proposed to be installed along the site’s eastern boundary. The proposed grading plan is included as Figure 6. Proposed Circulation and Access As proposed, the Project site would be accessed through three entrances, two on Roebling Road and one on East Grand Avenue (See Figure 2). The main entrance on Roebling Road is in the middle of the site between Building A and Building B. The second Roebling Road entrance is to the east of Building A. Due to a median on East Grand Avenue that would prevent left turns into the site, this entrance could only be accessed via a right turn from northbound East Grand Avenue, and vehicles exiting the site could only make a right turn. There is a left turn lane for southbound vehicles on East Grand Avenue directing vehicles onto Roebling Road. 254 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 9 FIGURE 2. EXISTING SITE PLAN Source: DES Architects/Engineers for HCP, Inc. (Applicants) 255 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 10 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank 256 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 11 FIGURE 3. PROPOSED SITE PLAN Source: DES Architects/Engineers for HCP, Inc. (Applicants), dated 11/24/09 257 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 12 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank 258 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 13 FIGURE 4. PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS, BUILDING A (BUILDING B IS SIMILAR) Source: DES Architects/Engineers for HCP, Inc. (Applicants), dated 11/24/09 259 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 14 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank 260 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 15 FIGURE 5. PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN Source: DES Architects/Engineers for HCP, Inc. (Applicants), dated 11/24/09 261 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 16 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank 262 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 17 FIGURE 6. PROPOSED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Source: Wilsey Ham for HCP, Inc. (Applicants), undated 263 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 18 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank 264 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 19 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND SETTING This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 328 Roebling Road Project. See the Introduction and Project Description section of this document for details of the Project. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION The following is a list of potential Project impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist section of this document for a more detailed discussion. Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level Impact Air-1: Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive dust particles that could affect local air quality. This impact is considered to be potentially significant. Air-1: Basic Construction Best Management Practices. The Project 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”. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. 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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads 265 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 20 Recirculated IS/MND Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. 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. g. 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. h. 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. Impact Bio-1: Disturbance of Nesting Birds. Construction activities could adversely affect nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or Fish and Game Code of California. This is a potentially significant impact. Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre- construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California within 100 feet of a development site in the Project area shall be conducted within 30 days of initiation of construction activities. If active nests are found, the Project shall follow recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. If there is a complete stoppage in construction activities for 30 days or more, a new nesting-survey shall be completed prior to re-initiation of construction activities. Impact Geo-1: Seismic Ground Shaking. Buildings and occupants of the Project site would be subject to ground shaking in the event of a seismic event, which could be high intensity (Mercalli intensity level of IX, violent). Development of the Project would increase the number of structures and people potentially exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. This is a potentially significant impact. Geo-1a: Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall meet requirements of the California Building Code as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions adopted by the City of South San Francisco. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure. Geo-1b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report and with Structural Design Plans. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a 266 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 21 Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level Registered Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in structural design. The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the California Building Code. The Project Geotechnical Investigation shall establish the seismic design parameters, as determined by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with requirements of the California Building Code. Geo-1c: Obtain a building permit and complete final plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Impact Geo-2: Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Settlement. Due to the site’s location at the border between the competent bedrock of Oyster Point to the north, and artificial fill placed over tidal flats to the south, the southern portion of the Project area is identified as an area of high hazard for liquefaction. The northern portion is identified as having a very low hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or densification of soils underlying the site could result in settlement and differential settlement of site improvements including buildings, pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to human health. The potential for liquefaction of site soils is considered a potentially significant impact. Geo-2a: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis for liquefaction potential of the underlying sediments. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer, or civil engineer experienced in structural engineering shall prepare Project structural design plans. Structures shall be designed to minimize the effects of anticipated seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the geotechnical elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigation measures may include excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and ground improvement by methods such as 267 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 22 Recirculated IS/MND Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level stone columns or pressure grouting. Geo-2b: Obtain a building permit and complete plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Impact Geo-3: Landslides and Slope Stability. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The site is located on gently sloping ground, and as such natural slope stability is not expected to be an issue. However, cuts currently exist in the northern part of the site, and more cuts will be necessary to provide level building pads. These cuts will require construction of retaining walls, which could fail if improperly designed. The impacts of slope stability and landslides are potentially significant. Geo-3: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis of the site slope stability. Proper foundation engineering and retaining wall design shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. Impact Geo-4: Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading at the site. Excavation of soil for construction of new buildings and pavement sections would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of loose soil will be created. Soils exposed during construction activities would be subject to erosion during storm events. This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site construction activities. Geo-4: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board, the Applicant shall file a SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Impact Geo-5: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud. Undocumented fill soils are present on portions of the subject site. Fill soils may settle due to new building loads. Bay Mud and alluvial soil deposits are present on adjacent sites and also constitute areas of potentially unstable soils. Bay Mud may be present under the southern portion of the Project site and may settle under design loading conditions resulting in differential settlement of structures. The presence of unstable fill soil and Bay Mud is a potentially significant impact. Geo-5: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be performed to determine the depth and extent of potentially unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based on results of this study, the Geotechnical Engineer shall determine appropriate measures to stabilize the potentially unstable site soils. Consolidation testing of any Bay Mud soils present shall be performed, as part of the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, and estimates of settlement for the site shall be developed. 268 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 23 Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include construction of driven pile foundations that support structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay Mud, and other methods as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Impact Geo-6: Expansive Soils. Expansive soils are present in the existing fill on the site and in Bay Mud sediments that underlie the site. The presence of expansive soils could cause damage to proposed improvements but are unlikely to create substantial risk of life. The impact of expansive soil is potentially significant. Geo-6: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for expansion potential of the site soils. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer shall prepare Project structural design plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the effects of expansive surface soils. Mitigations measures may include the following: Excavate expansive soils and replace with at least one foot of non-expansive fill. Design and construct structures to withstand expected stresses by the implementation of the following: minimize use of slab- on-grade floors; support buildings and slabs on non- expansive materials; chemically treat expansive materials to reduce expansion potential; avoid siting structures across soil materials of substantially different expansive properties; extend foundations below the zone of seasonal moisture change; utilize pier-and-grade- beam foundation systems where appropriate; utilize special bending resistant design; and prevent accumulation of surface water adjacent to buildings. Impact Haz-1: Routine Use of Hazardous Materials. The proposed development includes construction of Class-A office and laboratory buildings. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed information is not currently available, there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the site that will eventually require disposal. This could include both biohazards, as well as chemical hazards. There will also likely be transportation of hazardous materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and East Grand Avenue. Haz-1a: Registration in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Qualifying businesses occupying and/or operating at the development must submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. Businesses qualify for the Hazardous Materials Business 269 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 24 Recirculated IS/MND Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially significant impact. Plan Program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods; medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, included in material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Haz-1b: Compliance with US Department of Transportation, State of California and local laws, ordinances and procedures for transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Existing buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, and PCBs. Underlying site soils may contain hazardous materials including toxic heavy metals related to the history of heavy industry in the area. The historic railroad grade along the northeast edge of the Project site may be a source of additional hazardous materials, including arsenic, chromium, creosote, zinc chloride, or other wood preservatives. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Following construction, operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition plan with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition. The Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing structures shall include asbestos dust control and incorporate recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plan shall address both on-site worker protection and off-site resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill facilities. 270 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 25 Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level environment through accidental release of hazardous materials since the site is proposed to include Class A laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials may be stored, used, and disposed of. This represents a potentially significant impact. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from BAAQMD, an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. Haz-2b: Additional Soil Sampling of Site Soils. The applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, or wood preservatives are present in site soils. These tests shall take place throughout the Project site. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial guidelines including the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels for commercial/ industrial sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals for commercial/ industrial sites, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented, as discussed in Mitigation Measure Haz-2c. Haz-2c: Implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan. If contamination of site soils is detected, then results shall be submitted to the State of California EPA, pursuant to the Brownfield Memorandum of Agreement, Request for Oversight of a Brownfield Site process, and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment will be provided in the plan. At a minimum the plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the site. (2) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the Project site. This includes a HASP for all 271 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 26 Recirculated IS/MND Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. (3) Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during Project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site. (4) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. (5) Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. (6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development if determined necessary through coordination with California EPA. (7) The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the Project. Haz-2d: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP). Future businesses at the development shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CalARP registration form and submit it to 272 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 27 Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level Environmental Health. Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment in the event that a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff, maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an accidental release. Impact Haz-3: Hazardous Materials Near Schools. The nearest school or childcare sites to the Project are the Gateway Child Care Center, located 0.21 miles northwest of the proposed Project, the Early Years Preschool, located 0.27 miles southeast of the Project site, and the Genentech Childcare Center, located 0.40 miles northeast of the Project site. Hazardous materials potentially present at the Project site could lead to a hazardous materials release during site demolition or future on-site activities. The impact of hazardous materials emissions within one-quarter mile of a school is a potentially significant impact. Haz-3: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d. Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-2a through Haz-2d shall be performed. These mitigation measures include requirements for preparing a Demolition Plan and obtaining permits for the demolition work, performing additional soil sampling of site soils to identify any contaminated soils present, and preparation and implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control if contaminated soil is identified, as well as future business participation in the California Accidental Release Prevention Program if listed chemicals are used at the Project site. Impact Haz-4: Hazardous Materials on Site. The site is not currently included on the “Cortese List” but Phase I studies indicate the possibility for hazardous material contamination of the site that could qualify the site for listing pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Haz-4: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d. As described above, these mitigation measures comprehensively address on-site hazardous materials. Impact Hydro-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Exposure and disturbance of site soils during construction and delivery of post construction surface runoff containing industrial pollutants to receiving waters could allow eroded soils and pollution to enter storm water and downstream waters. This is a potentially significant impact. Hydro-1: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during construction and submit the SWPPP as part of project application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and Building Permit Application. The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1) Grading and earthwork shall be allowed with the 273 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 28 Recirculated IS/MND Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level appropriate SWPPP measures during the wet season (October 1 through April 30) and such work shall be stopped before pending storm events. 2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 3) “Best management practices” (BMPs) for preventing the discharge of other construction- related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, trash, etc.) to downstream waters such as covered and contained storage areas, contained wash-out areas, and prompt and appropriate disposal. 4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment and trash, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. In accordance with the handbook C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, permanent mitigation measures for stormwater shall be submitted as part of project application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and Building Permit Application. Elements that shall be addressed in the submittals include the following: 5) Description of potential sources of erosion, sediment, and trash at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources, including non-point source pollutants. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall 274 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 29 Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, trash removal, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed as a result of the BMPs described above may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis. 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the State Water Resources Control Board. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies identified through the monitoring. 9) Proposed locations and sizing of stormwater treatment measures shall be included. The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Impact Hydro-2: Altered Drainage Patterns. Construction operations associated with the Project would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff and post construction runoff that could increase and/or could contain soil and sediment. Hydro-2: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1. Implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1 for construction related sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will reduce the impact of altered drainage patterns to less than significant. Impact Hydro-3: Degrade Water Quality. Construction and operation of the Project have the potential to degrade water quality through discharge of stormwater. Hydro-3: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1. Implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1for construction related sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will reduce the impact on water quality to less than significant. Impact Noise-1: Construction-Related Noise. Project Noise-1: Construction Noise Abatement and Limitation 275 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 30 Recirculated IS/MND Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level construction could result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy construction equipment. Construction noise typically ranges from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. This impact is considered to be potentially significant. of Construction Hours. Construction hours shall be limited to the hourly restrictions specified in the City Noise Ordinance, and the Project sponsor shall require by contract specification that construction best management practices be implemented by contractors to reduce noise levels to the 90-dBA at 25 feet noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance. Required practices shall include but not be limited to: • Ensuring that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards, • Implementing noise attenuation measures such as noise barriers or noise blankets, and • Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during construction to be routed away from noise and vibration sensitive uses. Impact Traf-1: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing, Airport Blvd. Addition of Project traffic would significantly increase volumes for the left turn on the southbound approach to Grand Avenue, which already exceeds available queuing capacity. This is a potentially significant impact. Traf-1: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue Signal Timing. Adjust signal timing to the approval of the South San Francisco Public Works Department in order to reduce Base Case + Project 95th percentile vehicle queuing for the left turn movement on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue to a shorter distance than Base Case queuing for this movement. Impact Traf-2: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing, E. Grand Avenue. The addition of Project traffic would degrade existing acceptable queuing in the left turn lane on the approach to the unsignalized Roebling Road intersection to an unacceptable storage demand. Traf-2: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Turn Lane Extension. The following improvement is not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution for this program. The Project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvement: Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet (as determined by the City Engineer). Impact Traf-3: East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Signal Warrant. This unsignalized intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to cumulative PM peak hour volumes. This would be a significant impact. Traf-3: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Signalization. The following improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The Project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvement or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this Project: a) Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation 276 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 31 Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. b) Lengthen the single left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the Forbes/Harbor intersection to at least 225 feet (as determined by the City Engineer). Prohibit left turns to/from all driveways along E. Grand Avenue between these two locations. Mitigation Measure Traf-2, the E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road left turn lane extension, would also reduce this impact. Impact Traf-4: Grade Crossing Approaches Missing Signing and Pavement Striping. The State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City of South San Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection that the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection grade crossing is not up to minimum standards on one or more approaches for required advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping). This results in an existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition of Project traffic. This would be a significant impact. Traf-4: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing & Pavement Striping. The Project shall provide a fair share contribution towards all needed signs and pavement markings on the approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection “at grade railroad crossing” to meet minimum State Public Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission. 277 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 32 Recirculated IS/MND PROPOSED FINDINGS The report preparers, in consultation with City of South San Francisco staff, have determined that with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If this Mitigated Negative Declaration is adopted by the City of South San Francisco, the requirements of CEQA will be met by the preparation of this Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project will not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. This decision is supported by the following findings: a. The Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 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. It does not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. It does not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history, since there is no identified area at the Project site which is habitat for rare or endangered species, or which represents unique examples of California history or prehistory. In addition, the Project is within the scope of use contemplated in the General Plan and the Project does not have any significant, unavoidable adverse impacts. Implementation of specified mitigation measures will avoid or reduce the effects of the Project on the environment and thereby avoid any significant impacts. b. The Project does not involve impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, because the described Project will incorporate both Project-specific mitigation measures and cumulative mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts of the Project in the context of continued growth and development in the City of South San Francisco. c. The Project does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because all adverse effects of the Project will be mitigated to an insignificant level. 278 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Environmental factors which may be affected by the Project, as defined by CEQA are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block () were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been identified as a “Potentially Significant Impact” with mitigation measures identified that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level, as indicated in the Environmental Evaluation Form Checklist and related discussion that follows. Unmarked factors () would not be significantly affected by the Project, as described in the Checklist. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population and Housing Agriculture Resources  Hazards and Hazardous Materials Public Services  Air Quality  Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use and Planning  Transportation and Circulation Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems  Geology and Soils  Noise 279 280 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 35 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each answer. A “no impact” response indicates that the impact simply does not apply to the Project or any action that would occur due to the Project. 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 below significance thresholds. Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be “less than significant with mitigation” have been identified as potentially significant impacts but indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of Project approval to effectively reduce potential Project-related environmental effects to a level below significance thresholds. Finally, while this is not the case for any topics in this IS/MND, topics with a “potentially significant impact” response would indicate the inability to identify mitigation measures to reduce the impact below significance thresholds and would need to be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report. 281 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 36 Recirculated IS/MND Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS — Would the Project: 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 the site and its surroundings?     d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     SETTING The Project site is located on Roebling Road, off of East Grand Avenue. The Project would replace three existing office/warehouse buildings with two 2-story office/R&D buildings. South San Francisco South San Francisco’s urban character is one of contrast within a visually well-defined setting. San Bruno Mountains to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges.1 The City is contained in almost a bowl-like fashion by hills on three sides. The City’s terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City’s topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. East of 101 Area The Project site is located in the East of 101 planning sub-area of South San Francisco. The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way to industrial park and warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 50s and 60s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings marks the third major wave of land use change in the area. The newly emerging office areas are unique in their use of consistent and conscious street tree planting. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally very 1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997, p.4-2, 4-10, 4-15. 282 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 37 large in size and the area is in an obvious transition from a very stark industrial look to office/R&D campuses with an emphasis on quality architectural and landscape designs. 2 Design Guidelines East of 101 Area Plan Design Element In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals and policies for the City and East of 101 Area. Although the South San Francisco General Plan (adopted in 1999) supersedes the East of 101 Area Plan, the policies contained in the Plan’s design element still apply to development at the Project site. The stated goals of the East of 101 Area Plan’s design element are to promote quality design, to promote a functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the character of South San Francisco’s heritage, protect public investment and land values, protect the natural environment, and facilitate evaluation of individual development proposals through the use of the Plan’s design guidelines. The East of 101 Area’s development policies for the Project site encourage the creation of campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and other high quality multi-tenant office or warehouse developments. The East of 101 Area Plan design element sets area-wide design policies for streetscape, parking, loading and access, site design and open space, landscaping and lighting, fencing and screening, building design, signage and rooftop mechanical equipment. Additionally, the Plan sets more specific guidelines for individual land use categories. For the Project site, the design guidelines include specific requirements for street trees, landscape buffers, minimizing visual impacts of blank walls, building orientation, design guidelines, parking lot trees and parking lot shrubs. IMPACTS a) Scenic Vistas The Project site is not located within a scenic vista. CEQA generally protects against significant adverse impacts to public views of such scenic vistas, taking into consideration the environmental context—i.e., whether the view is from a recreation area or scenic expanse, as opposed to a developed urban area. San Bruno Mountain is a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco, and can be seen from many locations throughout the city, including many portions of the East of 101 Area. Construction of the proposed Project may block a small portion of the existing views to the north from locations to the south. However, the areas from which views of the mountain may be blocked are not designated scenic overlooks; and are not places where people gather in order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain. Therefore, blockage of existing views by the proposed Project, particularly given the Project site’s urban setting, would be considered less than significant. b) Scenic Highways Within South San Francisco, sections of Interstate-280 (I-280) have been designated as scenic corridors under the State Scenic Highway program; however, these are not in the vicinity of the Project site. U.S. 2 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994. 283 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 38 Recirculated IS/MND 101 has not been designated or identified as eligible in the vicinity.3 The Project site would not impact views from a scenic highway. (No impact) c) Visual Character The proposed Project would involve the demolition of three existing office/warehouse buildings, and replacement with two 2-story office/R&D buildings. The Project site is directly across Roebling Road from an entitled, but not yet constructed, ±292,000 square foot R&D/biotech development at 213 - 221 East Grand Avenue. The proposed Project is consistent with surrounding development and design guidelines contemplated for the East of 101 Area, and would not result in development incongruous to the existing and proposed development in the area. This impact would be less than significant. 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 setting. Residential uses and natural areas are particularly sensitive to light and glare impacts, particularly from nearby non-residential sources. However, the Project is located in a commercial and industrial area with no adjacent residential uses or natural areas. The Project would increase the active building area on the Project site and therefore would increase the amount of nighttime lighting and glare. However, it is not expected that the Project could substantially affect the overall ambient light levels in the Project vicinity, a fully developed, urban context. As a standard condition of project approval, new lighting would be required to conform to standards that limit the amount of light that can spill over to other properties, through the use of downcast lighting fixtures. In summary, since the Project would consist of development and lighting treatments typical of the existing commercial/industrial urban settings and would incorporate standard lighting measures to address undue lighting on adjacent areas, it would not result in new sources of substantial adverse light or glare. The impact would be less than significant. 3 California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program, Eligible and Designated Routes, website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm, accessed on November 6, 2010. 284 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 39 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to 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 Resource Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?     d) Result in 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?     SETTING The Project site is a currently developed industrial site. It is not farmland and is not under Williamson Act contract. IMPACTS a) through e) Farmland and Forest Land No land designated for or used as agricultural land, forest land or timberland is located on the Project site. No land on the Project site is under a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact) 285 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 40 Recirculated IS/MND Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?     b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?     c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?     d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?     e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?     SETTING The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on average in the fall and winter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution in the city, but their northwesterly orientation can contribute to poor air quality in regions east of the city. Even so, in fall and winter especially there can be periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build up. State of California and Federal Air Quality Standards Both the California Air Resource Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and lead. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards include what are called “criteria” pollutants, because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in 286 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 41 criteria documents. For some of these pollutants, notably ozone and PM10, the State standards are more stringent than the national standards. In addition to the criteria pollutants, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern in the Bay Area. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. BAAQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under CEQA.4 BAAQMD monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring stations closest to the Project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. Table 2 summarizes the air quality data recorded at these two sites. The table shows that from 2007 through 2009, the ambient air quality in the areas of San Francisco and Redwood City exceeded the state standard for ozone, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for PM2.5. According to the standards of the federal Clean Air Act, the Bay Area is in attainment with all federal ambient air quality standards except for ozone and particulate matter. Table 2: Air Quality Data Summary for Closest Monitoring Sites, 2007-2009 Pollutant Standard Monitoring Site Days Standard Exceeded 2007 2008 2009 Ozone Federal 1-Hour San Francisco Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ozone Federal 8-Hour1 San Francisco Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM10 Federal 24-Hour San Francisco Redwood City 0 0 0 * 0 * PM10 State 24-Hour San Francisco Redwood City 2 1 0 * 0 * PM2.5 Federal 24-Hour San Francisco Redwood City 5 1 0 0 1 0 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal 8-Hour San Francisco Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour San Francisco Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: BAAQMD Air Pollution Summaries, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pio/aq_summaries/index.htm * PM10 monitoring was discontinued at Redwood City on June 30, 2008. Note that PM10 and PM2.5 are measured every sixth day, so the number of days exceeding the standard is estimated. 2009 is the latest year to be reported by BAAQMD. 4 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011. 287 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 42 Recirculated IS/MND IMPACTS a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to be in conflict with the current air quality plan. BAAQMD recommends thresholds for local plans, but not for project-level analysis. BAAQMD recommends thresholds for local plans, but not for project-level analysis under this criterion, as consistency is based on regional conformance with the population growth assumptions or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled. 5 The Clean Air Plan also includes control measures, but many of these are intended to be applied on a jurisdictional level and/or to select projects.6 The Project site is in an area designated as Business and Technology Park in the 1999 General Plan. The South San Francisco General Plan specifies an average Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 for the Business and Technology Park designation, but permits increases up to a FAR of 1.0 for research and development uses.7 At a FAR of 0.8, the proposed Project would therefore be within the anticipated range. The Project site’s proposed use is also consistent with the zoning for the area, Business Technology Park (BTP). The City’s General Plan designations and future land use types and intensities would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD’s most recent Clean Air Plan, released in 2010. Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are not applicable to the proposed Project, however, the Project would include implementation of an employer-based trip reduction program (Transportation Control Measure C-1) and would include bicycles and pedestrian access (Transportation Control Measures D-1 and D-2) and incorporate energy efficiency measures required under Title 24 (Energy and Climate Measure 1). The Project would not conflict with development assumptions or prevent implementation of applicable control measures and would therefore have a less than significant impact related to a conflict with the air quality plan. b) and c) Air Quality Standards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BAAQMD’s emission rate threshold or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide thresholds of significance for air pollutants which include an assumption of emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be 5 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011. 6 BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and ABAG, Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, September 2010. 7 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. 288 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 43 cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines also contain screening criteria to provide a conservative indication of whether the proposed Project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, quantification of the project’s air pollutant emissions is not necessary to make a determination that the impact will be below significance levels. Construction Activities Demolition, earth-moving activities, and exhaust emissions from construction-related vehicles and equipment comprise the major sources of construction dust and diesel emissions. Screening Criteria are included on Table 3-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, which provides construction-period screening levels of 277,000 square feet for office-type uses. 8 The Project involves construction of 105,536 square feet for R&D/office uses, which is well below the conservative screening thresholds established by the BAAQMD. Therefore, it can be concluded that construction-period criteria pollutant emissions would be below applicable thresholds without the need to quantify emissions. Fugitive dust is also a concern during the construction-period. BAAQMD does not have a threshold of significance for fugitive dust impacts, but instead regards fugitive dust impacts as mitigated if appropriate management practices are implemented, as outlined in the mitigation below. Impact Air-1 Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive dust particles that could affect local air quality. This impact is considered to be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Air-1: Basic Construction Best Management Practices. The Project 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”. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. 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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. 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. f. 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 8 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011. 289 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 44 Recirculated IS/MND 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. g. 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. h. 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. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. With implementation of the Basic Construction Best Management Practices detailed in Mitigation Measure Air-1, impacts related to construction period emissions and dust would be considered less than significant with mitigation. Because construction-period emissions do not exceed applicable significance thresholds, additional construction mitigation measures would not be required. Operational Activities Emissions from operation of the Project could cumulatively contribute to air pollutant levels in the region. Since the Bay Area is considered nonattainment for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5, emissions of these pollutants or their precursors could contribute to existing air quality problems.9 For this reason, BAAQMD has adopted emission-based significance thresholds to measure the significance of a project’s contribution, as detailed below. The URBEMIS2007 model, version 9.2.4, was used to calculate the Project’s emissions from mobile sources (vehicles) and area sources. Default URBEMIS settings were used for San Mateo County except for the specifics of the Project size and trip generation from the traffic study, as detailed in the model output included in Attachment A. These results are total for the proposed Project, without subtracting existing emissions or accounting for mitigating characteristics, other than that already accounted for in the trip generation rates, as discussed in more detail in the traffic section. Operational Project emissions and BAAQMD thresholds are reported in Table 3, below. Table 3: Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions for Project Operations Description Reactive Organic Gases Nitrogen Oxides Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Daily (Pounds per Day) 5.11 5.06 11.55 2.18 BAAQMD Daily Thresholds 54.00 54.00 82.00 54.00 Annual (Tons per Year) 0.92 1.06 2.11 0.40 BAAQMD Annual Thresholds 10.00 10.00 15.00 10.00 9 BAAQMD, Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, available at http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm. 290 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 45 The Project emissions would be below the significance thresholds established by BAAQMD. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on regional air quality during the operational period. BAAQMD also presents the screening level that localized carbon monoxide concentrations should be studied at affected intersections where traffic is increased to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (or 24,000 vehicles per hour where mixing is substantially limited, such as in a tunnel).10 This screening level represents the volume of traffic at which a significant impact related to carbon monoxide would be possible. Based on traffic volumes in the vicinity, it is not anticipated the Project will affect intersections of that volume and therefore, the impact related to carbon monoxide is less than significant. d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on exposure of sensitive receptors to risks and hazards, the threshold of significance is exceeded when the project- specific cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million, the non-cancer risk exceeds a Hazard Index of 1.0 (or cumulative risk of 100 in one million or a Hazard Index of 10.0 respectively is exceeded), and/or the annual average PM2.5 concentration would exceed 0.3 ug/m3 (0.8 ug/m3 on a cumulative level). 11 Examples of sensitive receptors are places where people live, play or convalesce and include schools, hospitals, residential areas and recreation facilities. Construction Activities The closest sensitive receptors are the Early Years Children’s Center located at 371 Allerton Avenue, 0.27 miles east of the proposed Project, the Genentech Childcare Center at 444 Allerton, 0.40 miles east of the proposed Project site, and the Gateway Child Care Center at 599 Gateway Boulevard, 0.21 miles (approximately 1,100 feet) west of the Project site. BAAQMD provides Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction. These tables provide distances to the nearest sensitive receptor for construction projects of certain types and sizes within which impacts could be significant. The screening distance for an approximately 100,000 square foot commercial project is 150 meters (492 feet).12 The closest sensitive receptor to this construction site is 1,100 feet away. Therefore, it can be concluded that construction-period health risk would be below applicable thresholds without the need to quantify risk levels. Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code requires local agencies not to issue demolition permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding asbestos, lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous materials. The BAAQMD is vested by the California Legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition and must provide information on the amount and nature of any hazardous pollutants, nature of planned work and methods to be employed, and the name and location of the waste disposal site to 10 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011, pp. 3-3 to 3-4. 11 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011, Table 2-1. 12 BAAQMD, Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction, May 2010, available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx. 291 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 46 Recirculated IS/MND be used. The purpose of BAAQMD regulations is the minimization of potential hazards to the public and surrounding land uses. The Project must also comply with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulations, standards and procedures and California Department of Health Services (DHS) Lead Work Practice Standards. These regulations are designed to minimize worker and general public exposure to hazardous building materials, as may be encountered during building demolition and construction. The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the permit review process, would ensure that the impact of hazardous emissions during construction of the Project would be less than significant. Operational Activities The Project could include laboratory facilities or stationary equipment (e.g., standby emergency generators) that emit air pollution. These sources could emit small amounts of toxic air contaminants with the potential to affect sensitive receptors within a quarter mile of the Project site. While the specific tenants of the proposed site have not been identified, stationary equipment or laboratories that are subject to BAAQMD permitting requirements will be required to show that impacts to the public would be negligible. Therefore, because the Project would comply with standard BAAQMD permitting requirements, the impact would be considered less than significant. e) Odors Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact. Potential odor impacts are based on a list of specific types of facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc. 13 Many construction vehicles run on diesel gasoline, the exhaust of which has a distinct smell generally considered an objectionable odor. However, these odors would be temporary, as they are only associated with construction, and would not be expected to reach substantially beyond the boundaries of the Project site as such odors do not generally remain noticeable at any substantial distance from their source. As a laboratory use, the Project also theoretically has the potential to generate chemical smells during operations. However, the Project will be subject to BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, which restricts noticeable odors beyond the Project boundary.14 The impact of the Project with regard to odors is considered to be less than significant. This impact would be further reduced by implementation of mitigation measure Air-1, which would reduce construction diesel exhaust. 13 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011, p. 3-4. 14 BAAQMD, Regulation 7, last amended 1982, available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/?sc_itemid=D39A3015-453E-4A0D- 9C76-6F7F4DA5AED5. 292 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 47 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?     b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?     c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?     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?     SETTING The Project site is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that has previously been developed, and is predominantly covered with asphalt and buildings. The existing limited vegetation consists of parking lot and screening landscaping. IMPACTS a) and b) Special Status Species and Habitat Due to the historic industrial use of the East of 101 Area, natural resources are limited in this area and primarily consist of wetlands and their associated plan and animal species and slopes with native 293 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 48 Recirculated IS/MND vegetation. The Project site is not identified as a location with sensitive biological resources. 15, 16 This is consistent with the fully developed character of the site and surroundings, which offer little or no habitat value, and would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on special status species, except for possibly migrating birds, discussed below. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protect special-status bird species year-round, as well as their eggs and nests during the nesting season. The list of migratory birds includes almost every native bird in the United States. On-site or adjacent trees could be used by protected birds. Construction activities could adversely affect nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or Fish and Game Code of California. Impact Bio-1: Disturbance of Nesting Birds. Construction activities could adversely affect nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or Fish and Game Code of California. This is a potentially significant impact. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protect special-status bird species year-round, as well as their eggs and nests during the nesting season. The list of migratory birds includes almost every native bird in the United States. On-site or adjacent trees could be used by protected birds. Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California within 100 feet of a development site in the Project area shall be conducted within 30 days of initiation of construction activities. If active nests are found, the project shall follow recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. If there is a complete stoppage in construction activities for 30 days or more, a new nesting- survey shall be completed prior to re-initiation of construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1, which requires a nesting survey close to initiation of construction activities, the impacts on special status species or their habitat would be less than significant with mitigation. c) and d) Wetlands and Wildlife Corridors The proposed Project site is fully developed and does not contain wetland areas. It is an area that is currently developed with urban land uses. 17, 18 The Project has no impact on wetlands and wildlife corridors. 15 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, pp. 169 to 174. 16 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figure 7-1. 17 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, pp. 170. 18 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figure 7-1. 294 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 49 e) and f) Plan and Policy Conflicts Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The existing vegetation on site consists of parking lot and screening landscaping. None of the trees on site are large enough to be considered protected trees under the City of South San Francisco Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code), which defines protected trees as those with a circumference of 48 inches or greater at 54 inches above the natural grade or those otherwise so designated by the Parks and Recreation director); The Project has no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 295 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 50 Recirculated IS/MND Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?     b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?     c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?     d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?     SETTING The Historic and Cultural Resources Element of South San Francisco’s General Plan provides the following description of the cultural and historic context: “South San Francisco’s growth is notable for the close relationship between industry and community. The development of a residential town in support of new industrial plants was the calculated strategy of local industrialists. With the success of the city’s industries, South San Francisco earned an important role as “The Industrial City” of the region. The conservation of this unique history is the objective of historic and cultural preservation in South San Francisco. In addition to Sign Hill, designated resources in South San Francisco include several residential and commercial buildings in the downtown area. The City’s Municipal Code and State and federal law, protect these local, State, and national historic resources from alteration and demolition. Although industry played a critical role in South San Francisco’s history, no industrial buildings or sites are currently designated historic resources.” No historic resources were identified on the Project site or in the whole of the East of 101 Area. 19 Additionally, South San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Commission has identified fifty historically or culturally significant sites through the Historic Marker Program. While none of these sites have been designated a Historic Resource, each has been identified for its historic or cultural significance and is identified by a marker that describes its significance as part of the history of this City.20 19 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figure 7-3. 20 City of South San Francisco, Historic Marker Program webpage, http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=275. 296 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 51 IMPACTS a) Historical Resource Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. The corner lot, 233 East Grand Avenue, is marker site #38 in the City’s Historic Marker Program. Created by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission, the Historic Marker Program is an effort to identify and provide information about sites with significance as part of the history of this City, though none of these sites have been designated as Historic Resources. This site’s marker notes that the lot was once the site of the United Packing Co. from 1929 to 1958 with its significance described as follows: “Built on the site of the Metzger Packing Plant. Owned by A.C. Freeman. Housed a butcher's slaughterhouse and a broker's commission house.”21 This marker references previous uses no longer on the site and would not be considered to indicate a cultural or historic resource under CEQA. The Project site is currently developed with 1980s era industrial buildings, which are not eligible for designation on the California Register of Historic Resources. The Project has no impact on historical resources. b) Archaeological Resources Significant Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5. According to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, South San Francisco’s coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely. It is possible that buried prehistoric resources may be found in the City, although currently there is insufficient data to predict that they may be found at the Project site, especially because the site has been previously disturbed. If archaeological resources are discovered on site, these resources shall be handled according to CEQA Section 15064.5(c), which calls on lead agencies to refer to the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code dealing with the treatment and handling of archaeological resources, or Section 21084.1 dealing with the treatment of handling of historical resource. This would be a standard condition of any project approval so the impact is considered less than significant. c) Geologic/Paleontological Features There are no unique geologic or paleontological features associated with the Project site. 22 The Project has no impact on paleontological resources or geologic features. 21 City of South San Francisco, Historic Marker Program webpage, http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=275. 22 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figure 7-3. 297 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 52 Recirculated IS/MND d) Human Remains Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the disturbance of any human remains. There are no known human remains that would be disturbed by the proposed Project. As mentioned under b) above, most of the Project site has already been disturbed by urban development. No formal cemeteries have been located on the Project site. If human remains are found within the Project site, they will be handled according to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code which disallows intentional disturbance, requires ceasing activity until a county coroner makes a report and requires the county coroner to contact the Native American Heritage Commission if the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are Native American, they will be handled according to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code requiring notification of likely descendants, inspection, and recommendations for removal. This would be a standard condition of any project approval so the impact is considered less than significant. 298 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 53 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to 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 roadway improvements, 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 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?     SETTING Regional Seismicity The Project site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of Northern California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The geologic and geomorphic structure of the northwest trending ridges and valleys in the region, including the Santa Cruz Mountains and San Francisco Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the boundary between the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates, defined by the San Andreas Fault System. Regional faults have predominantly right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of displacement. Horizontal and vertical movement is distributed on the various fault strands within a fault zone. Throughout geologic time the fault strands experiencing active deformation change in response to regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions. Within 15 miles of the Project site there are three major active faults that display large right-lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas Fault, the San Gregorio Fault, and the Hayward Fault. The nearest known active fault is the San Andreas Fault trace, 299 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 54 Recirculated IS/MND located approximately 3 miles (5 km) southwest of the site. Other nearby active faults include the Hayward Fault 15 miles (24 km) northeast, the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove Fault) located approximately 8.6 miles to the southwest, the Calaveras Fault located 25 miles northeast and the Concord/Green Valley Fault located 30 miles northeast. 23 Other faults are nearer than the San Andreas but not considered active since they show no evidence of Holocene rupture or movement during the past 11,000 years. This includes the San Bruno and Serra Faults mapped approximately 1.4 and 2.6 miles (2.2 km and 4.2 km) west of the site. The nearest mapped fault of any type is the Hillside Fault mapped about 0.35 miles (0.55 km) northeast. While this is near the subject property the fault shows no evidence of rupture during at least the past 2 million years. Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most recently, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.24 According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), violent ground shaking (Modified Mercalli Intensity, MMI Level IX) is possible in response to a large earthquake along the nearby San Andreas Fault. A major rupture of the Hayward Fault is expected to produce strong ground shaking (MMI VII). Regional Geology The Project site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay area, Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan complex, which is composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed greywacke (sandstone), argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan Complex are ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits accreted onto the edge of the North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of accretion and partial subduction. These deposits have been overlain by Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the Project vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic minerals are common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also high grade metamorphic blocks in sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix which reflect the complicated history of the Franciscan.25 These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which traverses the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in Southern Daly City, on the other side of the Peninsula. Several northwest trending and structurally controlled valleys dissect the San Francisco Peninsula, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the Project site. During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global glaciation, these valleys were incised and then backfilled with sediment to form the suite of alluvial deposits that can be found today, 23 Review of Official California Geologic Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology) Maps, including the South San Francisco Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map (1982), and Fault Activity Map of California (1994). 24 California Division of Mines and Geology, 2002. Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, California Geological Survey CD 2002-01 25 Bonilla, M.G. 1998, Geologic Map of the South San Francisco 7.5’ Quadrangle and Part of the Hunter’s Point 7.5’ Quadrangle, USGS Open-File Report 98-354 300 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 55 including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the bay margin, deposits of Holocene Bay Mud, marsh deposits, and other fine grained sediment accumulated by currents along the shore. Site Geology and Soils According to a geologic map of the area, the Project site is at the northern edge of an area underlain by fill, described as clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man-made debris, placed over tidal flats. However, just north of the site is a large outcrop of Franciscan bedrock, indicating that the site is likely underlain at a relatively shallow depth by the Franciscan Complex. Sandstone bedrock typical of the Franciscan Complex was penetrated in two boreholes at the site located approximately 350 feet south of the site. 26 A geotechnical investigation was not completed for the Project, but several geotechnical studies of the surrounding parcels have been completed in association with recent construction activities. In four geotechnical studies of adjacent properties, subsurface conditions were found to consist of fill materials overlying soft Bay Mud deposits, which are underlain by medium dense to very dense granular alluvial soils (Colma Formation).27 The thickness of fill and Bay Mud varied considerably on the adjacent properties. Fill soils ranged from five to twelve feet deep; Bay Mud varied from three feet to 30-feet in thickness under the fill soils. Bedrock was not encountered in boreholes, with the exception of two boreholes in which weathered sandstone was encountered at depths of 68.5 feet and 73 feet below ground surface. These boreholes were located 350 to 400 feet south of the Project site.28 It is expected that subsurface conditions at the Project site are generally similar to those encountered during the geotechnical studies of the surrounding parcels. The thickness of the surficial fill materials, Bay Mud, alluvial sediments, and depth to bedrock could vary considerably. REGULATORY SETTING State Laws and Regulations Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The California Legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. 29 The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. Local agencies must regulate most development in fault zones established by the State Geologist. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the 26 Bonilla, M.G. 1998, Geologic Map of the South San Francisco 7.5’ Quadrangle and Part of the Hunter’s Point 7.5’ Quadrangle, USGS Open-File Report 98-354 27 Review of Geotechnical Study Sugen Phase II Building, Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, January 1999; Geotechnical Study, Exelis II, Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, May 2000; Geotechnical Study Sugen and Metaxen Buildings, Britannia Pointe Grand Business Park, Geomatrix, August 1997; and Geotechnical Study Sugen Phase III Building Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, May 23, 2002. 28 Geomatrix Consultants, 1997, Geotechnical Study Sugen and Metaxen Buildings Britannia Pointe Grand Business Park. 29 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997 revision, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, DMG Special Publication 42. 301 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 56 Recirculated IS/MND city or county with jurisdiction must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active or potentially active faults. California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code Sections 2690-2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils. California Building Code The California Building Code was developed to incorporate modifications to the International Building Code (developed by the International Conference of Building Officials) required by California law and statute and has been adopted by most jurisdictions in California, including the City of South San Francisco, to oversee construction. The California Building Code defines four Seismic Zones in California, which are ranked according to their seismic hazard potential. Zone 1 has the least seismic potential and Zone 4 has the highest seismic potential. The City of South San Francisco is located in Seismic Zone 4 and thus development is required to comply with all design standards applicable to Seismic Zone 4. The earthquake protection law (California Health and Safety Code section 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and earthquakes. Specific minimum standards for seismic safety and structural design to meet earthquake protection requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the California Building Code. Local Regulations and Policies City of South San Francisco General Plan Update The General Plan Update Health and Safety Element includes a section on Geological and Seismic Hazards. This section identifies geotechnical and geologic impacts to the general City of South San Francisco area. The most recent General Plan update was completed in October 1999. East of 101 Area Plan The 1999 General Plan update also includes a summary of the East of 101 Area Plan, providing specific policies for the area located east of U.S. Highway 101. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 15 includes information on the Construction Codes and Amendments adopted by the City of South San Francisco. This includes the California Building Code, among other codes used in construction in the City of South San Francisco. IMPACTS a) Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. The primary seismic hazard is surface fault rupture. Secondary seismic hazards, caused by the sudden movement along a 302 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 57 fault, include strong ground shaking, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure. i) Surface Fault Rupture Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. Many active and potentially active faults in San Mateo County have undergone extensive investigation in the past. ABAG has summarized results from many of these studies to quantify the potential impact to certain areas, while the California Geological Survey has established Earthquake Fault Zone boundaries where primary seismic hazards are very high. According to these maps, the proposed development is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone. No faults zoned as active by the State of California are mapped across the Project site.30 As such, it has been determined that the risk of ground rupture along a fault trace is low at the Project site. The Project would have a less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. The San Francisco Bay Region has experienced several historic earthquakes from movement along the San Andreas and other associated active faults. Mapped active faults (those experiencing surface rupture within the past 11,000 years) nearest the site are characterized in Table 4. Data presented by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities estimates the chance of one or more large earthquakes (Magnitude 6.7 or greater) occurring in the San Francisco Bay region by the year 2031 to be 62 percent.31 Consequently, the site will likely be subject to strong seismic shaking during the life of the improvements. The site is not located immediately adjacent to a known active fault, but the presence of deep soft underlying alluvium and marsh or bay mud deposits overlain by fill is expected to amplify seismic waves significantly. 30 State of California Department of Conservation, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps accessed at http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm 31 Working Group on California Earthquakes, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2003-2031, USGS Open File Report 03-214 303 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 58 Recirculated IS/MND Table 4: Nearest Active Faults Fault System Distance From Site (Miles/Km) 1 Direction From Site to Fault MCE Moment Magnitude 2 Modified Mercalli Shaking Intensity 3 San Andreas 3.5/5.6 Southwest 7.9 IX San Gregorio 9/14.5 Southwest 7.3 VIII Hayward 15/24 Northeast 7.1 VII Calaveras 24/39 East 7.5 VI Rodgers Creek 32/51.5 North 7.0 VII 1 Fault Activity map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994. 2 Caltrans California Seismic Hazards Map based on Maximum Credible Earthquakes, California Department of Transportation, 1996 3 Association of Bay Area Governments Shaking Intensity Map http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/mapsba.html The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing the ground shaking, as well as the density and consistency of underlying materials. This ground shaking intensity has been predicted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and California Geological Survey for most of the Bay Area, including the Project site, and is summarized on the ABAG website.32 The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the site would be a modified Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to a major rupture along the San Andreas Fault equivalent to the 1906 earthquake. A major rupture on the San Gregorio, Hayward or Rodgers Creek faults is predicted to cause strong to very strong ground shaking (MMI=VII to VIII), while a major earthquake on more distant faults is expected to cause moderate to strong ground shaking of the site. Strong ground shaking could severely damage unreinforced masonry or poorly built structures, while violent shaking is expected to cause extensive damage to even well-constructed buildings. The California Geological Survey has developed a probabilistic seismic hazards map to predict the peak ground acceleration that can be expected at a given site. The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for this site predicts a peak ground acceleration of approximately 61% that of gravity, with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years.33 Impact Geo-1: Seismic Ground Shaking. Buildings and occupants of the Project site would be subject to ground shaking in the event of a seismic event, which could be high intensity (Mercalli intensity level of IX, violent). Development of the Project would increase the number of structures and people potentially exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Geo-1a: Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall meet requirements of the California Building Code as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions adopted by the City of South San Francisco. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure. 32 ABAG, Earthquake Shaking Potential Map, 2003, available at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/shaking/. 33 California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html 304 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 59 Geo-1b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report and with Structural Design Plans. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in structural design. The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the California Building Code. The Project Geotechnical Investigation shall establish the seismic design parameters, as determined by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with requirements of the California Building Code. Geo-1c: Obtain a building permit and complete final plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Implementation of mitigation measures Geo-1a through Geo-1c would reduce the impact of exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking to a level of less than significant by implementation of current building code requirements and the design level recommendations for construction prepared by Geotechnical and Structural Engineers to minimize the risk of loss, injury or death related to seismic ground shaking. Building Division Plan Review will verify that the code requirements and geotechnical and structural engineer recommendations are implemented. iii) Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading. Impact Geo-2: Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Settlement. Due to the site’s location at the border between the competent bedrock of Oyster Point to the north, and artificial fill placed over tidal flats to the south, the southern portion of the Project area is identified as an area of high hazard for liquefaction. The northern portion is identified as having a very low hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or densification of soils underlying the site could result in settlement and differential settlement of site improvements including buildings, pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to human health. The potential for liquefaction of site soils is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Geo-2a: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis for liquefaction potential of the underlying 305 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 60 Recirculated IS/MND sediments. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer, or civil engineer experienced in structural engineering shall prepare Project structural design plans. Structures shall be designed to minimize the effects of anticipated seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the geotechnical elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigation measures may include excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting. Geo-2b: Obtain a building permit and complete plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Implementation of mitigation measures Geo-2a and Geo-2b would reduce the impact of exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading to a less than significant level by implementation of current building code requirements and the design level recommendations for construction prepared by Geotechnical and Structural Engineers. Building Division Plan Review will verify that the code requirements and geotechnical and structural engineer recommendations are implemented. iv) Landslides Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides. Impact Geo-3. Landslides and Slope Stability. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The site is located on gently sloping ground, and as such natural slope stability is not expected to be an issue. However, cuts currently exist in the northern part of the site, and more cuts will be necessary to provide level building pads. These cuts will require construction of retaining walls, which could fail if improperly designed. The impacts of slope stability and landslides are potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Geo-3: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis of the site slope stability. Proper foundation engineering and retaining wall design shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The 306 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 61 Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. Implementation of mitigation measure Geo-3 would reduce the impact of exposing people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides to a less than significant level by design and construction in accordance with recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. Review and approval by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and City Engineer will verify that the recommendations are sound and that they are implemented for the Project. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. Impact Geo-4. Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading at the site. Excavation of soil for construction of new buildings and pavement sections would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of loose soil will be created. Soils exposed during construction activities would be subject to erosion during storm events. This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site construction activities. Mitigation Measure Geo-4: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board, the Applicant shall file a SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (mitigation measure Geo-4) will reduce the impact of soil erosion to a level of less-than-significant. c) Unstable Geologic Unit Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if 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. Impact Geo-5: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud. Undocumented fill soils are present on portions of the subject site. Fill soils may settle due to new building loads. Bay Mud and alluvial soil deposits are present on adjacent sites and also constitute areas of potentially unstable soils. Bay Mud may be present under the southern portion of the Project site and may settle under design loading conditions resulting in differential settlement of structures. The presence of unstable fill soil and Bay Mud is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Geo-5: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be performed to determine the depth and extent of potentially unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based on results of this study, the Geotechnical Engineer shall determine appropriate measures to stabilize the potentially unstable 307 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 62 Recirculated IS/MND site soils. Consolidation testing of any Bay Mud soils present shall be performed, as part of the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, and estimates of settlement for the site shall be developed. Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include construction of driven pile foundations that support structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay Mud, and other methods as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Implementation of mitigation measure Geo-5 will reduce the impact of the Project being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project to a less than significant level by construction of foundations that support structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay Mud. d) Expansive Soils Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. Impact Geo-6 Expansive Soils. Expansive soils are present in the existing fill on the site and in Bay Mud sediments that underlie the site. The presence of expansive soils could cause damage to proposed improvements but are unlikely to create substantial risk of life. The impact of expansive soil is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Geo-6: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for expansion potential of the site soils. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer shall prepare Project structural design plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the effects of expansive surface soils. Mitigations measures may include the following: Excavate expansive soils and replace with at least one foot of non-expansive fill. Design and construct structures to withstand expected stresses by the implementation of the following: minimize use of slab-on-grade floors; support buildings and slabs on non-expansive materials; chemically treat expansive materials to reduce expansion potential; avoid siting structures across soil materials of substantially different expansive properties; extend foundations below the zone of seasonal moisture change; utilize pier-and-grade-beam foundation systems where appropriate; utilize special bending resistant design; and prevent accumulation of surface water adjacent to buildings. Implementation of mitigation measure Geo-6 will reduce the impact of locating Project improvements on expansive soil to a level of less than significant. 308 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 63 e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems. The wastewater generated by the Project would be pumped into the local sewer system. Therefore, there is no impact due to soils incapable of supporting septic systems. 309 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 64 Recirculated IS/MND Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —Would the Project: 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?     SETTING In addition to the air pollutants discussed in the Air Quality section, other emissions may not be directly associated with adverse health effects, but are suspected of contributing to “global warming”. Global warming has occurred in the past as a result of natural processes, but the term is often used now to refer to the warming predicted by computer models to occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The State of California is concerned about GHG emissions and their effect on global warming. The State recognizes that there appears to be a close relationship between the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere and global temperatures and that the evidence for global warming is overwhelming. The effects of global warming on California, in terms of how it would affect the ecosystem and economy, remain uncertain. According to the 2006 Climate Action Team Report34 the following global warming effects and conditions can be expected in California over the course of the next century:  A diminishing Sierra snow pack declining by 70 percent to 90 percent, threatening the state’s water supply;  Increasing temperatures from eight to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F) under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 to 35 percent increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas;  Coastal erosion along the length of California and seawater intrusion into the Sacramento River Delta from a four-to 33-inch rise in sea level. This would exacerbate flooding in already vulnerable regions;  Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures;  Increased challenges for the state’s important agricultural industry from water shortages, increasing temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into the Delta; and  Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) concept is used to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the most abundant GHG. CO2 has a GWP 34 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. (http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF) 310 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 65 of 1. Other GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide are commonly found in the atmosphere at much lower concentrations, but with higher warming potentials, having GWP ratings of 21 and 310, respectively. When the GHG emissions are weighted by GWP and added together, the result is expressed as CO2 equivalent (CO2e). Other trace gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydro chlorofluorocarbons, which are halocarbons that contain chlorine, have much greater warming potential. Fortunately these gases are found at much lower concentrations and many are being phased out as a result of global efforts to reduce destruction of stratospheric ozone.35 California Green Building Standards Code The Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, better known as CALGreen), requiring all new buildings in the state to be more energy efficient and environmentally responsible, took effect on January 1, 2011. These comprehensive regulations are targeted to achieve major reductions in GHG emissions, energy consumption and water use to create a greener California. CALGreen requires that every new building constructed in California:  Reduce water consumption by 20 percent  Divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills  Install low pollutant-emitting materials  Requires separate water meters for nonresidential buildings’ indoor and outdoor water use  Requires moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects  Requires mandatory inspections of energy systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner and mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The Project site falls within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and therefore under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD. BAAQMD provides a document titled California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (“BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines”), which provides guidance for consideration by lead agencies, consultants, and other parties evaluating air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin conducted pursuant to CEQA. The document includes guidance on evaluating and mitigating GHG emissions impacts. 36 City of South San Francisco Emissions At present, the City of South San Francisco does not have an adopted plan or specific policies to reduce GHG emissions, although many of the City’s policies and ordinances—such as one of the region’s most aggressive TDM programs—achieve the same objective. The City is completing an emissions survey that will provide a basis for formally developing such tools. Although the General Plan did not specify policies and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, many of the Plan’s policies will contribute to this objective by promoting development that is less reliant on motor vehicles. According 35 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2008. U.S. EPA. April 15, 2010, Table 2-1: Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. 36 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011. 311 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 66 Recirculated IS/MND to the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update (December 17, 2009), South San Francisco emitted approximately 527,000 tons of CO2e in 2005 from all major sources, nearly half of which were from transportation. It is easy to dismiss the impact any single community can have on GHG emissions. In the context of the State of California, the City of South San Francisco accounts for .001 percent (perhaps slightly higher, if we account for traffic outside the city borders and waste impacts) of GHG emissions. However, it is important to understand that reduction of GHG emissions is partially a matter of the availability of options in transportation and other energy use. Achievement of the reductions required by Measure G and State law require local action. IMPACTS a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Criteria: BAAQMD provides two alternative quantitative thresholds for operational emissions, a brightline threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e per year to assess smaller projects or, if a project’s emissions are greater than the brightline threshold, an efficiency-based threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e per Service Population per year. As shown below, the proposed Project has been compared against the brightline threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e per year. 37 BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. Construction-period emissions would be temporary only, and a project of this size would not be anticipated to contribute substantially to regional GHG levels. Construction-period GHG emissions would also be further reduced by mitigation measure Air-1, which includes measures to reduce exhaust emissions during construction. The Project’s direct emissions refer to emissions produced from mobile sources (vehicles) and area sources such as natural gas used on-site for heating. Direct CO2 emissions have been calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model, relying on the same inputs used to calculate emissions of air pollutants and precursors. (See Attachment A for URBEMIS results.) The BAAQMD GHG Model (BGM) was used to estimate the Project’s CO2e emissions from direct and indirect emission sources, using the URBEMIS CO2 emission results as an input. BAAQMD developed this model to calculate GHG emissions not included in URBEMIS, such as indirect emissions from electricity use and waste. The BGM also adjusts for state regulations not included in URBEMIS, specifically California’s low carbon fuel rules and Pavley regulations, which regulate emissions from new passenger vehicles. 38 Changes from model defaults included trip generation from the Project traffic study as well as a 50% reduction in solid waste, consistent with that seen for developments of this type in this area. A summary of the results are included in Table 5 and the model results sheets can be found in Attachment A. 37 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011, Table 2-1. 38 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011, p. 4-5. 312 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 67 Table 5: Annual Operational GHG Emissions Emissions Source Proposed Project CO2e (net increase, metric tons/year) Transportation: 498.26 Area Source: (0.24) Electricity: 228.90 Natural Gas: 104.42 Water & Wastewater: 10.86 Solid Waste: 193.73 Total: 1,035.94 Source: Lamphier-Gregory results from BAAQMD's Greenhouse Gas Calculator v. 1.1.9 Beta available at http://www.urbemis.com/software/download.html. Operation of the Project as proposed would result in the net increase in GHG emissions of approximately 1,036 metric tons CO2e per year. This is below the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year and would therefore be less than significant. b) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan The Project is not located in a community with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, so consistency with such a plan cannot be analyzed. Emissions associated with the development of the proposed Project were analyzed per the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into account implementation of state-wide regulations and plans, such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan and adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard. See the Air Quality section of this document for a discussion of consistency with the Clean Air Plan, including applicable control measures. The impact related to conflict with a GHG reduction plan would be less than significant. 313 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 68 Recirculated IS/MND Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?     b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?     c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?     d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?     e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?     f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?     g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?     SETTING Site Use History Originally a tidal marsh, the Project area was filled and developed in the late 19th century. Development was hastened by construction of the railroad, which facilitated transport of heavy industrial materials along the railroad and from nearby barges on San Francisco Bay. In the site vicinity, the chief industries were metal plating and de-tinning operations from the 1920s until the early 1980s. Many small railroad spurs, all connecting to a large rail yard located north of the site, served the various industrial facilities in the area. While the area in the Project vicinity has been associated with heavy industry, the Project site itself has historically been used as part of a livestock and meat packing operation, a cold storage facility, and for commercial uses. 314 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 69 A site history for 328 Roebling Road was documented by GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec) as part of an environmental due diligence report completed in general conformance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. GeoSyntec obtained Sanborn fire insurance maps, which identify use and owners of sites for the years 1950, 1956, and 1970. In the 1950 map, the site and surrounding areas are shown as owned by the United Packing Company, with hay barns, livestock feeding sheds, and cold storage buildings. The 1956 map shows the site and surrounding areas labeled as the South San Francisco Cold Storage Company. The 1970 map shows Roebling Road and lists 328 Roebling Road as a radio parts store, constructed of reinforced concrete, wood trusses, and a concrete floor. The cold storage facility is still shown south of the site with a plastic products company occupying the building north of the site. In 1988 the site was leased to the current tenant, Slakey Brothers. The site is currently being used as a wholesale warehouse for heating and air conditioning related equipment, as well as other small construction related equipment, including plumbing supplies.39 Secor International Incorporated (Secor) documented a site history for 340 Roebling as part of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, dated 3 December 2003. From 1908 to approximately 1956 the site was part of the Western Meat Company or Union Meat’s stock yards. The warehouse/ manufacturing building currently on-site was occupied by Roebling Wire Rope – The Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp from 1958 to 1968, and Precision Plastics has occupied the site since 1968.40 GeoSyntec also documented a site history for 233 East Grand Avenue as part of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, dated 14 August 2006. 233 East Grand was also part of the Western Meat Company/Union Meat Company stockyard/feedlot. Since at least 1966, when Ed Willig Jr. purchased the property, it has been used solely for cold storage. 41 Current Site Use and Potential Contamination GeoSyntec conducted a site visit to 328 Roebling Road as part of their Phase I Site Assessment. They observed one small (10 gallon), unlabeled, closed-top plastic tank inside the building. The branch manager indicated that the tank contained waste oil, collected from compressors that were brought into Slakey Brothers for repair. The tank was approximately two-thirds full and appeared to be in good condition, however it was not stored in an area of secondary containment. Additionally, GeoSyntec observed a few isolated areas of concrete staining on the warehouse floor. The stains were of unknown origin, generally small and did not appear fresh. No obvious evidence of stains, releases, or spills was noted in the large outdoor storage area located north of the warehouse. There were no chemical storage areas located in the outdoor storage area. 42 The Project site is listed on two environmental databases, the HAZNET database for disposing (via recycler) of small quantities (0.22 tons) of liquids containing halogenated organic compounds (>1000mg/l) and the San Mateo Business Plan database as a small quantity (<27 gallons per year) generator. Over 90 other sites within one mile of the Project site were identified by the EDR report as appearing on one or more of the environmental databases. However, information in the EDR report 39 GeoSyntec, Environmental and Geotechnical Due Diligence, 328 Roebling Road, South San Francisco, 2006. 40 Secor International Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 340 Roebling Road, December 2003. 41 GeoSyntec, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 233 East Grand Avenue, August 2006. 42 GeoSyntec, Environmental and Geotechnical Due Diligence, 328 Roebling Road, South San Francisco, 2006. 315 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 70 Recirculated IS/MND indicated a southerly groundwater flow, therefore GeoSyntec concluded that none of the properties identified in the report are likely to affect the Project site. 43 United Cold Storage has filed a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the San Mateo County Division of Environmental Health as a site that generates waste oil/solvent. GeoSyntec observed regularly maintained compressors located in various areas of the building, with waste oil collected in 55-gallon drums within secondary containment. Freon in the refrigerant system was replaced with anhydrous ammonia in approximately 1992. Potentially asbestos-containing tiles and ceilings were observed in the office portion of the warehouse. A dry transformer had been installed in 2004, the current owner did not know if the previous transformer contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). A hydraulic elevator in the building was replaced in 1992, however there is no information as to whether the hydraulic oil was replaced, and/or whether it contains or previously contained PCBs. No indications of belowground structures were observed in the areas around the building. 44 Secor conducted a site visit to 340 Roebling Road for their Phase I Site Assessment. They observed 55-gallon drums in the hydraulic oil storage area, with moderate to major staining nearby. The floor of the storage area was concrete with no floor drains and no evidence of significant staining. Additionally, four 55–gallon drums stored within secondary containment on wooden pallets on an asphalt surface were observed near the south corner of the site. The drums appeared to be in good shape, with two containing waste oil and two containing oily water. Fluorescent lighting was observed throughout the building, and due to the age of the building may contain PCBs within their ballasts. 45 Based on review of the Phase I Site Assessments for the subject properties there are five main hazardous materials concerns at the site. There is evidence of improper storage of waste oil with unknown quantities spilled over the years. The cold storage facility at 233 East Grand stores large quantities of anhydrous ammonia, which, if spilled would be an acute human health hazard, but would be unlikely to lead to a lasting environmental concern. Due to the ages of the existing buildings, they are likely to have asbestos containing building materials and/or lead based paint. The transformers on site may, or may not have previously contained PCBs; fluorescent light ballasts are another potential source of PCBs. Additionally this area has a long history of heavy industrial uses, with a nearby rail yard and numerous active and inactive rail spurs, one of which runs just north of the Project site. The long history of heavy industry in the area indicates potential contamination including toxic heavy metals such as lead in the subsurface. Historic railroad grades are potential sources of a number of hazardous materials. These include herbicides used to clear unwanted vegetative growth in rail yards and along tracks and toxic metal contamination including arsenic and chromium associated with railroads. Wooden rail ties are another potential source of contamination due to creosote, zinc chloride or other preservatives. Additionally there exists the threat of contamination due to fuel spills. 46 43 GeoSyntec, Environmental and Geotechnical Due Diligence, 328 Roebling Road, South San Francisco, 2006. 44 GeoSyntec, Environmental and Geotechnical Due Diligence, 328 Roebling Road, South San Francisco, 2006. 45 Secor International Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 340 Roebling Road, December 2003. 46 GeoSyntec, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 233 East Grand Avenue, August 2006. 316 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 71 REGULATORY SETTING Federal and State Level United States Environmental Protection Agency The chief environmental regulator at the federal level is the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX for Northern California. In California the department of Toxic Substances Control is chiefly responsible for regulating the safe, handling, use, and disposal of toxic materials in the state of California, while the State Water Resources Control Board regulates discharge of potentially hazardous materials into waterways and aquifers. Programs intended to protect workers from exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) at the federal level and at the state level through CAL/OSHA, as well as through DHS. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The RCRA is the United States primary law governing the handling and disposal of solid hazardous waste. The RCRA is actually an amendment, made in 1976, to the solid waste disposal act of 1965, but the amendments were so comprehensive that it is generally referred to as a new act. The RCRA defines solid and hazardous waste, authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set standards for facilities that generate or manage hazardous waste, and establishes a permit program for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The RCRA was last re-authorized by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. The authorization for appropriations under the Act expired September 30, 1988, but funding for the EPA’s programs in this area has continued; the Act’s other authorities do not expire.47 Department of Transportation Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated through the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to identify the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials. Existing federal and state laws address risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. These laws include regulations outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is mandated to implement the regulations established by the DOT, which is published as the Federal Code of Regulations, Title 49, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations. Regulations of hazardous materials and wastes include the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling; marking or placarding; handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of transport personnel; and registration of highly hazardous material transport. State Water Resource Control Board The State Water Resource Control Board was created by the state legislature in 1967, with the joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection. The State Water Resources Control Board runs Geo Tracker, a database of environmentally regulated facilities in California. Within the State of 47 McCarthy, J and Tiemann, M, Congressional Research Service Report RL30032 – Solid Waste Disposal Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, National Council for Science and the Environment, obtained from http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/BriefingBooks/Laws/h.cfm 317 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 72 Recirculated IS/MND California there are nine regional water quality control boards. The mission of the regional boards is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans that will best protect the state’s waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology and hydrology. The City of South San Francisco is under the purview of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board. Local and Regional Level The City of South San Francisco Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions shall review all architectural, structural, civil, electrical, and landscape plans and specifications associated with the entire development. Alarm systems, sprinklers, vents and secondary containment structures within the buildings are reviewed by the South San Francisco Fire Departments as a part of the plan check process. IMPACTS a) Routine Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impact Haz-1: Routine Use of Hazardous Materials. The proposed development includes construction of Class-A office and laboratory buildings. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed information is not currently available, there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the site that will eventually require disposal. This could include both biohazards, as well as chemical hazards. There will also likely be transportation of hazardous materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and East Grand Avenue. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-1a: Registration in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Qualifying businesses occupying and/or operating at the development must submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. Businesses qualify for the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods; 318 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 73 medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, included in material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Mitigation Measure Haz-1b: Compliance with US Department of Transportation, State of California and local laws, ordinances and procedures for transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Haz-1a and Haz-1b would reduce the impact of creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant by registration in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, which includes development of a written plan and oversight by the County Environmental Health Department. The impact will also be mitigated to a level of less than significant by compliance with federal, state and local laws, ordinances, and procedures for the safe transport of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. b) Risk from accidental upset of hazardous materials Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to 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. Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Existing buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, and PCBs. Underlying site soils may contain hazardous materials including toxic heavy metals related to the history of heavy industry in the area. The historic railroad grade along the northeast edge of the Project site may be a source of additional hazardous materials, including arsenic, chromium, creosote, zinc chloride, or other wood preservatives. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Following construction, operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of hazardous materials since the site is proposed to include Class A laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials may be stored, used, and disposed of. This represents a potentially significant impact. 319 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 74 Recirculated IS/MND Mitigation Measures Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition plan with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition. The Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing structures shall include asbestos dust control and incorporate recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plan shall address both on-site worker protection and off-site resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the BAAQMD, an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. Haz-2b: Additional Soil Sampling of Site Soils. The applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, or wood preservatives are present in site soils. These tests shall take place throughout the Project site. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial guidelines including the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels for commercial/ industrial sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals for commercial/ industrial sites, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented, as discussed in Mitigation Measure Haz-2c. Haz-2c: Implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan. If contamination of site soils is detected, then results shall be submitted to the State of California EPA, pursuant to the Brownfield Memorandum of Agreement, Request for Oversight of a Brownfield Site process, and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment will be provided in the plan. At a minimum the plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the site. (2) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the Project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. 320 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 75 (3) Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during Project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site. (4) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. (5) Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. (6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development if determined necessary through coordination with California EPA. (7) The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the Project. Haz-2d: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP). Future businesses at the development shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CalARP registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ)48 of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment in the event that a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff, maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an accidental release. Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-2a through Haz-2d will reduce the impact of creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidents 48 California Code of Regulations; Title 19. Public Safety; Division 2. Office of Emergency Services; Chapter 4.5 California Accidental Release Prevention Program, § 2770.5. 321 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 76 Recirculated IS/MND involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment to a less than significant level by implementation of the identified mitigation measures. These mitigation measures include preparing a Demolition Plan and obtaining permits for the demolition work, performing additional soil sampling of site soils to identify any contaminated soils present, and preparation and implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control if contaminated soil is identified. Additionally, future businesses shall participate in the California Accidental Release Prevention Program if listed chemicals are used at the Project site. c) Hazardous materials emissions or handling near school Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school. Impact Haz-3: Hazardous Materials Near Schools. The nearest school or childcare sites to the Project are the Gateway Child Care Center, located 0.21 miles northwest of the proposed Project, the Early Years Preschool, located 0.27 miles southeast of the Project site, and the Genentech Childcare Center, located 0.40 miles northeast of the Project site. Hazardous materials potentially present at the Project site could lead to a hazardous materials release during site demolition or future on-site activities. The impact of hazardous materials emissions within one-quarter mile of a school is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-3: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d. Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-2a through Haz-2d shall be performed. These mitigation measures include requirements for preparing a Demolition Plan and obtaining permits for the demolition work, performing additional soil sampling of site soils to identify any contaminated soils present, and preparation and implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control if contaminated soil is identified, as well as future business participation in the California Accidental Release Prevention Program if listed chemicals are used at the Project site. Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c and Haz-2d would reduce the impact of the potential release of hazardous materials within one quarter mile from a school to a less than significant impact through proper characterization and control of any hazardous materials currently present or planned to be used in the future at the Project site. d) Hazardous Materials on the site Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through being included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (“Cortese List”). The site is not included on the “Cortese List”. The Phase I ESAs performed by GeoSyntec and Secor indicated that the Project site was not listed within any of the databases requiring inclusion on the “Cortese List”. Sources reviewed include the National Priorities List (NPL), Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System list (CERCLIS), CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) list, Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) CORRACTS Facility List, RCRA TSD Facilities list, RCRA Generator list, Federal 322 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 77 Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) database, State Priority and CERCLIS-Equivalent list (SMBRP), State Spills Leaks Investigations and Cleanups List (SLIC), Solid Waste/Landfill Facilities (SWLF) database, State Leaking Underground Storage Tank List (LUST), State Underground Storage Tank List (UST), and Dry Cleaners List. .49, 50 However, the businesses currently operating do handle hazardous materials and show up on the HAZNET database for disposal of waste oil/solvents, and have filed hazardous materials business plans with San Mateo County. Additionally, the Phase I ESAs indicated potential sources of hazardous materials including unknown quantities of waste oil spilled over the years; anhydrous ammonia used for cold storage; asbestos containing building materials; lead based paint; PCBs associated with fluorescent light ballasts, hydraulic elevator oil, and transformers; heavy metal contamination in soil due to the history of heavy industry in the area; as well as herbicides and wood preservatives associated with the railroad grade at the northern edge of the Project site.51, 52 Impact Haz-4: Hazardous Materials on Site. The site is not currently included on the “Cortese List” but Phase I studies indicate the possibility for hazardous material contamination of the site that could qualify the site for listing pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-4: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d. As described above, these mitigation measures comprehensively address on-site hazardous materials. The impact of being listed on a list of hazardous materials sites and the possible presence of hazardous materials on the Project site would be mitigated by implementation of mitigation measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d to a less than significant level. Theses mitigation measures include requirements for preparing a Demolition Plan and obtaining permits for the demolition work, performing additional soil sampling of site soils to identify any contaminated soils present, preparation and implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control if contaminated soil is identified, and future business participation in the California Accidental Release Prevention Program if listed chemicals are used at the Project site. e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were 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 it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, the most stringent height 49 Secor International Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 340 Roebling Road, December 2003. 50 GeoSyntec, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 233 East Grand Avenue, August 2006. 51 Secor International Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 340 Roebling Road, December 2003. 52 GeoSyntec, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 233 East Grand Avenue, August 2006. 323 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 78 Recirculated IS/MND limits in South San Francisco are south of Forbes Boulevard and Lindenville (the area between Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue), including the Project area. In this area, Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, limits building heights to an elevation of 161 feet above mean sea level, approximately 12 to14 stories. These height limitations are in place to insure the safety of the workers in the Project area and to prevent interference of new construction with the Airport operations.53 No proposed building would exceed the 161 feet height limitation; therefore, the structures would be in compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan and will not create a safety hazard. The impact of the Project on the Airport Land Use Plan is less than significant with no mitigation warranted. The Project area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Private aircraft are sometimes granted air space in the East of 101 Area, but consistency with the San Francisco International Airport regulations will ensure the Project is compliant with safety regulations in relation to private aircraft as well. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No changes to the major access and evacuation routes along East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road are planned since the Project calls for redevelopment rather than reconstruction or new development of an entire area. Therefore, the Project would have no impact relating to an adopted emergency response plan. h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The area is urbanized and there are no wildland corridors containing high fire fuel loads in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. 54 The Project site is bordered on all sides by urban land uses, which do not contain vegetation conducive to wildland fires. There is no impact related to wildland fires. 53 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, December 1996. 54 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figure 8-4. 324 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 79 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?     b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?     c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?     d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?     e) 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?     f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?     g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?     h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?     i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?     j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?     SETTING Climate and Topography The Project site is located in a slightly sloped portion of the generally flat area east of U.S. 101 in the City of South San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the site. The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. About 80 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs during 325 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 80 Recirculated IS/MND the months of November through March, with an average annual precipitation of 20 inches. Average monthly temperatures range from a high of 74 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer to a low of 42 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter. 55 Regional Hydrology The site drains to the Colma Creek. The Colma Creek watershed includes portions of San Bruno Mountain as well as urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most of this urbanized creek is channelized and/or conveyed underground to allow for urban development. The percent of impervious surface area in the Colma Creek watershed was estimated at 63 percent, the highest in the County. 56 Colma Creek is maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works. The Creek discharges into the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International Airport. Improvements to and maintenance of the creek and its flood control infrastructure are funded by assessment district properties that fall within the county-designated Colma Creek Flood Control Zone.57 The Project site is located within the designated boundaries of the Zone as shown in Figure 7.58 Existing Drainage Concept: Approximately 98 percent of the 2.95-acre Project site is currently covered by buildings, paved yards, and parking areas. Stormwater runoff from the Project site begins as sheet flow on roofs and parking lots and is primarily carried westward to Roebling Avenue, where it then flows down the street gutter to a storm drain inlet at South San Francisco Avenue. A few minor storm drain inlets currently exist in the parking areas. A small portion of roof and pavement runoff may also be directed to the vegetated fill slope east of the Project site. Proposed Drainage Concept: Redevelopment of the Project site would replace the three buildings currently occupying the property with two buildings while utilizing landscaped drainage features to reduce the total stormwater runoff from the site. Runoff from the northern portion of the site would drain to drop inlets located in the parking area north of Building A. This runoff would be conveyed via an underground pipe to bubble up to a vegetated swale (with check dams) that follows the southeast property line (flows to southwest). Runoff from the southeast parking area and the southeast portion of the middle parking area would also flow into this swale via a number of curb cuts along the edge of the lot. From this ditch runoff would be conveyed via an underground pipe to a large vegetated bioswale located between proposed Building B and the Roebling Rd/East Grand Ave intersection. Runoff would then pass through a sand media filter and finally be delivered to the storm-drain at East Grand Ave. 55 Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Weather Station: San Francisco WSO AP, California (047769). 56 City of Daly City Water and Wastewater Resources webpage, http://www.dalycity.org/City_Hall/Departments/wwr/Divisions/waste_source.htm, referencing 1998 Center for Watershed Protection study of impervious surfaces. 57 San Mateo Public Works Flood control webpage, http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/publicworks/menuitem.a4bfacf14e50a00d82439054d17332a0/?vgnextoid=b79d4 b3a4b71f110VgnVCM1000001d37230aRCRD&vgnextfmt=DivisionsLanding. 58 San Mateo Public Works, Colma Creek Flood Control Zone map, available at http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/vgn/images/portal/cit_609/10658749colma-creek-flood-control-zone.pdf. 326 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 81 Figure 7: Colma Creek Flood Protection Zone Prepared by Questa Engineering Runoff from the northwestern portion of the site would drain to drop inlets in the parking area and flow to a vegetated bioswale along the northwestern side of Building A. Once it passes the bioswale runoff would flow through an underground pipe and sand media filter before outfalling to the gutter along Roebling Road to flow to the stormdrain on East Grand Ave. Groundwater The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the Project site is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the primary water- bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, and the Merced Formation. While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with drinking water quality standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate-nitrogen concentration in excess of the primary maximum contaminant levels.59 59 California Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Westside Groundwater Basin, last updated 1/20/2006. 327 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 82 Recirculated IS/MND REGULATORY SETTING The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws, and regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, Federal laws are administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality and how they relate to the proposed Project. Federal Laws and Regulations Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to control domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CWA. At the Federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the CWA. At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed them. State Laws and Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the State Water Resources Control Board and the RWQCB as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act established the responsibility of the RWQCB for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth the water quality standards of the state (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The National Pollutant Elimination System permits must be consistent with the Basin Plans. NPDES Permit Requirements The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which established a framework for regulating nonpoint source (NPS) storm water discharges under the National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water program regulates storm water discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons), and construction sites that disturb five or more acres of land. Under the program, the applicant shall be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements. The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as excavation. The applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the 328 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 83 State Water Resource Control Board’s Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that will occur on the site. The applicant shall also be required to submit a site-specific SWPPP for construction activities. The SWPPP shall include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction. The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water associated with industrial sites. It is assumed that the future R&D labs would require compliance with the requirements because it is likely that the Standard Industrial Code for the R&D labs would be 2834 (Pharmaceutical Preparations). The permit requires the implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT) economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the statute, operators of new facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Plan SWPPP and perform monitoring of storm water discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges. An annual report must be submitted to the RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the beginning of operations. Sea Level Rise and Executive Order S-13-08 In November 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-13-08. The order indicates that future potential sea level rise associated with climate change may have a substantial effect on coastal development, and provided for the formation of an independent panel to complete a California Sea Level Rise Assessment Report by December 1, 2010. This panel, the California Adaptation Advisory Panel to the State of California, published the required report in November 2010 titled Preparing for the Effects of Climate Change – A Strategy for California.60 This study notes that the State has requested an assessment of defensible sea level rise projections for the West Coast from the National Research Council, but that this study has not yet been completed. In the interim, BCDC has proposed Bay Plan amendment language, which includes guidance for addressing future sea level rise scenarios associated with planning and permitting development in potentially susceptible areas in the San Francisco Bay Area. These scenarios are: • a sea level rise of 16 inches by 2050; and • a sea level rise of 55 inches by 2100. These values represent the upper end of the range of sea level rise estimates and are consistent with preliminary state recommendations for 100-year sea level rise. These values are meant to ensure that projects take these potentially high estimates into account when planning infrastructure and development projects, prior to the release of official sea level rise projections. Local Programs and Regulations San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program 60 California Adaptation Advisory Panel to the State of California, prepared by Pacific Council, Preparing for the Effects of Climate Change – A Strategy for California, November 2010. 329 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 84 Recirculated IS/MND To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and towns in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies water quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these waters. Projects under the proposed Project are required to adhere to all water quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in its corresponding jurisdiction. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Visitacion Valley Groundwater Basin include municipal and domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial supply, and agricultural supply. East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 area plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of the adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and water quality, the plan aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and requiring that projects under the Plan comply with NPDES permit requirements.61 City of South San Francisco The South San Francisco – San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant requires Source Control Measures of Stormwater Pollutants to comply with their NPDES permit, including methods for managing pollution sources. Applicable control measures include utilization of stormwater pollution prevention devices, management of refuse areas, management of pesticide/fertilizer application for landscaping, use of treatment devices for interior level parking garage floor drains, and marking of on-site storm drains.62 IMPACTS a) Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it violated any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 61 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994. 62 California EPA, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno Water Quality Control Plan Limitations and Discharge Requirements, Order No. R2-2008- 0094, NPDES No. CA0038130, available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders_db/index.php. 330 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 85 Impact Hydro-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Exposure and disturbance of site soils during construction and delivery of post construction surface runoff containing industrial pollutants to receiving waters could allow eroded soils and pollution to enter storm water and downstream waters. This is a potentially significant impact. Increased Non-Point Source Pollutants (NPS) to Receiving Waters Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various industrial activities are listed in Table 6. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential groundwater sources. Under existing conditions, almost all of the site runoff drains to Roebling Road, or minor underground stormdrains, before entering the municipal stormdrain network at East Grand Avenue, and then discharging to the San Francisco Bay. The proposed Project includes a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces, and an increase in landscaped areas. Of the 2.95 acre site, 2.89 acres (98%) are currently covered in hardscape, impervious to rainfall infiltration. The Project will include 2.42 acres (82%) of impermeable hardscape, a reduction of 16%. Planted stormwater treatment areas and landscaping will cover 18% of the site. The proposed Project also includes an increase in parking areas, and a general reduction in rooftop areas. Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent treatment for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project would reduce the quantity and the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering the San Francisco Bay by redirecting site runoff from roofs and parking areas into newly constructed vegetated swales and into new onsite storm drain network systems with inline, underground sand filtration systems. 63 The current plan for stormwater collection and drainage on site includes sand filters, Which require appropriate design configuration and sizing as well as requires periodic cleaning and maintenance. As part of the stormwater information to be included with application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and the Building Permit Application, the Project applicant is required to submit hydraulic computations to support site-specific hydraulic sizing for the sand filters and other elements and establish there will be no increased run off from the site. Increased Erosion or Siltation to Receiving Waters Construction of the proposed Project would involve the demolition of existing structures and pavement areas and grading activities. Existing structures and pavement that currently help to stabilize site soils would be removed during Project construction. Construction operations associated with the Project would present a threat of soil erosion by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to runoff during construction. 63 California EPA, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES No. CAS612008, available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders_db/index.php. 331 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 86 Recirculated IS/MND Table 6: Potential Pollutants From Industrial Activities INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY Sediments Nutrients Metals Organics and Toxicants Floatable Materials Oxygen-Demanding Substances Oil & Grease Bacteria Pesticides Vehicle & Equipment Fueling X X X Vehicle & Equipment Washing X X X X X X Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance & Repair X X X Outdoor Loading & Unloading of Materials X X X X X X X Outdoor Container Storage of Liquids X X X X X X Outdoor Process Equipment Operations & Maintenance X X X X Outdoor Storage of Raw Materials, Products, & Byproducts X X X X X X X Waste Handling & Disposal X X X X X X Contaminated or Erodible Surface Areas X X X X X X X X Building & Grounds Maintenance X X X X X X X Building Repair, Remodeling, & Construction X X X X Parking/Storage Area Maintenance X X X X Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial. 332 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 87 Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during construction and submit the SWPPP as part of project application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and Building Permit Application. The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1) Grading and earthwork shall be allowed with the appropriate SWPPP measures during the wet season (October 1 through April 30) and such work shall be stopped before pending storm events. 2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 3) “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, trash, etc.) to downstream waters such as covered and contained storage areas, contained wash-out areas, and prompt and appropriate disposal. 4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment and trash, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. In accordance with the handbook C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, permanent mitigation measures for stormwater shall be submitted as part of project application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and Building Permit Application. Elements that shall be addressed in the submittals include the following: 5) Description of potential sources of erosion, sediment, and trash at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources, including non-point source pollutants. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, trash removal, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed as a result of BMPs described above may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis. 333 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 88 Recirculated IS/MND 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the State Water Resources Control Board. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies identified through the monitoring. 9) Proposed locations and sizing of stormwater treatment measures shall be included. The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. The impact of violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of mitigation measures Hydro-1, which includes erosion control and identifies Best Management Practices for control of discharge of runoff, sediment, pollution, refuse, landscaping and cleaning chemicals and other potential sources of water quality degradation. b) Groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depleted groundwater supplies or interfered substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). Construction of the proposed Project would increase the amount of pervious surface areas including planted landscape areas and vegetated bio swales. (See discussion in the setting section above for additional detail.) Increasing permeable surface area allows for a greater rate infiltration of rainfall, therefore there is no impact related to groundwater recharge. c) and d) Alter the existing drainage pattern resulting in erosion or siltation or flooding on- or off-site Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially altered the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation or flooding on- or off- site. The design of the proposed Project would not ultimately alter the drainage pattern in a manner that would increase erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. However, temporary impacts could occur during site grading and construction activities. 334 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 89 Impact Hydro-2: Altered Drainage Patterns. Construction operations associated with the Project would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff and post construction runoff that could increase and/or could contain soil and sediment. Mitigation Measure Hydro-2: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1. Implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1 for construction related sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will reduce the impact of altered drainage patterns to less than significant. The impact of alterations to existing drainage patterns resulting in construction related sources of erosion would be reduced to less than significant by implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1, which includes preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of Best Management Practices for sediment control. Post Construction BMPs, if properly maintained following standard requirements under the SWPPP would reduce the potential for erosion. Review and approval of the SWPPP and BMPs by the City of South San Francisco will provide supporting documentation that the mitigation measures are properly designed and implemented. The impact of altered drainage patterns will be mitigated to a level of less than significant following implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1. e) Exceed capacity of stormwater drainage system. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it created or contributed runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Relative to existing conditions, the proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas and increase landscape areas where water can infiltrate into site soils instead of flowing into the stormwater system. (See discussion in the setting section above for additional detail.) Inclusion of stormwater treatment features, such as vegetated swales, will also serve to reduce stormwater flows. The rational method for calculating peak flow uses a runoff coefficient weighted to account for percentages of impervious cover. In this case, the proposed site conditions will decrease the amount of impervious surfaces, thereby decreasing the runoff coefficient. Peak flows due to a 10-year design storm for existing and proposed site conditions are summarized in Table 7. Therefore the proposed Project would have no impact on the existing or planned stormwater drainage system. Table 7: Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions for the 10-Year Design Storm Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Runoff coeff. Precipitation Intensity** Drainage area Peak flow Runoff coeff. Precipitation Intensity** Drainage area Peak flow Flow Increase*** (in/hr) (acres) (cfs*) (in/hr) (acres) (cfs*) (cfs*) (percent) Impervious Surfaces 0.95 3.2 2.89 8.8 0.95 3.2 2.42 7.4 Landscaped Areas 0.35 3.2 0.06 0.1 0.35 3.2 0.53 0.6 Weighted Totals 0.94 3.2 2.95 8.9 0.84 3.2 2.95 8.0 -0.9 -10% * CFS = CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ** OBTAINED VIA TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH SOUTH SF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ***A NEGATIVE FLOW INCREASE REPRESENTS A FLOW DECREASE. Source: Prepared by Questa Engineering 335 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 90 Recirculated IS/MND f) Substantially degrade water quality. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it increased pollution or otherwise degraded water quality. Impact Hydro-3: Degrade Water Quality. Construction and operation of the Project have the potential to degrade water quality through discharge of stormwater. Mitigation Measure Hydro-3: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1. Implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1 for construction related sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will reduce the impact on water quality to less than significant. The impact of a degradation water quality would be reduced to less than significant by elements of the proposed Project including a reduction in impervious surface areas and an increase in storm water treatment features, such as vegetated swales, curb cuts, and stormwater sand filters. Mitigation Measure Hydro-1, preparation and implementation of Project SWPPP, including required maintenance and monitoring, would further reduce Project related impacts that could otherwise degraded water quality to a less than significant level. g) Place housing in a flood zone. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it placed housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. The proposed Project does not include housing, and according to current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) (1981), the Project is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore, there would be no impact from placing housing in a flood zone. h) Impede or redirect flood flows. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it placed structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows. According to FEMA flood maps, the Project is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore, there would be no impact from impeding or redirecting flood flows. i) Flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located in an area mapped as being within the inundation area after the failure of a dam or levee. According to maps published by ABAG, the Project is not located downstream of a dam, nor are there any levees near the Project area.64 Therefore, there would be no inundation and no impact resulting from a dam or levee failure. 64 ABAG, Dam Failure Inundation Map, last updated 2003, available at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/dam-failure/. 336 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 91 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow or sea level rise Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located in an area susceptible to seiche (a wave caused by oscillation in an enclosed body of water such as a lake or reservoir), a tsunami, mudflow or climate-induced sea level rise. The proposed Project is located over 3000 feet from the San Francisco Bay, and over 6 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Wave run up from a tsunami is estimated at 6 feet above mean sea level for a 500-year tsunami.65 Project site elevations range from 12 feet to 31 feet above mean sea level, therefore, the site is not in danger of inundation from a tsunami or climate induced sea level rise (16 inches by 2050 and 55 inches by 2100). Further, the site is not located near an inland body of water, nor is it located adjacent to a soil slope susceptible to rapid mass wasting or mudflows. Therefore, there would a less than significant impact due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow or sea level rise. 65 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Health and Safety Element, 1999, p. 250. 337 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 92 Recirculated IS/MND Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community?     b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?     c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?     SETTING South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate industrial areas east of the majority of homes and businesses in order to take advantage of the topography and winds on Point San Bruno. Another development trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. 66 In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation over the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research, development and biotechnology. 67 As high technology businesses have moved into many of these older industrial areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and truck traffic, and land use and visual character have become increasingly pronounced. Business centers have somewhat different needs than industrial and warehousing uses, including smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary facilities such as restaurants, easier connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways, and higher landscape standards. The City attempts to balance regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial neighborhoods. 68 The East of 101 Area Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared to maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City’s traditional industrial east of U.S. 101. Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are important components of the Plan. In addition to policies relating to land use dispersion, intensities, and transportation, the Plan includes a Design Element to help achieve a high standard of development. 66 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 26. 67 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 11. 68 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 13. 338 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 93 GOVERNING PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND ORDINANCES OVERVIEW South San Francisco General Plan Adopted in October 1999, the South San Francisco General Plan recognizes that the biotech/R&D industry is South San Francisco’s largest industrial cluster. The General Plan establishes goals and policies for the City and East of 101 Area, such as:  Establishes an economic development program that promotes the biotechnology/R&D industrial cluster,  Encourages the development of R&D campuses,  Establishes infrastructure capacity,  Establishes transportation improvements, and  Promotes employee amenities, open space and recreation areas. General Plan Designation The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the East of 101 planning subarea of the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan. The plan designates the Project site for “Business and Technology Park” uses, and gives the following summary of Business and Technology Park designation: This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan In 1994, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals/policies for the City and East of 101 Area. Although the South San Francisco General Plan (adopted in 1999) supersedes the East of 101 Area Plan, most of the Plan’s original design, noise, opens space and development standards still apply to campus development. Specifically, it:  Encourages economic development,  Establishes design and development standards for all development, and  Encourages regulatory incentives for facility-wide planning. BTP (Business Technology Park) Zone Under the City’s existing zoning regulations, the Project site is subject to the provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.110 (Employment Districts). Zoning regulations prescribe the allowable uses within specific zoning districts and impose standards on those uses. The proposed Project is consistent with the regulations of this zone assuming approval of conditional use permit per the SSFMC Sections 20.110 and 20.330. 339 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 94 Recirculated IS/MND County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 161-foot above mean sea level height limit around San Francisco International Airport. This height limit would apply to the Project site. IMPACTS a) Division of an Established Community Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to physically divide an established community. The Project would involve construction of an office/research and development facility located on an already urbanized site. The Project has no impact related to division of an established community. b) Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project proposes development of a R&D facility of the type and size consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as summarized above and would require a Lot Consolidation, Use Permit, and TDM Plan as well as design review consistent with existing plans and policies. R&D facilities are explicitly allowed and encouraged for the area in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Project proposes development within the allowable development intensity at a proposed FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 0.81, where a FAR up to 1.0 could be allowed. The aesthetics of the proposal have been analyzed from an environmental perspective in the previous Aesthetics section and found to have no significant impacts. While it is ultimately in the domain of the City’s decision-makers to decide project consistency with applicable City plans and policies related to project approval, from a CEQA perspective, the Project would not conflict with plans or policies in any way that could have an adverse environmental impact. The Project would have no impact related to a conflict with policies and plans. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. There are no conservation plans either currently in force or proposed that are applicable to the subject property. 69 Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conservation plans. 69 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Chapter 7, Open Space and Conservation. 340 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 95 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?     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?     SETTING Mineral resources of concern include metals, industrial minerals (e.g., aggregate, sand and gravel), oil and gas, and geothermal resources that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. Loss of mineral resources would primarily be the result of conversion of lands underlain by these resources to other uses, or within close proximity to the resources, such that the construction and occupancy of the Project would restrict or eliminate sage and environmentally sound measures to implement extractive operations. Loss of access could also be the result of changes in land ownership. Important mineral resource areas are recognized at the federal and state levels through environmental resource management plans and adopted mineral resource mapping, and at the local level through land use planning documents such as General Plans that incorporate such information. IMPACTS a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to 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, or if it were to 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. The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan.70 In addition, as the Project site exists above Bay Fill, it can be conclusively stated that there are no subsurface mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on mineral resources. 70 USGS, Mineral Resources Data System, Edition 20120207, 2005, available at http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/. 341 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 96 Recirculated IS/MND Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. NOISE — Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?     b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?     c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?     d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?     e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?     f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?     SETTING Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. The Noise Element of the 1999 General Plan contains land use criteria for noise-impacted areas in South San Francisco. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than 75 dBA (CNEL) 71are acceptable noise levels for industrial and open space uses. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and 71 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Table 9.2-1. 342 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 97 industrial uses. The noise level standard for the Project site is 70 dBA(L50). Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard. 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 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 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. IMPACTS a) - d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards or to Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, or a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the South San Francisco General Plan or the City’s Noise Ordinance. Construction Noise During site preparation and construction at the Project site, operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. Impact Noise-1: Construction-Related Noise. Project construction could result in temporary short- term noise increases due to the operation of heavy construction equipment. Construction noise typically ranges from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. This impact is considered to be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Noise-1: Construction Noise Abatement and Limitation of Construction Hours. Construction hours shall be limited to the hourly restrictions specified in the City Noise Ordinance, and the Project sponsor shall require by contract specification that construction best management practices be implemented by contractors to reduce noise levels to the 90-dBA at 25 feet noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance. Required practices shall include but not be limited to:  Ensuring that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards,  Implementing noise attenuation measures such as noise barriers or noise blankets, and  Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during construction to be routed away from noise and vibration sensitive uses. Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce the impact of construction-related noise to a level of less than significant. 343 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 98 Recirculated IS/MND Operational Noise The operation of the Project would increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the generation of additional traffic and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment. Traffic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local streets due to Project generated traffic. As a rule of thumb, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3- dBA noise increase in a traffic dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is barely perceptible to most people. Per the Transportation and Circulation checklist section, the Project would increase traffic by up to 47 vehicle trips during the commute peak traffic hours compared to existing site traffic activity. This would lead to a small but possibly perceptible increase in traffic noise levels at the Project site and on the Roebling Road cul-de-sac, but would be unlikely to increase noise by a perceptible amount elsewhere. The increase in traffic noise levels would be considered less than significant. Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of rooftop mechanical equipment, such as an HVAC system. However, such equipment would be required to conform to standards of the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance and the impact would be considered less than significant. Vibration. It is not expected that future land uses at the Project site would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would have no impact related to excessive groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise. Project-generated traffic noise and noise from operation of exterior mechanical equipment could increase but would not exceed noise standards and would not significantly increase ambient noise levels nor substantially impact noise-sensitive receptors. This would be considered a less than significant impact. e) and f) Aircraft Noise Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were 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) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The Project site is located about 2.5 miles north of the San Francisco International Airport. Flights leaving from and arriving at the airport can occasionally be heard at the Project site. The 1999 General Plan Noise Element contains existing and future airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport. These contours indicated the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road and railroad noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels generated by major road and railroad noise sources would continue to be less than 60 dBA (CNEL). 72 Based on the City’s land use criteria, the proposed Project’s office type land use would be compatible with future noise level projections in the Project vicinity of less than 60 to 65 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing no impact. 72 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figures 9-1 and 9-2. 344 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 99 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the Project: a) Induce substantial 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 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     SETTING South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the city, single-family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along the few transportation corridors, and multi-family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. According to the General Plan Housing Element, which was prepared in 2007, the City has a history of imbalance in its jobs/housing ratio. South San Francisco is a “jobs rich” City with substantial in- commuting from other jurisdictions. At the time of preparation of the General Plan, there were approximately 30,000 employed residents in the City compared to 50,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.7 jobs per every working resident of the City. By comparison, at the time, San Mateo County had a much closer balance between the number of employed residents and total jobs with approximately 370,000 employed residents and 340,000 jobs, a ratio of 0.9 jobs per every working resident of the County. The City’s jobs-housing balance is a measure for land use planning purposes. The City does not currently have an adopted jobs-housing ratio goal. Given that much of the land in the City, including all of the East of 101 Area, is not zoned for residential development, attainment of a jobs and housing balance in South San Francisco is doubtful. On the other hand, continued job growth in the City will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, BART and ferry service in the near future—future employees from and traveling to the City will have varied means of reaching employment sites. As South San Francisco’s employment base, the East of 101 Area is expected to accommodate a major share of South San Francisco’s new non-residential development. While under the General Plan total building floor space is expected to increase by about 50 percent (from 12.0 million square feet to about 17.4 million sf), overall employment levels are expected to more than double (from 22,200 in 1997 to 42,000 at General Plan buildout in 2020). 345 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 100 Recirculated IS/MND Consistent with this, ABAG Projections 2009 (the most recent available) projects the City’s total employment number to be 48,290 in 2020. This represents an increase in employment in the City of 6,050 to 2020.73 Both the Traffic Impact Fee Study Update and the ABAG Projections 2009 are based upon existing planning documentation; therefore, as new projects are approved, the projection numbers would also change. As such, the employment buildout projections are not treated as limits, rather they project the employment for the region based upon the best available data. IMPACTS a) Substantial Population Growth Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce either directly or indirectly substantial population growth. The existing buildings on site could support approximately 62 employees. Depending on the set-up and mix between office and R&D, the proposed Project could support between 192 and 264 employees for a net increase of 130 to 202 employees on site.74 ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of 6,050 by 2020. Therefore, the Project’s contributions to the increase in employment in the City would be within ABAG’s employment projections for the City, accounting for 2.1% to 3.3% of the projected growth. The increase in employees in the City could result in an increase in demand for housing. As described previously, the City is primarily built out and any housing constructed within the City limits would most likely be infill housing. Therefore, the Project could result in an increased imbalance in the jobs/housing ratio in the City. A jobs-housing ratio is a numeric representation of the relationship between the total number of jobs and the total number of residential units in an area. This ratio indicates the ability of a region to provide both adequate employment and housing opportunities for its existing and projected population. A jobs housing ratio of 1.0 represents a balance of jobs and housing. An overall jobs-housing ratio of 1.0 to 1.5 is generally considered balanced (so that there is little in- or out-commuting). A balance of jobs and housing can benefit the regional environment by reducing commute times and distances between residential areas and employment centers. Longer commutes result in increased vehicle trip length, which creates environmental effects, such as those associated with transportation, air quality, and noise. As discussed in the setting above, South San Francisco currently has a high jobs/housing ratio of 1.7; this means that South San Francisco is a job center that imports employees from surrounding communities, or alternatively, that exports housing. Based on ABAG’s projections, the future jobs/housing ratio in the City would increase to approximately 2.11 by 2020. These ratios suggest poor housing availability relative to the amount of 73 ABAG, Projections 2009, August 2009. (Note that the anticipated Projections 2011 update was not published due to unknown implications of the recession on long-term projections.) 74 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Special Topics 1995 Building Activities Other, Square feet per employee, 1995, available at: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/contents.htm. Square feet per employees used in this assessment are 400 for office, 1,700 for warehouse, and 550 for research and development (other). 346 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 101 jobs projected, and a high level of in-commuting. Housing availability, already projected to be out of balance, would decrease with implementation of the Project. Assuming that one person per household would be employed by the Project, the Project would require 130 to 202 new units of housing, which may not all be provided for within South San Francisco city limits, taking into consideration other growth in the area. Consequently, the potential employment increase resulting from the Project would result in indirect growth that may not be accommodated by existing or proposed housing projections for the city. However, continued job growth in the city will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. The city is a strategically located inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, BART, and ferry service coming soon as well. Therefore, future employees commuting to jobs in the city would have varied means of reaching the Project. Given the fact that the City does not have an adopted jobs/housing ratio goal, and overall the Project would promote a greater regional jobs balance, the impact of the Project on indirect population growth would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. b) and c) Displace People and Housing Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the Project site. There is currently no housing on the Project site. The Project would not displace any residents or housing units, and therefore, would have no impact on the displacement of housing or people. 347 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 102 Recirculated IS/MND Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES — a) 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 public services: i) Fire protection?     ii) Police protection?     iii) Schools?     iv) Parks?     v) Other public facilities?     SETTING The proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the City of South San Francisco and would be served by City of South San Francisco public services, including the following. Police Protection Services Police service within the Project area is provided by the South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD). The South San Francisco Police Department’s jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The Department currently has a total of 79 sworn officers and 35 civilian employees covering a city of approximately 60,000 residents with a daytime population around 100,000 people.75 That’s a ratio of approximately 1.3 sworn officers for every one thousand residents. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes and average response times are five to seven minutes depending on the priority. The South San Francisco General Plan establishes guiding policies 8.5-G1 to 8.5-G2 to provide police services that are responsive to citizen’s needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community and to assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community design. Fire Service Fire protection and emergency services within the Project area is the responsibility of the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD). The SSFFD has 85 members. Minimum on-duty staffing is 20 persons. There are currently five fire stations located throughout South San Francisco. In addition to the paramedics, the rest of the fire personnel are certified Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). The SSFFD also has Advanced Life Support (ALS) engines that arrive on scene with a paramedic aboard. 75 City of South San Francisco website, http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=285. 348 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 103 Station #62 is the closest station to the Project site, approximately 1,000 feet to the south at 249 Harbor Way. 76 School Services The South San Francisco Unified School District provides schooling to South San Francisco’s children in ten Elementary Schools (grades K-5), three Middle Schools (grades 6-8) and three High Schools (grades 9-12) as well as an adult education program. a) Public Services Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities. i) Fire Protection South San Francisco Fire Department Station #62 is the closest station to the Project site, less than one half mile away at 249 Harbor Way, and would provide all first response services to the Project. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase development within the Project site, which would translate to an increase in workers on the site of 130 to 202, as discussed in more detail under Population, above. Compared to a daytime population of 100,000, this would represent an increase of less than 1% in the City’s daytime population (0.1% to 0.2%). This negligible increase in daytime population would not result in SSFPD’s inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. The Project site is not located in any of the city’s fire hazard management unit areas. 77 The Project’s design would be required to comply with the City’s Fire Code (Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code) and the City Fire Marshal’s code requirements regarding on site access for emergency vehicles as is a standard condition for any project approval. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the city’s fire protection services. ii) Police Protection Implementation of the proposed Project would increase development within the Project site, which would translate to a net increase of 130 to 202 employees working on the site, as discussed in more detail under Population, above. Compared to a daytime population of 100,000, this would represent an increase of less than 1% in the City’s daytime population (0.1% to 0.2%).This would constitute a negligible increase in the City’s population, and would not result in SSFPD’s inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives or meet the goals of the General Plan or the need to construct new facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. iii) Schools 76 City of South San Francisco website, http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=416. 77 City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.265 349 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 104 Recirculated IS/MND It is possible that some of the 130 to 202 employees of the Project site would relocate to the City, thereby generating a small student population increase in the South San Francisco Unified School District. However, because the Project would not involve construction of new residences, it is not expected that the school district would experience a significant growth in student population due to this Project. Therefore, the impact on the South San Francisco Unified School District would be less than significant. iv) Parks With an estimated increase in daytime population of less than 1% (as discussed more fully in the Population section, above), the proposed Project would not place a substantial demand on the City’s public parks. Though some users of the Project site would use the City’s parks, this use would be considered less than significant. See the following Recreation section for additional discussion. v) Other Facilities As with the public services listed above, while the Project could result in a marginal increase in use of other facilities in South San Francisco, but with a negligible increase in daytime population of 0.1% to 0.2 percent, the net effect is less than significant. 350 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 105 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. RECREATION — a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?     b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?     SETTING The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department manages parks and recreation centers within the city boundaries. According to the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space element of the South San Francisco General Plan, there is an estimated 320 acres of parks and open space in the city, including community parks, neighborhood parks, mini-parks, linear parks, open spaces and school lands. 78 IMPACTS a) and b) Recreation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment. The South San Francisco General Plan requires 0.5 acres of parks per 1,000 new employees in employment areas or payment of in-lieu fees. Using the estimate of 130 to 202 net new on-site employment discussed above, 0.06 to 0.1 acres of parks or appropriate in lieu fees would be required. The Project does not include on-site recreational opportunities so would pay appropriate in-lieu fees. While it is possible that some users of the Project site would make use of City recreational facilities, the increase in daytime population is negligible (0.1% to 0.2%) and this would represent a negligible increase in the use of parks and would not substantially deteriorate existing parks or recreational facilities or require the construction of new facilities. Therefore, the impact related to recreational facilities would be considered less than significant. 78 City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.265 351 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 106 Recirculated IS/MND Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?     b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the count congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?     c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?     d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?     e) Result in inadequate emergency access?     f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?     A Traffic Study was completed for this Project by Crane Transportation, Inc. in October 2011, included in full as Appendix B of this document. The following discussion and impact assessment is based on this Traffic Study. SETTING The 328 Roebling Road Project site is located north of East Grand Avenue, east of Roebling Road and west of the 249 East Grand Avenue project. The Project site is now served by one driveway connection to East Grand Avenue and three driveway connections to Roebling Road. Driveways are not all connected via internal parking aisles. There would be three entrances to the proposed Project site, two on Roebling Road and one on East Grand Avenue. The main entrance on Roebling Road is between Buildings A and B, and the other entrance on the street is east of Building A at the end of the cul-de-sac. The East Grand Avenue entrance can only be accessed via a right turn heading northward due to a median that prevents left turns into the site. A schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and control at the intersections requested for analysis by the City are presented in detail in the Traffic Study (Appendix B, Figure 2). 352 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 107 Streets East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/ office areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. In the Project vicinity it has two travel lanes in each direction and left turn lanes provided on the eastbound approach to Roebling Road and on the westbound approach to Harbor Way. The median break at the Roebling Road intersection is long enough to allow eastbound left turn access into a small parking area on the Project site on the northeast corner of the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road intersection. No on-street parking is allowed along either the north or south sides of East Grand Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) and “Keep Clear” messages have been painted in the westbound lanes at the Roebling Road intersection. A railroad track diagonally crosses the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard-Harbor Way intersection. Roebling Road is a 40-foot-wide street extending about 600 feet north of East Grand Avenue before ending in a cul-de-sac. There is no posted speed limit or a painted centerline. Pavement condition is adequate. Curb, gutter and sidewalks line both sides of the street. On-street parking is allowed during all hours except 3:00 to 5:00 AM. Roebling Road is stop sign controlled on its approach to East Grand Avenue. Volumes Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was prepared for the following 10 intersections serving the Project site. 1. Airport Blvd. / Miller Avenue / U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) 2. Airport Blvd. / Grand Avenue (Signal) 3. E. Grand Overcrossing / Dubuque Avenue (Signal) 4. E. Grand Avenue Overcrossing / E. Grand Avenue (Signal) 5. E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Blvd. (Signal) 6. E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Blvd. / Harbor Way (Signal) 7. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Roebling Road Stop Sign Controlled) 8. S. Airport Blvd. / U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane (Signal) 9. Gateway Blvd. / S. Airport Blvd. / Mitchell Avenue (Signal) 10. Airport Blvd. / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue (Signal) Counts at all locations except E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road were conducted in March 2008 or June 2008 as part of the East of 101 Area traffic study or the Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR. In addition, counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in September 2011 at E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road, the Project driveway along E. Grand Avenue, and all driveways and on-street parking locations along Roebling Road. Currently, volumes on adjacent Roebling Road are light, as existing buildings along both sides of the street are either empty or at low usage levels. See the Traffic Study in Appendix B (Figures 3 and 4) for existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis intersections. 353 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 108 Recirculated IS/MND Existing Intersection Operating Conditions The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. All signalized intersections evaluated for this assessment are currently operating at good to acceptable (LOS D or better) Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. At the unsignalized E. Grand Ave. / Roebling Road intersection, the stop sign controlled Roebling Road approach is operating at acceptable levels (LOS A during the AM and LOS B during the PM commute peak traffic hours). (Appendix B, Table 3) Existing Queuing The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95th percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each off-ramp and on the approaches to intersections adjacent to off-ramp intersections that accommodate a significant amount of off-ramp traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is allowed to back up to the freeway mainline during the entire AM or PM peak traffic hour. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend beyond this length five percent of the time during the analysis hour. Only one intersection has 95th percentile queuing currently exceeding available storage: Airport Boulevard / Grand Ave. AM peak hour queues in the left turn lane or the southbound Airport Boulevard approach exceed available storage. (Appendix B, Table 5) Ramp Operation at Diverge From Freeway Mainline Caltrans uses an off-ramp volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit that can be accommodated by a single lane off-ramp at its divergence from the freeway mainline. For on-ramp operation, capacity is dependent upon the free flow speed of on-ramp traffic. For single lane diamond on-ramps with higher speeds, capacity has been set at 2,200 vehicles per hour, while for single lane button hook or curving on-ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000 vehicles per hour. All U.S.101 freeway on-ramps serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area analyzed in this study are operating acceptably and have volumes well below capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. (Appendix B, Table 7) All U.S.101 freeway off-ramps serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area analyzed in this study are operating acceptably and have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with the exception of the northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive during the AM peak hour (with a volume of 1,618 vehicles per hour). (Appendix B, Table 6) Freeway Operation U.S.101 existing traffic conditions have been evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. U.S. 101 is part of the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county boarder, the LOS standard was set as LOS E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the 354 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 109 existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. Existing Levels of Service have been evaluated on four freeway segments in South San Francisco (northbound and southbound U.S.101 north of the Oyster Point interchange and northbound and southbound U.S.101 north of the I-380 interchange). Results were based upon analysis of year 2009 volumes. Currently, all U.S.101 freeway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Conditions are generally poorer along U.S.101 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard. (Appendix B, Tables 8 and 9) Transit & Shuttle Service Transit service in South San Francisco includes local bus service, shuttle service, regional rail service (BART and Caltrain) and a ferry terminal scheduled to open at Oyster Point in the spring of 2012. There are no local bus lines in the East of 101 Area. Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the Colma BART station. Shuttle stops are provided at two locations along East Grand Avenue and at one location along Harbor Way. The shuttles are free to riders. (Appendix B, Figure 5 and Tables 10 and 11) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Sidewalks are in place along the north and south sides of East Grand Avenue and along both sides of Roebling Road in the Project vicinity. However, there are no Class II or Class III bicycle lane designations along East Grand Avenue or Roebling Road adjacent to the Project site, although there are numerous bicycle facilities available in the study area. Bike lanes are provided along East Grand Avenue east of Littlefield Avenue, Sister Cities Boulevard, Allerton Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Road, and Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes are designated on South Airport Boulevard and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive and along the shoreline. Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, and Forbes Boulevard (east of Allerton Avenue). Future bike routes are planned along Forbes Boulevard (west of Allerton Avenue), while a future bike path is planned along the Caltrain right-of-way. The proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element. Project Trip Generation The proposed Project would result in net increase of 16 inbound trips and a net reduction of 4 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and a net increase of 8 inbound and 39 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. (Appendix B, Table 20) 355 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 110 Recirculated IS/MND IMPACTS a) Conflict with Applicable Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation System Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. See the Setting section above for specific standards. Project-Specific Traffic Impacts were analyzed against existing conditions to determine Project-specific impacts. The addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour intersection level of service to unacceptable levels at any analyzed location. This would be a less-than-significant impact. (Appendix B, Table 3) The addition of Project traffic would not increase existing volumes at the E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road intersection to meet peak hour signal warrant #3 criteria levels. This would be a less-than- significant impact. (Appendix B, Table 4) The addition of Project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour off-ramp volumes above acceptable diverge capacity levels at any analyzed location. At the one analyzed off-ramp where existing AM peak hour volumes already exceed capacity limits (U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive), Project traffic would increase existing AM peak hour off-ramp volumes by less than 1.0 percent (by only 0.6 percent – an increase from 1,618 up to 1,628 vehicle per hour). This would be a less-than-significant impact. (Appendix B, Table 6) The addition of Project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour on-ramp volumes above acceptable capacity levels at any analyzed location. This would be a less-than-significant impact. (Appendix B, Table 7) The addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour U.S.101 mainline operation in South San Francisco to unacceptable levels. This would be a less-than- significant impact. (Appendix B, Table 9) The addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour vehicle queuing at any signalized intersection from acceptable to unacceptable lengths. However, Project traffic would significantly degrade operation at one signalized location with existing unacceptable existing queuing and at an unsignalized intersection, as detailed in the impact statements below. Impact Traf-1: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing, Airport Blvd. Addition of Project traffic would significantly increase volumes for the left turn on the southbound approach to Grand Avenue, which already exceeds available queuing capacity. This is a potentially significant impact. The Project would increase existing volumes for the Airport Boulevard left turn on the southbound approach to Grand Avenue by 4.2 percent during the AM peak hour in a turn lane where existing traffic 95th percentile queuing is already exceeding available storage between the Grand Avenue and Miller Avenue / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp intersections. 356 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 111 Mitigation Measure Traf-1: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue Signal Timing. Adjust signal timing to the approval of the South San Francisco Public Works Department in order to reduce Base Case + Project 95th percentile vehicle queuing for the left turn movement on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue to a shorter distance than Base Case queuing for this movement. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Traf-1, the resultant AM Peak Hour operation for the southbound 95th percentile left turn lane queue would be reduced to 327 feet, which is within the existing queue capacity of 332 feet. (Appendix B, Figure 24) The impact would be reduced to less- than-significant. Impact Traf-2: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing, E. Grand Avenue. The addition of Project traffic would degrade existing acceptable queuing in the left turn lane on the approach to the unsignalized Roebling Road intersection to an unacceptable storage demand. The addition of Project traffic would increase the storage demand from 55 up to 100 feet during the AM peak hour in the 75-foot-long left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the unsignalized Roebling Road intersection. Mitigation Measure Traf-2: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Turn Lane Extension. The following improvement is not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution for this program. The Project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvement: Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet (as determined by the City Engineer). This improvement will require elimination of the short left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the driveway serving the western 250 E. Grand Avenue parking lot. Based upon counts conducted several years ago at this driveway by Crane Transportation Group, there are very few drivers making this westbound left turn. Also, drivers currently accessing this driveway have easy alternate routes to access this parking lot. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Traf-2, the projected storage demand of 100 feet will be accommodated in the proposed 125-foot turn lane. The impact related to queuing at the East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative Traffic impacts were also analyzed under future cumulative conditions, specifically for the years 2015 and 2035. The addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour intersection levels at any analyzed location under the cumulative 2015 and 2035 scenarios, nor would Project traffic increase volumes by more than 2 percent at locations with unacceptable Base Case operation. This would be a less-than-significant impact. (Appendix B, Tables 13 and 17) 357 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 112 Recirculated IS/MND The addition of Project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour off-ramp or on-ramp volumes above acceptable diverge capacity levels at any analyzed location under the cumulative 2015 and 2035 scenarios. This would be a less-than-significant impact. (Appendix B, Tables 6 and 7) The addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour U.S.101 mainline operation in South San Francisco to unacceptable levels or contribute significantly to existing segments experiencing unacceptable operation. This would be a less-than-significant impact. (Appendix B, Tables 15 and 19) With implementation of Mitigation Measures Traf-1 and Traf-2, above, the addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour vehicle queuing from acceptable to unacceptable lengths at any study location or contribute significantly to existing unacceptable queuing. The Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue AM Peak Hour southbound 95th percentile left turn lane queue would be 376 feet under the 2015 cumulative scenario and 381 feet under the 2035 cumulative scenario, which are less than the Base Case queues of 390 and 398 feet respectively. The E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road AM Peak Hour eastbound 95th percentile left turn lane queue would be up to 125 feet under the 2015 and 2035 cumulative scenarios, which is within the planned capacity of 125 feet. This would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact. (Appendix B, Tables 14, 18 and 24 and Figures 25 and 26) Impact Traf-3: East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Signal Warrant. This unsignalized intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to cumulative PM peak hour volumes. This would be a significant impact. Year 2015 Base Case PM peak hour volumes would be increased above peak hour signal warrant criteria levels due to the addition of Project traffic. (Appendix B, Table 4) Mitigation Measure Traf-3: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Signalization. The following improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The Project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvement or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this Project: a) Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. b) Lengthen the single left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the Forbes/Harbor intersection to at least 225 feet (as determined by the City Engineer). Prohibit left turns to/from all driveways along E. Grand Avenue between these two locations. Mitigation Measure Traf-2, the E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road left turn lane extension, would also reduce this impact. The nearby recently-approved 213 East Grand Avenue project would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. 358 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 113 With implementation of Mitigation Measures Traf-2 and Traf-3, the resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized AM Peak Hour operation would be LOS B-11.5 seconds control delay and PM Peak Hour operation would be LOS B-11.9 seconds control delay. (Appendix B, Table 23 and Figure 25.) The resultant 2035 Base Case + Project Signalized AM Peak Hour operation would be LOS C-33.8 seconds control delay and PM Peak Hour: LOS A-8.8 seconds control delay. (Appendix B, Table 24 and Figure 26.) These levels are in compliance with City standards and the impact at this location would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. b) Direct or Cumulative Increase in Traffic Which Causes a Congestion Management Agency Standard to be Exceeded Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a direct increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion Management Agency standard to be exceeded, or contribute substantially to a cumulative increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion Management Agency standard to be exceeded. The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program (“C/CAG Guidelines”) specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. The Project would generate less than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours. This is a less than significant impact. (Appendix B, Table 20) c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and therefore would have no impact on local air traffic patterns. d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic. The Project’s driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be located about 200 feet east of the Forbes Boulevard / Roebling Road intersection. Sight lines at the Project’s only driveway connection along East Grand Avenue, where right turns only would be allowed, would be at least 800 feet to the east (to see westbound traffic). Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 40 miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit) would be 305 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at this location. Roebling Road is straight and level along its 600-foot length adjacent to the Project. Project driveways would be located along the east side of the street about 300 feet and 600 feet from East Grand Avenue. Speeds along Roebling Road are now 25 miles per hour or less and would be expected to remain at this level with the Project. Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour would be 155 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at these driveways. 359 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 114 Recirculated IS/MND Each Project driveway along Roebling Road would be channelized at least 20 feet internal to the site, with the East Grand Avenue driveway being channelized at least 35 feet internal to the parking lot. In addition, all surface parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet or greater in width as are all parking garage aisles, which meets City code criteria and good traffic engineering practice. Additionally, internal walkways are shown on the site plan connecting all buildings and connecting the buildings to the sidewalks along Roebling Road and East Grand Avenue. The internal circulation plan would not create a safety hazard. While the Project would increase the intensity of use at the site and on surrounding roadways, the Project has been designed with acceptable sight lines and internal circulation. The impact related to hazards due to design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant. There is an at grade railroad crossings near the Project site running diagonally across the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. No gates or lights are provided at the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection crossing. Impact Traf-4: Grade Crossing Approaches Missing Signing and Pavement Striping. The State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City of South San Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection that the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection grade crossing is not up to minimum standards on one or more approaches for required advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping). This results in an existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition of Project traffic. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-4: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing & Pavement Striping. The Project shall provide a fair share contribution towards all needed signs and pavement markings on the approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection “at grade railroad crossing” to meet minimum State Public Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission. With implementation of safety features identified in Mitigation Measure Traf-4, the impact related to an existing rail-crossing safety concern would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. e) Emergency Access Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate emergency access. The proposed Project is designed in a manner that allows free and clear circulation for emergency vehicles that would respond to an emergency on site. Driveway connections would be provided to both Roebling Road and to East Grand Avenue and would connect internal to the site. Parking aisles would be in close proximity to each building. The Project would have adequate emergency access and therefore would have a less than significant impact on emergency access. 360 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 115 f) Alternative Transportation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. In 2001, The City Council adopted the TDM Ordinance. The ordinance requires a schedule of alternative mode use requirements based on floor-area ratio (FAR) for various land uses according to their General Plan designations. The Project would have a FAR of 0.8, and based on its General Plan land use designation, would have to provide an alternative mode shift of 30 percent.79 The Project will be developing a TDM plan to meet City of South San Francisco mode shift criteria. The Project would have a less than significant impact on adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Parking Significance Criteria: Parking is no longer analyzed as a direct impact on the environment under CEQA. This is included as an informational item. Parking conditions are not static, as parking supply and demand varies from day to day, from day to night, and from month to month. Hence, the availability of parking spaces (or lack thereof) is not a permanent physical condition, but changes over time as people change their modes and patterns of travel. Parking deficits are considered to be social effects, rather than impacts on the physical environment as defined by CEQA. Under CEQA, a project’s social impacts need not be treated as significant impacts on the environment. Environmental documents should, however, address the secondary physical impacts that could be triggered by a social impact (CEQA Guidelines § 15131(a)). The social inconvenience of parking deficits, such as having to hunt for scarce parking spaces, is not an environmental impact, but there may be secondary physical environmental impacts, such as increased traffic congestion at intersections, air quality impacts, safety impacts, or noise impacts caused by congestion. However, the absence of a ready supply of parking spaces, combined with available alternatives to auto travel (e.g., transit service, taxis, bicycles or travel by foot) and a relatively dense pattern of urban development, may induce drivers to seek and find alternative parking facilities, shift to other modes of travel, or change their overall travel habits. The potential secondary effects of drivers searching for parking is typically offset by a reduction in vehicle trips due to others who are aware of constrained parking conditions in a given area. Hence, any secondary environmental impacts which may result from a shortfall in parking for the proposed Project would be minor, and the traffic assignments used in the transportation analysis, as well as in the associated air quality, noise and pedestrian safety analyses, reasonably addresses potential secondary effects. In summary, changes in parking conditions are considered to be social impacts rather than impacts on the physical environment. A discussion of parking is presented below for informational purposes only. 79 South San Francisco Municipal Code, Table 20.102.030-D. 361 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 116 Recirculated IS/MND The Project proposes parking at a ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet between the at-grade and subterranean parking lots, for a total of 288 parking spaces. Based upon City code criteria, 302 parking spaces would be required although a reduction from this standard may be granted via approval of a Use Permit if supported by a parking demand analysis acceptable to the City Engineer. Implementation of a TDM program, as proposed with the Project, supports reduced parking as an effective tool to reduce trip reduction efforts. The following General Plan policies also specifically support a commitment to reduced parking requirements: 4.3-I-11 Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by:  Allowing parking reduction for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking. 4.3-I-12 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for projects proximate to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program. 362 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 117 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?     b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?     e) 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?     f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?     g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     SETTING Wastewater The existing wastewater system serving the Project site and surrounding community is operated and maintained by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City’s Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of the San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat a portion of the wastewater produced by the Cities of Colma and Daly City. 80 The most recent WQCP upgrade project was completed in 2005. The project included improvements to accommodate peak wet weather flows and an effluent pump station. The WQCP currently has an average dry weather flow capacity of 13 million gallons per day (MGD) and a wet weather flow capacity of 62 MGD. The City is implementing a new capital improvement plan (CIP) to increase wet 80 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Ave EIR, 2005 363 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 118 Recirculated IS/MND weather flow capacity, add reliability improvements, and add green energy facilities. The CIP will be implemented in several phases over the next 10 years.81 Water The water system in the East of Highway 101 area is owned and operated by the California Water Service Company (CWSC). CWSC’s supply source consists of eight groundwater wells and surface water wholesaled by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). CWSC is a member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). CWSC serves three districts on the San Francisco Peninsula: Bear Gulch, Mid Peninsula, and South San Francisco. 82 The South San Francisco District water supply is a combination of purchased water obtained from the SFPUC, groundwater produced from CWSC owned wells, and SB7 conservation generated supply savings. Based on historical data, future demand projections, contracted treated water deliveries from SFPUC under normal hydrologic conditions and the mandated SB7 conservation savings are expected to generate a surplus SFPUC supply during the period 2015 to 2030 of between 2.0 and 3.84 MGD.83 Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development allowed under the East of 101 Area Plan.84 The water distribution system in the area was designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12-inch lines in relatively good condition, adequate to serve the 2,500 gallons per minute fire flow requirement and use demands for the land uses planned for the area. Stormwater The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Thus, any redevelopment of existing development will generally maintain or decrease the amount of impervious surfaces and therefore not increase runoff. Solid Waste Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the South San Francisco Scavenger Company’s materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires, either Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. In 2005, the City landfilled approximately 85,091 tons. The landfill has a permitted maximum disposal of 3,598 tons per day. As of 2000 (the most recent quantification available), the landfill has exceeded its originally permitted 81 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft EIR, January 2011 (including Appendix G: Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Redevelopment Master Plan Utilities Study, prepared by Carollo Engineers). 82 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft EIR, January 2011 (and Water Supply Assessment included as Appendix F). 83 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft EIR, January 2011 (and Water Supply Assessment included as Appendix F). 84 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, p. 98. 364 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 119 capacity of 37.9 million cubic yards by approximately 6.7 million cubic yards (17.8 percent). The operators are permitted until 2018 to expand the Ox Mountain landfill capacity and they continue to accept waste as the landfill gradually settles and new space becomes available. The closure date is planned for 2018.85 After collection, waste is brought to the Scavenger Company’s Blue Line Transfer, Inc. facility, a public disposal and recycling center located at 500 East Jamie Court. The Blue Line Transfer facility is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 2,400 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials86, but receives an average of approximately 800 tons per day87. This facility gives the Company increased capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the landfill. South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge and has an estimated diversion rate of 40%.88 IMPACTS a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. The San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP operates under an NPDES permit issued by the State of California. One of the requirements of the permit is that the WQCP implement a Pretreatment Program to regulate the collection of toxic and hazardous wastes in municipal sewers. Under the Pretreatment Program, dischargers of industrial wastewater are required to abide by specific wastewater discharge limits and prohibitions. Industrial dischargers are also required to submit self-monitoring reports on the total volume and pollutant concentrations of their wastewater, and to allow for inspections by the City of South San Francisco. The Project will be required to comply with all applicable regulations and would not cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements so would have no impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 85 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Active Landfills Profile for Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill (41-AA- 0002), website: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfile1.asp?COID=7&FACID=41-AA-0002, accessed December 17, 2010. 86 San Mateo County, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, Multi-Jurisdiction Non-Disposal Facility Element, draft June 2010 amendment. 87 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 2009, page IV.N-8 88 San Mateo County, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, Multi-Jurisdiction Non-Disposal Facility Element, draft June 2010 amendment 365 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 120 Recirculated IS/MND The City of South San Francisco estimates its water and wastewater capacity needs based on the projected General Plan buildout of all land uses. The Project is consistent with the General Plan buildout scenarios, and therefore has been included in the City’s water and wastewater growth projections. The 1999 General Plan EIR indicated that major water delivery, and major wastewater treatment facilities were adequate, or would be improved, in order to meet project water and wastewater demand growth. These projections have been subsequently updated in the 2007 East of 101 Sewer System Master Plan Update.89 The City of South San Francisco has initiated a sewer improvement program/capital improvement plan, whereby individual projects would pay a pro rata, fair share sewer improvement fee to cover the costs of any necessary sewer improvements. The Project must, and would, pay this pro rata fee to help construct any local sewer improvements necessitated by cumulative growth in the area, including the Project. With mandated payment of fee, the impact of the Project on increased water and wastewater facilities would be less than significant. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Periodic flooding occurs in South San Francisco, but is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek. Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the city; since South San Francisco is highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during periods of heavy rainfall. While the Project site is not located in the vicinity of the creek and would not be susceptible to flooding during a 100-year storm (see the Hydrology and Water Quality checklist section of this document for more information), site runoff may be within the Colma Creek watershed. (See the Hydrology section for additional detail.) The proposed Project would result in a reduction in impervious surface area of 16%. The Colma Creek Flood Control District requires that drainage calculations, including outflow locations, be submitted to the District for approval. Per the Districts requirements, future discharge rates to District facilities may not exceed pre-project conditions. Therefore, the Project would result in no net increase in storm water runoff and would have no impact with regards to increased storm water runoff and the building or expansion of new storm water drainage facilities. d) Water Supply Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. As discussed in the setting section in more detail, surplus SFPUC supply is anticipated through 2030 of between 2.0 and 3.84 MGD. 90 The projected increase in demand for the Project would be a small 89 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Carollo Engineers, Addendum to the City of South San Francisco East of Highway 101 Sewer Master Plan, May 2007 90 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft EIR, January 2011 (and Water Supply Assessment included as Appendix F). 366 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 121 fraction of that surplus. Therefore, the proposed Project would lead to an increase in demand for potable water, but would utilize existing water entitlements and resources, having a less than significant impact on other water resources. e) Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. The proposed Project would contribute both domestic sewage and industrial wastewater to the City of South San Francisco’s municipal sewer system. As discussed in more detail in the setting section, above, the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) has recently been upgraded and currently has capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 MGD in dry weather and 60 MGD in wet weather. The WQCP facilities plan is being updated to evaluate the existing and future treatment capacity needs. The Draft Facilities Plan estimates average flow projections through the year 2040 to reach 10.3 mgd, which is lower than the existing average dry weather plant capacity of 13 mgd. The increase of flow is within the projected flows for the East of 101 Area.91 The Project would contribute a small fraction of those increased flows, anticipated to be within existing capacity. The Project would place a less than significant demand on the area’s wastewater treatment provider and would not prevent it from fulfilling its existing commitments. f) and g) Solid Waste Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As discussed in the setting section of this chapter, the Scavenger Company is contracted by the City of South San Francisco as the sole hauler of solid waste and operator of recycling services for the City. The Scavenger Company transports all solid waste from the Project area to the Blue Line Transfer facility. The Blue Line Transfer facility has a permitted capacity of 2,400 tons per day. Once the useable materials have been separated at the Blue Line Transfer facility, the remaining trash is then transported to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. The landfill has a permitted maximum disposal of 3,598 tons per day. The Project would increase solid waste generation by a fraction of a percent of the permitted maximum amount accepted daily at the Blue Line Transfer facility and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. The remaining capacity of the Blue Line Transfer facility would be able to accommodate the additional solid waste. While the Ox Mountain landfill is currently in excess of its originally permitted capacity, they are permitted until 2018 to expand the Ox Mountain landfill and continue to accept waste as the landfill gradually settles and new space becomes available. As discussed previously, the operators would either further expand Corinda Los Trancos or open Apanolio Canyon for fill to ensure adequate available capacity after 2018. Thus, the increase in solid waste generated under the proposed Project would be sufficiently served by the Blue Line Transfer facility and the Ox Mountain Landfill. 91 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Carollo Engineers, San Bruno-South San Francisco WQCP DRAFT Facilities Plan, April 2010. 367 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 122 Recirculated IS/MND Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City of South San Francisco is regulated by the City’s Municipal Code, particularly Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. As neither of these chapters establishes quantitative disposal or recycling rates, the Project site would not be subject to diversion requirements. However, under the Municipal Code, the Project would be required to have its solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, and recyclable materials collected by the Scavenger Company. Additional health and sanitation requirements set forth in the Municipal Code would be met by the Scavenger Company. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be expected to be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs, and would not require or result in construction of landfill facilities or expansion of existing facilities nor would it impede the ability of the City to meet the applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project would have a less than significant impact in relation to solid waste. 368 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 123 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?     b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.)     c) Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?     a) Quality of the Environment Project implementation could lead to development that adversely affects the environment in terms of impacts to various CEQA issue topics, as discussed in this IS/MND. However, impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. Implementation of the Project would not degrade the quality and extent of the environment provided all policies, rules, and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the mitigation measures contained within this document are implemented. b) Cumulative Impacts In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this IS/MND was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the Project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the Project or its site were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The traffic study for this Project also includes analysis of a future cumulative scenario, with cumulative impacts identified and mitigated below significance levels. This is discussed in more detail in that section. For Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that in developing thresholds of significance, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project‘s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, given that the Project would not 369 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 124 Recirculated IS/MND exceed any BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines threshold of significance, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on the topics of Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. While the East of 101 Area is substantially built-out, redevelopment of sites with higher-intensity uses occurs throughout the area, as it is on this site, and would be considered the cumulative context. Through conformity with applicable regulations and design-level plans, all other potentially significant Project-specific impacts would be reduced below significance levels, which include those related to nesting birds, seismic ground shaking and other geological hazards, erosion and pollutant runoff, hazardous materials, water quality, drainage, and noise. With the onsite reduction of these impacts, the Project’s contribution to cumulative increases in these areas would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings While human beings could be affected by a variety of impacts described above, the Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Noise, hazardous materials, air quality, and traffic impacts on adjacent land uses are less than significant with mitigation. The Project would not expose people to new hazards. There would be no other adverse effects on human beings. 370 APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING 371 Summary Results Project Name: Roebling Project and Baseline Years: 2013 2011 Results Transportation: 498.26 498.26 Area Source: (0.24) (0.24) Electricity: 228.90 228.90 Natural Gas: 104.42 104.42 Water & Wastewater: 10.86 10.86 Solid Waste: 561.17 193.73 Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00 Sequestration: N/A 0.00 Purchase of Offsets: N/A 0.00 Total: 1,403.37 1,035.94 Baseline is currently:ON Baseline Project Name: Roebling Baseline Unmitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation*:1,013.17 44.33% Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.01% Electricity: 392.11 0.00 0.00 392.74 17.18% Natural Gas: 130.15 0.01 0.00 130.48 5.71% Water & Wastewater: 14.14 0.00 0.00 14.16 0.62% Solid Waste: 5.37 34.74 N/A 734.86 32.15% Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total:2,285.64 100.00% * Several adjustments were made to transportation emissions after they have been imported from URBEMIS.   After importing from URBEMIS, CO2 emissions are converted to metric tons and then adjusted to account for the "Pavley"  regulation.  Then, CO2 is converted to CO2e by multiplying by 100/95 to account for the contribution of other GHGs (CH4, N2O, and HFCs  [from leaking air conditioners]). Finally, CO2e is adjusted to account for th low carbon fuels rule. Mitigated **CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation*:1,013.17 52.82% Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.01% Electricity: 392.11 0.00 0.00 392.74 20.47% Natural Gas: 130.15 0.01 0.00 130.48 6.80% Water & Wastewater: 14.14 0.00 0.00 14.16 0.74% Solid Waste: 2.68 17.37 N/A 367.43 19.15% Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Total:1,918.21 100.00% ** The only migitation added into the BGM model was solid waste reduction of 50%. See URBEMIS results for changes to that model. Unmitigated Project‐ Baseline CO2e (metric  tons/year) Mitigated Project‐ Baseline CO2e    (metric tons/year) Detailed Results 328 Roebling Page 1 of 2 BGM  Results 372 Baseline CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation*:514.91 58.36% Area Source: 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.05% Electricity: 163.58 0.00 0.00 163.84 18.57% Natural Gas: 25.99 0.00 0.00 26.06 2.95% Water & Wastewater: 3.30 0.00 0.00 3.31 0.37% Solid Waste: 1.27 8.21 N/A 173.70 19.69% Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total:882.28 100.00% 328 Roebling Page 2 of 2 BGM  Results 373 Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 0.40 1,117.52 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2013 Season: Annual TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.79 0.93 9.59 0.01 2.11 PM25 CO2 Office park 0.79 0.93 9.59 0.01 2.11 0.40 1,117.52 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 0.00 154.34 Area Source Changes to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.11 Consumer Products 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.01 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 154.09 0.40 1,271.86 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.92 1.06 9.84 0.01 2.11 1,117.52 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.79 0.93 9.59 0.01 2.11 0.40 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 154.34 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Users\bruce\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Roebling2011.urb924 Project Name: Roebling Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 328 Roebling Page 1 of 2 URBEMIS Annual Emissions 374 28.0Office park 48.0 24.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) 35.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 7.4 Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Motor Home 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Motorcycle 2.8 53.6 46.4 0.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 20.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Auto 56.0 0.4 99.4 0.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 11.8 0.8 97.5 1.7 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 6,740.93 804.21 6,740.93 Office park 7.62 1000 sq ft 105.54 804.21 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 328 Roebling Page 2 of 2 URBEMIS Annual Emissions 375 Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 2.17 6,425.76 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2013 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 4.32 4.34 51.98 0.06 11.54 PM25 CO2 Office park 4.32 4.34 51.98 0.06 11.54 2.17 6,425.76 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 0.01 847.13 Area Source Changes to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.79 0.72 2.14 0.00 0.01 Architectural Coatings 0.62 Consumer Products 0.00 Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.81 Hearth - No Summer Emissions PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.05 0.70 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 844.32 2.18 7,272.89 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 5.11 5.06 54.12 0.06 11.55 6,425.76 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 4.32 4.34 51.98 0.06 11.54 2.17 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.79 0.72 2.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 847.13 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Users\bruce\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Roebling2011.urb924 Project Name: Roebling Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 328 Roebling Page 1 of 2 URBEMIS Daily Emissions 376 28.0Office park 48.0 24.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) 35.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 7.4 Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Motor Home 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Motorcycle 2.8 53.6 46.4 0.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 20.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Auto 56.0 0.4 99.4 0.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 11.8 0.8 97.5 1.7 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 6,740.93 804.21 6,740.93 Office park 7.62 1000 sq ft 105.54 804.21 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 328 Roebling Page 2 of 2 URBEMIS Daily Emissions 377 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2011 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 0.15 433.00 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.49 0.55 5.55 0.00 1.04 0.19 547.02 Warehouse 0.40 0.44 4.38 0.00 0.82 PM25 CO2 General office building 0.09 0.11 1.17 0.00 0.22 0.04 114.02 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 0.00 188.16 Area Source Changes to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.11 0.16 0.41 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.08 Consumer Products 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.02 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.01 0.16 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 187.65 0.19 735.18 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.60 0.71 5.96 0.00 1.04 547.02 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.49 0.55 5.55 0.00 1.04 0.19 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.11 0.16 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 188.16 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Users\bruce\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Roebling2011Baseline.urb924 Project Name: Roebling Baseline Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 328 Roebling Page 1 of 2 URBEMIS Annual, Baseline 378 47.5 Warehouse 2.0 1.0 97.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) 35.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 7.4 Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Motor Home 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Motorcycle 2.8 64.3 35.7 0.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 20.2 0.5 99.5 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Auto 56.0 0.7 99.1 0.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 11.8 1.7 95.8 2.5 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 2,632.49 441.08 3,321.18 Warehouse 4.96 1000 sq ft 71.79 356.08 Total VMT General office building 11.01 1000 sq ft 7.72 85.00 688.69 Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Summary of Land Uses 328 Roebling Page 2 of 2 URBEMIS Annual, Baseline 379 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC STUDY 380 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 1 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP I. INTRODUCTION This report details the circulation impacts resulting from development of the 105,536-square- foot research and development project at 328 Roebling Road in the City of South San Francisco. Existing, year 2015 and 2035 conditions have been evaluated at 10 intersections along East Grand Avenue and at the nearby U.S.101 interchanges serving the project that would be most affected by project traffic. Evaluation has also been conducted of operation along the U.S.101 freeway. Project off-site impacts to intersection level of service, signalization needs and vehicle queuing as well as impacts to U.S.101 freeway mainline operation have been determined, as have impacts due to project access, internal vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation. Measures have then been recommended to mitigate all significant impacts. Where appropriate, excerpts and findings from the following EIRs or traffic studies have been included in this chapter: Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR (by Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, 2011) and the Revised Draft Report of the Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area by TJKM Transportation Consultants, January 28, 2011. II. SETTING A. ROADWAYS The 328 Roebling Road Project site is located north of East Grand Avenue, east of Roebling Road and west of the 249 East Grand Avenue project, (see Figure 1). The project site is now served by one driveway connection to East Grand Avenue and three driveway connections to Roebling Road. Driveways are not all connected via internal parking aisles. However, the proposed project will have all driveways connecting internal to the site. A schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and control at the intersections requested for analysis by the City are presented in Figure 2. Streets East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/ office areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. In the Project vicinity it has two travel lanes in each direction and left turn lanes provided on the eastbound approach to Roebling Road and on the westbound approach to Harbor Way. The median break at the Roebling Road intersection is long enough to allow eastbound left turn access into a small parking area on the project site on the northeast corner of the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road intersection. No on-street parking is allowed along either the north or south sides of East Grand Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) and “Keep Clear” messages have been painted in the westbound lanes at the Roebling Road 381 10/19/11 PAGE 2 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP intersection. A railroad track diagonally crosses the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard- Harbor Way intersection. Roebling Road is a 40-foot-wide street extending about 600 feet north of East Grand Avenue before ending in a cul-de-sac. There is no posted speed limit nor a painted centerline. Pavement condition is adequate. Curb, gutter and sidewalks line both sides of the street. On- street parking is allowed during all hours except 3:00 to 5:00 AM. Roebling Road is stop sign controlled on its approach to East Grand Avenue. Volumes Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City staff at the following 10 intersections serving the Project site. 1. Airport Blvd. / Miller Avenue / U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) 2. Airport Blvd. / Grand Avenue (Signal) 3. E. Grand Overcrossing / Dubuque Avenue (Signal) 4. E. Grand Avenue Overcrossing / E. Grand Avenue (Signal) 5. E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Blvd. (Signal) 6. E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Blvd. / Harbor Way (Signal) 7. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Roebling Road Stop Sign Controlled) 8. S. Airport Blvd. / U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane (Signal) 9. Gateway Blvd. / S. Airport Blvd. / Mitchell Avenue (Signal) 10. Airport Blvd. / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue (Signal) Counts at all locations except E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road were conducted in March 2008 or June 2008 as part of the East of 101 area traffic study or the Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR. In addition, counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in September 2011 at the following locations.  E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road  All driveways and on-street parking locations along Roebling Road  The project driveway along E. Grand Avenue Figures 3 and 4 present existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis intersections. Currently, volumes on Roebling Road are light, as existing buildings along both sides of the street are either empty or at low usage levels. B. INTERSECTION OPERATION Analysis Methodology Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized 382 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 3 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board [TRB] Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Table 1. Table 1 – Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay (Seconds Per Vehicle) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. 55.1 to 80.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Table 2 provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. 383 10/19/11 PAGE 4 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 2 – Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay (Seconds Per Vehicle) A Little or no delays ≤ 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded (for an all-way stop), or with approach/turn movement capacity exceeded (for a side street stop controlled intersection) > 50.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). Analysis Software All existing and future operating conditions have been evaluated using the Synchro software program. Standards The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. Existing Intersection Operating Conditions Table 3 shows that all signalized intersections evaluated for this study are currently operating at good to acceptable (LOS D or better) Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. At the unsignalized E. Grand Ave. / Roebling Road intersection, the stop sign controlled Roebling Road approach is operating at acceptable levels (LOS A during the AM and LOS B during the PM commute peak traffic hours). 384 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 5 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 3 – Intersection Level of Service – Existing & Existing + Project AM & PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Existing Existing + Project Existing Existing + Project Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) C-28.5(1) C-28.5 B-17.5(1) B-17.6 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) D-40.2(1) D-40.8 C-31.7(1) C-31.7 E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A-6.4(1) A-6.5 A-3.4(1) A-3.4 E. Grand Ave. Overcrossing/E. Grand Ave. (Signal) B-18.5(1) B-18.5 B-13.5(1) B-13.5 E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) C-24.9(1) C-24.9 C-22.4(1) C-22.4 E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way. (Signal) B-18.2(1) B-18.2 C-33.9(1) D-35.6 E.Grand Ave./Roebling Rd. (Roebling Rd. Stop Sign Controlled) A-9.2(2) A-9.6 B-10.5(2) B-10.4 S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps/ Wondercolor (Signal) C-31.2(1) C-31.4 C-27.1(1) C-27.1 Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave. (Signal) C-34.3(1) C-34.3 D-44.8(1) D-45.5 Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. (Signal) D-36.8(1) D-36.8 C-33.8(1) C-33.8 (1) Signalized level of service—vehicle control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds/Roebling Rd. southbound stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group 385 10/19/11 PAGE 6 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP C. INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many times they are needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where high volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not, however, increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability to accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of total vehicles that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also cause an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations. There are 9 possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume, pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. The intersection volume data together with the available collision histories were compared to warrants contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Federal Highway Administration, 2009, and the Manual on Unified Traffic Control Devices Federal Highway Administration, 2003 California Supplement, which has been adopted by the State of California as a replacement for Caltrans Traffic Manual. Section 4C of the MUTCD provides guidelines, or warrants, which may indicate need for a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection. As indicated in the MUTCD, satisfaction of one or more warrants does not necessarily require immediate installation of a traffic signal. It is merely an indication that the local jurisdiction should begin monitoring conditions at that location and that a signal may ultimately be required. Warrant 3, the peak hour volume warrant, is often used as an initial check of signalization needs since peak hour volume data is typically available and this warrant is usually the first one to be met. Warrant 3 is based on a curve and takes only the hour with the highest volume of the day into account. Please see the Appendix for the warrant chart. To meet this warrant, a minimum of 100 vehicles per hour must approach the intersection on one of the side streets. It should also be noted that Warrant 3 has a second set of criteria based upon a combination of vehicle delay and volumes. This is typically referred to as the peak hour delay warrant. Existing Signalization Needs Currently, the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road intersection has AM and PM peak hour volumes well below signal warrant criteria levels (see Table 4). 386 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 7 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 4: Intersection Signalization Requirements – Do Volumes Meet Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant #3 Criteria Levels? AM PEAK HOUR EXISTING 2015 FUTURE 2035 FUTURE LOCATION W/O PROJECT + PROJECT W/O PROJECT + PROJECT W/O PROJECT + PROJECT E. Grand Ave./ Roebling Rd. No No No No No No PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING 2015 FUTURE 2035 FUTURE LOCATION W/O PROJECT + PROJECT W/O PROJECT + PROJECT W/O PROJECT + PROJECT E. Grand Ave./ Roebling Rd. No No No Yes No Yes Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group D. VEHICLE QUEUING Analysis Methodology The Synchro software program has determined existing, year 2015 and year 2035 projections of 95th percentile vehicle queuing on the critical approaches to the E. Grand Avenue intersections with Roebling Road and Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. The Synchro software program has also determined projections of vehicle queuing on the critical approaches to two signalized off-ramp intersections and on the approaches to adjacent intersections that need to accommodate flow from the off-ramp intersections:  U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp / Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue intersection & the adjacent Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue intersection  U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp / South Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane intersection In addition, off-ramp queuing was evaluated on the U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp connection to East Grand Avenue / Executive Drive. While this off-ramp is not controlled on 387 10/19/11 PAGE 8 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP its approach to this first intersection, East Grand Avenue is signal controlled at its next major intersection to the east (at Grand Avenue Overcrossing). Queuing results for this signalized location were evaluated to see if any queuing extended back to the off-ramp. Projections are provided for each off-ramp as well as for turn lanes and other surface street approaches that have nearby adjacent intersections. Queuing Standards The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95th percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each off-ramp and on the approaches to intersections adjacent to off-ramp intersections that accommodate a significant amount of off-ramp traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is allowed to back up to the freeway mainline during the entire AM or PM peak traffic hour. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend beyond this length five percent of the time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in this study for existing, year 2015 and year 2035 Base Case and Base Case + Project conditions. Off-ramp queuing has been evaluated using both the Synchro software output, which details queuing for one of the signal cycles during the peak traffic hour, as well as using the SIM traffic feature of the Synchro program, which evaluates off-ramp operation and backups during the entire peak traffic hour. EXISTING QUEUING As shown in Table 5, only one intersection has 95th percentile queuing currently exceeding available storage: Airport Boulevard / Grand Ave: AM peak hour queues in the left turn lane or the southbound Airport Boulevard approach exceed available storage. OFF-RAMP OPERATION AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE Analysis Methodology & Standards Caltrans uses an off-ramp volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit that can be accommodated by a single lane off-ramp at its divergence from the freeway mainline. Existing Off-Ramp Diverge Operations Table 6 shows that currently all U.S.101 freeway off-ramps serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 area analyzed in this study are operating acceptably and have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with the exception of the northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive during the AM peak hour (with a volume of 1,618 vehicles per hour). 388 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 9 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 5: 95th Percentile Queues* - Existing Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service Intersection Storage Distance* AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Existing Existing + Project Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off SB Off Left/Through 750 206 211 217 217 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. SB Left Turn 300 332 346 160 163 SB Through 300 219 224 154 154 SB Right Turn 300 31 31 59 59 E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 441 475 52 52 NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 115 116 243 243 S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane NB Off Left/Through/Right 825 315 318 164 164 Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing for any other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing as project traffic contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total. * Storage and queues—in feet per lane. Synchro software used for all analysis. Source: Crane Transportation Group 389 10/19/11 PAGE 10 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 6 – Off-Ramp Capacity & Volumes at Diverge From Freeway Mainline Existing, Year 2015 & Year 2035 AM Peak Hour Volumes Year 2015 Year 2035 U.S.101 Off-Ramp Capacity* (Veh/H.) Existing Existing + Project Base Case Base Case + Project Base Case Base Case + Project SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd./ Miller Ave. 1500 531 544 767 780 998 1009 NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand Ave./ Executive Drive 1500** 1618 1628 1745 1755 2164 2173 NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane 1500** 1195 1200 1762 1767 2146 2150 PM Peak Hour SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd./ Miller Ave. 1500 532 535 634 637 743 745 NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand Ave./ Executive Drive 1500** 536 540 533 537 659 662 NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane 1500** 559 559 767 767 802 802 * Caltrans desired volume limit that can be accommodated by a single off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline. ** Programmed provision of second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline will increase capacity to 2,300 vehicles per hour. Bolded results = significant impacts Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group 390 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 11 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ON-RAMP OPERATION Analysis Methodology & Standards On-ramp operation has been evaluated using planning level methodology contained in the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (page 25-4/Exhibit 25-3). Capacity is dependent upon the free flow speed of on-ramp traffic. For single lane diamond on-ramps with higher speeds, capacity has been set at 2,200 vehicles per hour, while for single lane button hook or curving on-ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000 vehicles per hour. Existing On-Ramp Operations Table 7 shows that currently, all U.S.101 freeway on-ramps serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 area analyzed in this study are operating acceptably and have volumes well below capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. FREEWAY OPERATION Analysis Methodology U.S.101 freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual as specified by Caltrans and the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). U.S.101 existing traffic conditions have been evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Existing traffic volumes used for the analysis were derived from year 2009 U.S.101 mainline counts from Caltrans as provided by TJKM Associates as part of their work for the updating of the City’s East of 101 Traffic Modeling. Freeway mainline analysis was performed using the HCS software based upon the HCM methodology for freeway mainlines. San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county boarder, the LOS standard was set as LOS E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. 391 10/19/11 PAGE 12 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 7 – On-Ramp Capacity & Volumes Existing, Year 2015 & Year 2035 AM Peak Hour Volumes Year 2015 Year 2035 U.S.101 On-Ramp Capacity* (Veh/Hr) Existing Existing + Project Base Case Base Case + Project Base Case Base Case + Project SB On-Ramp from Produce Ave. 3300** 1026 1024 1103 1101 1295 1293 NB On-Ramp from Grand Ave. 2000 650 649 752 751 845 843 NB On-Ramp from S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane 2000 269 269 334 334 388 388 PM Peak Hour SB On-Ramp from Produce Ave. 3300** 1834 1850 2188 2204 3088 3102 NB On-Ramp from Grand Ave. 2000 842 856 1269 1283 1201 1212 NB On-Ramp from S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane 2000 476 476 608 608 897 897 * Planning level capacity: Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Report 209. ** Produce Avenue on-ramp has two travel lanes. One on-ramp lane merges to the freeway mainline, while the other on-ramp continues as an auxiliary lane to the I-380 off-ramp. Bolded results = significant impacts Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group 392 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 13 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions. A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance. Existing Freeway Operation Existing Levels of Service have been evaluated on four freeway segments in South San Francisco (northbound and southbound U.S.101 north of the Oyster Point interchange and northbound and southbound U.S.101 north of the I-380 interchange). Results were based upon analysis of year 2009 volumes. Table 8 shows a summary of existing U.S. 101 freeway operation and Table 9 shows details of the existing freeway Level of Service results. Currently, all U.S.101 freeway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Conditions are generally poorer along U.S.101 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard. Table 8: Summary Of Existing U.S.101 Freeway Operation AM Peak Hour Southbound LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps LOS B South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp (just north of I-380) Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp (just north of I-380) LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange & northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd. PM Peak Hour Southbound LOS C North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps LOS C South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp (just north of I-380) Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp (just north of I-380) LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange & northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd.  LOS – Level of Service Source: Crane Transportation Group 393 10/19/11 PAGE 14 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 9: Existing U.S.101 Freeway Operation – AM & PM Peak Hours AM Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Segment Vol LOS Density Vol LOS Density North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 7452 D 30.1 7451 D 30.1 Southbound 6774 D 26.3 6787 D 26.4 North of I-380 Northbound 9713 C 24.9 9728 C 24.9 Southbound 6421 B 16.1 6419 B 16.1 PM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 7530 D 30.5 7544 D 30.6 Southbound 6314 C 24.1 6317 C 24.2 North of I-380 Northbound 7605 C 19.1 7609 C 19.1 Southbound 8377 C 21.1 8393 C 21.2 The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any freeway segment. LOS = Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group 394 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 15 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP E. TRANSIT & SHUTTLE SERVICE Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail service. Figure 5 shows bus/shuttle service east of the U.S.101 freeway in the project vicinity, while Table 10 lists the type and frequency of transit service provided to South San Francisco area and Table 11 lists the Alliance Shuttle Service shuttles and schedule. Table 10 Public Transportation Service Services Route Frequency Area Served AM/PM Peak Hour Midday Sam Trans Airport/Linden Daly City and Colma BART Stations (130) 20/20 30 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave South SF BART Station (132) 30/30 50 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave Airport/Linden Serramonte (133) 30/30 60 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave Palo Alto Daly City (390) 30/30 30 South SF BART Bay 3 Redwood City Colma BART Station (391) 15/30(a) 15(a) El Camino Real/South SF BART Station San Mateo SF (292) 15/15(a) 30 Airport Blvd./Baden Ave. Caltrain Gilroy SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station BART Pittsburg-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station Fremont-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station Richmond-Daly City 15/15 — Daly City BART Station Dublin-Millbrae 15/15 15 South SF BART Station Caltrain Shuttle to SSF Station Gateway Area 15/15 — 1000 Gateway, Genentech Bldgs B9, B5 Oyster Point Area 30/30(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Oyster Point Sierra Point Area 30/30(a) — 5000 Shoreline Court Utah Grand Area 30/30(a) — Cabot/Allerton BART Shuttle to SSF Station Sierra Point Area 35/35 5000 Shoreline Court Genentech 15/15 — Genentech Bldgs B5, B54 Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Oyster Point Utah-Grand Area 23/23(a) — Cabot/Allerton        Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (511.org), Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (commute.org), Caltrain 2009.  Frequency of transit service is presented in minutes.  SF = San Francisco  (a) = average frequency period.    395 10/19/11 PAGE 16 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 11 Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service Shuttle Station Served Schedule Area Served  Oyster Point  BART eight AM & nine PM trips Oyster Point Blvd., Gull Dr., Eccles Ave., Forbes  Blvd., Veterans Blvd. Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips  Utah‐Grand  BART nine AM & nine PM trips E. Grand Ave., Utah Ave., Harbor Way,  Littlefield Ave. Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips  Gateway  Millbrae BART ten AM & twelve PM trips Gateway Blvd., BART  Caltrain six AM & five PM trips Gateway Blvd., Genentech Office  Sierra Point  BART four AM & four PM trips  Sierra Point, Shoreline  Caltrain Four AM & four PM trips         Source: Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org), Caltrain 2009.  Both shuttles alternate between 15‐ and 30‐minute headways during both peak hours.    Bus Service The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of the U.S.101 freeway. Bus service running just west of the freeway is as follows. Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center–Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of about two hours. Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART–South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60- minute headways on Sundays. Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Route 292: San Francisco–SF Airport–Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. 396 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 17 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. Caltrain/BART Shuttles Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the Colma BART station. Shuttle stops are provided at two locations along East Grand Avenue and at one location along Harbor Way. The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are nine trips in the morning and nine trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with nine morning and eight afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. All shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board (JPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). F. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Sidewalks are in place along the north and south sides of East Grand Avenue and along both sides of Roebling Road in the Project vicinity. However, there are no Class II or Class III bicycle lane designations along East Grand Avenue or Roebling Road adjacent to the Project site, although there are numerous bicycle facilities available in the study area. Bike lanes are provided along East Grand Avenue east of Littlefield Avenue, Sister Cities Boulevard, Allerton Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Road, and Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes are designated on South Airport Boulevard and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive and along the shoreline. Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, and Forbes Boulevard (east of Allerton Avenue). Future bike routes are planned along Forbes Boulevard (west of 397 10/19/11 PAGE 18 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Allerton Avenue), while a future bike path is planned along the Caltrain right-of-way. The proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management). The purposes of the TDM ordinance are as follows:  Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City’s police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare.  Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated.  Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities.  Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage.  Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development.  Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter.  Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. The analysis prepared for the General Plan Amendment includes the assumption that a moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates, while an intensive TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 20 to 25 percent. The objective of TDM programs is to reduce vehicle trips at commercial/residential developments by incorporating project components such as encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. 398 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 19 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP South San Francisco has a “menu” of potential TDM programs, each with a specific number of points that relate to the program’s effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities. FUTURE BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CONDITIONS The traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to both year 2015 and year 2035 Base Case conditions. Year 2015 reflects a horizon year that the project should be completed, while year 2035 reflects the most distant horizon year currently utilized by the City Public Works Department and Caltrans for analysis purposes and the assumed build out of the East of 101 area. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffic (without Project) operation for year 2015 and 2035 conditions. Year 2015 Base Case Development The year 2015 Base Case conditions include traffic generated by existing, approved and proposed development in the study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. The development list was provided by City Planning staff. Projects and their associated trip generation are provided in Table 12 and have been utilized by TJKM Associates to develop local area intersection and freeway volumes for use in the City’s updated East of 101 Transportation Capital Improvement Program study. Year 2015 peak hour Base Case (without project) conditions were developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all the approved and proposed developments in the greater East of 101 Area to the existing traffic network. Year 2015 projections include traffic from several recently approved background projects such as Gateway Business Park, Oyster Point Redevelopment Phase 1, 213 E. Grand, 494 Forbes, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Terrabay, the ferry terminal that is currently under construction and the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. Year 2015 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are presented in Figures 6 and 7. 399 10/19/11 PAGE 20 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 12 – Existing, Approved & Planned Development Trip Generation by 2015 Developments East of the U.S.101 Freeway or Just West of the U.S.101 Freeway Contributing Significant Traffic to U.S.101 Interchanges in South San Francisco LANE USE (ITE CODE) SIZE/ UNIT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Rate Total Trip Rate In/Out % In Out Total Trip Rate In/Out % In Out Total Genentech(1) (20% TDM Reduction) 1988 318 2306 271 1613 1884 Genentech Triangle Hotel 350 Rooms 8.17 2860 0.56 61:39 120 76 196 0.59 53:47 109 97 206 R&D(2) 372,000 sf 0.51 83:17 158 32 190 0.39 16:84 23 122 145 Office(2) 248,000 sf 0.82 87:13 178 26 204 0.63 17:83 26 129 155 Oyster Point Redevelopment Phase 1 369* 48* 417* 55* 343* 398* Oyster Point Non- Redevelopment Area R&D(3) 680,499 sf 3.62 2464 0.57 83:17 322 66 388 0.47 15:85 48 272 320 Ferry Terminal(4) (010) 1 Berth 814 138 26 164 54 101 155 Marina (420) 716 Berths 2.96 2119 0.08 33:67 19 38 57 0.19 60:40 82 54 136 Commercial(3) (820) 364,502 sf 43.19 15,741 0.91 61:39 202 129 331 4.15 49:51 741 772 1513 Home Center(3)(862) 290,794 sf 23.29 6774 1.26 57:43 209 158 367 2.37 48:52 331 358 689 Hotel (310) 3385 Rooms 8.17 27,655 0.56 61:39 1156 739 1895 0.59 53:47 1058 939 1997 R&D(3) (760) (20% TDM Reduction) 7,782,598 sf 3.62 28,174 0.57 83:17 3682 754 4436 0.47 15:85 549 3109 3658 Office(3) (710) (20% TDM Reduction) 360,000 sf 7.10 2554 1.05 88:12 333 45 378 1.00 17:83 61 300 361 Manufacturing (140) (15% TDM Reduction) 7,955,717 sf 3.25 25,856 0.62 78:22 3848 1085 4933 0.62 36:64 1776 3157 4933 Total Trips 12,722 3540 16,262 5184 11,366 16,550 * Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase 1 Project Draft EIR (1) Trips based on existing land use as published in the Genentech EIR (with 20% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR). (2) Rates based on Genentech EIR (with 20% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR). (3) Rates developed from ITE equations. (4) Trips based on SF Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ridership forecast. Trip rate source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition) Compiled by: TJKM Associates 400 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 21 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP YEAR 2015 BASE CASE OPERATING CONDITIONS Roadway Improvements Planned by 2015 The City’s East of 101 capital improvement program funds certain roadway and intersection improvements in the City’s East of 101 area through the collection of lawfully adopted impact fees. In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees are imposed on and collected from development projects in the East of 101 area, held in a separate account, and used to fund improvements benefiting the area and the projects from which the fees were collected. Like other developments in the East of 101 area, the 328 Roebling Road project will pay a proportionate share towards these improvements. The City is in the process of updating their capital improvement program list for the East of 101 area; a new list is expected to be available in late 2011. Based on currently available funding, projected growth rates, and the pending update, the City of South San Francisco Public Works division expects that the following intersection improvements will be funded and constructed by 2015. Accordingly, the improvements have been factored into the year 2015 Base Case traffic modeling conducted by TJKM Associates for the 2011 Updated East of 101 Capital Improvement Program.  S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane  Add a second northbound off-ramp right turn lane.  Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp  Eliminate the exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque approach.  Restripe the Northbound Off-Ramp approach to provide 2 exclusive left turn lanes and a combined through / right turn lane.  Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard  Add a second lane to the northbound (private driveway) approach. Stripe as one left turn lane and a combined through / right turn lane.  Oyster Point Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Airport Boulevard  Add an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach and restripe the existing combined through / right turn lane as an exclusive through lane.  Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp  Widen the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and provide 2 exclusive left turn lanes, 1 through lane and 2 exclusive right turn lanes. Also, provide a second 401 10/19/11 PAGE 22 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP exclusive right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (extending partway to Gateway Boulevard).  E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing  Provide a second right turn lane on the northbound E. Grand Avenue approach.  E. Grand / US 101 Widen existing NB off ramp to add an additional lane. Figure 8 provides a schematic presentation of year 2015 intersection approach lanes and control. Intersection Level of Service All intersections with year 2015 Base Case volumes would be operating at acceptable Levels of Service with the following exceptions (see Table 13). AM Peak Hour  E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard (Signal) – LOS E  Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (Signal) – LOS E PM Peak Hour  E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Blvd. / Harbor Way (Signal) – LOS E  Gateway Blvd. / S. Airport Blvd. / Mitchell Avenue (Signal) – LOS E Intersection Signalization Needs The following unsignalized intersection would not have year 2015 Base Case volumes meeting or exceeding peak hour signal warrant #3 volume criteria levels (see Table 4).  E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road 402 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 23 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 13: Intersection Level of Service – Year 2015 – AM & PM Peak Hours AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Base Case Base Case + Project Base Case Base Case + Project Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off- Ramp (Signal) C-27.8(1) C-27.8 B-19.1(1) B-19.1 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) E-59.0(1) E-59.9 D-44.2(1) D-44.2 E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A-8.6(1) A-8.6 B-10.7(1) B-10.7 E. Grand Ave. Overcrossing/E. Grand Ave. (Signal) B-20.0(1) B-20.0 B-14.0(1) B-14.0 E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) E-61.5(1) E-63.0 D-37.2(1) D-37.2 E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way. (Signal) C-32.6(1) D-35.5 E-60.8(1) E-64.7 E.Grand Ave./Roebling Rd. (Roebling Rd. Stop Sign Controlled)) A-9.6(2) A-9.7 B-10.9(2) B-11.1 S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps/ Wondercolor (Signal) D-35.1(1) D-35.1 C-34.5(1) C-34.5 Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave. (Signal) C-30.2(1) C-30.3 E-65.7(1) E-68.5 Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. (Signal) C-30.7(1) C-30.7 D-43.3(1) D-43.3 Bold results = significant impacts. Base Case + Project. Base Case + Project LOS E or F results not bolded would not be significant since project traffic would not increase Base Case volumes by 2% or more. (1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. Roebling Road stop sign controlled approach. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group 403 10/19/11 PAGE 24 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Vehicle Queuing The following off-ramps and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th percentile year 2015 Base Case queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the Synchro software program (see Table 14). AM Peak Hour  Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left turn and through movements would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage. The following left turn would have a 95th percentile year 2015 Base Case queuing exceeding the available 75-foot storage as determined using unsignalized intersection turn lane queuing analysis methodology contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal.1  E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Eastbound Left Turn at unsignalized intersection) AM Peak Hour: 100-foot queue2 PM Peak Hour: 75-foot queue2 1 Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections by John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001. 2 Rounded upwards to nearest 25-foot increment. 404 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 25 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 14: 95th Percentile Queues* - Year 2015 Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service Intersection Storage Distance* Year 2015 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Base Case Base Case + Project Base Case Base Case + Project Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off SB Off Left/Through 750 305 309 225 227 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. SB Left Turn 300 390 397 223 230 SB Through 300 328 335 202 203 SB Right Turn 300 31 32 50 51 E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 268 272 37 37 NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 148 148 301 301 S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane NB Off Left/Through/Right 825 448 448 219 219 Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing for any other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing as project traffic contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total. * Storage and queues—in feet per lane. Synchro software used for all analysis. Source: Crane Transportation Group Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline No off-ramps would have year 2015 Base Case volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a one-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline or 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles/hour on a two-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline (see Table 6). Both the northbound U.S.101 off-ramps to S. Airport Blvd. / Wondercolor Lane and to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive would require planned widening to two lanes in order to accommodate projected volumes.  U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive Intersection AM Peak Hour: 1,745 vehicles per hour using off-ramp (being widened by 2015 to 2 lanes – 2,300 VPH capacity).  U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to So. Airport Blvd. / Wondercolor Lane AM Peak Hour: 1,762 vehicles per hour using off-ramp (being widened by 2015 to 2 lanes – 2,300 VPH capacity). 405 10/19/11 PAGE 26 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP On-Ramp Operation No on-ramps would have year 2015 Base Case volumes exceeding ramp capacities (see Table 7). U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service No mainline freeway segments would be operating at an unacceptable Level of Service with year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 15). Table 15: Year 2015 U.S.101 Freeway Operation – AM & PM Peak Hours AM Peak Hour Base Case Base Case + Project Segment Vol LOS Density Vol LOS Density North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 8114 D 34.1 8115 D 34.1 Southbound 7363 D 29.1 7376 D 29.2 North of I-380 Northbound 11364 D 30.4 11379 D 30.4 Southbound 6714 B 16.7 6716 B 16.7 PM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 8191 D 34.7 8205 D 34.8 Southbound 6802 D 26.1 6805 D 26.1 North of I-380 Northbound 8354 C 20.8 8358 C 20.8 Southbound 9648 C 24.4 9664 C 24.4 The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any freeway segment. LOS = Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group 406 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 27 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP YEAR 2035 BASE CASE OPERATING CONDITIONS The year 2035 Base Case conditions include traffic generated by all development detailed in the 2015 analysis, the last half of the Genentech master plan, the last part of the Oyster Point Redevelopment area, the remaining half of the Gateway Master Plan as well as other increases in manufacturing, commercial, office and R&D uses. The daily and peak hour trip generation potential of all developments expected in the East of 101 area by 2035 is presented in Table 16. In addition to these specific developments, traffic on Airport Boulevard to/from Brisbane to the north as well as on Sister Cities Boulevard and other surface streets to the west of the U.S. 101 freeway were projected to grow from 2016 to 2035 at rates projected in the C/CAG regional model (after allowance for traffic to/from new development east of the 101 freeway). Year 2035 intersection AM and PM peak hour as well as U.S.101 freeway segment traffic volumes were developed by TJKM Associates for the City’s Update of the East of 101 Capital Improvements Program. Year 2035 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are presented in Figures 9 and 10. Roadway Improvements Planned by 2035 At City Public Works Department direction, all roadway improvements currently listed in the City’s July 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update for the East of 101 Area were assumed to be built and in operation for year 2035 Base Case and Base Case + Project evaluation. Figure 11 provides a schematic presentation of year 2035 intersection approach lanes and control. 407 10/19/11 PAGE 28 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 16 – Existing, Approved & Planned Development Trip Generation by 2035 Developments East of the U.S.101 Freeway or Just West of the U.S.101 Freeway Contributing Significant Traffic to U.S.101 Interchanges in South San Francisco LANE USE (ITE CODE) SIZE/ UNIT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Rate Total Trip Rate In/Out % In Out Total Trip Rate In/Out % In Out Total Genentech(1) (20% TDM Reduction) 3015 427 3442 453 2513 2966 Genentech Triangle Hotel 350 Rooms 8.17 2860 0.56 61:39 120 76 196 0.59 53:47 109 97 206 R&D(2) 372,000 sf 0.48 83:17 148 30 178 0.37 16:84 21 115 136 Office(2) 248,000 sf 0.77 87:13 167 24 191 0.58 17:83 24 121 145 Oyster Point Redevelopment R&D / Office 1158* 244* 1402* 426* 1195* 1621* Oyster Point Non- Redevelopment Area R&D(3) 680,499 sf 3.28 2464 0.52 83:17 232 66 388 0.42 15:85 48 272 320 Ferry Terminal(4) (010) 1 Berth 814 138 26 164 54 101 155 Marina (420) 716 Berths 2.96 2119 0.08 33:67 19 38 57 0.19 60:40 82 54 136 Commercial(3) (820) 693,302 sf 34.14 23,671 0.69 61:39 291 186 477 3.33 49:51 1130 1176 2306 Home Center(3)(862) 290,794 sf 23.29 6774 1.26 57:43 209 158 367 2.37 48:52 331 358 689 Hotel (310) 3385 Rooms 8.17 27,655 0.56 61:39 1156 739 1895 0.59 53:47 1058 939 1997 R&D(3) (760) (20% TDM Reduction) 8,597,426 sf 3.28 28,200 0.52 83:17 3711 760 4471 0.42 15:85 542 3069 3611 Office(3) (710) (20% TDM Reduction) 1,230,570 sf 4.94 6079 0.76 88:12 825 112 937 0.87 17:83 181 886 1067 Manufacturing (140) (15% TDM Reduction) 11,227,507 sf 3.25 36,490 0.62 78:22 5430 1531 6961 0.62 36:64 2506 4455 6961 Total Trips 16,710 4417 21,127 6965 15,351 22,316 * Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase 1 Project Draft EIR (1) Trips based on existing land use as published in the Genentech EIR (with 20% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR). (2) Rates based on Genentech EIR (with 20% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR). (3) Rates developed from ITE equations. (4) Trips based on SF Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ridership forecast. Trip rate source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition) Compiled by: TJKM Associates 408 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 29 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Intersection Level of Service All intersections with year 2035 Base Case volumes would be operating at acceptable levels of service with the following exceptions (see Table 17). AM Peak Hour  Airport Blvd. / Grand Avenue (Signal) – LOS F  S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane (Signal) – LOS E  E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard (Signal) – LOS F PM Peak Hour  Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (Signal) – LOS E  E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Blvd. / Harbor Way (Signal) – LOS F  Airport Blvd. / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue (Signal) – LOS E Intersection Signalization Needs The following unsignalized intersection would not have year 2015 Base Case volumes meeting or exceeding peak hour signal warrant #3 volume criteria levels (see Table 4).  E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Vehicle Queuing The following off-ramps and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th percentile year 2035 Base Case queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the Synchro software program (see Table 18).  Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue AM Peak Hour: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left turn movement would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage. 409 10/19/11 PAGE 30 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 17: Intersection Level of Service –Year 2035 – AM & PM Peak Hours AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Base Case Base Case + Project Base Case Base Case + Project Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off- Ramp (Signal) C-27.1(1) C-27.1 C-21.1(1) C-21.1 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) F-82.5(1) F-83.4 E-62.9(1) E-63.4 E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A-8.3(1) A-8.2 B-11.1(1) B-11.1 E. Grand Ave. Overcrossing/E. Grand Ave. (Signal) C-21.2(1) C-21.1 B-15.3(1) B-15.3 E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) F-133(1) F-135 D-54.9(1) E-55.4 E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way. (Signal) D-48.0(1) D-50.7 F-91.1(1) F-93.0 E.Grand Ave./Roebling Rd. (Roebling Rd. Stop Sign Controlled) A-9.9(2) B-10.3 D-29.0(2) D-34.1 S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps/ Wondercolor (Signal) E-62.0(1) E-62.2 D-48.8(1) D-48.9 Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave. (Signal) B-19.5(1) B-19.5 D-35.0(1) D-35.0 Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. (Signal) C-33.5(1) C-33.5 E-63.2(1) F-64.3 Bold results = significant project impacts. Base Case + Project. Base Case + Project LOS E or F results not bolded would not be significant since project traffic would not increase Base Case volumes by 2% or more. (1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. Roebling Road stop sign controlled approach. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group 410 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 31 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 18: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues – Year 2035 Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service Storage Distance* Year 2035 Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Base Case Base Case + Project Base Case Base Case + Project Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off SB Left/Through 750 268 272 295 295 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. SB Left Turn 300 389 396 155 158 SB Through or SB Through/Right 300 242 242 194 194 E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 350 356 43 43 NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 156 156 303 303 S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane EB Left Turn 825 809 813 319 319 Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing for any other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing as project traffic contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total. * Storage and queues—in feet per lane. Synchro software used for all analysis unless noted. Source: Crane Transportation Group The following off-ramps would have year 2035 Base Case queuing extending back to the U.S.101 mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the SIM traffic software program (unless noted).  U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.  U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.  U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline. 411 10/19/11 PAGE 32 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP The following left turn would have a 95th percentile year 2035 Base Case queuing exceeding the available 75-foot storage as determined using unsignalized intersection turn lane queuing analysis methodology contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal.3  E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Eastbound Left Turn at unsignalized intersection) AM Peak Hour: 100-foot queue4 PM Peak Hour: 75-foot queue4 Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline No off-ramps would have year 2035 Base Case volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a one-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline or 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles/hour on a two-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline (see Table 6). On-Ramp Operation No on-ramps would have year 2035 Base Case volumes exceeding ramp capacities (see Table 7). U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service The following mainline freeway segment with year 2035 Base Case volumes would be operating at unacceptable Levels of Service (see Table 19).  U.S.101 Southbound (North of the Oyster Point On-Ramp) AM Peak Hour: LOS F operation.  U.S.101 Northbound (North of the Oyster Point On-Ramp) AM Peak Hour: LOS F operation. 3 Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections by John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001. 4 Rounded upwards to nearest 25-foot increment. 412 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 33 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 19: Year 2035 U.S.101 Freeway Operation – AM & PM Peak Hours AM Peak Hour Base Case Base Case + Project Segment Vol LOS Density Vol LOS Density North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 9450 F* na 9448 F* na Southbound 10035 F* na 10046 F* na North of I-380 Northbound 13595 E 41.2 13608 E 41.3 Southbound 8624 C 21.1 8622 C 21.1 PM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 8901 E 39.5 8912 E 39.6 Southbound 7925 D 31.6 7927 D 31.6 North of I-380 Northbound 8764 C 21.4 8767 C 21.4 Southbound 11891 D 31.6 11905 D 31.7 Bold = significant project impact. The proposed project would result in a significant impact to one freeway segment experiencing Base Case LOS F operation as project volume increases would be greater than 1 percent. * unacceptable freeway segment operating conditions. LOS = Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group 413 10/19/11 PAGE 34 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP III. IMPACT ANALYSIS A. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City of South San Francisco and C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions: K. The project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system (C/CAG criteria only). L. Signalized intersection operation and all-way-stop operation would change from Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. M. Uncontrolled turn movements or stop sign controlled approaches at side street stop sign controlled intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. Side street criteria are applicable only for stop sign controlled approaches with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour. N. The proposed project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two percent or more with signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop sign controlled Base Case operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the stop sign controlled approach). O. Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing signal warrant criteria levels. P. The proposed project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels. Q. Project traffic would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing on a freeway off-ramp and/or also on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off-ramp intersections to unacceptable levels (as determined by the Synchro software program), or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing on the freeway off-ramps or on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off-ramp intersections is already projected at unacceptable lengths, the project would increase queuing volumes by one percent or more. 414 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 35 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP R. Project traffic results in queues exceeding off-ramp storage capacity based upon SIM traffic software evaluation. If base case traffic already exceeds the storage capacity of the off-ramp, then a one-percent addition in traffic due to the project is considered a significant impact. S. Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S. 101 freeway or freeway ramps from LOS E to LOS F with at least a one percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case LOS F operation. T. If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow through various parts of the project site. U. Project development or project traffic would produce a detrimental impact to local transit or shuttle service. V. If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a significant traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety concern would be created or worsened. B. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Table 20 shows that by 2015 a total of 105,536 square feet of research and development uses would be likely to generate 50 inbound and 11 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 8 inbound and 42 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This assumes a 20 percent reduction in peak hour trips due to a moderate TDM program and R&D uses. By 2035, a more intense TDM program would be expected to reduce peak hour trip generation by 25 percent and result in 45 inbound and 10 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 7 inbound and 38 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. As shown in Table 21, after allowance for traffic associated with existing uses on the project site that will be removed by 2015, the proposed project would result in 16 inbound and a reduction of 4 outbound net new trips on the local circulation system during the AM peak hour, with 8 inbound and 39 outbound net new trips on the local circulation system during the PM peak hour. By 2035, net new trip generation due to the project would be 31 inbound and a reduction of 5 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 7 inbound and 35 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. 415 10/19/11 PAGE 36 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 20: 328 Roebling Road Trip Generation 100% R&D, ITE/TJKM Trip Rates with TDM Adjustments YEAR 2015 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS SIZE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND USE (SQ.FT.) RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL R&D (20% TDM Red) 105,536 .47 50 .10 11 .07 8 .40 42 61 50 YEAR 2035 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS SIZE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND USE (SQ.FT.) RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL R&D (25% TDM Red) 105,536 .43 45 .09 10 .06 7 .36 38 55 45 Source: Crane Transportation Group 416 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 37 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 21: 328 Roebling Road Net New Trip Generation After Removal of Existing Site Activity Trips 2015 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT Proposed Project Trip Generation – 100% R&D 50 11 8 42 Existing Site Use Trip Generation (To be Eliminated) (-14) (-15) 0 (-3) Net New Trip Generation from Project Site 36 (-4) 8 39 2035 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT Proposed Project Trip Generation – 100% R&D 45 10 7 38 Existing Site Use Trip Generation (To be Eliminated) (-14) (-15) 0 (-3) Net New Trip Generation from Project Site 31 (-5) 7 35 Source: Crane Transportation Group 417 10/19/11 PAGE 38 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP C. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project traffic was distributed to the regional roadway network based upon East of 101 development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance, the 2008 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR and recent traffic modeling for the East of 101 Traffic Modeling update traffic study (see Table 22). Existing or year 2015 AM and PM peak hour project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 12 and 13, with Figures 14 and 15 presenting resultant AM and PM peak hour Existing + Project volumes, and Figures 16 and 17 presenting year 2015 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes at major intersections. Figure 18 presents year 2015 AM and PM peak hour volumes at project driveways. Year 2035 AM and PM peak hour Project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 19 and 20, with Figures 21 and 22 presenting resultant year 2035 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes at major intersections. Figure 23 presents year 2035 AM and PM peak hour volumes at Project driveways. Table 22: Project Traffic Distribution Year 2015 Year 2035 Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour U.S.101 North/San Francisco / Brisbane 37 35 34 32 U.S.101 South(1) 48 48 48 48 South San Francisco (central area) 6 6 6 6 Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 6 6 6 6 Local East of U.S.101 3 5 6 8 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% (1) Also includes use of S. Airport Blvd. to/from I-380 interchange. Sources: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001 and TJKM Traffic Modeling for 2010 East of 101 Capital Improvement Program Fee Update Traffic Study. D. ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND ACCESS Project Access The Project would be accessed via one driveway connection to East Grand Avenue and two driveway connections to Roebling Road. AM and PM peak hour turn movement projections are presented in Figures 18 and 23 for 2015 and 2035 traffic volumes, respectively. The proposed driveway along East Grand Avenue would allow westbound right in/right out movements only. All driveways along Roebling Road would allow all in and outbound movements, but due to the cul-de-sac would just experience right turn inbound and left turn outbound movements.. 418 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 39 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Impact 1: Site lines at East Grand Avenue Driveway. The Project’s driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be located about 200 feet east of the Forbes Boulevard / Roebling Road intersection. Sight lines at the Project’s only driveway connection along East Grand Avenue, where right turns only would be allowed, would be at least 800 feet to the east (to see westbound traffic). Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 40 miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit) would be 305 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at this location. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 1: No mitigation required. Impact 2: Sight Lines at Roebling Road Driveways. Roebling Road is straight and level along its 600-foot length adjacent to the Project. Project driveways would be located along the east side of the street about 300 feet and 600 feet from East Grand Avenue. Speeds along Roebling Road are now 25 miles per hour or less and would be expected to remain at this level with the Project. Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour would be 155 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at these driveways. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 2: No mitigation required. Internal Circulation Impact 3: Internal Vehicular Circulation. The internal circulation plan as shown on the 7/27/07 site plan by DES Architects / Engineers appears acceptable. Each Project driveway along Roebling Road would be channelized at least 20 feet internal to the site, with the East Grand Avenue driveway being channelized at least 35 feet internal to the parking lot. In addition, all surface parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet or greater in width as are all parking garage aisles, which meets City code criteria and good traffic engineering practice. This would be a less-than-significant impact. 419 10/19/11 PAGE 40 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Mitigation Measure 3: No mitigation required. Impact 4: Internal Pedestrian Circulation. Internal walkways are shown on the site plan connecting all buildings and connecting the buildings to the sidewalks along Roebling Road and East Grand Avenue. This would be a less-than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4: No mitigation required. E. RAIL SAFETY There is an at grade railroad crossings near the Project site running diagonally across the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. No gates or lights are provided at the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection crossing. Impact 5: Grade Crossing Approaches Missing Signing and Pavement Striping. The State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City of South San Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection that the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection grade crossing is not up to minimum standards on one or more approaches for required advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping). This results in an existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition of Project traffic. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing & Pavement Striping. The Project shall provide a fair share contribution towards all needed signs and pavement markings on the approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection “at grade railroad crossing” to meet minimum State Public Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission. Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level. 420 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 41 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP F. EXISTING + PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 6: Existing + Project Intersection Level of Service (see Table 3) The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour intersection level of service to unacceptable levels at any analyzed location. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6: No mitigation required. Impact 7: Existing + Project Intersection Signalization Needs (see Table 4) The addition of project traffic would not increase existing volumes at the E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road intersection to meet peak hour signal warrant #3 criteria levels. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 7: No mitigation required. Impact 8: Existing + Project 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing (see Table 5) The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour vehicle queuing at any signalized intersection to unacceptable lengths. However, project traffic would significantly degrade operation at one signalized location with unacceptable existing queuing. 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. Airport Blvd. left turn on the southbound approach to Grand Avenue AM Peak Hour: The project would increase existing volumes by 4.2 percent in a turn lane where existing traffic 95th percentile queuing is already exceeding available storage between the Grand Avenue and Miller Avenue / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp intersections. 421 10/19/11 PAGE 42 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP The addition of project traffic would degrade existing acceptable queuing in the left turn lane on the approach to the one unsignalized intersection evaluated in this study to an unacceptable storage demand. 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. E. Grand Avenue left turn on the eastbound approach to Roebling Road AM Peak Hour: The addition of project traffic would increase the storage demand from 55 up to 100 feet in the 75-foot-long left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the unsignalized Roebling Road intersection. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 8: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (see Figure 24).  Adjust signal timing. Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: Southbound 95th percentile left turn lane queue reduced to 327 feet, which is less than the existing queue of 332 feet. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (see Figure 24).  Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet. This will require elimination of the short left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the driveway serving the western 250 E. Grand Avenue parking lot. Based upon counts conducted several years ago at this driveway by Crane Transportation Group, there are very few drivers making this westbound left turn. Also, they have easy alternate routes to access this parking lot.  This improvement is not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution for this program. Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 9: Existing + Project U.S.101 Off-Ramp Operation (see Table 6) The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour off-ramp volumes above acceptable diverge capacity levels at any analyzed location. At the one analyzed off-ramp where existing AM peak hour volumes already exceed capacity limits (U.S.101 Northbound Off- Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive), project traffic would 422 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 43 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP increase existing AM peak hour off-ramp volumes by less than 1.0 percent (by only 0.6 percent – an increase from 1,618 up to 1,628 vehicle per hour). This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 9: No mitigation required. Impact 10: Existing + Project U.S.101 On-Ramp Operation (see Table 7) The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour on-ramp volumes above acceptable capacity levels at any analyzed location. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 10: No mitigation required. Impact 11: Existing + Project U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Operation (see Table 9) The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour U.S.101 mainline operation in South San Francisco to unacceptable levels. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11: No mitigation required. G. YEAR 2015 BASE CASE + PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 12: 2015 Intersection Level of Service (see Table 13) The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour intersection levels at any analyzed location. Also, project traffic would not increase volumes by more than 2 percent at locations with unacceptable Base Case operation. This would be a less-than-significant impact. 423 10/19/11 PAGE 44 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Mitigation Measure 12: No mitigation required. Impact 13: 2015 Intersection Signalization Needs (see Table 4) The analysis concluded that the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road unsignalized intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case PM peak hour volumes. Volumes would be increased above peak hour signal warrant criteria levels due to the addition of project traffic. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 13: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road. (see Table 23 and Figure 25) The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impacts. These improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. 1. Provide a fair share contribution towards signalizing the intersection and coordinating operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. 2. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to about 125 feet. In conjunction with this measure, lengthen the single left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the Forbes/Harbor intersection to at least 225 feet. Prohibit left turns to/from all driveways along E. Grand Avenue between these two locations. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-11.5 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-11.9 seconds control delay These improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. 424 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 45 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 23: 2015 Base Case + Project Mitigated Level of Service INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR E. Grand Ave. / Roebling Rd. B-11.5(1)* B-11.9(1)* * Signalize intersection and lengthen eastbound E. Grand left turn lane to at least 125 feet. (1) Signalized level of service – seconds control delay. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group The nearby recently-approved 213 East Grand Avenue project would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. Mitigation Measure 13 would reduce the impact at this location to a less- than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with City standards. Impact 14: 2015 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing (see Table 14) The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour vehicle queuing at signalized intersections to unacceptable lengths. However, project traffic would significantly degrade operation at one signalized location with unacceptable existing queuing. 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. Airport Blvd. left turn on southbound approach to Grand Avenue AM Peak Hour: The project would increase 2015 Base Case volumes by 3.0 percent in a turn lane where existing traffic 95th percentile queuing would already be exceeding available storage between the Grand Avenue and Miller Avenue / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp signalized intersections. 425 10/19/11 PAGE 46 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP The addition of project traffic would increase the already unacceptable 2015 Base Case queuing demand in the left turn lane on the approach to the one unsignalized intersection evaluated in this study. 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. E. Grand Avenue left turn on the eastbound approach to Roebling Road AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 23 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to the unsignalized Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from about 100 up to 125 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 14: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (see Figure 25).  Adjust signal timing. Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: Southbound 95th percentile left turn lane queue reduced to 376 feet, which is less than the 2015 Base Case queue of 390 feet. Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (see Figure 25).  Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet. This will require elimination of the short left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the driveway serving a 250 E. Grand Avenue parking lot. Based upon counts conducted several years ago at this driveway by Crane Transportation Group, there are very few drivers making this westbound left turn. Also, they have easy alternate routes to access this parking lot. This improvement is not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. This measure may also be constructed in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 13, signalizing the intersection. 426 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 47 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP The nearby recently-approved 213 East Grand Avenue project would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. Mitigation Measure 14 would reduce the impact at this location to a less- than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with City standards. Impact 15: 2015 U.S.101 Off-Ramp Operation (see Table 6) The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour off-ramp volumes above acceptable diverge capacity levels at any analyzed location. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 15: No mitigation required. Impact 16: 2015 U.S.101 On-Ramp Operation (see Table 7) The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour on-ramp volumes above acceptable capacity levels at any analyzed location. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 16: No mitigation required. Impact 17: 2015 U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Operation (see Table 15) The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour U.S.101 mainline operation in South San Francisco to unacceptable levels. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 17: No mitigation required. 427 10/19/11 PAGE 48 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP H. YEAR 2035 BASE CASE + PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 18: 2035 Intersection Level of Service (see Table 17) The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour intersection level of service to unacceptable levels at any analyzed location. Also, project traffic would not increase volumes by more than 2 percent at locations with unacceptable Base Case operation. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 18: No mitigation required. Impact 19: 2035 Intersection Signalization Needs. The analysis concluded that the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road unsignalized intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2035 Base Case PM peak hour volumes. Volumes would be increased to borderline signal warrant criteria levels. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 19: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road. (see Table 24 and Figure 26) The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impacts. These improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. 2. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet. In conjunction with this measure, lengthen the dual left turn lanes on the westbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the Forbes/Harbor intersection to at least 275 feet. Prohibit left turns to/from all driveways along E. Grand Avenue between these two intersections. 428 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 49 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Table 24: 2035 Base Case + Project Mitigated Level of Service INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR E. Grand Ave. / Roebling Rd. C-33.8(1)* A-8.8(1)* * Signalize intersection and lengthen eastbound E. Grand left turn lane to at least 125 feet. (1) Signalized level of service – seconds control delay. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group Resultant Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS C-33.8 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS A-8.8 seconds control delay The improvements at the E. Grand / Roebling Road intersection are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The recently-approved 213 East Grand Avenue project proposal would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. Mitigation Measure 19 would reduce the impact at this location to a less- than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with City standards. Impact 20: 2035 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing (see Table 18) The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour vehicle queuing at signalized intersections to unacceptable lengths. However, project traffic would significantly degrade operation at one signalized location with unacceptable existing queuing. 429 10/19/11 PAGE 50 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. Airport Blvd. left turn on southbound approach to Grand Avenue AM Peak Hour: The project would increase 2035 Base Case volumes by 1.6 percent in a turn lane where existing traffic 95th percentile queuing would already be exceeding available storage between the Grand Avenue and Miller Avenue / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp signalized intersections. The addition of project traffic would increase the already unacceptable 2035 Base Case queuing demand in the left turn lane on the approach to the one unsignalized intersection evaluated in this study. 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. E. Grand Avenue left turn on the eastbound approach to Roebling Road AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 22 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to the unsignalized Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from about 100 up to 125 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 20: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (see Figure 26)  Adjust signal timing. Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: Southbound 95th percentile left turn lane queue reduced to 381 feet, which is less than the 2035 Base Case queue of 398 feet. Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (see Figure 26)  Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet. This will require elimination of the short left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the driveway serving a 250 E. Grand Avenue parking lot. Based upon counts conducted several years ago at this driveway by Crane Transportation Group, there are very few drivers 430 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 51 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP making this westbound left turn. Also, they have easy alternate routes to access this parking lot.  This improvement is not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. This measure may also be constructed in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 19, signalizing the intersection. The nearby recently-approved 213 East Grand Avenue project would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. Mitigation Measure 20 would reduce the impact at this location to a less- than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with City standards. Impact 21: 2035 U.S.101 Off-Ramp Operation (see Table 6) The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour off-ramp volumes above acceptable diverge capacity levels at any analyzed location. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 21: No mitigation required. Impact 22: 2035 U.S.101 On-Ramp Operation (see Table 7) The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour on-ramp volumes above acceptable capacity levels at any analyzed location. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 22: No mitigation required. 431 10/19/11 PAGE 52 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Impact 23: 2035 U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Operation (see Table 19) The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour U.S.101 mainline operation in South San Francisco to unacceptable levels. In addition, the project would only increase volumes by 0.1 percent on the two freeway segments (north of the Oyster Point interchange) experiencing unacceptable Base Case AM peak hour operation. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 23: No mitigation required. I. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY GUIDELINES Impact 24: Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The Project would generate less than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours in both 2015 and 2035 (in 2015 32 net new two-way (inbound + outbound) trips during the AM peak hour, with 47 net new two-way trips during the PM peak hour; in 2035 26 net new two-way (inbound + outbound) trips during the AM peak hour and 42 net new two-way trips during the PM peak hour (see Table 21). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program (“C/CAG Guidelines”) specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 24: No mitigation measure required. 432 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 1 NORTH Not To Scale Area Map 101 Mitchell Ave S . Air por t Bl vdHarbor Way B lvd Gatew ay Airport BlvdGrand Ave Grand Ave G ra n d view Dr San Mateo AveProduce AveForbes 101Sister Cities Blvd Bayshore BlvdOyster P oint Blvd Executive Dr Blvd Dubuque AveE c c le sAveGul l RdAllertonAveLittlefield Ave U t a h A v e 380 East E Grand E GrandOvercrossingRoebling Rd328 Roebling Rd EIR = Project Site 433 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av1234568910115E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandFigure 243GrandAirport 2SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIRE GrandExecutiveOfframpS AirportWonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport11 San MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGatewayS Airport ExistingIntersection Lane Geometrics and ControlF= Signal= All Way Stop= Side Street Controlled Stop Sign98434 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp141062556101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport 4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11671021831080 95 16 1 3 22515 115045221215 947459352611111815161337 35332471102233174 86E GrandR oebling 756266527952417721226328647 332 33942333442180104 392 214 515 15514265750781803902491543668031017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIRFigure 3 Existing (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes3535495196437 63030612764 7122425511186 129 134162121361 6722250172106SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 152108128403114394435 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport 4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR9471 65401359 671229 290186177574197342131 419 623795 28 5 0 1 361791312 816154211210811033345160306145165 49 76110934 222290 819 927178 63222278289315188 358 23171Figure 4 Existing (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes16153 4762882441111070159 54 4566 93340793 286743350103 611244947 200 3553410134238917863019129 78152100476121134200436 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP2 Caltrain and BART Shuttle Maps Figure 5 C C SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CALTRAIN STATION CALTRAIN SHUTTLE MAP Utah/Grand Area Caltrain Shuttle BART SHUTTLE MAP Utah/Grand Area BART Shuttle Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveLittlefield AveHarbor WayU ta h A v Grand Grand Ave Forbes Blvd G atewayDubuqueE Wondercolor Ln Mitchell Av 230 E Grand 230 E Grand 101 B B B BART STATIONS PROJECT SITEAirport San Mateo AvProduce AveLittlefield AveHarbor WayU ta h A v Grand Grand Ave Forbes Blvd Allerton AveRoebling RdGatewayDubuqueEastE Wondercolor Ln Mitchell Av South San Francisco = Closest shuttle stop to project site. = Closest shuttle stop to project site. Millbrae 101 PROJECT SITE Allerton AveRoebling RdEast 328 Roebling Rd EIR 437 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp141189556101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 6 2015 Without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1691432281596 95 30 1 2 342149 16941531828622 991271317680256018155235108179421 35469481110248318 8641544968572 894E GrandRoebling 7563011467952435915177208326 93663542747 342101042822636150205254152266 167 188104 411 277 625 2351426661436555915148874231156395921994002611704301252 954251191881111017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR438 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 7 2015 Without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR9465 6810717913003499 327211433686 341419211113181 66481102 30 20 1 1164299105704088761546112 8913852245176366146173113 7699141152633481031599433822251056 328177 16675 123 268501300248191142 9365315613 354814153575 1314 1477203 981689182929724528535480169 37210359101405302367210 487 31645167149214439 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av1234568910115E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandFigure 843GrandAirport 2SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIRE GrandExecutiveOfframpS AirportWonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport11 San MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGatewayS Airport Year 2015Intersection Lane Geometrics and ControlF= Signal= All Way Stop= Side Street Controlled Stop Sign98440 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 9 2035 Without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR231308856731572402098264813717520411013830295141691219487286519155835125215453 35764527129249419 86486061059885 1313433412477211062442827182219443100292314579 785 938448226513160213256198356 178 290104 544 373 472 890 2471637231666576713652874228205688123247525279219445 1614 137041135219129441 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 10 2035 Without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR232568826 396527610175320252 52 60 1 1 1971 17 6232402701177045105761561112 9317052745241361146192152 7697151069837491031824483962701658 484117 216159 135 275502300364206185 958842037 4311073324720 1508282117189118538710824831540795194 58315892101541327468225 507 45145179181245154197033355118 4419591 68442 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandFigure 1143GrandAirport 21017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIRE GrandExecutiveOfframpWonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport11 Year 2035Intersection Lane Geometrics and ControlF= Signal= Side Street Controlled Stop Sign8S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes SB 101OfframpMillerAirport San MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGatewayS Airport 91E GrandR oebling 7443 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 12 Existing or 2015 Project Increment AM Peak Hour VolumesProject Increment (after allowingfor removal of existing site traffic)4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR10-2-216-1 30-41 4 35142-2-21-2 103 3 3 1-2 -41312615 16444 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 13 Existing or 2015 Project Increment PM Peak Hour VolumesProject Increment (after allowingfor removal of existing site traffic)4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR 41718 42 838 8 311816116 4 3 314 18311113 8 2 2 2 4445 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp141072556101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport 4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11671011831110 95 12 1 4 22550 115045231215 987459352611111815161337 35346471102233176 86E GrandR oebling 756264507952417721226128947 335 34242333442180104 392 210 515 15514265750781803902501543668081017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIRFigure 14 Existing + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes3535493196437 64630412774 7122425611186 129 132162123961 6882250172106SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 152108128416114395446 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport 4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR9475 65411376 671229 294187179574205342131 4204423798 28 13 1 1 361791312 816154211210811033345163306145165 50 76112734 226290 837 927178 63223278289315188 358 23571Figure 15 Existing + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes16153 4782882471111088175 54 4566 93340793 294743352103 641274947 202 3693410134238917864619129 78152100476121134200447 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp141199556101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 16 2015 with Project AM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1691422281622 951531838618422 1031271317680256018155235108179421 35483481110248320 8641542968572 910E GrandRoebling 756299 263421694144713952435715177208324 94663842747 345101342822636150205255152266 167 186104 411 273 625 2351426661436557215148974231158995921994002621704301257 970251191881111017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR448 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 17 2015 with Project PM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR9469 6810818083003499 331212435686 349419211105113182105 30 28164299481105704088761546112 8913852245179366146173113 769914295423113501031617433822251072 332177 16675 123 268501300248191142 9365315613 356828153577 1348 1477203 981689182929724828635480169 38010359101405302367210 489 32045167149214449 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP2328 Roebling Rd EIR Figure 18 Project Driveway 2015 AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes East Grand Ave Roebling Rd15 11 11 50 14 PROJECT SITE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 11 11 1 49 0 = Existing Volumes (to be eliminated) = Total Project Volumes East Grand Ave Roebling Rd423 8 0 PROJECT SITE41 0 8 1 * * * ** 11 11 = Existing Volumes (to be eliminated) = Total Project Volumes ** ** Total of all Driveways serving 328 Roebling Rd *Total of all Driveways serving 328 Roebling Rd Does not include existing volumes to and from the site, which will be eliminated **Does not include existing volumes to and from the site, which will be eliminated 450 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 19 2035 Project Increment AM Peak Hour Volumes2035 Project Increment (after allowingfor removal of existing site traffic)4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR 9-3-314-1 27-5 3 30122-3-21-2 93 2 3 1-2 -51112314 14451 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 20 2035 Project Increment PM Peak Hour Volumes2035 Project Increment (after allowingfor removal of existing site traffic)4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR 3 314153273311 721151522211413 3 3 1 30 22116 3452 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 21 2035 with Project AM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR231317856731562402125264813717520411030245171691211689487286519155835125215453 35776527129249421 86486031059885 1327433382457131062442527182219441101192614579 787 941448226513160213257198356 178 288104 544 368 472 890 2471637231666577813652974228207988123247525280219445 1618 138441135219129453 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandGateway6E GrandHarborForbes GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossDubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport Produce10MitchellGateway S Airport Figure 22 2035 with Project PM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS Airport 11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandRoebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR233570826 403 623527610175321254951971 52 242402701177045105761561112 9317052745243361146192153 769715257133117501031839483962701672 487117 216159 135 275502300364206185 968842037 4331086324722 1538282117189118538710825031640795194 58915892101541327468225 507 45445179181245155198433355118 4449594 68454 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP2328 Roebling Rd EIR Figure 23 Project Driveway 2035 AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes East Grand Ave Roebling Rd15 11 10 45 14 PROJECT SITE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 11 10 1 44 0 = Existing Volumes (to be eliminated) = Total Project Volumes East Grand Ave Roebling Rd383 7 0 PROJECT SITE37 0 7 1 * * * ** 11 11 = Existing Volumes (to be eliminated) = Total Project Volumes ** ** Total of all Driveways serving 328 Roebling Rd *Total of all Driveways serving 328 Roebling Rd Does not include existing volumes to and from the site, which will be eliminated **Does not include existing volumes to and from the site, which will be eliminated 455 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av2 Figure 24101PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR Existing with ProjectMitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control= Existing Signal= Existing Lanes= Mitigation= Adjust signal timing to accomodate specific queueing issues as opposed to optimizing intersection level of serviceTTGrandAirport 2F667E GrandHarborForbesE GrandRoebling7Extend eastbound left turn lanefrom 75 feet up to 175 feet ofstorage Prohibit left turn entry and exit to and from driveway on southside of East Grand= Fair Share ContributionFSFS456 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av2 Figure 25101PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR 2015 with ProjectMitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control= Existing Signal= Existing Lanes= Mitigation= Adjust signal timing to accomodate specific queueing issues as opposed to optimizing intersection level of serviceTTGrandAirport 2F667E GrandHarborForbesE GrandRoebling7Extend the single westbound leftturn lane from 90 feet to at least225 feetExtend eastbound left turn lanefrom 75 feet up to 125 feet Prohibit left turn entry and exit at driveways on the north andsouth sides of East Grand Ave= Mitigated Signal= Fair Share ContributionFSFSFSFS= Mitigated Lanes457 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av2 Figure 26101PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR 2035 with ProjectMitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control= Existing Signal= Existing Lanes= Mitigation= Adjust signal timing to accomodate specific queueing issues as opposed to optimizing intersection level of serviceTTGrandAirport 2F667E GrandHarborForbesE GrandRoebling7Extend both westbound left turn lanes up to 275 feetExtend eastbound left turn lanefrom 75 feet up to 125 feet Prohibit left turn entry and exit at driveways on the north and south sides of East Grand Ave= Mitigated Signal= Fair Share ContributionFSFSFSFS= Mitigated Lanes458 328 ROEBLING ROAD 1ST ADDENDUM TO THE 2012 RECIRCULATED STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER Economic & OAD PROJECT ECIRCULATED IS/MND UMBER 2009022013 City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 Lamphier–Gregory 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606 May Lead Agency: Prepared By: Gregory 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606 May 2020 459 460 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page i Table of Contents I. Project Characteristics ................................................................................................ 1 II. Background, Purpose, and Organization .................................................................. 2 III. Project Description ...................................................................................................... 4 IV. Summary of CEQA Findings ..................................................................................... 10 V. Environmental Checklist ........................................................................................... 11 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 11 A. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 12 B. Agricultural and Forest Resources ............................................................................................... 14 C. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 15 D. Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................ 18 E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 19 F. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................. 20 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 22 H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire .................................................................... 24 I. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 27 J. Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. 29 K. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................. 30 L. Noise ....................................................................................................................................................... 31 M. Population & Housing .................................................................................................................... 33 N. Public Services & Recreation ........................................................................................................ 34 O. Transportation and Circulation .................................................................................................... 35 P. Utilities and Service Systems and Energy ................................................................................. 38 Q. Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................................................... 40 Attachments A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program B: Updated Cultural Records Searches C: Climate Action Plan Preliminary Compliance Checklist D: Fehr & Peers Traffic Operations and Vehicle Miles Assessments E: Sewer Demand Estimates 461 Page ii Oyster Point Phases 2, 3, and 4 Project Addendum 462 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 1 I. Project Characteristics 1. Project Title: 328 Roebling Road Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Billy Gross, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco, Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 Phone: 650-877-8535 4. Project Location: 328 / 340 Roebling Road and 233 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco 5. Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses: Healthpeak Properties 950 Tower Lane, Suite 1650 Foster City, CA 94404 6. Existing General Plan Designations: Business and Technology Park 7. Existing Zoning: Business and Technology Park (BTP) 8. Requested Approvals: Design Review Modification, Development Agreement Amendment 463 Page 2 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum II. Background, Purpose, and Organization Background On January 28, 2009, the City of South San Francisco published an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) as the Lead Agency for the 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Project in the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco. That document concluded that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, the potentially significant effect could be reduced to less than significant levels through incorporation of mitigation measures. A Recirculated IS/MND was subsequently circulated on July 2009. This document had been revised in response to comments received from public agencies and recirculated per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15073.5(b)(1) because a new potentially significant effect was identified (vehicle queuing at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue U.S. 101 off-ramp) along with mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant. Neither the original January 2009 IS/MND, nor the July 2009 Recirculated IS/MND were adopted by the Lead Agency. Because of the time that had gone by and changes to various conditions and analysis techniques, the Lead Agency decided to recirculate the IS/MND in 2012. The 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was certified and adopted along with project approval in 2012. This constitutes the “Prior MND” (State Clearinghouse Number 2009022013) for purposes of this analysis. As detailed in Section IV: Project Description, project-level details have been revised since the 2012 Project analyzed in the Prior MND. Purpose The purpose of this CEQA document is to analyze the current Project to determine if it qualifies for an Addendum pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 such that no additional environmental review is required. The current Project is a modification of the 2012 Project located on the same site. The 2012 Project was approved in 2012 along with adoption of the Prior MND in which it was assessed. The Prior MND is hereby incorporated by reference and can be obtained from the City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department at 315 Maple Avenue in South San Francisco, and on the City of South San Francisco website at: https://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/ under Planning /Environmental Reports. CEQA Guidelines section 15164 specifies that an addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. Section 15162 specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless one or more of the following conditions are met: 464 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 3 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR or negative declaration was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration; C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The Environmental Checklist contained in this document summarizes the impact findings of the Prior MND, which is the underlying negative declaration for the proposed project, and assesses whether impacts of the proposed project would fall within those identified in the Prior MND or whether new or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the Prior MND are identified which would trigger the need for a Subsequent EIR. Organization Section I, Project Characteristics presents a quick reference of the project details. Section II, Purpose and Organization (this section). Section III, Project Description details the proposed project. Section IV, Summary of CEQA Findings summarizes the findings of this document. Section V, Environmental Checklist details the potential environmental impacts of the project, including the impact findings of the Prior MND and relevant Mitigation Measures (MMs) and explains whether the current project would cause new or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the Prior MND. Attachment A includes full text of the MMs applicable to the current project in the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 465 Page 4 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum III. Project Description Project Site and Vicinity The approximately 3-acre (2.97-acre) Project site is located on Roebling Road, a cul-de-sac off of East Grand Avenue, in the “East of 101 Area”, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and technology businesses, including Research and Development (R&D) offices. The site is in a Business and Technology Park area, with similar uses nearby. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1. The East of 101 Area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east side, U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The area has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. The area is separated from the majority of residential uses by U.S. 101, though some houseboats are permitted at the nearby Oyster Point and Oyster Cove Marinas. While the East of 101 Area has little vacant land, redevelopment remains extremely active as existing facilities are upgraded as industry continues to evolve toward high-technology and research and development uses. Adjacent and to the east of the Project site is the location of a recent office and R&D project at 249- 279 East Grand Avenue. The property to the west of the Project site, across Roebling Road, is the site of another recent office and R&D redevelopment project at 213 – 221 East Grand Avenue. The project site is physically the same as it was during review of the 2012 Project in the Prior MND. Three office/warehouse buildings currently occupy the Project site totaling 79,501 square feet, as shown in Figure 2. The addresses are 233 East Grand Avenue, 328 Roebling Road, and 340 Roebling Road. Since approval of the 2012 Project, tenants have been vacating the buildings in preparation of anticipated demolition. Partial or total vacancy in preparation of redevelopment is a common occurrence during CEQA review of a project and it is standard practice to consider the baseline use to be the normal use of the site before vacancies were begun to be initiated for development. Because the buildings currently remain and could be re-occupied with uses consistent with those historically located in these buildings with no need for additional approvals, the baseline use for purposes of CEQA analysis remains the same as it was in the Prior MND. Construction is projected to take approximately 24 months to complete. The applicants noted a target start date of January 2021, but a later start date would not change the conclusions in this document. Proposed Project and Comparison to 2012 Project The Prior MND analyzed the 2012 Project, which proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of two buildings with a total of 105,536 square feet of office and R&D above several stories of underground parking. The current Project description has been revised to include one building with up to 129,919 square feet of Office/R&D and a separate parking structure on the site. The current project plans are shown on Figure 3 and the previous 2012 Project plan is included for comparative purposes as Figure 4. 466 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 5 Figure 1: Project Location Source: Prior MND 467 Page 6 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Figure 2: Existing Site Source: Applicants, dated 3/23/2020 468 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 7 Figure 3: Current Project Site Plan Source: Applicants, dated 3/23/2020 469 Page 8 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Figure 4: 2012 Project Site Plan (for comparison) Source: Applicants, dated 3/23/2020 470 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 9 Figure 5: Current Project Elevations Source: Applicants, dated 3/23/2020 471 Page 10 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum IV. Summary of CEQA Findings Given the substantial evidence included in this Addendum document and attachments and the Prior MND, the current project would not require subsequent analysis to the Prior MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, for the following reasons and supported by the analyses and conclusions of the environmental checklist contained herein: (1) The current project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) There are no changes in circumstances that would result in the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and (3) There is no new information resulting in a new significant effect not discussed in new significant environmental effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or a change in the feasibility (or acceptance) of mitigation measures. While the project has been revised since the Prior MND, this assessment has determined that this Addendum, in conjunction with the Prior MND, serve to satisfy requirements under CEQA and no further documentation is required per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 and 15162. This addendum only includes necessary minor technical changes and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guideline section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. _______________________________________ _____________________ Sailesh Mehra, Chief Planner Date City of South San Francisco 472 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 11 V. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Overview The Abbreviated Environmental Checklist below compares potential environmental impacts of the project to the findings of the Prior MND, notes whether the project would result in new significant impacts or impacts substantially greater or more severe than those previously identified in the Prior MND, and includes an explanation substantiating the findings for each topic. It uses the abbreviation LTS for less-than-significant, LTS w/ MMs for impacts that are reduced to LTS with implementation of identified mitigation measures (MMs), and NI for when No Impact was identified in the Prior MND. The checklist also lists mitigation measures applicable to the current project impacts. A full list of the MMs applicable to the current project can be found in Attachment A, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). More detail regarding the significance criteria used in this document and the environmental impacts of implementation of the project is available in the Prior MND available from the City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department at 315 Maple Avenue in South San Francisco, and on the City of South San Francisco website at: http://weblink.ssf.net under Planning/Environmental Reports. When a dash (--) appears in the checklist below, it means that the Prior MND did not identify any MMs related to that environmental impact. 473 Page 12 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum A. Aesthetics Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Scenic Vistas LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS b. Scenic Resources NI ☒ ☐ -- NI c. Visual Character LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS d. Light or Glare LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS Discussion Aesthetic Changes from the 2012 Project As under the 2012 Project, existing buildings on the project site would be demolished and replaced with new buildings. Visual models and renderings of the proposed development can be seen in Figures 3 through 5. The 2012 Project was described as consisting of two modest buildings intended for younger-stage companies and each would have reached a height of about 73’ (including rooftop equipment and screening), including two floors for office/R&D and one partially subterranean level of parking. The current Project has a more modern campus-style look with different massing than those shown in the Prior MND and would include a 5-story office/R&D building at the East Grand Avenue frontage reaching a height of 106’ (including rooftop equipment and screening) with a 3-story parking garage (including rooftop parking as the 4th level) behind that reaching a height of approximately 30’. Scenic Vistas Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion as there are no scenic vista viewpoints in the area and therefore the potential to impact views is generally the same as under the 2012 Project despite revisions to the specifics of building massing and location. As noted in the Prior MND, San Bruno Mountain is a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco, and can be seen from many locations throughout the city, including many portions of the East of 101 Area. Construction of the proposed Project may block a small portion of the existing views to the north from locations to the south. However, the areas from which views of the mountain may be blocked are not designated scenic overlooks; and are not places where people gather in order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain. Therefore, blockage of existing views by the proposed Project, particularly given the Project site’s urban setting, would be considered less-than-significant. The conclusion of less-than- significant in regard to scenic vistas would remain the same even with the specific massing and location of buildings proposed with the current project. 474 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 13 Scenic Resources Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion related to scenic highways, as the lack of scenic designation of the nearby highways is the same as under the 2012 Project. Visual Character Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant impact conclusion as re-development consistent with applicable design criteria would not be considered a degradation of character or quality of the environment. The visual character of the East of 101 area consists of a mixture of older and newer office and industrial buildings, with differing amounts of associated landscaping. Development of the current project would involve replacement of older office/warehouse buildings with new construction of modern buildings with a modern design including landscaping and pedestrian improvements. While the heights and massing will substantially increase over the existing conditions, the proposed conditions are within that allowed under the zoning and consistent with other office/R&D development in the East of 101 area. Therefore, consistent with conclusions of the Prior MND, while the site would look different following construction, the construction of modern buildings meeting or exceeding the City’s design criteria would not “degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site” or have a significant adverse impact in this regard. Light and Glare Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion as the proposed lighting levels and potential for light and glare would be consistent with lighting standards and design guidelines and typical of existing surrounding commercial/industrial urban development. While the development proposed with the current project has different specific building massing and locations, as specified in the Prior MND, building materials are required to have low glare potential and new lighting would be required to conform to standards that limit the amount of light that can spill over to other properties, all of which would be imposed as standard conditions of project approval. The potential for light and glare impacts would remain substantially the same as under the 2012 Project and less-than-significant. 475 Page 14 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum B. Agricultural and Forest Resources Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Convert Farmland NI ☒ ☐ -- NI b. Conflict with Agricultural Designation NI ☒ ☐ -- NI c. Conflict with Forest Designation NI ☒ ☐ -- NI d. Convert Forest NI ☒ ☐ -- NI e. Indirect Conversion of Agricultural or Forest Land NI ☒ ☐ -- NI Discussion Same Conclusion (NI): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information related to agriculture and forest resources, which do not occur in the project area, and there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to these topics. 476 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 15 C. Air Quality Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Conflict with Air Quality Plan LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS b. Criteria Air Pollutants LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ MM AIR-1: Basic Construction Best Management Practices LTS w/MM c. Sensitive Receptors LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS d. Odors LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS Discussion Air Quality Setting Changes from the 2012 Project Since the 2012 Project, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD Guidelines), which assist lead agencies in evaluating and mitigating air quality impacts. The latest draft of the BAAQMD guidelines was issued in May 2017 and includes thresholds consistent with those assessed in the Prior MND. Since the 2012 Project, the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan updated the 2010 Clean Air Plan utilized in the Prior MND assessment. The latest update to the Clean Air Plan includes similar but updated control measures as discussed below. Conflict with Air Quality Plan Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion related to conflict with an Air Quality Plan. BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan primary goals and control measures. The impact would be 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 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (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 therefore not result in a new substantial source of emissions or toxic air contaminants (see topics below) or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. 477 Page 16 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum 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 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. While the Clean Air Plan and BAAQMD recommendations for determining consistency have been updated since the Prior MND, this conclusion is consistent with the Prior MND. Criteria Air Pollutants Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Air-1 and the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion related to construction-period emissions and dust. As noted in the Prior MND, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of fugitive dust, criteria pollutants, and diesel exhaust particulate matter generated by demolition, grading, hauling, and other construction related activities. While the proposed size of development has gone up from 105,536 square feet to 129,919 square feet, this remains well below the BAAQMD construction screening size of 277,000 square feet. As noted in the Prior MND, despite construction-period emissions levels below BAAQMD thresholds, BAAQMD considers construction emissions and dust generated to be a significant impact unless controlled by best management practices. These basic measures are included in Mitigation Measure Air-1, which would be applicable to the current Project to reduce the potential impact of construction dust and emissions to a less-than-significant level. For operational emissions, the Prior MND quantified operational emissions using the URBEMIS model and found them to be well below threshold levels. While the URBEMIS model is no longer used, a comparison to the BAAQMD screening table shows that the project size of 129,919 square feet of office- type uses remains well below the BAAQMD operational screening size of 346,000 square feet and can therefore be assumed to have a less-than-significant impact related to operational criteria pollutant emissions, consistent with the Prior MND conclusions. Sensitive Receptors Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion related to exposure of sensitive receptors. As noted in the Prior MND, the Project could result in emissions related to health risks from construction equipment emissions and stationary equipment. BAAQMD requires appropriate permitting consistent with health and safety requirements for any stationary equipment that may be installed. For CEQA analysis, BAAQMD recommends assessment of health risk for sources/sensitive receptors within a 1,000 foot radius. As noted in the Prior MND, an office/R&D project is not itself considered a sensitive receptor and the Project site is within an industrial/commercial area with no sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of the Project. Therefore, it can be concluded that construction-period and operational-period health risk would be less-than-significant, consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND. 478 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 17 Odors Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion related to odors. As noted in the Prior MND, office/R&D uses are not the types of uses that generate frequent or substantial odors, nor are there sensitive receptors to odors in the vicinity. Therefore, consistent with the Prior MND, the impact related to odors would be less-than-significant. 479 Page 18 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum D. Biological Resources Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Special-Status Species LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey LTS w/MM b. Riparian/Sensitive Habitat NI ☒ ☐ -- NI c. Wetlands NI ☒ ☐ -- NI d. Wildlife Corridors/ Nursery Sites NI ☒ ☐ -- NI e. Conflict with Local Biological Policies NI ☒ ☐ -- NI f. Conflict with Conservation Plans NI ☒ ☐ -- NI Discussion Special-Status Species Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/MM): The current project would not change Impact Bio-1 and the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion related to the potential to disturb nesting birds. As noted in the Prior MND, the Project site is characterized by an urban setting and is entirely surrounded by like development. The General Plan EIR identified no biological habitat or occurrences of sensitive species on or adjacent to the Project site. The site and its vicinity has little or no habitat value and would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special status species, except for possibly migrating birds, as discussed below. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protect special-status bird species year-round, as well as their eggs and nests during the nesting season. The list of migratory birds includes almost every native bird in the United States. On-site or adjacent trees could be used by protected birds. Construction activities could adversely affect nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or Fish and Game Code of California. Surveying for nesting birds and appropriate protections if found, as detailed in Mitigation Measure Bio-1, would continue to be applicable to the current Project to reduce the potential impact on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. All Other Topic Areas Same Conclusion (NI): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information related to biological resources - which do not occur in the project area - and there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to these topics. As noted in the Prior MND, the Project site is located in an industrial/commercial area, on a site that has previously been developed, and is predominantly covered with asphalt and buildings. The existing limited vegetation consists of parking lot and screening landscaping and there are no significant biological resources or conservation plans on the Project site. 480 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 19 E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a-e. Historical Resources, Archaeological, Paleontological, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Human Remains LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS Discussion Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Setting Changes from the 2012 Project There have been no changes to the cultural and tribal cultural resources environmental setting of the project site, and the details of the current project do not change the potential for cultural and tribal cultural resources impacts. Since the Prior MND, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (Assembly Bill 52) was passed, which is intended to minimize conflict between Native American and development interests. AB 52 adds "tribal cultural resources" to the specific cultural resources analyzed under CEQA. As had been standard practice at the time, the Prior MND considered tribal cultural resources as part of the cultural resources analysis, so they are discussed here. Updated records searches were performed in 2020 to confirm no new information had become available since the Prior MND, including a records search by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University, part of the California Historical Resources Information System, and a search of the Sacred Lands Files by the Native American Heritage Commission (both included in Attachment B). No tribes requested consultation under AB52. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion related to cultural and tribal cultural resources. As under the Prior MND, the project site has been previously disturbed and is covered with paving and buildings. Updated records searches confirmed no known cultural or tribal cultural resources at the project site. As noted in the Prior MND, there are no historic resources on the site and while currently unknown underground resources could be unexpectedly discovered during ground disturbance, such discoveries are required to be handled appropriately according to Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code dealing with the treatment and handling of underground cultural/tribal cultural resources, Section 21084.1 dealing with the treatment of handling of historical resources, and Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code/ Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code dealing with discovery of human remains. Consistent with the conclusions in the Prior MND, with adherence to applicable regulations, impacts related to accidental discovery of cultural/tribal cultural resources would be less-than-significant. 481 Page 20 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum F. Geology and Soils Impacts Related To: 1 Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Seismic Hazards LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ Geo-1a: Compliance with California Building Code Geo-1b: Compliance with a design- level Geotechnical Investigation and with Structural Design Plans Geo-1c: Obtain a Building Permit Geo-2a: Compliance with a design- level Geotechnical Investigation and with Structural Design Plans Geo-2b: Obtain a Building Permit Geo-3: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation LTS w/ MM b. Soil Erosion LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Geo-4: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) LTS w/MM c. Unstable Soil LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ Geo-5: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud LTS w/ MM d. Expansive Soil LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ Geo-6: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans LTS w/ MM e. Septic Tanks NI ☒ ☐ -- NI 1 Note that the current CEQA Guidelines include paleontological resources in this section. These have been addressed under Section E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources as they were in the Prior MND. Discussion Geology and Soils Setting Changes from the 2012 Project There have been no changes to the geology and soils environmental setting of the project site, and the details of the current project do not change the potential for geological and soils impacts. The current project would be required to meet current rules and regulation, including the updated California Building Code. These regular updates to regulatory documents would not change the conclusions of the Prior MND. Seismic Hazards Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Geo-2 through Geo-3, mitigation measures Geo-2a through Geo-3, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the known seismically active character of the region and potential for seismically induced ground failure has not changed since the 2012 Project. The current project would also not change Impact Geo-1 or the less-than-significant conclusion related to fault hazards as there are no known faults at the site, and this has not changed since the 2012 Project. 482 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 21 Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, while there are no known faults at the project site, the region where the project is located is known to be seismically active and the project will need to comply with the California Building Code and project-specific geotechnical recommendations and building permit requirements to address the potential for seismic hazards as detailed in mitigation measures Geo-1a, Geo-1b, Geo-1c, Geo-2a, Geo-2b, and Geo-3. Soil Erosion Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Geo-4, mitigation measure Geo-4, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the potential for soil erosion and requirement to include best management practices to reduce soil erosion potential have not changed since the 2012 Project. Unstable Geologic Unit and Expansive Soils Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Geo-5 and Geo-6, mitigation measures Geo-5 and Geo-6, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the need to account for unstable or expansive underlying fill soils and Bay Mud have not changed since the 2012 Project. Septic Tanks Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion related to septic systems as the project area is serviced by the city’s sewer system, which has not changed since the 2012 Project. 483 Page 22 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. GHG Emissions LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS b. Conflict with GHG Reduction Plans LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS Discussion Greenhouse Gas Emissions Setting Changes from the 2012 Project Since the 2012 Project, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD Guidelines), which assist lead agencies in evaluating and mitigating air quality impacts. The latest draft of the BAAQMD guidelines was issued in May 2017 and includes thresholds consistent with those assessed in the Prior MND. Since the 2012 Project, the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan updated the 2010 Clean Air Plan utilized in the Prior MND assessment. The latest update to the Clean Air Plan includes similar but updated control measures as discussed below. Since the Prior MND, the City adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan in 2014, the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan, which includes various reduction measures to meet reduction goals. GHG Emissions Same Conclusion (Conclusions remains LTS): The current project is consistent with the Climate Action Plan, which has been adopted since the Prior MND and would not change the less-than-significant conclusion related to greenhouse gas emissions. The relevant BAAQMD Guidelines significance thresholds for operational GHG emissions are: • Compliance with Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, or • Emissions at or below 1,100 metric tons (MT) CO2e or at or below an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric tons (MT) CO2e per service population (residents and employees) per year The BAAQMD Guidelines do not present a separate significance threshold for construction emissions, though industry standard has become to divide the construction emissions over the expected lifetime of the building and add to the annual emissions. While the Prior MND had included modeling of GHG emissions and found them to be below applicable threshold levels, since the Prior MND, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan, which is a qualified GHG reduction strategy. The Climate Action Plan includes reduction measures to be implemented to meet city-wide reduction goals and per BAAQMD Guidelines, consistency with this plan is used in place of project-specific GHG emissions modeling for assessment of project impacts. 484 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 23 Many of the Climate Action Plan’s reduction measures are targeted to city-wide strategies that are not directly applicable to development projects. The project would include pedestrian/bicycle connections and participate in a Transportation Demand Management program to promote transit and reduce trips (contributing to Measures 1.1 through 1.3). The project would include new tree plantings (Measure 3.4) and would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency (Measures 3.1 and 6.1), and occupants would participate in recycling for waste reduction (Measure 5.1). Development projects in the city, including the current project, are required to complete a GHG Compliance Checklist during the plan review process demonstrating that all applicable requirements are met. The preliminary checklist demonstrating compliance is included as Attachment C. The current project will comply with the Climate Action Plan and impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans Same Conclusion (Conclusions remains LTS): The Clean Air Plan has been updated and the South San Francisco Climate Action Plan has been adopted since the Prior MND but the current project remains consistent with relevant plans and the no additional impact conclusion remains unchanged from the Prior MND. Consistency with the Climate Action Plan is discussed above and the current project would be consistent with that plan. BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan primary goals and control measures. The impact would be significant if the project would conflict with or obstruct attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures. The primary goal of the 2017 Clean Air Plan as it relates to GHG emissions is: • Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area-wide improvements, regional policies, or large stationary source reductions, and these are not directly applicable to the current project. However, the current 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 the required TDM plans (see Traf-1) will contribute to trip reduction programs (Transportation Control Measure TR2), and improving access/connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians (Transportation Control Measure TR9). The current project does not conflict with applicable control measures and is consistent with the Clean Air Plan as well as the City’s Climate Action Plan. GHG emissions were assessed in this document per the BAAQMD May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into account implementation of state-wide regulations and plans, such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan and adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard. Therefore, as determined in the Prior MND, the impact in relation to consistency with GHG reduction plans would be less-than-significant. 485 Page 24 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Routine Hazardous Materials Use LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Haz-1a: Registration in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program Haz-1b: Compliance with US Department of Transportation, State of California and local laws, ordinances and procedures for transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes LTS w/MM b. Risk of Upset LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting Haz-2b: Additional Soil Sampling of Site Soils Haz-2c: Implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan Haz-2d: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) LTS w/MM c. Hazardous Materials within a ¼- mile of a School LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Haz-3: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d LTS w/MM d. Hazardous Materials Site LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Haz-4: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d LTS e. Airport Hazards LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS f. Emergency Access Routes NI ☒ ☐ -- NI g. Wildfire 1 NI ☒ ☐ -- NI 1 Note that the current CEQA Guidelines include wildfire as an independent section. This topic has been addressed here as it was in the Prior MND. Discussion Hazards and Hazardous Materials Setting Changes from the 2012 Project The airport land use plan for the nearby airport has been updated since the Prior MND. The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport was published in November 2012 including updated regulations regarding allowable building heights in the project area. Since the Prior MND, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated to include more detailed threshold questions related to wildfire impacts in its own section. As had been standard practice at the time, the Prior MND considered wildfire risk as part of the hazards and hazards materials section, so this topic is discussed here. The expanded wildfire considerations apply to projects in areas that are very high fire severity zones, which does not apply to the project, so are not further detailed. 486 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 25 Routine Hazardous Materials Use Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Haz-1, mitigation measures Haz-1a and Haz-1b, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion. Proposed uses under the current project would require routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials and require compliance with applicable regulations, plans and programs, which remains unchanged since the Prior MND. This section pertains to recurring transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of long term operation. Short-term transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials related to construction and development is discussed in the following sections. As noted in the Prior MND, while specific tenants have not yet been identified, R&D laboratories are likely to handle materials considered to be biological hazards, chemical hazards and/or carry a risk of fire or explosion. Office uses would involve household hazardous waste such as cleaners and vehicle components. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment would be mitigated through compliance with applicable laws and regulations, adherence to fire and safety codes, and participation in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan program as applicable, as detailed in the mitigation measures. Risk of Upset Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Haz-2, mitigation measures Haz-2a through Haz-2d, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the potential for hazardous building materials in structures to be demolished and in site soils and potential for accidental release of laboratory chemicals during operations remain unchanged since the 2012 Project. As noted in the Prior MND, due to the age of existing buildings, they could contain hazardous building materials such as lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials that would need to be abated prior to demolition per applicable mitigation and site soils could contain contaminants related to historic industrial use in the area that need to be handled appropriately per applicable mitigation. R&D facilities are likely to involve hazardous materials stored or used on site, which could lead to an accidental release if not handled appropriately as detailed in the mitigation. These conclusions are consistent with the Prior MND. Hazardous Materials Near Schools Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/MM): The current project would not change impact Haz-3, mitigation measure Haz-3, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion related to hazardous materials near schools as the need to handle hazardous materials appropriately has not changed since the 2012 Project. As noted in the Prior MND, the closest school-type use is the Gateway Childcare Center located approximately 0.21 miles from the Project site, with all others being over one quarter mile from the project site. With implementation of appropriate measures to minimize the potential for release of hazardous materials, the impact would be less-than-significant, consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND. 487 Page 26 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Hazardous Materials Site Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/MM): The current project would not change impact Haz-4, mitigation measure Haz-4, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion related to hazardous materials sites as the need to handle hazardous materials appropriately has not changed since the 2012 Project. As noted in the Prior MND, the site is not included on the “Cortese List” of hazardous materials sites. However, because of the industrial history of the site, the site was conservatively considered to have the potential for listing on such a site and the impact mitigated through appropriate handling of any site contamination. This conclusion is consistent with the Prior MND. Airport Hazards Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion related to airport hazardous because the Project remains consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan, consistent with conclusions for the 2012 Project. The airport land use plan for San Francisco International Airport has been updated since the Prior MND. The Project site, is mapped in an area where critical aeronautical surfaces are between approximately 300 and 325 feet, which is well above the proposed building heights, as it was for the 2012 Project. This is adequate to reach conclusions for this analysis though the applicant is required to comply with any applicable FAA filing and notification requirements. Emergency Access Routes Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion as the current Project is redevelopment of an existing site and would not substantially change major access and evacuation routes, which has not changed since the 2012 Project. Wildfire Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion as the project site is in a developed area and the lack of wildfire risk in the vicinity has not changed since the 2012 Project. 488 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 27 I. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a., e. Water Quality and Water Plans LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Hydro-1: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP Hydro-3: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 LTS w/MM b. Groundwater NI ☒ ☐ -- NI c. Alter Drainage LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Hydro-2: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 LTS w/MM d. Inundation LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS Discussion Hydrology and Water Quality Setting Changes from the 2012 Project The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as excavation and has been updated since the Prior MND, though these changes are not substantial as they relate to current project development. All construction and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) activity would be in compliance with the Construction General Permit Order 2009-2009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ. The California Department of Water Resources presented updated sea level rise scenarios in their California Climate Science and Data for Water Resources Management in 2015. The future sea level rise scenarios associated with planning and permitting development in potentially susceptible areas in the San Francisco Bay Area are: • a sea level rise of 24 inches by 2050; and • a sea level rise of 66 inches by 2100. These values represent the upper end of the range of sea level rise estimates and are consistent with preliminary state recommendations for 100-year sea level rise. These values are meant to ensure that projects take these potentially high estimates into account when planning infrastructure and development projects and have changed slightly from the 16- and 55-inch assumptions used in the Prior MND. Water Quality and Water Plans Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Hydro-1 and Hydro-3, mitigation measures Hydro-1 and Hydro-3, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the potential for contamination of Bay water due to stormwater pollutants and erosion or siltation remains substantially unchanged since the 2012 Project. Construction activities at the site would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction activities and the potential for increased erosion and/or parking lot pollutants to impair water quality. These impacts 489 Page 28 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum would be mitigated through compliance with applicable permitting requirements and a project-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan as detailed in the mitigation measures. Groundwater Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion related to groundwater depletion as the project area is nearly fully covered with impervious area under existing conditions and is not used for groundwater supply and therefore development under the current project would not result in the potential for groundwater depletion, which has not changed since the 2012 Project. Alter Drainage Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/MM): The current project would not change Impact Hydro- 2, mitigation measure Hydro-2, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the Project would be required to meet the same or more stringent control of runoff, which has not substantially changed since the 2012 Project. As noted in the Prior MND, the Project site is not located in a flood zone. While the specific design of the proposed Project has been revised, consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, it would not ultimately alter the drainage pattern in a manner that would increase erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, as the Project is required to adhere to applicable regulations controlling runoff, including those detailed in the mitigation. Inundation Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusions related to inundation as the Project site is not subject to inundation hazards, which has not substantially changed since the 2012 Project. As noted in the Prior MND, the Project site is not located near an inland body of water (potential source of seiches), a soil slope susceptible to rapid mass wasting or mudflows, or downstream of a dam or levee and therefore is not at risk of inundation from these sources. Project site elevations range from 12 feet to 31 feet above mean sea level, which are above tsunami wave run up inundation estimates (6 feet) and updated climate change induced sea level rise inundation estimates (5.5 feet). Therefore, there is no change to the less-than-significant conclusion in the Prior MND. 490 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 29 J. Land Use Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Division of an Existing Community NI ☒ ☐ -- NI b. Conflict with Land Uses / Land Use Plans NI ☒ ☐ -- NI Discussion Land Use Setting Changes from the 2012 Project There have been no substantial changes to the land use environmental setting of the Project site. Development of the area has proceeded according to area plans and recent development. Since the Prior MND, the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan was updated in 2015, but would not substantially change impacts or conclusions for the proposed office/R&D development. The entire General Plan is currently being updated but the updated document is not yet in effect and is not anticipated to be substantially revised in relation to the project site and proposed development. Division of an Existing Community Same Conclusion (NI): The current Project would not change the no impact conclusion as the Project would involve construction of on an already urbanized site, which has not changed since the 2012 Project. Conflict with Land Uses / Land Use Plans Same Conclusion (NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion as there are no conflicts with land uses/land use plans, which has not changed since the 2012 Project. As noted in the Prior MND, the proposed office/R&D use is specifically permitted by right and encouraged for the area in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. While more square footage than the 2012 Project, the current Project remains within the allowable development intensity at a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0. 491 Page 30 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum K. Mineral Resources Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Loss of Mineral Resources NI ☒ ☐ -- NI b. Loss of Mineral Recovery Sites NI ☒ ☐ -- NI Discussion Same Conclusion (NI): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information related to mineral resources, which do not occur in the Project area, and there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to mineral resources. 492 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 31 L. Noise Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Noise LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Noise-1: Construction Noise Abatement and Limitation of Construction Hours LTS w/MM b. Vibration NI ☒ ☐ -- NI c. Airport Noise LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS Discussion Noise Setting Changes from the 2012 Project While the noise environment has not changed substantially from that assessed in the Prior MND and remains primarily characterized by ambient noise, local traffic noise generated along arterial streets and U.S. 101, and aircraft over-flights associated with San Francisco International Airport. The types and locations of noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity have not substantially changed since the Prior MND. The nearest noise sensitive receptors are over 1,000 feet away. Noise Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/MM): The current project would not change Impact Noise- 1, mitigation measure Noise-1, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the potential for loud construction activities has not substantially changed since the 2012 Project. As noted in the Prior MND, the type of use and operational noise is consistent with that in the existing environment and would not result in a significant impact. Operation of heavy construction equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, but these would be mitigated through construction noise abatement and construction hours limitations as detailed in the mitigation. These conclusions are consistent with those made for the 2012 Project. Vibration Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion as the potential for groundborne vibration has not changed since the 2012 Project. As noted in the Prior MND, the proposed uses are not the type that will generate substantial groundborne vibration during operations and construction activities are of the type and distance from existing structures that there is no potential for significant vibration impacts. Airport Noise Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion as the site is outside the area significantly impacted by aircraft noise, which has not changed since the 2012 Project. 493 Page 32 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum The airport land use plan for San Francisco International Airport has been updated since the Prior MND, but the Project site remains well outside the airport’s noise-affected 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The exterior noise environment at the Project site resulting from aircraft would be considered compatible with proposed uses. 494 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 33 M. Population & Housing Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Population Growth LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS b. Displacement of Housing or People NI ☒ ☐ -- NI Discussion Population and Housing Setting Changes from the 2012 Project The relevant planning document for this project and the analysis at issue is the City’s Housing Element under its General Plan. The Housing Element was last adopted in 2015 and incorporates the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for South San Francisco. Like other local and regional planning documents, the City’s Housing Element and General Plan are regularly updated. Population Growth Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Pop-1 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the potential for indirect population growth due to increased employment has not changed since the 2012 Project. The 2012 Project was assessed to have the potential to support between 192 and 264 employees. The current Project is slightly larger and using the same methodology, could support between 236 and 325 employees. An increase in employees in the city could result in an indirect increase in population and demand for housing. Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, the project would increase employment and contribute to the high jobs to housing ratio in the city but would be consistent with local and area planning and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact related to indirect population growth. Displacement of Housing or People Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion as there have been no changes in the lack of existing housing or residents on the site since the 2012 Project. 495 Page 34 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum N. Public Services & Recreation Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Public Services LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS b. Recreation LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS Discussion Public Services and Recreation Setting Changes from the 2012 Project Area-wide development has continued throughout the vicinity and public service and recreation plans and operations are regularly assessed and updated. The SSFPD operates generally out of one main station (as opposed to having substations), which is currently located at 33 Arroyo Drive but is planned to move to the City’s Community Civic Campus project, near the current SSFPD location, once constructed. The closest Fire Station to the project site will remain #62 at 249 Harbor Way, approximately 0.6 miles away. Public Services and Recreation Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion as the potential to increase demand for services and recreation has not changed since the 2012 Project. As under the 2012 Project, the current Project will be served by existing facilities (or those relocated through separate projects), will meet emergency vehicle access standards, and will pay appropriate development fees toward public services. The conclusion of a less-than-significant impact with respect to public services remains unchanged for the current Project. As noted in the Prior MND, while it is possible that some users of the Project site would make use of City recreational facilities, the increase in daytime worker population would represent a negligible increase in the use of parks and would not substantially deteriorate existing parks or recreational facilities or require the construction of new facilities. As under the 2012 Project, the current Project would be required to pay development fees, including a park in-lieu fee. The conclusion of a less-than-significant impact with respect to recreation remains unchanged for the current project. 496 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 35 O. Transportation and Circulation Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Conflict with Circulation Plans or Policies LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS b. Conflict with Transportation Impact Reduction Goals* LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Traf-1: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue Signal Timing Traf-3: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Turn Lane Extension Traf-3: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Signalization LTS w/MM c. Increase Hazards LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Traf-4: Improvements to Grade Crossing Approach Signing & Pavement Striping LTS w/MM d. Inadequate Emergency Access LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS a State CEQA Guidelines have been revised since the Prior MND such that intersection and roadway specific service level analysis will be replaced by an analysis of the amount of vehicle miles traveled per CEQA Section 15064.3. However, such a change does not apply statewide until July 2020, and has not been implemented by City of South San Francisco. Therefore, it is not further discussed here. Discussion Traffic engineers Fehr & Peers prepared a traffic operations review and vehicle miles assessment as referenced in this document and included in full as Attachment D. Transportation Setting Changes from the 2012 Project Area-wide development has continued throughout the vicinity as anticipated under area plans and included in the cumulative traffic analysis in the Prior MND. Since the adoption of the Prior MND, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted new CEQA Guidelines in 2018 to implement the requirements of California Senate Bill (SB) 743 that would render impacts based on vehicular delay no longer a consideration under CEQA by July 2020. Specifically, SB 743 and the resulting CEQA Guideline section 15064.3 changed the CEQA transportation impact analysis significance criteria to eliminate auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA (although a jurisdiction may choose to maintain these measures under its General Plan, as South San Francisco does). The changes in CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 present vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as an appropriate measure of transportation impacts. However, the requirements of section 15064.3 do not apply statewide until July 2020 and at that point would only apply prospectively. At present, the City of South San Francisco has not adopted VMT as a transportation impact criterion or established VMT significance thresholds and they are not yet required to do so. As a result, a VMT analysis is not included as part of this CEQA analysis. 497 Page 36 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Conflicts with Circulation Plans or Policies Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion as the City’s TDM ordinance continues to require alternative mode shift and the current project would include pedestrian and bicycle facilities meeting applicable requirements and safety standards as under the 2012 Project. As under the 2012 Project, per the City’s TDM Ordinance, the current project is required to implement a TDM Plan to increase use of alternative modes to reduce vehicular trips to/from the project site. Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, with implementation of a TDM Plan, the Project’s impact on adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation would be less-than- significant. Conflict with Transportation Impact Reduction Goals Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Traf-1 and Traf-3, mitigation measures Traf-1 and Traf-3, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as trip generation under the current project would be substantially the same as under the 2012 Project and area growth was analyzed under the cumulative analysis in the Prior MND. Traffic engineers Fehr & Peers prepared a trip generation comparison between the 2012 Project office and the current Project, as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Updated Trip Generation and Comparison to 2012 Project Land Use Size (KSF)1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Current Project Office/R&D2 129.9 77 17 94 12 65 77 TDM Reduction (35%)3 27 6 33 4 23 27 Current Project Trips 50 11 61 8 42 50 2012 Project Office/R&D2 105.5 63 14 76 10 53 63 TDM Reduction (20%)4 13 3 15 2 11 13 2012 Project Trips 50 11 61 8 42 50 Net Difference in Project Trips5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baseline Site Trips 6 14 15 29 0 3 3 Net Difference in Trips Added to the Network7 +14 +15 +29 0 +3 +3 Notes: 1. KSF = thousand square feet 2. A combined Office/R&D rate, based on Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition (2008) rates for land use 710 and 760, and TJKM East of 101 Study (2011), consistent with rates used in the Prior MND 3. 35% reduction in peak hour vehicle trips based on updated City mandated TDM program and Development Agreement 4. 20% reduction to peak hour vehicle trips based on City mandated TDM program at that time 5. Current Project Trips minus 2012 Project Trips 6. Baseline Site Trips are the trips from existing uses that reported in the Prior MND. 7. Because the site has been transitioning to vacant since the previous analysis and approval, it was assumed for the traffic assessment that there are currently no existing trips at the site. While there is no net difference in Project trips for CEQA purposes, this difference in trips added to the network was used to assess the project against current roadway network conditions to determine applicability of mitigation and conclusions. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 498 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 37 There have not been substantial changes to the roadway system in the area since the Prior MND was prepared and certified. However, there has been development in the vicinity during that time and changes in both the existing and projected traffic levels in the area. Fehr & Peers used the above trip generation information with recent roadway counts to assess the Prior MND mitigation measures and conclusions and found them to remain applicable given the current Project and current roadway conditions. Current roadway levels are within those identified under cumulative conditions in the Prior MND and as concluded in the Prior MND, identified mitigation would mitigate impacts under existing and cumulative conditions. Roadway level of service mitigation includes signal timing at Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue, and signalization and turn lane extension at E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road and would remain applicable to the current Project. While not yet required as the City has not yet adopted applicable thresholds, the project’s VMT was also assessed by Fehr & Peers. Since the City has not yet established a VMT impact threshold, the most recent research conducted by California Air and Resources Board (CARB) was used to set an interim threshold for this informational assessment. CARB’s assessment of progress toward state goals concluded that the statewide VMT reduction needed to meet long term GHG reduction targets is 16.8 percent below the regional baseline. Therefore, the threshold of 16.8 percent below the regional average is used and expressed as average home-based work (HBW) VMT per employee across the nine- county Bay Area. The nine county Bay Area average HBW VMT per employee of 14.2 VMT. Based on the C/CAG model, which includes detailed roadway network and local land use data for the Project area, employees in the East of 101 Area have an average HBW VMT of 16.0, which is 13% above the regional average and therefore would not meet the proposed threshold of 16.8% below the regional average. Because the C/CAG model is based on existing land use and traffic patterns, it already accounts for some level of shift to alternative modes under the TDM Plans of existing uses and therefore cannot be fully discounted by the Project’s required TDM Plan reductions. That being said, the enhanced 35% reduction required under the current TDM Ordinance would likely further reduce the project’s VMT reported here. Note that there would be no difference in the VMT numbers between the 2012 Project and the current Project because it is based on project location and type and not the specific amount of square footage or design. Hazards and Emergency Access Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Traf-5, mitigation measure Traf-5, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the site has been designed to meet safety standards and would be substantially the same as under the 2012 Project. As concluded in the Prior MND, Project traffic would exacerbate an existing safety hazard caused by lack of appropriate signs and markings at the nearby at-grade railroad crossings running diagonally across the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection and the Project would be required to contribute toward all needed sign and pavement markings. This remains applicable to the current Project. Fehr & Peers also assessed circulation of the current Project site plan and determined it would not result in site hazards or lack of emergency access. This is consistent with the conclusions of the Prior MND. 499 Page 38 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum P. Utilities and Service Systems and Energy Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. New or Expanded Facilities LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS b. Water Supplies LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS c. Wastewater Capacity LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS d-e. Solid Waste LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS f. Energy 1 (LTS)1 ☒ ☐ -- LTS 1 Note that the current CEQA Guidelines include energy as an independent section. Energy was not formally assessed in the Prior MND, which under CEQA is a presumption of a less-than-significant impact as discussed below. Discussion Utilities and Service Systems Setting Changes from the 2012 Project Area-wide development has continued throughout the vicinity and utilities plans and service are regularly assessed and updated, including Cal Water’s South San Francisco District Water Supply and Facilities Master Plan, the City’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), and contracts and operations related to solid waste. California Assembly Bill (AB) 341 requires businesses that generate 4 or more cubic yards of waste per week to recycle. AB 1826 requires all businesses to subscribe to organics recycling service. The City of South San Francisco has implemented these requirements through programs run by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company. New or Expanded Facilities Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion related to new or expanded facilities as the need for new or expanded facilities has not changed since the 2012 Project. As under the 2012 Project, the current project will be served by existing facilities (or those relocated through separate projects). As with the 2012 Project, the current Project would not itself require new or expanded off-site facilities. The conclusion of a less-than-significant impact with respect to new or expanded utility facilities remains unchanged for the current project. Water Supply Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion as the current project would not substantially change projected increases in water demand. 500 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 39 The size of the project does not trigger a need for a project-specific Water Supply Assessment, and as noted in the Prior MND, the proposed project is consistent with development potential of the site, which is included in local and regional water supply planning. The conclusion of a less-than-significant impact with respect to water supply remains unchanged for the current Project. Wastewater Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion as the current project would not substantially change projected wastewater generation or planned capacity. The applicant has submitted a Sewer Demand Assessment taking into account the previous and current project details and current water usage and wastewater standards and demonstrated that wastewater generation of the project would be marginally less than what would have been anticipated under the 2012 Project (average flow of 0.01650 million gallon per day compared to 0.01657 under the 2012 Project). The Sewer Demand Assessment is included as Attachment E. As noted in the Prior MND, the proposed project is consistent with development potential of the site, which is included in local and regional wastewater capacity planning. The conclusion of a less-than-significant impact with respect to wastewater capacity remains unchanged for the current Project. Solid Waste Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than- significant conclusion as the project would comply with applicable solid waste regulations. The Prior MND determined that the Project would utilize solid waste services provided in South San Francisco and would comply with applicable recycling standards intended to meet applicable regulations or goals. While specific requirements for commercial solid waste service are regularly updated, the current project would meet all current requirements and the impact would remain less-than-significant and consistent with Prior MND conclusions. Energy Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The Prior MND did not explicitly address energy (assumed LTS) but both the 2012 Project and the current Project are consistent with area-wide planning and would comply with applicable energy efficiency regulations. The Project would be considered to have a significant impact related to energy use if it would violate applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards and/or if energy consumption increases resulting from the Project would trigger the need or expanded off-site energy facilities. The current project would be required by the City to comply with all standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the new California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN), as applicable, aimed at the incorporation of energy-conserving design and construction. PG&E infrastructure exists on the current project site, and any on-site and immediately adjacent improvements and extensions required to accommodate the redevelopment would be determined in consultation with PG&E prior to installation. The Project is consistent with area planning and by itself would not result in the need for new or expanded off-site facilities. As a result, although the Project could incrementally increase energy consumption, it would not result in a significant impact related to the provision of energy services. 501 Page 40 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Q. Mandatory Findings of Significance Impacts Related To: Prior MND Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to Prior MND Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Quality of the Environment LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ See checklist topics above LTS w/MM b. Cumulatively Considerable Impacts LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ See checklist topics above LTS w/MM c. Adverse Effects on Human Beings LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ See checklist topics above LTS w/MM Discussion Quality of the Environment Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change the impacts, mitigation measures, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusions from the Prior MND and, with mitigation, would not significantly degrade the quality of the environment. Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, while Project implementation could lead to development with the potential to adversely affect the environment in terms of impacts to various CEQA issue topics, as demonstrated in this document, impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not degrade the quality and extent of the environment provided all policies, rules, and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the mitigation measures contained within this document are implemented. Cumulative Impacts Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change the impacts, mitigation measures, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusions from the Prior MND and, with mitigation, would not result in cumulatively considerable significant impacts. As noted in the Prior MND, while the East of 101 Area is substantially built-out, redevelopment of sites with higher-intensity uses occurs throughout the area, as it is on this site, and would be considered the cumulative context. Through conformity with applicable regulations and design-level plans, the potentially significant Project-specific impacts would be reduced below significance levels, which include those related to nesting birds, seismic ground shaking and other geological hazards, erosion and pollutant runoff, hazardous materials, water quality, drainage, noise, and traffic impacts. With the onsite reduction of these impacts, the Project’s contribution to cumulative increases in these areas would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, cumulative impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. 502 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 41 Adverse Effects on Human Beings Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change the impacts, mitigation measures, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusions from the Prior MND and, with mitigation, would not result in adverse effects on human beings. Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, while human beings could be affected by a variety of impacts described above, as demonstrated in this document, impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. Impacts with the potential to adversely affect humans, including those in topics of noise, hazardous materials, air quality, and traffic would be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in adverse effects on human beings provided all policies, rules, and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the mitigation measures contained within this document are implemented. 503 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment A to the 328 Roebling Road Project 1st Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND 504 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 1 328 Roebling Road Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (May 2020) Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Air-1: Basic Construction Best Management Practices. The Project 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”. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- site shall be covered. c. 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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. 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. f. 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. g. 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. h. 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. During construction Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Verify requirements are met during construction SSF Building Division 505 PAGE 2 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California within 100 feet of a development site in the Project area shall be conducted within 30 days of initiation of construction activities. If active nests are found, the Project shall follow recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. If there is a complete stoppage in construction activities for 30 days or more, a new nesting-survey shall be completed prior to re-initiation of construction activities. Prior to construction if during nesting period Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Completion of survey and, if birds present, provision of buffer SSF Planning Division Geo-1a: Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall meet requirements of the California Building Code as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions adopted by the City of South San Francisco. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure. Prior to construction Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Adherence to code, completion of report and issuance of permit SSF Building Division Geo-1b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report and with Structural Design Plans. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in structural design. The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the California Building Code. The Project Geotechnical Investigation shall establish the seismic design parameters, as determined by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with requirements of the California Building Code. Prior to construction Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Adherence to code, completion of report and issuance of permit SSF Building Division 506 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 3 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Geo-1c: Obtain a building permit and complete final plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Prior to construction Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Adherence to code, completion of report and issuance of permit SSF Building Division Geo-2a: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis for liquefaction potential of the underlying sediments. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer, or civil engineer experienced in structural engineering shall prepare Project structural design plans. Structures shall be designed to minimize the effects of anticipated seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the geotechnical elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigation measures may include excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting. Prior to construction Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Completion of adequate report, adherence of plans to the report and issuance of permit SSF Building Division Geo-2b: Obtain a building permit and complete plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned Prior to construction Applicant for the development (Private developer Completion of adequate report, SSF Building Division 507 PAGE 4 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. for private development projects, City for City development projects) adherence of plans to the report and issuance of permit Geo-3: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis of the site slope stability. Proper foundation engineering and retaining wall design shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. Prior to building permit issuance Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Completion of adequate report SSF Building Division Geo-4: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board, the Applicant shall file a SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Prior to construction Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Verification that adequate plan prepared SSF Building Division Geo-5: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be performed to determine the depth and extent of potentially unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based on results of this study, the Geotechnical Engineer shall determine appropriate measures to stabilize the potentially unstable site soils. Consolidation testing of any Bay Mud soils present shall be performed, as part of the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, and estimates of settlement for the site shall be developed. Prior to building permit issuance Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Completion of adequate report SSF Building Division 508 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 5 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include construction of driven pile foundations that support structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay Mud, and other methods as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Geo-6: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for expansion potential of the site soils. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer shall prepare Project structural design plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the effects of expansive surface soils. Mitigations measures may include the following: Excavate expansive soils and replace with at least one foot of non- expansive fill. Design and construct structures to withstand expected stresses by the implementation of the following: minimize use of slab-on-grade floors; support buildings and slabs on non-expansive materials; chemically treat expansive materials to reduce expansion potential; avoid siting structures across soil materials of substantially different expansive properties; extend foundations below the zone of seasonal moisture change; utilize pier-and-grade-beam foundation systems where appropriate; utilize special bending resistant design; and prevent accumulation of surface water adjacent to buildings. Prior to building permit issuance Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Completion of adequate report SSF Building Division Haz-1a: Registration in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Qualifying businesses occupying and/or operating at the development must submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Prior to the start of operations by businesses using hazardous materials Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Verification of adherence to measures SSF Building Division 509 PAGE 6 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. Businesses qualify for the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods; medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, included in material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Haz-1b: Compliance with US Department of Transportation, State of California and local laws, ordinances and procedures for transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. During operations by businesses using hazardous materials Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Adherence to stated laws and regulations SSF Fire Department Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition plan with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition. The Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing structures shall Prior to demolition and soil disturbance Applicant for the development (Private developer for private Preparation of adequate plan SSF Building Division 510 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 7 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed include asbestos dust control and incorporate recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plan shall address both on-site worker protection and off-site resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from BAAQMD, an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. development projects, City for City development projects) Haz-2b: Additional Soil Sampling of Site Soils. The applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, or wood preservatives are present in site soils. These tests shall take place throughout the Project site. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial guidelines including the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels for commercial/ industrial sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals for commercial/ industrial sites, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented, as discussed in Mitigation Measure Haz-2c. Prior to demolition and soil disturbance Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Preparation of adequate plan SSF Building Division Haz-2c: Implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan. If contamination of site soils is detected, then results shall be submitted to the State of California EPA, pursuant to the Brownfield Memorandum of Agreement, Request for Oversight of a Brownfield Prior to demolition and soil disturbance Applicant for the development (Private developer for private Preparation of adequate plan SSF Building Division 511 PAGE 8 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Site process, and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment will be provided in the plan. At a minimum the plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the site. (2) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the Project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. (3) Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during Project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site. (4) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. (5) Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. (6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development if determined necessary through coordination with California EPA. development projects, City for City development projects) 512 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 9 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed (7) The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the Project. Haz-2d: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP). Future businesses at the development shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CalARP registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment in the event that a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff, maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an accidental release. After construction, prior to start of operations by businesses using hazardous materials Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Assurance qualifying businesses prepare RMP SSF Planning Division Hydro-1: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during construction and submit the SWPPP as part of project application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and Building Permit Application. The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: Prior to construction Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Verification that adequate plan prepared SSF Building Division 513 PAGE 10 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed 1) Grading and earthwork shall be allowed with the appropriate SWPPP measures during the wet season (October 1 through April 30) and such work shall be stopped before pending storm events. 2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 3) “Best management practices” (BMPs) for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, trash, etc.) to downstream waters such as covered and contained storage areas, contained wash-out areas, and prompt and appropriate disposal. 4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment and trash, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. In accordance with the handbook C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, permanent mitigation measures for stormwater shall be submitted as part of project application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and Building Permit Application. Elements that shall be addressed in the submittals include the following: 5) Description of potential sources of erosion, sediment, and trash at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources, including non-point source pollutants. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 514 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 11 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed 7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, trash removal, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed as a result of the BMPs described above may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis. 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the State Water Resources Control Board. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies identified through the monitoring. 9) Proposed locations and sizing of stormwater treatment measures shall be included. The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Noise-1: Construction Noise Abatement and Limitation of Construction Hours. Construction hours shall be limited to the hourly restrictions specified in the City Noise Ordinance, and the Project sponsor shall require by contract specification that construction best management practices be implemented by contractors to reduce noise levels to the 90-dBA at 25 feet noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance. Required practices shall include but not be limited to: During construction Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Adherence to measures during construction SSF Building Division 515 PAGE 12 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed • Ensuring that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards, • Implementing noise attenuation measures such as noise barriers or noise blankets, and • Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during construction to be routed away from noise and vibration sensitive uses. Traf-1: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue Signal Timing. Adjust signal timing to the approval of the South San Francisco Public Works Department in order to reduce Base Case + Project 95th percentile vehicle queuing for the left turn movement on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue to a shorter distance than Base Case queuing for this movement. Prior to occupancy Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Coordinate to implement SSF Public Works Department Traf-2: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Turn Lane Extension. The following improvement is not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution for this program. The Project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvement: Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road from 75 feet to a minimum of 125 feet and a maximum of 175 feet (as determined by the City Engineer). Prior to occupancy Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Coordinate to implement SSF Public Works Department Traf-3: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Signalization. The following improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The Project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvement or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this Project: Prior to occupancy Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Payment of fair share contribution or coordinate to implement SSF Public Works Department 516 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 13 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed a) Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. b) Lengthen the single left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the Forbes/Harbor intersection to a minimum of 225 feet and a maximum of 260 feet (as determined by the City Engineer). Prohibit left turns to/from all driveways along E. Grand Avenue between these two locations. If this Project implements the above improvements, the City would determine appropriate fair-share reimbursement from the 213 East Grand Avenue project if/when that project proceeds (as determined by the City Engineer.) Traf-4: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing & Pavement Striping. The Project shall provide a fair share contribution towards all needed signs and pavement markings on the approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection “at grade railroad crossing” to meet minimum State Public Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission. Prior to occupancy Applicant for the development (Private developer for private development projects, City for City development projects) Payment of fair share contribution SSF Public Works Department in coordination with California Public Utilities Commission 517 Updated Cultural Records Searches Attachment B to the 328 Roebling Road Project 1st Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND 518 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 March 12, 2020 Sharon Wright, Environmental Planner Lamphier-Gregory Via Email to: swright@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, 328 Roebling Road Revised Project, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Wright: 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 ofthe 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 Marshall McKay Wintun COMMISSIONER William Mungary Paiute/White Mountain Apache COMMISSIONER Joseph Myers Pomo COMMISSIONER Julie Tumamait-Stenslie Chumash 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 519 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: Sarah.Fonseca@nahc.ac.gov. Sincerely, Sarah Fonseca Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment 520 April 7, 2020 NWIC File No.: 19-1586 Sharon Wright Lamphier-Gregory 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606 Re: Record search results for the proposed 328 Roebling Project Dear Ms. Sharon Wright: Per your request received by our office on March 10, 2020, a 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. Review of this information indicates that there have been no cultural resource studies that cover the 328 Roebling project area. This 328 Roebling 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, lists no recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed 328 Roebling project area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed 328 Roebling 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 language family (Levy 1978: 485). There are no Native American resources in or adjacent to the proposed 328 Roebling project area referenced in the ethnographic literature (Nelson 1909, Bocek 1991). 521 2 19-1586 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 San Francisco Bay, inland near the base of hills, and near freshwater courses. The 328 Roebling project area is located south of San Bruno Mountain at the southern base of hills located just West of San Bruno Point. The project area contains lands near the edge of former marshland just north of San Bruno Canal. Given the similarity of these environmental factors, there is a moderate potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed 328 Roebling project area. Review of historical literature and maps gave no indication of the possibility of historic-period activity within the 328 Roebling project area. Historic San Mateo County maps indicated the project area was located within the lands of South San Francisco Land & Improvements Co.,but did not indicate any buildings or structures within those lands (Bromfield 1894). With this in mind, there is a low potential for unrecorded historic- period archaeological resources to be within the proposed 328 Roebling project area. The 1947 San Francisco South USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle depicts one or more buildings or structures within the 328 Roebling project area. If present, these unrecorded buildings or structures meet the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) There is a moderate potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a low potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in the project area. Given the potential for archaeological resources in the proposed 328 Roebling project area, our usual recommendation would include archival research and a field examination. The proposed project area, however, has been highly developed and is presently covered with asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the visibility of original surface soils, which negates the feasibility of an adequate surface inspection. Therefore, prior to demolition or other ground disturbance, we recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to identify archaeological resources, including a good faith effort to identify archaeological deposits that may show no indications on the surface. Field study may include, but is not limited to, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of buried archaeological resources. Please refer 522 3 19-1586 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 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 523 4 19-1586 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 524 5 19-1586 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: Bromfield, Davenport 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California General Land Office 1854, 1866, 1868 Survey Plat for Township 3 South/Range 5 West. 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. 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. 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) 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. 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 Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. State of California Office of Historic Preservation ** 2019 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through December 17, 2019). 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. 525 Climate Action Plan Preliminary Compliance Checklist Attachment C to the 328 Roebling Road Project 1st Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND 526 Billy Gross/City of South San Francisco 3/25/2020 To Date Joseph Marshall 19419 From Flad Project Number Climate Action Plan Items Response 328 Roebling Subject Project Name 1 of 4 Copies Page C:\Users\jmarshall\Desktop\Healthpeak\19419-00\adm\pm\Planning\2020_03_25_CAP Response.docx The following matrix is built from an email from Billy Gross/SSF to Joseph Marshall dated of items that the City will incorporate into in the subsequent Conditions of Approval. These are our responses to those items in the first section of the following table. The second portion of the table deals with the project team’s responses to the questions asked of new commercial construction above 5000 sf in Appendix E of the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan adopted 2/13/2014. For Commercial Projects: Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the developer shall revise the development plans to include the following Climate Action Plan requirements, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee: A) Electric Vehicle Charging Installations Measure 2.1, Action 5: Require new large-scale nonresidential developments to provide conduit for future electric vehicle charging installations, and encourage the installation of conduits or electric vehicle charging stations for all new development. The project includes 23 (6%) parking spaces for eV stations in the parking structure. B) Heat Island Reductions Measure 3.4, Action 1: Encourage the use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the voluntary CALGreen standards. The project will utilize high-albedo roofing with a Solar Reflectance Index rating of 78 minimum. C) Alternative Energy Facilities Measure 4.1, Action 2: Require the construction of any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more, to comply with one of the following standards: i) Meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity needs with on-site renewable energy sources. To calculate 50% of building electricity needs for the new conditioned space, the applicant shall calculate building electricity use as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Total electricity use shall include total use for the new conditioned space excluding process energy. Please see item ii) below. ii) Participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity use. The project will comply with this measure through a power purchase agreement. 527 Billy Gross/City of South San Francisco 3/25/2020 To Date Joseph Marshall 19419 From Flad Project Number Climate Action Plan Items Response 328 Roebling Subject Project Name 2 of 4 Copies Page C:\Users\jmarshall\Desktop\Healthpeak\19419-00\adm\pm\Planning\2020_03_25_CAP Response.docx Building electricity use shall be calculated using the method identified above. iii) Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency requirements by 20% or more. For additions to existing development of 5,000 square feet or more, CALGreen Tier 2 shall be calculated as part of the Title 24 compliance. Existing building space already permitted shall not be subject to CALGreen Tier 2 requirements. Please see item ii) above. d) Solar Wiring Installation Measure 4.1, Action 3: Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar. The project will have conduit for a future solar array in the parking structure. e) Water Demand Reduction Measure 6.1, Action 2: Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following: i) Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features. The project does not have any water features on site. ii) Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise. Irrigation controllers are part of project and will restrict use as required. iii) Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors. The project includes irrigation controllers with rain sensors. iv) Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants. Drought tolerant planting is used in the project. v) Installing drip irrigation systems. The project includes drip irrigation. vi) Reducing impervious surfaces. Project pervious site area includes 25,000sf of planted area and 14,300sf of specialty site finishes which is approximately 30% of project site. From Appendix E: SSF Climate Action Plan adopted 2/13/2014 Does the project include bicycle facilities Bicycle parking will be included in the parking structure. 528 Billy Gross/City of South San Francisco 3/25/2020 To Date Joseph Marshall 19419 From Flad Project Number Climate Action Plan Items Response 328 Roebling Subject Project Name 3 of 4 Copies Page C:\Users\jmarshall\Desktop\Healthpeak\19419-00\adm\pm\Planning\2020_03_25_CAP Response.docx Will the project support bike sharing/rental programs The project is not supporting bikeshare programs currently. Will there be a commute shuttle or public transit stop on-site or within 500 feet? There is a transit bus stop (Stop ID 3643643) at 230 E. Grand, approx.. 300 feet from the southeast corner of our site. Is the project within ¼ mile of a Caltrain or Bart stop Yes, the site is within ¼ mile of the CalTrain platform at 590 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA 94080. Will the project include high-density housing and a diverse range of housing The project has no housing. Will the project provide traffic calming treatments Roebling Road is a dead-end street and will not have significant traffic. Is the project paying a traffic impact fee to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements? The project is paying traffic impact fees. Will the project provide shared or reduced parking? Parking will meet city zoning requirements for quantity. Will the project provide designated parking spaces for electric vehicles, carpool vehicles, or other low emission vehicles The project includes designated spaces for electric vehicles. Will the project have any ground level commercial space No commercial ground level space is planned for the core & shell building, but a future tenant may elect to provide something that is accessible by the public. Does the project include any alternative fuel stations The project includes eV charging stations. Will the project have any pre-wiring or conduit construction to easily add electric vehicle charging stations or alternative energy facilities at a later date? Project will include electric vehicle charging stations in the parking structure. If this project is replacing an existing building, is the building being replaced more than 30 years old? Yes, we are replacing a structure on site beyond that age threshold. Will certification of the building be sought under LEED or any other green building criteria? The project is seeking LEED Silver. Will the project include any high-reflectivity roof or surface paving? The project will include high albedo roofing. Will there be a net increase in the number of mature trees on-site when the project is completed? The project will include a net add of mature trees. 529 Billy Gross/City of South San Francisco 3/25/2020 To Date Joseph Marshall 19419 From Flad Project Number Climate Action Plan Items Response 328 Roebling Subject Project Name 4 of 4 Copies Page C:\Users\jmarshall\Desktop\Healthpeak\19419-00\adm\pm\Planning\2020_03_25_CAP Response.docx Will any renewable energy system be installed as part of this project? No, but we will participate in a renewable energy purchase plan. Is the project a new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 sf or more? Yes. Will this project use renewable energy generated off-site? Yes. Will there be compost collection on-site? Yes. Will any water fixtures exceed CALGreen standards? The project will comply with CALGreen standards. Will the project incorporate low-impact development (LID) practices? Yes, the project is using stormwater management practices from LID guidelines. Will any xeriscaping be installed? Yes. Will captured rainwater or greywater be used for irrigation? No. END. 530 Fehr & Peers Traffic Operations and Vehicle Miles Assessments Attachment D to the 328 Roebling Road Project 1st Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND 531 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: April 8, 2020 To: Rebecca Auld, Lamphier-Gregory From: Mike Hawkins, PE, Fehr & Peers Subject: 328 Roebling Road Transportation Assessment Comparison SF19-1030 This memorandum presents the results of the transportation assessment comparison for the proposed development at 328 Roebling Road (the “Project”). The Project was previously studied and environmentally cleared in 2009 and 2012; the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was originally circulated in February 2009, was revised and recirculated in July 2009, and was revised and recirculated again in February 2012, ultimately adopted in 2012. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was prepared by Crane Transportation Group in October 2011 to identify potential significant impacts of the Project on the transportation system as input to the 2012 recirculated IS/MND. The TIS is included as an attachment to this memo. The currently proposed Project is slightly larger than the Project in 2012. Fehr & Peers reviewed the previously prepared TIS, prepared trip generation estimates for the current Project, compared the results to the trip generation estimates in the TIS, and used the results to assess whether new or more severe transportation impacts are likely. Fehr & Peers also prepared a vehicle mile traveled (VMT) assessment. Project Characteristics The Project site spans approximately three acres and is located at 328 Roebling Road, near East Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. The Project site includes several vacant industrial/warehouse buildings scheduled for removal. Vehicular access to the site would be provided via Roebling Road and East Grand Avenue. The Project site is located slightly more than one-half mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station within the East of 101 Area. The IS/MND TIS prepared in 2011 analyzed a Project that included two buildings with a total of 105,536 square feet of office and research and development (R&D) above several stories of 532 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 2 of 12 underground parking. The Project description has been revised to include one building with up to 129,919 square feet of Office/R&D and a separate parking structure on the site. Trip Generation Comparison Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a project might add to the roadway network. Estimates for the peak one-hour periods during the weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) commute periods, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at their highest, are analyzed to represent the worst-case scenario. The IS/MND TIS used a blended trip generation rate based on values published in Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers - ITE, 2008) and rates published in a Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area (TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011) to estimate trip generation for the Project, based on the combined office/R&D rates. ITE contains data based on research conducted at sites throughout the United States over the past several decades for various land use types while the TJKM study included local roadway data collected in the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco. The IS/MND TIS, for purposes of trip generation, assumed that all 105,536 square feet of the Project would be used as Office/R&D space. The TIS also included a 20 percent reduction in peak hour trips to account for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and a reduction to account for existing (2011) activity on the site. Table 1 summarizes the Project trip generation as presented in the TIS. As shown in Table 1, the TIS assumed that the Project would generate 32 additional AM trips (+36 inbound, -4 outbound) and 47 additional PM trips (+8 inbound, +39 outbound) after subtracting the existing site trips at the time. 533 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 3 of 12 Table 1: IS/MND Trip Generation Land Use Size (KSF)1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Office/R&D2 105.5 63 14 76 10 53 63 TDM Reduction3 13 3 15 2 11 13 Total Project Trips 50 11 61 8 42 50 Existing Site Trips4 14 15 29 0 3 3 Net New Project Trips 36 -4 32 8 39 47 Notes: 1. KSF = thousand square feet 2. A combined Office/R&D rate, based on Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition (2008) rates for land use 710 and 760, and TJKM East of 101 Study (2011) 3. 20% reduction to peak hour vehicle trips based on City mandated TDM program 4. Based on driveway counts at the existing site in 2011 Source: Crane Transportation Group, 2011; Fehr & Peers, 2020 The City of South San Francisco has updated their TDM requirements for the East of 101 Area with a more aggressive 35 percent reduction in vehicle trips through TDM measures, as required in the City’s Municipal Code1. This more robust TDM requirement is also written into the Project’s Development Agreement (DA). Table 2 summarizes the Project trip generation for the revised Project description, using trip rates and methodologies consistent with those used in the 2011 TIS for office/R&D uses and updated TDM requirements. As shown in Table 2, with an additional 24,383 square feet of Office/R&D space but also higher TDM requirement (35% reduction requirement compared to the previous 20% reduction requirement), the revised Project would be expected to generate the same amount of trips as the IS/MND Project. However, the IS/MND TIS subtracted the trips from existing uses at the time, now referred to as Baseline Site Trips. While the site could return to that level of use in the existing buildings with no approvals required, the site has been transitioning to vacant as the owners prepare to demolish the old buildings and it is assumed there are currently no trips to/from the site. Therefore, to more conservatively assess the increase in trips added to the transportation network, this analysis has 1 As stated in the FAR of 1.0 in the Business and Technology Park district, Section 20.400.003, 35 percent reduction in peak hour vehicle trips is the minimum requirement. 534 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 4 of 12 compared the IS/MND Project Trips with the Baseline Site Trips subtracted to the Current Project Trips with no Baseline Trips subtracted. This results in 29 additional AM and 3 additional PM peak hour vehicle trips compared to the trip estimates analyzed in the IS/MND when accounting for updated TDM rates and zero existing site trips. Table 2: Updated Trip Generation Estimates and Comparison to the IS/MND Land Use Size (KSF)1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Office/R&D2 129.9 77 17 94 12 65 77 TDM Reduction3 27 6 33 4 23 27 Total Trips 50 11 61 8 42 50 IS/MND Project Trips4 50 11 61 8 42 50 Net Difference in Project Trips5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baseline Site Trips4, 6 14 15 29 0 3 3 Net Difference in Trips Added to the Network +14 +15 +29 0 +3 +3 Notes: 1. KSF = thousand square feet 2. A combined Office/R&D rate, based on Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition (2008) rates for land use 710 and 760, and TJKM East of 101 Study (2011), consistent with rates used in the 2011 TIS 3. 35% reduction in peak hour vehicle trips based on updated City mandated TDM program and Development Agreement 4. See also Table 1 for a breakdown of IS/MND Project Trips. 5. Current estimates minus IS/MND Project Trip estimates 6. Baseline Site Trips are the trips from existing uses that were counted in 2011 and reported in the IS/MND. Because the site has been transitioning to vacant since the previous analysis and approval, it is assumed for this traffic assessment that there are currently no existing trips at the site and therefore, the net difference in trips added to the transportation network adds back in the previous Baseline Site Trips. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 Impact Determination The IS/MND TIS studied ten intersections surrounding the Project site. As previously mentioned, the original IS/MND was completed and published in 2012; intersection turning movement counts used in the transportation analysis were taken in March or June 2008. Additional intersection counts were collected in 2019 at the ten study intersections. The results of 2019 counts were compared to 535 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 5 of 12 the 2008 counts to assess whether the traffic volumes have changed considerably which could result in new significant impacts. The change in peak hour volumes at study intersections varies between -4 percent to +19 percent when comparing 2008 volumes to 2019 volumes, with the majority of study intersections seeing approximately a ten percent change in volumes or less, generally considered to be within the range of daily fluctuation in traffic. The overall change in volumes for all study intersections is +9 percent and +11 percent during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Considering that the revised project is expected to generate a similar level of vehicle trips, and the overall intersection volumes have not substantially changed since the time of the TIS, similar impacts and mitigation measures can be expected. The IS/MND TIS identified 24 potential impacts to site circulation, study intersections, queueing, and freeway ramps and mainline operation. Impacts were analyzed under Existing (2011), Baseline (2015), and Future Cumulative (2035) scenarios. Of the 24 potential Project impacts, six were identified as significant. Mitigation measures for all six significant impacts were identified and were sufficient to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels. The significant impacts identified by the TIS are summarized in Table 4. Mitigation measures related to physical changes to the transportation network (Impacts 5, 13, 19) are still expected to be relevant and necessary in order to mitigate to less-than-significant levels and the project should still be responsible to contribute their fair share towards the improvements. Mitigation measures related to vehicle queuing (Impacts 8, 14, 20) are still expected to be relevant and necessary to mitigate to less-than-significant levels and the project should still be responsible for adjusting the signal timing and lengthening turn pockets as identified in the TIS. All mitigation measures listed in Table 4 are likely to still be required by the revised Project and are likely still adequate to mitigate impacts to less-than-significant levels after implementation. 536 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 6 of 12 Table 4: 2011 IS/MND TIS Impact Determination Impact # Impact Description Impact Determination Mitigation Measure TIS Impact Determination after Mitigation Still Relevant and Adequate to Mitigate Revised Project Impact 5 Grade Crossing Approaches Missing Signing and Pavement Striping Significant Contribution towards signing and striping Less than Significant Yes Impact 8 Existing + Project 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing Significant Adjust signal timing at Airport/Grand; Extend turn lane at Grand/Roebling LTS Yes Impact 13 2015 Intersection Signalization Needs Significant Contribution towards signalizing Grand/Roebling; Extend turn lanes at Grand/Roebling and Grand/Forbes/Harb or LTS Yes Impact 14 2015 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing Significant Adjust signal timing at Airport/Grand; Extend turn lanes at Grand/Roebling LTS Yes Impact 19 2035 Intersection Signalization Needs Significant Contribution towards signalizing Grand/Roebling; Extend turn lanes at Grand/Roebling and Grand/Forbes/Harb or LTS Yes Impact 20 2035 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing Significant Adjust signal timing at Airport/Grand; Extend turn lanes at Grand/Roebling LTS Yes Source: Crane Transportation Group, 2011; Fehr & Peers, 2020 VMT Assessment California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requires California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) assessment of a project’s impact on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in relation to state greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction planning goals, multimodal transportation, and land use diversity. Additionally, the 537 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 7 of 12 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a technical advisory memorandum in December 2018 that includes general guidance and information for lead agencies to use in implementing SB 743. Lead agencies have until July 1, 2020 to be fully compliant with SB 743. South San Francisco is currently working to establish citywide VMT threshold(s) as part of the ongoing General Plan update. Since VMT does not need to be included as part of the impact analysis until July 2020 and because the City is yet to establish a threshold of significance, this VMT assessment for the 328 Roebling project is provided for informational purposes only. Fehr & Peers has developed the following approach to assess VMT for the project prior to the City’s planned adoption of a general VMT impact threshold: 1. Determine if the project could potentially be screened from detailed VMT analysis based on relevant criteria identified in the OPR Technical Advisory. 2. Identify the existing average work-based VMT per employee in the nine-county Bay Area region using baseline year (2015) model runs of the C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Regional Travel Demand Model (C/CAG Model). 3. Establish an interim work-based VMT per employee threshold of 16.8 percent less than the existing work-based VMT per employee average for the nine-county Bay Area, based on the C/CAG model. 4. Assess the project’s likely average VMT per employee using data from the C/CAG model for average work-based VMT per employee of existing development in the East of 101 area. 5. Assess the project’s total effect on VMT compared to existing baseline conditions, by assessing the total daily work-based VMT associated with the increase in employment, as compared to similar employment uses with average levels of VMT generation in the Bay Area. 6. Compare the project’s total effect on VMT and rate of home-based VMT per employee to the VMT threshold established in Step 2 of this process. This approach would not involve developing a forecast for project VMT or the project’s effect on VMT, but rather uses available VMT per employee data for existing employment uses in the East of 101 area as a proxy for the project. The rationale behind the assumptions embedded in this preliminary conceptual approach is provided below. Screening Approach The OPR Technical Guidance (2018) lists two screening approaches: 538 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 8 of 12 Proximity to Transit: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (1), states that “generally, projects within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop2 or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor3 should be presumed to cause less-than-significant transportation impact.” OPR (2018) advises that the less than significant presumption would not apply, however, if project- specific or location-specific information indicates the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. While the project site is located approximately ½ mile from the existing South San Francisco Caltrain station as the crow flies, the walking distance to or from the existing Caltrain station is closer to 0.7 to 1.0 miles. There are plans to relocate the Caltrain station approximately 650 feet to the south and the walking distance between the project site and the future station is 0.9 to 1.1 miles, slightly longer than to or from the existing Caltrain station. Because of the number of barriers separating pedestrians and cyclists from the Caltrain Station and the East of 101 area, the project is not fully within the ½ mile radius identified in the OPR advisory. While lead agencies may have some leeway in defining how distance to transit is measured, the intent of this screening is to allow access to transit on-foot within a 7- to 10-minute walk. As such, the project should not be presumed to meet the proximity to transit screening criteria. Location in an area of lower VMT: The OPR guidance also lists a map-based screening approach articulating that residential and office projects located in areas with low VMT and that incorporate similar features will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. This project site is not located in an area with low VMT as defined by OPR, and therefore the project should not be presumed to meet the area of lower VMT screening criteria. VMT Metrics OPR recommends office project VMT should be compared to a total work-based VMT/employee threshold. This metric helps compare the project’s relative transportation efficiency to the regional average (i.e., all else being equal, does creating new employment in this area result in more or less VMT per employee than creating it in other areas?). Based on the available data from regional 2 A “major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. 3 A “high-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. 539 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 9 of 12 models, Fehr & Peers recommends using home-based work VMT (HBW VMT)4 per employee as the metric for this project’s VMT assessment. VMT Accounting OPR recommends the use of tour-based VMT accounting for residential and office projects and assessing the effect of a project on VMT for retail and transportation projects. However, this method would require the City to conduct a new model run using the MTC model, which is the sole tour- based travel demand model available for South San Francisco. The MTC model lacks the level of local detail for the roadway network and local land use present in the C/CAG model; therefore, we recommend using work-based VMT per employee multiplied by the expected number of employees at the project site to reach an estimate of total HBW VMT. The project’s land use program is similar to existing land uses in the East of 101 area, which allows for the use of existing per capita VMT data to reasonably assess project VMT. VMT Impact Threshold Since the City has not yet established a VMT impact threshold, Fehr & Peers recommends using the most recent research conducted by California Air and Resources Board (CARB) to set an interim threshold for this informational assessment. CARB’s assessment of progress toward state goals concluded that the statewide VMT reduction needed to meet long term GHG reduction targets is 16.8 percent below the regional baseline of total light duty vehicle VMT. Therefore, the threshold of 16.8 percent below the regional average is used and expressed as average work-based VMT per employee across the nine-county Bay Area. The regional average HBW VMT per employee across the nine-county Bay Area is 14.2. VMT Assessment The VMT assessment for this project is relatively straightforward, as the project has substantially similar land use characteristics and context to existing development in the East of 101 plan area. Table 5 shows the average HBW VMT per employee based on the C/CAG model in the 2015 base year. As shown, the East of 101 area has an estimated HBW VMT per employee that is 13 percent 4 Home-based work VMT (HBW VMT) only accounts for commute trips and does not capture work-based other trips that may occur throughout the day (e.g., driving to lunch or to meetings during the middle of the day) due to differences in trip-based and tour-based models, as discussed in more detail under VMT Accounting Methodology. HBW VMT per employee is an appropriate metric to use since it is normalized and compared to similar baseline values. 540 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 10 of 12 higher than the regional average. This is an increase over the regional baseline and does not meet the 16.8 percent below the regional average threshold discussed above. The City of South San Francisco administers requirements for transportation demand management (TDM) programs through an ordinance. Based on the C/CAG model data summarized in Table 5, the model already accounts for a non-drive alone mode share for trips generated in the East of 101 area, which is comparable to the requirements of the TDM ordinance. Because the model already accounts for this non-drive alone mode share, model outputs were not further adjusted to account for TDM. If the project applicant were to strive to reduce VMT to be in line with state goals, the project could consider implementing additional measures to help reduce VMT. Such measures should focus on improving alternative mode share access to key destinations, such as contributing towards physical improvements to connect pedestrian and bicycle access to the Caltrain station. Table 5: Home-Based Work VMT per Employee, by Location (2015 Estimates) Location Total HBW VMT Total Employment HBW VMT per Employee Bay Area Region 60,995,000 4,285,000 14.2 East of 101 Area 572,200 35,800 16.0 Percent Difference +13% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020; C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Transportation Demand Model, 2019. Note that there would be no difference in the above numbers between the IS/MND Project and the current Project because it is based on project location and type and not the specific amount of square footage or design. While the use of a travel demand model would most accurately assess the project’s effect on regional VMT, an estimate of the project’s effect on VMT (relative to employment growth in an “average” location) is shown in Table 6. The proposed project would result in approximately 236 new employees5 at the project site, which is within the East of 101 area. These 236 new employees are expected to generate a total weekday daily HBW VMT of 3,780 and a net increase of 430 compared to if those employees were added in a theoretical Bay Area “average” location. Total 5 The estimated number of employees follows the same methodology as provided in IS/MND; it assumes 100 percent of the proposed square footage would be Office/R&D space and the average square footage per Office/R&D employee would be 550. 541 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 11 of 12 project HBW VMT represents an increase of less than one percent for the East of 101 area (3,780/572,200). Table 6: Home-Based Work VMT per Employee, by Location (2015 Estimates) Location Average HBW VMT per Employee HBW VMT for 236 Net New Employees Bay Area Region 14.2 3,350 East of 101 Area 16.0 3,780 Difference / Project’s Effect on Regional HBW VMT + 430 average weekday HBW VMT Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020; C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Transportation Demand Model, 2019. Note that because this is based on the number of employees, the above numbers would be different for the IS/MND Project, but still based on the same HBW VMT per employee rates. Conclusions The TIS prepared in 2011 identified several potentially significant impacts to the transportation network. However, all the significant impacts were reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, as summarized in Table 4. The revised Project includes approximately 24,000 square feet more than was originally approved and environmentally cleared. Factoring in the increased square footage but also more aggressive TDM requirement, the revised project would generate the same number of AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips that were analyzed and environmentally cleared in the 2011 TIS and 2012 recirculated IS/MND. However, because there are currently no existing uses at the site (zero trips), whereas the previous analysis was able to net out Baseline Site Trips, the current project is expected to add to the transportation network 29 more AM peak hour vehicle trips and 3 more PM peak hour vehicle trips when compared to the previous analysis. Recent intersection counts at several study locations show that vehicle volumes have increased slightly during the AM and PM peak hours but may be within the realm of daily fluctuation of traffic. Since the revised project is expected to generate a similar level of vehicle trips, and the overall intersection volumes have not substantially changed since the time of the IS/MND TIS, similar impacts and mitigation measures can be expected. 542 Lamphier-Gregory April 8, 2020 Page 12 of 12 Of the 24 potential impacts identified in the TIS, six were found to be significant and required mitigation. The freeway ramp and mainline analysis is unlikely to substantially change due to the relatively small amount of project trips compared to the large freeway volumes. The site circulation analysis is also unlikely to substantially change due to the limited changes to site access for the revised project. No additional site hazards were identified for the current site plan, when compared to the IS/MND site plan. Intersection signalization is also unlikely to change with the revisions to the project. All mitigation measures identified in the TIS are likely to still be necessary and required by the revised project. The revised project is expected to generate VMT at similar levels to other land uses in the East of 101 area, which is approximately 13 percent higher than the Bay Area regional average, which is above the 16.8 percent below the regional average threshold. The revised project is expected to generate a total weekday daily HBW VMT of 3,780 and project VMT represents an increase of less than one percent within the East of 101 area. The project applicant may consider implementing additional measures to help reduce VMT such as contributing towards physical improvements to connect pedestrian and bicycle access to the Caltrain station. 543 Sewer Demand Estimates Attachment E to the 328 Roebling Road Project 1st Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND 544 Job No.: 796-018 Author: SAW Subject: Sewer Demand Assumptions Sheet 1 of 2 Date: 4/1/2020 ASSUMPTIONS BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE ESTIMATES 2020 Proposed Development (1.0 FAR) Land Use No. Unit Bldg A Office/R&D 129,919 GSF Amenity NA GSF Parking Structure 0 GSF 2012 Approved Entitlements (0.8123 FAR) Land Use No. Unit Bldg A Office/R&D 52,769 GSF Amenity NA GSF Bldg B Office/R&D 52,769 GSF Amenity NA GSF Phase Phase References: 1. "East of Highway 101 Sewer System master Plan Update" by the City of South San Francisco, dated January 2012. 2. "Water Supply Assessment of the Genentrech Research and Development Overlay District" by EIP Associates, dated August 2006. 545 Job No.: 796-018 Author: SAW Subject: Sewer Demand Assumptions Sheet 2 of 2 Date: 4/1/2020 WATER USAGE RATES - cross checked water usage rates against EIR and Genentech study - sewer rate given as 90% of water usage rate Water Sewer Office 59*53 gpd/1000 sf (ref. 1) R&D (ORD)223*201 gpd/1000 sf (ref. 1) 50% Office/ 50% R&D** - 127 gpd/1000 sf 30% Office/ 70% R&D*** - 157 gpd/1000 sf gpd= gallons per day *water usage rate provided by ROMA Design Group, 2009 **buildings proposed in 2020 with combination of office and R&D space use sewer rate consisting of 50% office and 50% R&D ***buildngs entitled in 2012 with combination of office and R&D space use sewer rate consisting of 30% office and 70% R&D 546 Job No.: 796-018Author: SAWSubject: Sewer Demand EstimateSheet 1 of 1Date: 4/1/2020255 E. GRAND AVE & 328 ROEBLING DEVELOPMENT - SANITARY SEWER DEMAND ESTIMATE2020 Proposed Development (1.0 FAR)Building Land Use Unit Type # Units Flow rate Unit Avg. Flow Unit Bldg AOffice/R&Dgross sf 129,919127gpd/1000 sf16,500gpd Amenitygross sf NANAgpd/1000 sf0gpd Parking Structuregross sf 00gpd/1000 sf0gpd Σ=16,500 gpd AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (ADF)16,500gpd 0.01650mgd2012 Entitled Development (0.8123 FAR)Building Land UseUnit Type # UnitsFlow rate UnitAvg. FlowBldg AOffice/R&Dgross sf 52,769157gpd/1000 sf8,285Amenitygross sf NANAgpd/1000 sf0Bldg BOffice/R&Dgross sf 52,769157gpd/1000 sf8,285Amenitygross sf NANAgpd/1000 sf0Σ=16,570 gpd AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (ADF)16,570gpd 0.01657mgdTherefore, the 2020 proposed development's ADF is 70 gpd less than 2012 entitled development's ADF.547 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-317 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1b. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council take the following actions:(1)introduce an ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (DAA20-0001)between Bayside Area Development LLC and the City,and (2)adopt a resolution approving a Design Review Modification (DR20-0016)for the development of 233 East Grand Avenue /328-340 Roebling Road in the Business and Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District, subject to the Draft Conditions of Approval. WHEREAS,in 2012 the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted (1)Resolution No.94-2012 certifying the 2012 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“2012 Recirculated IS/MND”)(State Clearinghouse No.2009022013),(2)Resolution No.93-2012 approving a use permit,parcel map,master sign permit,preliminary transportation demand management (TDM)plan,and design review,and (3)Ordinance No. 1460-2012 approving a development agreement with Bayside Area Development,LLC,for the construction of two new 2-story office/R&D buildings totaling 105,536 square feet,with a combination of at-grade and subterranean parking at a ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet (“Entitled Project”)on an approximately 2.97 -acre site located at 233 East Grand Avenue /328-340 Roebling Road (“Project Site”)in the City of South San Francisco; and WHEREAS,Bayside Area Development LLC (“Owner”or “Applicant”)submitted an application requesting approval of a Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment to increase the entitled square footage to 129,919 square feet of office/R&D space,increasing the density of development on the site from a Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”)of 0.81 to a 1.0 FAR,and revise the site plan to have a five-story stand-along office/R&D building with a three-story parking structure (“Revised Project”); and WHEREAS,approval of the Applicant’s Revised Project is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,§§21000,et seq.,“CEQA”)and CEQA Guidelines,which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Revised Project; and WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164,an addendum to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was prepared for the Revised Project (“2020 Addendum”)which evaluates whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and WHEREAS,the 2020 Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162,the implementation of the Revised Project will not cause significant impacts,that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2012 Recirculated IS/MND,that no substantial changes in the project nor circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous MND have occurred,and that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts nor shows new,different or more feasible mitigation measures; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on June 4,2020,at which timeCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™548 File #:20-317 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1b. WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on June 4,2020,at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to consider the Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Revised Project. NOW THEREFORE,based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.(“CEQA)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan,and General Plan Environmental Impact Report;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;2012 Recirculated IS/MND,and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs;2020 Addendum to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND;the Revised Project applications;the 233 East Grand Ave /328-340 Roebling Ave Project Plans,as prepared by Flad Architects,dated March 23,2020;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 4,2020 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the Draft City Council Ordinance regarding the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (Exhibit A),Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit B)and the 233 East Grand /328-340 Roebling Revised Project Plans (Exhibit C)are each incorporated by reference as if they were each set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. B. Design Review 1.The Revised Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Business Technology Park (BTP)Zoning District because the Project has been designed as a high quality,energy efficient,contemporary,office/life science campus which will provide open spaces and a pedestrian-friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated. 2.The Revised Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed research and development building and campus are consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan by encouraging the development of high technology campuses in the East of 101 Area.Further,the land uses,development standards,densities and intensities,buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals,policies,and land use designations in the General Plan. Specifically,the project site is designated Business and Technology Park.This designation accommodates R&D uses,subject to certain development and FAR restrictions.The proposed Revised Project complies with City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™549 File #:20-317 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1b. uses,subject to certain development and FAR restrictions.The proposed Revised Project complies with development restrictions and proposes a FAR or 1.0,which conforms to the maximum allowable FAR in the Business and Technology Park General Plan designation,with an acceptable TDM plan and meeting high design standards. 3.The Revised Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with projects in the East of 101 Area and remains a campus-style development that provides on-site amenities and is consistent with the Business and Technology Park District Development Standards and Supplemental Regulations included in Section 20.110.003 and 20.110.004. 4.The Revised Project is consistent with the Use Permit as approved as part of the Entitled Project,which granted a parking reduction to a ratio of 2.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet,based on the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Plan on an on-going basis over the life of the Project with a required alternative mode shift of 35%.The Revised Project would continue to be subject to the reduced parking ratio and the TDM implementation requirement. 5.The Revised Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”)because the project has been evaluated against,and found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. C.Development Agreement Findings 1.The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives,policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan because the proposed project is an Office/R&D facility that meets the Business and Technology Park general plan land use provisions and programs; 2.The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located because the project provides an office/ R&D facility with a campus-style environment; 3.The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice because the amendment enhances the site plan and further improves the pedestrian environment from the public right-of-way; 4.The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare because the amendment preserves a campus-like environment and creates a rails-to- trails connection for employees and visitors; 5.The proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property valued because the amendment improves the property’s campus-like environment and is consistent with surrounding R&D and office uses. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that subject to the Conditions of Approval,attached as Exhibit B to this resolution,the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and recommends that the City Council take the following actions:(1) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™550 File #:20-317 Agenda Date:6/4/2020 Version:1 Item #:1b. findings contained in this Resolution and recommends that the City Council take the following actions:(1) adopt an ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (DAA20-0001)attached as Exhibit A, and (2) adopt a resolution approving a Design Review Modification (DR20-0016) for the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/14/2022Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™551 ..Title Ordinance adopting a First Amendment to the Development Agreement (DAA20-0001) between the City of South San Francisco and Bayside Area Development, LLC for a Research and Development and Office Project at 328 Roebling Road. ..body WHEREAS, Bayside Area Development, LLC (“Owner” or “Applicant”) received entitlements for the construction of two new 2-story office/R&D buildings totaling 105,536 square feet, with a combination of at-grade and subterranean parking at a ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet on an approximately 2.97-acre site located at 233 East Grand Avenue / 328-340 Roebling Road (“Project”); and, WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012, after conducting all proceedings and making all findings necessary for the valid adoption and execution of a development agreement for the Property in accordance with Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1460-2012, approving and adopting a development agreement for the property at 233 East Grand Avenue / 328-340 Roebling Road (“Property”); and, WHEREAS, Applicant submitted an application requesting approval of a Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment to increase the entitled square footage to 129,919 square feet of office/R&D space, increasing the density of development on the site from a Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 0.81 to a 1.0 FAR, and revise the site plan to have a five-story stand-along office/R&D building with a three-story parking structure (“Revised Project”); and WHEREAS, the City Council certified the 2012 Recirculated Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (“2012 Recirculated IS/MND”) on November 14, 2012 in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, an addendum to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was prepared for the Revised Project (“2020 Addendum”) which evaluates whether preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and WHEREAS, the 2020 Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162, the implementation of the Revised Project will not cause significant impacts, that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2012 Recirculated IS/MND, that no substantial changes in the project nor circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous MND have occurred, and that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts nor shows new, different or more feasible mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, on June 4, 2020 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held 552 a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, and recommended that the City Council consider the First Amendment to the Development Agreement; and; WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on _______, 2020 to consider the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, and take public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, General Plan Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; 2012 Recirculated IS/MND, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; 2020 Addendum to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND; the Revised Project applications; the 233 East Grand Ave / 328-340 Roebling Ave Project Plans, as prepared by Flad Architects, dated March 23, 2020; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 4, 2020 meeting; all site plans, reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed public hearing on _______, 2020; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. B. The Exhibit attached to this Ordinance, the proposed First Amendment to the Development Agreement (Exhibit A), is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Ordinance, as if set forth fully herein. C. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra. D. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, sets for the duration, property, project criteria, and other required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2. Based on the findings in support of the Project, the City Council finds that the Development Agreement, vesting a project for a campus-style development of office and R&D buildings, is consistent with the consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and any applicable zoning regulations. 553 E. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located because the project provides an office/R&D facility with a campus-style environment. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The General Plan specifically contemplates the proposed type of project and the suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the Project; F. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice because the amendment enhances the site plan and further improves the pedestrian environment from the public right-of- way. G. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare because the amendment preserves a campus-like environment and creates a rails-to-trails connection for employees and visitors. H. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property valued because the amendment improves the property’s campus-like environment and is consistent with surrounding R&D and office uses. SECTION 2. Approval of Development Agreement A. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the First Amendment to the Development Agreement with Bayside Area Development LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. B. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, on behalf of the City, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A, and to make revisions to such Agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which do not materially or substantially increase the City’s obligations thereunder. SECTION 3. Severability If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of 554 such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 4. Publication and Effective Date. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. 555 FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This First Amendment to Development Agreement (“First Amendment”) is entered into by and between BAYSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT, LLC (collectively known as “Developer”) and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation (“City”) on this _____ day of _________________, 2020. RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Developer and City are parties to that certain Development Agreement by and between Developer and City, dated January 11, 2013, and recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County on February 5, 2013, as Document Number 2013-019601 (“Development Agreement”); B. WHEREAS, Developer and City wish to amend the Development Agreement as set forth in this First Amendment; C. WHEREAS, all proceedings necessary for the valid adoption and execution of this First Amendment have taken place in accordance with California Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5, the California Environmental Quality Act, and Chapter 19.60 of the City’s Municipal Code; D. WHEREAS, the City Council and the City Planning Commission have found that the Development Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment, is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan; and E. WHEREAS, on ________, 2020 the City Council considered the proposed First Amendment and adopted Ordinance No. ____________ approving and adopting this First Amendment, and such ordinance took effect 30 days later. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the City’s Municipal Code, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows: 1. Revised Project Description. The first paragraph of Section 3 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. Project Description; Development Standards For Project The project to be developed on the Property pursuant to this Agreement (the "Project") shall consist of (i) two (2) one (1) office / research and development buildings, with five (5) floors, containing approximately 129,919 square feet each with a ground floor and second story containing in the aggregate approximately 556 52,768 square feet of occupiable space per building and one (1) floor of partially subterranean parking accommodating approximately 66 parking spaces per building, (ii) surface a three (3) level parking garage that will accommodate approximately 156364 parking spaces, and (iii) related improvements, all as provided in the Plan Set and as approved by the City Council. The Project, as described in this paragraph, as amended by the First Amendment, results in an increase in square footage of approximately 25,000 square feet compared to the initially approved project for 328 Roebling (“Incremental Increase”). 2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fees. Developer hereby agrees that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee, as approved and adopted by the City Council through the adoption of Ordinance No. 1539-2017 (which took effect on August 14, 2017), shall apply to the Incremental Increase. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fees shall be determined based on the application of the formula in effect as of the time the City issues the respective building permit for the Incremental Increase, and shall be payable prior to the issuance of such building permit. Section 13 of the Original Agreement shall not be amended except to the extent necessary to give effect to this Section. 3. Commercial Linkage Fees. Developer hereby agrees that the Commercial Linkage Impact Fee, as approved and adopted by the City Council through the adoption of Ordinance No. 1560-2018 (which took effect on November 1, 2018), shall apply to the Incremental Increase. Commercial Linkage Impact Fees shall be determined based on the application of the formula in effect as of the time the City issues the respective building permit for the Incremental Increase, and shall be payable prior to the issuance of such building permit. Section 13 of the Original Agreement shall not be amended except to the extent necessary to give effect to this Section. 4. Community Facilities District Participation. Developer hereby agrees to participate in the yet to be formed South San Francisco Industrial Area Community Facilities District (IA-CFD) at an annual tax rate equivalent to the lesser of no more than $1.00 per gross project square foot on the 328 Roebling Avenue Property or such annual tax rate that applies to similarly situated Life Sciences projects in the East of 101 Area (Owner acknowledges that the name of the IA-CFD might change prior to submission to property owners for approval, and that Developer’s agreement in this paragraph will apply to the community facilities district regardless of name, as long as the rate applicable to Developer complies with this paragraph.) In the event an IA-CFD is not formed, the Property or Project shall not be subject to any additional development fee, assessment or tax, except as provided for in Sections 11, 12, and 13 of the Agreement. 5. Effect of First Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this First Amendment, the Development Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms, and Developer and City hereby ratify and affirm all their respective rights and obligations under the Development Agreement, including but not limited to Developer’s indemnification obligations as set forth in Section 14 of the Development Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the First Amendment or the Development Agreement, the provisions of this First Amendment shall govern. 557 6. Binding Agreement. This First Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, and assigns of each of the parties hereto. Any reference in this First Amendment to a specifically named party shall be deemed to apply to any successor, administrator, executor, or assign of such party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this First Amendment or under law. 7. Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this First Amendment within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. 8. Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute the same document. 9. California Law. This First Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10. Invalidity. Any provision of this First Amendment that is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed severed from this First Amendment, and the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if the invalid or unenforceable provision had not been a part hereof 11. Headings. The headings used in this First Amendment are for convenience only and shall be disregarded in interpreting the substantive provisions of this First Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the date and year first above written. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 558 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ____________________________ Mike Futrell, City Manager DEVELOPER Bayside Area Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: ___________________________ [NAME AND TITLE] APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _______________________ City Attorney ATTEST: By: ________________________ Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk 3533331.1 559 Exhibit B Draft Conditions of Approval 2020 233 EAST GRAND / 328-340 ROEBLING PROJECT DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION & DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT P007-0012: DR20-0016 & DAA20-0001 The Applicant/Project shall conform to all the conditions of approval identified in City Council Resolution 93-2012, as well as the additional conditions contained herein. A. PLANNING DIVISION GENERAL 1. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared by Flad Architects dated March 23, 2020, and approved by the City Council in association with DR20-0016 as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner 2. Prior to the issuance of any building or construction permits for the project, the applicant shall revise the development plans to address the Design Review Board comments, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 3. The Applicant/Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2020 Addendum / 2012 Recirculated IS/MND for the 233 East Grand / 328-340 Roebling Revised Project. 4. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (DAA20-0001). 5. The applicant is responsible for maintaining site security prior to, and throughout the construction process. This includes installation of appropriate fencing, lighting, remote monitors, or on-site security personnel as needed. 6. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 7. During construction, the applicant shall provide parking for construction workers within the project parking structure when the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal provide written approval. 8. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans demonstrating compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO), if applicable. 560 a) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO. b) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the performance measures required by the MWELO. c) For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the City, upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system. 9. The applicant shall contact the South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash enclosures and work with staff to locate and design the trash enclosure in accordance with the SSFMC Section 20.300.014, Trash and Refuse Collection Areas. Applicant shall submit an approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger to the Chief Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. Prior to proceeding with exterior construction, the applicant shall provide a full-scale mockup of a section of exterior wall that shows the cladding materials and finishes, windows, trim, and any other architectural features of the building to fully illustrate building fenestration, subject to site inspection and approval by Planning Division staff. 11. After the building permits are approved, but before beginning construction, the owner/applicant shall hold a preconstruction conference with City Planning, Building, and Engineering staff and other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the construction manager, contractor, and all relevant subcontractors. 12. A Parking and Traffic Control Plan for the construction of the project shall be submitted with the application for Building Permit, for review and approval by the Chief Planner and City Engineer. 13. The Entitled Project included an approved draft Preliminary TDM Plan. In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan that incorporates revisions based on the Revised Project for review and approval by the Chief Planner. 14. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the developer shall revise the development plans to include the following Climate Action Plan requirements, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee: a. Electric Vehicle Charging Installations Measure 2.1, Action 5: Require new large- scale nonresidential developments to provide conduit for future electric vehicle charging installations, and encourage the installation of conduits or electric vehicle charging stations for all new development. 561 b. Heat Island Reductions Measure 3.4, Action 1: Encourage the use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the voluntary CALGreen standards. c. Alternative Energy Facilities Measure 4.1, Action 2: Require the construction of any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more, to comply with one of the following standards: i. Meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity needs with on- site renewable energy sources. To calculate 50% of building electricity needs for the new conditioned space, the applicant shall calculate building electricity use as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Total electricity use shall include total use for the new conditioned space excluding process energy. ii. Participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity use. Building electricity use shall be calculated using the method identified above. iii. Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency requirements by 20% or more. For additions to existing development of 5,000 square feet or more, CALGreen Tier 2 shall be calculated as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Existing building space already permitted shall not be subject to CALGreen Tier 2 requirements. d. Solar Wiring Installation Measure 4.1, Action 3: Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar. e. Water Demand Reduction Measure 6.1, Action 2: Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following: i. Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features. ii. Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise. iii. Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors. iv. Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants. v. Installing drip irrigation systems. vi. Reducing impervious surfaces. 562 B. ENGINEERING DIVISION Permits 1. At the time of each permit submittal, the Applicant shall submit a deposit for each of the following permit reviews and processing: a. Building Permit plan check and civil review. Provide cost of on-site improvements for deposit amount calculation. b. Hauling/Grading plan check and permit processing. Provide Cubic Yards for deposit amount calculation. c. Public Improvement plan check and permit processing. Provide cost of ROW improvements for deposit amount calculation. 2. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public- works/engineering-division. 3. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to grading. Otherwise, hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/departments/public- works/engineering-division. 4. The Applicant shall obtain a Demolition Permit to demolish the existing concrete pad. The demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division and the Applicant shall pay all fees and deposits for the permit. The Applicant shall provide letters from all public utilities stating all said utilities have been properly disconnected from the existing buildings. 5. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 6. The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. To help meet this goal, a city ordinance requires completion of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects identifying how at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage. The Contractor shall submit a WMP application and fee prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 563 7. A Public Improvement Permit is required for any work proposed within the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall pay all permit, plan check, and inspection fees, as well as, any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. Plan Submittal 8. Along with the building permit submittals, the Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets: Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan, Horizontal Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Details, Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that clearly states the amount of cut and fill required to grade the project. The Grading Plans shall include the following plans: Cover, Notes, Existing Conditions, Grading Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Stormwater Control Plan, and Erosion Control Plan. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a Public Improvement Permit for all proposed work within the City ROW and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the Public Improvement Permit. The Public Improvement Plans shall include only the scope of work within the City ROW (with reference to the on-site plans) consisting of the following plans: Civil Plans, Landscape Plans, and Joint Trench Plans. 11. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 12. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 13. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit, grading permit, or public improvement permit. Mapping 564 14. The Applicant shall process a subdivision map to merge the various parcels such that the proposed new building structures do not straddle the existing property lines. 15. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City a Pedestrian Access Easement along those portions of the sidewalk on Roebling Road that are not located within the public Right-of-way. 16. Prior to Building Permit issuance, all applicable mapping shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Clerk Recorder’s Office. 17. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of any proposed mapping application. 18. Prior to the approval of any Permits, the Applicant shall enter into an Improvement Agreement and Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These agreements shall be approved by City Council prior to execution. The Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to ensure the faithful performance of the design, construction, installation and inspection of all public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City and shall be secured by good and sufficient payment, performance, and one (1) year warranty bonds or cash deposit adequate to cover all of the costs, inspections and administrative expenses of completing such improvements in the event of a default. The value of the bonds or cash deposit shall include 110% of the cost of construction based on prevailing wage rates. The value of the warranty bond or cash deposit shall be equivalent to 10% of the value of the performance security. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property and all landscape within the project frontage at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner. 19. Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees for any mapping application prior to review. 20. The applicant shall clearly show all existing easements on the improvement plans. Right-of-Way 21. All new public improvements shall be installed at no cost to the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City Standards. All new public improvements shall be completed prior to Final Occupancy of the project or prior any Temporary Occupancy as approved by the City Engineer. 22. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a video survey of the adjacent streets (perimeter of proposed property location) to determine the pre- construction condition of the streets at no cost to the City. The Applicant will be responsible to ensure that the condition of the streets and striping is in at least existing condition or better after construction is completed. 23. Applicant shall reconstruct all curb, gutter, sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveways, along the East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road frontages of the subject property. Unless separated by a planting strip, all sidewalks shall be monolithic to the curb and 565 gutter and shall be constructed to current City and Caltrans standards and specifications to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at no cost to the City. 24. The Applicant shall rehabilitate the pavement on East Grand Avenue along the entire frontage of the project site from gutter to centerline or median. Pavement rehabilitation shall include the repair of any failed pavement areas as determined in the field by the City Inspector and a 2 inch grind and overlay of the street from the lip of gutter to lip of gutter and restriping the lane lines and crosswalks. 25. The Applicant shall restore the pavement after any trenches along Roebling Road from gutter to gutter. The pavement restoration shall include a Tee cut to extend the new pavement beyond the trench the same distance as the width of the trench or a minimum of 2-feet, whichever is greater. For any trenches within 50-ft of each other, the pavement restoration shall be contiguous between the trenches. For any trenches within 3-feet of the lip of gutter, pavement restoration shall be to the lip of gutter. 26. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet City standards current to the time of Encroachment Permit approval. 27. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Traf-1: The Applicant shall adjust signal timing at the Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue Traffic Signal to the approval of the South San Francisco Public Works Department in order to reduce Base Case + Project 95th percentile vehicle queuing for the left turn movement on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue to a shorter distance than Base Case queuing for this movement. (This Mitigation Measure to be funded via the projects Traffic Impact Fee Contribution and implemented by the City) 28. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Traf-2: The Applicant shall extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road from 75 feet to a minimum of 125 feet and a maximum of 175 feet, or as determined by the City Engineer. 29. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Traf-3: The Applicant shall construct the following Traffic Mitigations at the East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road intersection: a. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard/ Harbor Way. b. Lengthen the single left turn lane on the westbound East Grand Avenue approach to the Forbes/Harbor intersection to a minimum of 225 and a maximum of 260 feet, or as determined by the City Engineer. (If the development project at 213 East Grand implements the Traf-3 mitigation measures, the Applicant shall reimburse a fair share of the cost of the improvements to the 213 East Grand Avenue project Applicant as negotiated by the two parties. If the Applicant implements the Traf-3 mitigation measures, then the Applicant of the 566 213 East Grand Avenue project shall reimburse a fair share of the cost of the improvements to the Applicant as negotiated by the two parties.) 30. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Traf-4: The Applicant shall provide a fair share contribution, as determined by the City Engineer, towards all needed signs and pavement markings on the approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection “at grade railroad crossing” to meet minimum State Public Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission. (This Mitigation Measure to be funded via the projects Traffic Impact Fee Contribution and implemented by the City) 31. The driveway located on East Grand Avenue shall be right-turn in and out of the site. An R1 “Stop” sign with a “Right Turn Only” sign shall be placed at this driveway. All other exit driveways shall be posted with an R1 “Stop” sign mounted on a steel pole. 32. The Applicant shall replace and install all lighting along the East Grand Avenue & Roebling Road frontage of the subject property within the City’s right-of-way with the approved light standard for the East of 101 Area at no cost to the City. 33. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the site, the Applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, at their expense, as required to conform to City Standards, all public improvements including driveways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street pavements along the street frontages of the proposed project along East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 34. Applicant shall ensure the proposed trees and planting locations do not interfere with underground utilities or the joint trench. The Applicant will be required to install root barrier measures to prevent the sidewalk from uplift at no cost to the City. 35. Prior to public improvement permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide an engineer’s estimate for all work performed with in the public right-of-way and submit a bond equal to 110% of the estimate. 36. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work on East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road and/or any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. 37. For any work within the sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian routes shall provide pedestrian routing plans along with traffic control plans. Temporary lane or sidewalk closures shall be approved by the City Engineer and by the Construction Coordination Committee (if within the CCC influence area). For any work affecting the sidewalks or pedestrian routes greater than 2 days in duration, the adjacent parking lane or 567 adjacent travel lane shall be closed and temporary vehicle barriers placed to provide a protected pedestrian corridor. Temporary ramps shall be constructed to connect the pedestrian route from the sidewalk to the street if no ramp or driveway is available to serve that purpose. 38. No foundation or retaining wall support shall extend into the City Right-of-Way without express approval from the Engineering Department. Applicant shall design any bioretention area or flow-through planters adjacent to the property line such that the facility and all foundations do not encroach within the City Right-of-Way or into an adjacent parcel. Stormwater 39. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a storm drainage and hydraulic study for the fully improved development analyzing existing conditions and post- development conditions. The study shall evaluate the capacity of the existing public storm drain along East Grand Avenue southwest of the project site and recommend any improvements necessary to accommodate runoff from the project and upstream tributary areas. The study shall evaluate the capacity of each storm drain main during a 25-year design storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 10 minutes. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA data for the site. The study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 40. The Applicant shall design and construct, any on-site and off-site storm drainage improvements along said storm drain system as recommended by the approved storm drainage and hydraulic study at no cost to the city. 41. The development shall reduce peak runoff by 15% based on a 25-year design storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 10 minutes. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA data for the site. The proposed storm drain system and runoff reduction information shall be included in the hydraulic study. 42. On-site storm drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate runoff from a 10- year design storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 10 minutes. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA data for the site. On-site storm drain pipes shall be designed for open channel flow conditions and not be surcharged. The on-site storm drainage system shall connect to the existing public storm drain system located on East Grand Avenue. 43. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across subdivision boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this purpose. 44. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge into an approved drainage device or facility that meets the C3 stormwater treatment requirements of Municipal Regional Permit. 45. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control 568 devices within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Sanitary Sewer 46. The Applicant shall submit a sewer capacity study to determine how the project impacts and capacity of the sanitary sewer system and recommend any improvements necessary to accommodate the flows from the development project. The study shall include an analysis of the sanitary sewer main on Roebling Road. Sanitary sewer mains shall not flow more than 2/3 full at peak wet weather flow. Please be sure to include all supporting calculations. 47. The Applicant shall design and construct, any on-site and off-site sanitary sewer improvements as recommended by the approved sewer capacity study at no cost to the city. 48. Applicant shall abandon all existing Sanitary Sewer Laterals serving the property to City Standards. 49. Applicant shall install the new sewer laterals to City Standards including a clean out in the sidewalk and a new y connection or taptite connection at the main. Lateral sizes of 8-inch or larger require a manhole connection at the City sewer main. 50. Each on-site sanitary sewer manhole and cleanout shall be accessible to maintenance personnel and equipment via pathway or driveways as appropriate. Each maintenance structure shall be surrounded by a level pad of sufficient size to provide a safe work area. Utilities 51. All electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground within the property being developed and to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility vault. Pull boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed within pedestrian walkway areas. 52. The applicant shall underground the existing overhead utilities along the entire East Grand Avenue & Roebling Road frontage of the property at no cost to the City. The undergrounding of existing electrical utilities on said frontages of the Project shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 53. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service for all water-related issues. All water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of the California Water Service. 54. The Applicant shall install fire hydrants at the locations specified by the Fire Marshal. Installation shall be in accordance with City Standards as administered by the Fire Marshall. On-site Improvements 569 55. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 56. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy form the Building Division, the Applicant shall require its Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to certify that it conforms to the approved site plan and that there is positive drainage away from the exterior of the building. The Applicant shall make any modifications to the grading, drainage, or other improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans. 57. All common areas are to be landscaped and irrigated and shall meet the requirements of the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Submit landscape, drainage and grading plans for review and approval by the Engineering Division. 58. The Applicant shall submit a proposed workplan and intended methodologies to ensure any existing structures on or along the development’s property line are protected during proposed activities. Grading 59. The Applicant shall provide documentation from a qualified Industrial Hygienist that the project site is clear of all hazardous materials and groundwater to a level that is satisfactory to State and County Regulators prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 60. The recommendations contained within the geotechnical report shall be included in the Site Grading and Drainage Plan. The Site Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by the Applicant’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. 61. The entire project site shall be adequately sprinkled with water to prevent dust or sprayed with an effect dust palliative to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried onto adjacent private and public property. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Should any problems arise from dust, the Applicant shall hire an environmental inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with the grading permit. 62. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco shall be cleaned daily, or more often, as required by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets or private driveways. 63. The Applicant shall submit a winterization plan for all undeveloped areas within the site to control silt and stormwater runoff from entering adjacent public or private property. This plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to September 1 of each year. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to November 1 of each year. 64. Prior to placing any foundation concrete, the Applicant shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks from confirmed property lines as shown 570 on the Plans. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. 65. The applicant is required by ordinance to provide for public safety and the protection of public and private property in the vicinity of the land to be graded from the impacts of the proposed grading work. 66. All hauling and grading operations are restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for residential areas and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for industrial/commercial areas, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 67. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no grading in excess of 200 cubic yards shall be accomplished between November 1 and May 1 of each year. 571 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P07-0012: UP07-0011, DR07-0050, SIGNS09-0034, DA12-0001, TDM07-0004, ND07-0002 & PM12-0001 USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND TDM 328 ROEBLING ROAD (As approved by City Council on December 12, 2012) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Division’s standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-family Residential Projects. 2. The project shall be completed and operated substantially as indicated in the plans prepared by DES Architects, dated April 26, 2012. 3. All equipment (either roof or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and landscape screening. Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. 4. TDM a. Transportation Demand Management. Owner shall prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan in compliance with the requirements of SSFMC Chapter 20.400 as in effect on the Effective Date (the “TDM Ordinance”). As part of such compliance, Owner shall prepare (i) annual TDM surveys and (ii) triennial TDM reports, each meeting the applicable requirements of the TDM Ordinance, and shall submit same to the City, to document the effectiveness of Owner’s TDM Plan in achieving the goal of thirty- five percent (35%) alternative mode usage by employees within the Project. The annual surveys will be prepared by a TDM consultant pre-qualified with or approved by the City and retained, directed and paid for by Owner, and the triennial reports will be prepared by an independent TDM consultant retained by the City and paid for by Owner. Both the annual surveys and the triennial reports will include a determination of historical employee commute methods, which information shall be obtained by survey of all employees working in the buildings on the Property. If the response rate on which a triennial report is based is below 51 percent, additional responses needed to reach a 51 percent response rate will be counted as drive alone trips. b. TDM Surveys and Reports: The initial TDM survey for each building on the Property will be submitted two (2) years after the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to such building. The initial triennial TDM report for each building on the Property will be submitted three (3) years after the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to such building. The second and all later annual surveys and triennial reports (when applicable) with respect to each building shall be included in an annual comprehensive TDM submission to the 572 City covering all of the buildings on the Property that are submitting their second or later TDM surveys or reports. c. (A) Triennial Report Requirements: The goal of the TDM program is to encourage alternative mode usage, as defined in Chapter 20.400 of the Municipal Code. The initial triennial TDM report shall either: (A) state that the applicable building or buildings have achieved thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (B) state that the applicable building or buildings have not achieved thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to try to ensure attaining the TDM goal of thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage. (B) Penalty for Non-Compliance: If, after the initial triennial TDM report, subsequent triennial reports indicate that, in spite of the changes in the TDM Plan, thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage is still not being achieved, or if Owner fails to submit such a triennial TDM report at the times required under SSFMC Chapter 20.400, the City may assess Owner a penalty in the amount of up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per year for each full percentage point by which the Property falls below the minimum thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage goal. (i) In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, the City may consider whether Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals. (ii) If the City determines that Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals but a penalty is still imposed, and such penalty is imposed within the first three (3) years in which a penalty could be imposed in connection with the TDM Plan, the City in its sole discretion may agree to allow Owner to apply such penalty sums toward the implementation of the TDM Plan instead of requiring them to be paid to the City. If the penalty sums are used to implement the TDM Plan, an Implementation Plan shall be prepared by Owner and reviewed and approved by the City prior to Owner’s expending any penalty funds. (iii) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amount of any penalty shall bear the same relationship to the maximum penalty as the completed construction to which the penalty applies bears to the maximum amount of square feet of Office, Commercial, Retail (if any) and Research and Development use permitted to be constructed on the Property. For example, if there is 100,000 square feet of completed construction on the Property included within the TDM report with respect to which the penalty is imposed, the maximum penalty would be determined by multiplying fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) times a fraction, the numerator of which is 100,000 square feet and the denominator of which is the maximum amount of square feet of construction permitted on the Property (subtracting the square footage of the parking facilities); this amount would then be 573 multiplied by the number of full percentage points by which the Project has fallen below the thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage goal for the applicable period. d. Owner shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in maintaining and enforcing the trip reduction program for the Project. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permit for each building, the developer shall pay Childcare Impact Fee in effect at the time as required by SSFMC Section 20.310 for the Office/Research and Development space. The current fee per square foot is $0.57. The total fee for both buildings is estimated to be $17,223.16 (($0.57/sf x 105, 536) - ($0.54/sf x 79,504 sf)). 6. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation monitoring measures and the Mitigation Monitoring Program associated with Mitigated Negative Declaration ND07-0002. 7. Prior to the issuance of any sign permits for the project, a revised Master Sign Program, which includes maximum sign areas allowed and allowed sign illumination, shall be submitted for Chief Planner review and approval. The revised sign program shall substantially comply with the “Britannia Modular Lab III Master Signage Program”, submitted by HCP Life Sciences. 8. The applicant shall submit the location and proposed screening (if applicable) for all required utilities. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner prior to submittal for building permits. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence in a form acceptable to the Chief Planner that future leases will assure that balconies on each building shall remain accessible as an outdoor amenity space generally available to all employees of the facility. 10. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the Lot Merger and Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded at the County of San Mateo. 11. The final landscape plan shall be modified to eliminate “Agapanthus orientalis” (Lily of the Nile) and “Dodonaea viscosa” (Hopseed Bush) from the plant list. Planning Division contact Linda Ajello, Associate Planner, (650) 877-8353 B. Fire Department conditions of approval are as follows: 1. Fire sprinkler system shall be installed per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit for overhead and underground. 2. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section 1003.3. 574 3. A standpipe system shall be installed per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit. 4. An exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device shall be installed, not a bell. 5. Elevator if provided shall not contain shunt-trips. 6. At least one elevator shall be sized for a gurney the minimum size shall be in accordance with the CFC. 7. Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. 8. Plans are to conform to Building codes and the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Section 15.24.130. 9. Fire extinguishers shall be provided throughout the building. 10. All Non parking space curbs shall be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications 11. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of 75,000 pounds. 12. Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined. 13. Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 400 feet between hydrants. 14. The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for duration of 4 hours. 15. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. 16. A Knox key box shall be provided for each building with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined. 17. The minimum road width shall be 20 feet per the California Fire Code. 18. Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at http://www.ssf.net/depts/fire/prevention/fire_permits.asp 19. All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code. Fire Department contact, Luis Da Silva, (650) 829-6645 C. Engineering Division conditions of approval are as follows: 575 I. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The developer shall comply with the applicable conditions of approval for commercial projects, as detailed in the Engineering Division’s “Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments”, contained in our “Standard Development Conditions” booklet, dated January 2009. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division and can be downloaded from the City’s web site. II. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. The developer shall obtain a demolition permit to demolish the existing buildings. The demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division and the developer shall pay all fees and deposits for the permit. The developer shall submit an erosion and stormwater pollution control plan for the demolition work and cleared site. The developer shall provide letters from all public utilities stating all utility services have been properly disconnected from the existing buildings. B. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division. The developer will be responsible for paying for all fees, bonds, plan checking and all associated fees for the grading permit. The developer will also place a cash deposit of $30,000 to pay for all onsite, SWPPP compliance, grading compliance and dust control inspections. C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. The developer shall place a $5,000 cash deposit with the City for the peer review of the Geotechnical Report. D. The developer shall remove and replace all sidewalks fronting the project. The new sidewalk shall comply with the City standard detail and shall provide the minimum ADA width. The developer shall also install all necessary ADA handicap ramps, where needed. All work shall be done at no cost to the City. E. The driveway located on East Grand Avenue shall be right-turn in and out of the site. A R1 “Stop” sign with a “Right Turn Only” sign shall be placed at this driveway. All other exit driveways shall be posted with an R1 “Stop” sign mounted on a steel pole. F. The developer shall remove any existing railroad tracks and appurtenances at the end of Roebling Road that are located within the landscaped area as shown on sheet L-1 of the plans dated April 26, 2012. All work shall be done at no cost to the City. G. The developer shall incorporate bio-grassy swales and other Best Management Practices as stormwater measures within the project. Plans for these improvements shall be approved by the Engineering Division and the Environmental Compliance Manager. H. One sewer lateral with a minimum size of 6” shall service each building. A sanitary sewer manhole shall be installed onsite, near the property line, to serve as a cleanout for the lateral as it connects to the City’s sanitary sewer system. 576 I. The developer shall coordinate with the California Water Service for all water utility work. J. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit for all work to be performed within the City’s street rights-of-way and pay all associated fees, deposit and/or bonds. The developer shall submit an Engineer’s estimate for all work performed within the City’s rights-of-way and submit a bond or cash deposit equal to the value of the improvements to secure said work. K. The applicant shall underground the existing utilities along the entire East Grand Avenue & Roebling Road frontage of the property at no cost to the City. The undergrounding of existing electrical utilities on the said frontages of the Project shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the second of the two buildings to be constructed as part of the Project; provided, however, that so long as Owner has initiated the undergrounding process with PG&E a reasonable time in advance of the anticipated completion date for the second of the two buildings to be constructed as part of the Project and has pursued such process (to the extent within Owner’s control) with reasonable diligence, any failure of PG&E to complete such undergrounding by the time construction of such second building is complete shall not delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for such building. A phased plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Division showing the undergrounding of the utilities in a joint trench. The Developer shall provide an engineer’s estimate and a surety bond in the amount of the engineer’s estimate for all said work. The bond shall be released upon satisfactory completion of all said work. L. All project signage shall be located entirely within the applicant’s property and shall not encroach into the public street right-of-way. M. The developer shall replace and install all lighting along the East Grand Avenue & Roebling Road frontage of the subject property within the City’s right-of-way with the approved light standard for the East of 101 Area at no cost to the City. N. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project, the applicant shall pay various infrastructure mitigation fees as detailed below. III. OYSTER POINT OVERPASS CONTRIBUTION FEE Prior to receiving a Building Permit for the proposed new office/R&D development, the applicant shall pay the Oyster Point Overpass fee, as determined by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Council Resolutions 102-96 and 152-96. The fee will be calculated upon reviewing the information shown on the applicant's construction plans and the latest Engineering News Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index at the time of payment. The estimated fee for the entire subject 105,536 GSF office and R&D development is calculated below. (The number in the calculation, "10,364.34", is the September 2012 Engineering News Record San Francisco construction cost index, which is revised each month to reflect local inflation changes in the construction industry.) Oyster Point Overpass Fee - $214,368.29 577 105,536 gsf Office/R&D use @ 12.3 trips per 1000 gsf = 1,298 new vehicle trips Less credit for an existing 71,786 gsf Warehouse @ 4.5 trips per 1000 gsf = 323 trips Less credit for an existing 7,715 gsf Office @ 12.3 trips per 1000 gsf = 95 trips Total existing trips = 323 + 95 = 418 trips Total new trips = 1,298 - 418 = 880 new vehicle trips Contribution Calculation: 880 X $154 X (10,364.34/6552.16) = $214,368.29 IV. EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any building within the proposed project, the applicant shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee, In accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council at their meeting of May 23, 2007, or as the fee may be amended in the future. Fee Calculation (effective July 1, 2012) 105,536 gsf Office/R&D @ $5.22 per each square foot =$550,897.92 Credit for existing trips: 71,786 gsf Warehouse @ 0.54 trip per 1000 gsf x $4950/trip = $191,883.98 7,715 gsf Office @ .90 trips per 1000 gsf x $4950/trip = $34,370.33 Traffic Impact Fee = $ 324,643.61 V. SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY STUDY AND IMPROVEMENT FEE The applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee, as adopted by the City Council at their meeting of October 23, 2002. The adopted fee is $3.19 per gallon of discharge per day. The new fee effective July 1, 2012 is $4.25. It is determined that Office/R&D generates 400 gallons per day per 1000 square feet of development. Based upon this calculation, the potential fee would be, if paid this year: 0.4 g/sf (400 gpd/1000 sq. ft.) x $4.25 per gallon x 105,536 sq. ft. = $179,411.20 Credit for existing building office portion given if more than 25% of facility, no credit given for warehouse. Sewer Impact Fees shall be determined for each building in the Project based on the application of the formula in effect as of the date such building is actually occupied and the occupant begins discharging to the City’s sanitary sewer system, and shall be payable within thirty (30) days after final calculation of the applicable Sewer Impact Fee pursuant to such formula. The City and Owner agree that in applying such formula, a credit will be given for the portion of the Sewer Impact Fees that would have been payable under such formula based on the previously existing uses on the Property. . Total estimated fees: 578 Oyster Point Overpass Fee $ 214,368.29 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee $ 324,643.61 East of 101 Sewer Improvements Fee $ 179,411.20 Total $ 718,423.10 Engineering Division Contact, Sam Bautista, (650) 877-6652 D. Water Quality Control Plant The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and/or Pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a permit: 1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 2. Encourage the use of pervious pavement where possible. 3. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 4. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be installed. A combination of landscape based controls (e.g., vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes, and ponds) and manufactured controls (vault based separators, vault based media filters, and other removal devices) are required. Existing catch basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalent. These devices must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit. If possible, incorporate the following:  vegetated/grass swale along perimeter  catch basin runoff directed to infiltration area  notched curb to direct runoff from parking area into swale  roof drainage directed to landscape  use of planter boxes instead of tree grates for stormwater treatment Manufactured drain inserts alone are not acceptable they must be part of a treatment train. One of the following must be used in series with each manufactured unit: swales, detention basins, media (sand) filters, bioretention areas, or vegetated buffer strips. Treatment devices must be sized according to the WEF Method or the Start at the Source Design. Please state what method is used to calculate sizing. The entire project must be included in the treatment system design (i.e. stormwater treatment systems must be designed and sized to treat stormwater runoff from the entire redevelopment project). Per Order R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 579 5. The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for Stormwater Treatment Measures form for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. 6. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the inclusion of the following exhibits: a. A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the treatment measures that will be subject to the agreement. b. A legal description of the property. c. A maintenance plan, including specific long-term maintenance tasks and a schedule. It is recommended that each property owner be required to develop its own maintenance plan, subject to the municipality’s approval. Resources that may assist property owners in developing their maintenance plans include: i. The operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by the property owner. 7. Applicant must complete the Project Applicant Checklist for NPDES Permit Requirements prior to issuance of a permit and return to the Technical Services Supervisor at the WQCP. 8. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable. d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include: i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site. 580 ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes. iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants. iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants. v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan. vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects. Landscaping must comply with the City of South San Francisco’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 9. Roof condensate must be routed to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 10. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 11. Loading dock area must be covered and any drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 12. Install separate water meters for the process, domestic, landscape, and any food service facility. 13. Install a separate non-pressurized process line for sample monitoring if necessary before mixing with domestic waste in the sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit. 14. Install a flow meter to measure process flow. 15. Fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve should be plumbed into the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 16. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a permit. 17. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of entrance/outlet of tire wash. 18. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted. 19. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted. 20. Applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations. 581 21. Must file a Notice of Termination with the WQCP when the project is completed. Water Quality Control Division Contact, Cassie Prudhel (650) 829-3840. E. Police Department 1. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed / revised building plans. Police Department contact: Sergeant Scott Campbell (650) 877-8927 582 328 ROEBLING Flad Project Number Description of Package South San Francisco, CA 94080 328 Roebling Road Date PRECISE PLAN19419-00 03/23/2020 583 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 2 1 COVER SHEET 2 PROJECT DATA & TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 EXISTING SITE BOUNDARY PLAN 4 PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED SITE PLAN (2012) 5 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 6 PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (2012) 7 PROPOSED GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 8 PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED EROSION CONTROL PLAN (2012) 9 PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL PLAN` 10 PROPOSED STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN 11 PROPOSED UTILITIES PLAN 12 PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED LANDSCAPE PLAN (2012)` 13 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 14 LANDSCAPE PLANTING ZONES 15 LANDSCAPE SITE SECTIONS 16 LANDSCAPE PLANTING TYPES 17 SITE MATERIALS AND LANDSCAPE FURNISHING 18 SITE VIGNETTES 19 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS 20 ELEVATIONS 21 ELEVATIONS 22 SECTIONS 23 BUILDING - LEVEL 1 PLAN 24 BUILDING - LEVEL 2 PLAN 25 BUILDING - TYPICAL PLAN (3-5) 26 BUILDING - ROOF PLAN 27 GARAGE - LEVEL 1 PLAN 28 GARAGE - LEVEL 2-3 PLAN 29 GARAGE - LEVEL 3-ROOF PLAN 30 GARAGE - BUILDING SECTIONS 31 GARAGE - BUILDING SECTIONS 32 RENDERING OF ENTITLED BUILDING - CORNER OF E. GRAND AND ROEBLING 33 RENDERING OF PROPOSED BUILDING - CORNER OF E. GRAND AND ROEBLING 34 RENDERING OF ENTITLED BUILDING B - ALONG ROEBLING RD 35 RENDERING OF PROPOSED BUILDING - ALONG ROEBLING RD 36 RENDERING OF ENTITLED BUILDING B - ALONG E. GRAND 37 RENDERING OF PROPOSED BUILDING - ALONG E. GRAND 38 RENDERING OF PROPOSED BUILDING - ALONG ROEBLING RD 39 RENDERING OF PROPOSED BUILDING - AERIAL VIEW FROM E. GRAND TABLE OF CONTENTSAPPLICATION REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST SHEET NUMBER(S) SITE PLAN PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED 4 PROPOSED 5 ELEVATION AND SECTION DRAWINGS PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED N/A PROPOSED 20-22 FLOOR PLANS PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED N/A PROPOSED 23-26 LANDSCAPE PLAN PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED 12 PROPOSED 13 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED 6 PROPOSED 7 LIGHTING PROGRAM N/A COLOR RENDERINGS 32-39 EXISTING PHOTOS (SITE & SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 19 ANY APPLICABLE TENTATIVE, FINAL OR PARCEL MAPS – EXISTING SITE BOUNDARY PLAN 3 Project Data & Table of Contents 328 ROEBLING THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 328 ROEBLING ROAD IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT OCCUPIED THREE ADJACENT PARCELS THAT WERE ONCE DEVELOPED WITH A WAREHOUSE, OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL USES. IN 2012 THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO APPROVED THE BRITANNIA MODULAR LAB 3 (BML-3 PROJECT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING (79,501 SQUARE FEET), AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO OFFICE/R&D BUILDINGS FOR A TOTAL OF 105,538 SQUARE FEET, AND AT GRADE & SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 2.97 ACRE SITE. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT CONSISTED OF PARKING AT A RATIO OF 2.8 SPACES PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET. THE BML-3 SITE IS DESIGNATED BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND IS ZONED BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK IN THE CITY’S ZONING ORDINANCE. THE BML-3 PROJECT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 31, 2022. SINCE THAT TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE SITE AND ALL ALONG THIS STRETCH OF EAST GRAND AVENUE. THE 2012 ENTITLEMENT WAS APPROVED WITH A FAR OF .81 CURRENTLY, THE AREA EAST OF 101 IS SET AT 1.0. WE ARE ASKING FOR AN ADJUSTMENT TO MATCH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD FAR OF 1.0. HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES PROPOSES TO SLIGHTLY INCREASE THE FAR TO 1.0 THEREBY RESULTING IN A TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 129,919 SF. THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS OF COMBINING THE ORIGINAL TWO BUILDINGS INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED PROJECT COMBINED INTO ONE SLIGHTLY LARGER BUILDING. THE PROPOSED REVISION ALLOWS THE PROJECT TO ESTABLISH A PROMINENT CORNER TO THE WEST ON EAST GRAND IN ORDER TO CREATE A MORE URBANE, PRIMARY STREET EDGE. THE LARGER BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS VISUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT MULTI-STORY STRUCTURES IN TERMS OF HEIGHT AND MASSING. THE ENTITLED PROJECT ACCOMMODATED MOST PARKING AS A ONE LEVEL, PARTIALLY BELOW GRADE UNDER THE TWO BUILDINGS, STRUCTURED PARKING WITH ADDITIONAL AT-GRADE ON-SITE PARKING. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD REMOVE THE PARKING FROM UNDER THE BUILDINGS AND AT-GRADE PARKING TO CREATE A STRUCTURED PARKING DECK AT THE REAR OF THE SITE. MORE LANDSCAPING WOULD BE DEVOTED TO A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED, MORE AMENITIZED GREENSPACE THAT CONNECTS THE BUILDING WITH THE ‘RAILS-TO-TRAIL’ BIKE PATH DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE REAR OF THE SITE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS PARCEL NO. ZONING DESIGNATION LOT SIZE ADJACENT USE PARCEL 1 233 EAST GRAND AVE 015 041 290 BTP 1.18 ACRES MULTI-STORY OFFICE; R+D FLEX; LIGHT MANU. WAREHOUSE; DAYCARE PARCEL 2 328 ROEBLING RD 015 041 250 BTP 1.09 ACRES MULTI-STORY OFFICE; R+D FLEX; LIGHT MANU. WAREHOUSE PARCEL 3 340 ROEBLING RD 015 041 110 BTP 0.7 ACRE MULTI-STORY OFFICE; R+D FLEX; LIGHT MANU. WAREHOUSE TOTAL LOT SIZE = 2.97 ACRES PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED LOT SIZE = 2.97 ACRES 584 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 3 Existing Site Boundary Plan LEGEND BLDG BUILDING COMM COMMUNICATION EX, (E)EXISTING FO FIBER OPTIC FS FIRE SERVICE G GAS L LENGTH MON MONUMENT PROP PROPOSED PAE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (R)RECORD RM RECORD MAP ROW RIGHT OF WAY SD STORM DRAIN SDCO STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SS SANITARY SEWER SSFM SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE W WATER W.O.E.WIRE OVERHANG EASEMENT ABBREVIATIONS PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE EX CABLE/COMM EX GAS EX STORM DRAIN EX SANITARY SEWER EX WATER EX STORM DRAIN MANHOLE EX STORM DRAIN INLET EX SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE EX FIRE HYDRANT EX FOUND MONUMENT EX TREE EX JOINT POLE PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 4 Previously Entitled Site Plan (2012) LOT AREA: BUILDING: F.A.R.: BUILDING AREA: BUILDING A: BUILDING B: TOTAL AREA: PARKING: PARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF SURFACE PARKING BASEMENT GARAGE BUILDING A BASEMENT GARAGE BUILDING B TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED AT 2% OF TOTAL PROJECT DATA 2.97 ACRES .81 105,538 SF 52,768 SF 52,768 SF 105,538 SF 296 STALLS 123 STALLS 73 STALLS 73 STALLS 296 STALLS 8 STALLS NORTH 0’30’60’ 120’ 585 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 41A-62A-65+6'2.#0Previously Entitled Site Plan (2012) LOT AREA: BUILDING: F.A.R.: BUILDING AREA: BUILDING A: BUILDING B: TOTAL AREA: PARKING: PARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF SURFACE PARKING BASEMENT GARAGE BUILDING A BASEMENT GARAGE BUILDING B TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED AT 2% OF TOTAL PROJECT DATA 2.97 ACRES .81 105,538 SF 52,768 SF 52,768 SF 105,538 SF 296 STALLS 123 STALLS 73 STALLS 73 STALLS 296 STALLS 8 STALLS NORTH 0’30’60’ 120’ 586 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 5 Proposed Site Plan LOT AREA: BUILDING F.A.R. BUILDING AREA PARKING PARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF GARAGE LEVEL AT GRADE LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 ROOF TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING SERVICE YARD 1. TRUCK BAY 2. DOCK LEVELER 3. COVERED TRASH AND RECYCLING 4. CHEM. STORAGE ENCLOSURE WITH CONCRETE PAD 5. TRANSFORMERS WITH ENCLOSURE AND CONCRETE PAD 6. GENERATOR WITH ENCLOSURE AND CONCRETE PAD PROJECT DATA 2.97 ACRES 1.0 129,919 SF 364 STALLS 50 STALLS 127 STALLS 130 STALLS 57 STALLS 364 STALLS 8 STALLS 6 STALLS 2 STALLS 8 STALLS10'-0", TYP.3.8% +37.06 +35.03 +31.35 4.85% +33.75 +33.93 4.85% 36.80+ 36 35 34 33 32 15 14 13 12 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 39 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 1918171621222324262728293132333436373837373839 41 15141312 12 121220 25 30 35 2025303540 10'-0" PCNPCN OEL OEL OELOELALAL ALCJCCJCSGA CJC SGASGA SGA SGA SGA SGASGA CJC CJCCJC CJCCJC CJCCJC CJCCJC OEL OE LOEL OE LOEL OEL CJC CJC CJC SGA SGA SGA SGA PCN PCNPCN PCNALALAL SGASGA SGA SGA CJC CJC OEL OE LOELOELOELOELOELOEL OE LOELOELOELOELOELOELOELOELOELOELOELOELOELOEL OEL OEL OEL OEL OEL OEL OEL OE LOE LOEL OE LOELPCNPCNPCNPCNALALALSGASGA SGA SGA SGA SGASGA SGA CJCCJC CJC CJC CJC CJC OELOELOELOEL OE LOELOEL OE LOELOEL OE LOEL OE LOELOELOELOELOELOEL SGA SGA SGA SGAALALAL CJC CJC CJC SGA CJC CJC ARS ARS ARS ARS ARS ARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARS ARS ARSARS SGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGA SGA SGA LS-P LS-P LS-P LS-P LS-P LS-P OEL OEL OE LOEL OEL OEL OEL OEL ALCJCCJC CJCAL PCNPCN PCN T T T T DNUPUPSTAIR01Elev.CRBIKESTORAGEELEC.ROOMUP 2 1 1 6 1 4 1 3 3332312412 13 14 1918 17 16 2322 212221 23 17 18 19 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 1 3 2 3 3 231 5 20 15 20 2 5 3 0 328 ROEBLING BUILDING 5 STORIES + ROOF PARKING GARAGE 3 LEVELS + ROOF ROEBLING ROADE GRAND AVE RAIL TO TR A IL LOADINGPARKING ACCESSPARKING ACCESSMAIN DRIVE PROPERTY LINE SITE SETBACK LINE BIO RETENTIONBIO RETENTION ONE WAY MAIN DRIVEONE WAYMAIN DRIVEONE WAYPLAZADROP OFFNORTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 20’ SETBACK10’ SETBACKPRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 4 Previously Entitled Site Plan (2012) LOT AREA: BUILDING: F.A.R.: BUILDING AREA: BUILDING A: BUILDING B: TOTAL AREA: PARKING: PARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF SURFACE PARKING BASEMENT GARAGE BUILDING A BASEMENT GARAGE BUILDING B TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED AT 2% OF TOTAL PROJECT DATA 2.97 ACRES .81 105,538 SF 52,768 SF 52,768 SF 105,538 SF 296 STALLS 123 STALLS 73 STALLS 73 STALLS 296 STALLS 8 STALLS NORTH 0’30’60’ 120’ 587 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 6)$;    )267(5&,7<&$9,17$*(3$5.'5,9(68,7((1*,1((5,1* 3/$11,1* 6859(<,1*:,/6(<+$0127(6/(*(1'52(%/,1*52$'($67*5$1'$9(18(%/'*%%/'*$ 352326(' 352326(' $%%5(9,$7,216$5($6Previously Entitled Grading and Drainage (2012) /(*(1' $%%5(9,$7,216 NORTH 0’30’60’ 120’ 588 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 7 LEGEND BB BOTTOM OF BIORETENTION BLDG BUILDING BW BOTTOM OF WALL COMM COMMUNICATION EX, (E)EXISTING FF FINISHED FLOOR FG FINISHED GRADE (SOFTSCAPE) FO FIBER OPTIC FP FINISHED PAVEMENT G GAS HP HIGH POINT LP LOW POINT PROP PROPOSED PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (R)RECORD SD STORM DRAIN SDCO STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE TC TOP OF CURB TW TOP OF WALL ABBREVIATIONS PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE PROP SPOT ELEVATION PROP SURFACE SLOPE PROP GRADE BREAK EX CABLE/COMM EX GAS EX STORM DRAIN EX SANITARY SEWER EX WATER PROP STORM DRAIN BIORETENTION PROP PERFORATED SUBDRAIN PROP STORM DRAIN INLET GRADE BREAK FP X.X GB Proposed Grading and Drainage NORTH 0’30’60’ 120’ 589 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 852(%/,1*52$'($67*5$1'$9(18(%/'*%%/'*$)$;    )267(5&,7<&$9,17$*(3$5.'5,9(68,7((1*,1((5,1* 3/$11,1* 6859(<,1*:,/6(<+$0 352326(' 352326(' Previously Entitled Erosion Control Plan (2012) /(*(1' NORTH 0’30’60’ 120’ 590 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 9 Proposed Erosion Control Plan LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EX EASEMENT LINE STORM DRAIN INLET INLET PROTECTION FIBER ROLL WATTLE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/ TIRE WASH AREA WASHOUT CONCRETE WASH OUT AC ASPHALT CONCRETE AD AREA DRAIN BC BACK OF CURB BOT BOTTOM CONC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DTL DETAIL E, EX EXISTING FH FIRE HYDRANT GB GRADE BREAK PROP PROPOSED SD STORM DRAIN SL STREET LIGHT LIMIT OF WORK DISTURBED AREA EXISTING CONTOUR ABBREVIATIONS NORTH 0’30’60’ 120’ 591 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 10 Proposed Stormwater Control Plan LEGEND BLDG BUILDING BW BOTTOM OF WALL DMA DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA EX, (E)EXISTING FF FINISHED FLOOR FG FINISHED GRADE (SOFTSCAPE) FP FINISHED PAVEMENT HP HIGH POINT LP LOW POINT PROP PROPOSED PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (R)RECORD SD STORM DRAIN SDCO STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE TC TOP OF CURB TW TOP OF WALL ABBREVIATIONS PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE PROP SPOT ELEVATION PROP SLOPE PROP DMA BOUNDARY EX CABLE/COMM EX GAS EX STORM DRAIN EX SANITARY SEWER EX WATER PROP STORM DRAIN BIORETENTION PROP PERFORATED SUBDRAIN FP X.X NORTH 0’30’60’ 120’ 592 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 11 Proposed Utilities Plan LEGEND BFP BACKFLOW PREVENTER BLDG BUILDING DW DOMESTIC WATER EX, (E)EXISTING FH FIRE HYDRANT FL FLOWLINE FO FIBER OPTIC FS FIRE SERVICE G GAS INV INVERT PROP PROPOSED PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (R)RECORD SD STORM DRAIN SDCO STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT SDI STORM DRAIN INLET SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SO SIDE OPENING SS SANITARY SEWER SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TG TOP OF GRATE TYP TYPICAL W WATER ABBREVIATIONS PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE EX CABLE/COMM EX GAS EX STORM DRAIN EX SANITARY SEWER EX WATER PROP STORM DRAIN PROP SUBDRAIN PROP SANITARY SEWER PROP DOMESTIC WATER PROP FIRE SERVICE EX STORM DRAIN MANHOLE PROP STORM DRAIN MANHOLE EX STORM DRAIN INLET PROP STORM DRAIN INLET EX SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PROP SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PROP BACKFLOW PREVENTER EX FIRE HYDRANT PROP HYDRANT PROP WATER METER PROP FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION NORTH 0’30’60’ 120’ 593 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 121Previously Entitled Landscape Plan (2012) SHEET NOTE1. FLOOR ELEVATI ONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURALSLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. SEE SHEETTOFOR STRIPING, SIGNS ANDGRAPHI C I NFORMATI ON.3. COORDINATE STRUCTURAL WITH SPRI NKLER DESI GN ANDLAYOUT. PROVIDE SLEEVE LOCATI ON(S) AS NECESSARY.4. PROVIDE MEDIUM BROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHEREELASTOMERI C CATI NG OCCURS.5. ALL EXPOSED EXTERIOR SURFACES AND ALL I NTERIORSURFACES (WALLS, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SOFFI TS) TO BEPAINTED, COLOR TO BE SELECTD BY ARCHI TECT.6. SEE SHEETFOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAI LS.7. SEE SHEETFOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE. RAMP UP ELECTRICALROOM BICYCLEENCLOSURE STAIR01 ELEV STAIR02 STAIR03 FD FD FD FD FD FD UP UP BLDG -A 5 -STORIES 146,341 SF BLDG -B 6 -STORIES 179,679 SF PARKING GARAGE 4 LEVELS OVER GRADE 954 CARS SERVICE YARD SERVICE YARD F O R B E S B L V D .ALLERTON AVE.MAIN PARKING ENTRY MAIN ACCESS DRIVEDR O P -OF F CENTRAL PARK MAIN ENTRY MAIN ENTRY MAIN ENTRY ALLERTON PARKING ENTRY GENER.ELEC.CHEM STORAGEELEC.GENER.HC H C HC HC HC HC HC H C HC H C CHEM. STORAGE Sheet NumberScale 1" = 40'-0"A-012PRECISE PLAN6/28/19 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 10'20'40'0' NORTH PROJECT DATA BUILDING F.A.R.1.0 BUILDING AREA 326,020 SF BLDG A 146,341 SF BLDG B 179,679 SF TOTAL 326,020 SF PARKING PARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF 913 CARS GARAGE LEVEL AT GRADE 141 LEVEL 2 201 LEVEL 3 201 LEVEL 4 201 ROOF 188 SUBTOTAL 932 SURFACE PARKING 25 TOTAL 957 ACCESSIBLE PARKING ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL 20 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES 18 ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING 4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING 22 0’30’60’ 120’ 594 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 13DNUPUP1 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 7 7 8 9 7 13 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 12 10 11 10 5 5 15 6 14 11 ROEBLING ROADEA S T G R A N D A V E 39 6 F O R B E S 40 0 F O R B E S RA I L T O T R A I L S ZONE 1: MAIN PLAZA 1 Plaza Gathering Spaces·Varied concrete unit paver patterns, accentuating circulation from parking garage to office lobby and programmatic "bar" of seating on east-west axis.·Seating areas arranged in a programmatic "bar" of activity. Circulation cuts through on north-south axis.·Gabion wall motif from frontage space continues into plaza. Short utilitarian walls with average 18"-24" height. ·Possible sculptural seating elements add whimsy to the urban setting.·Limited planting areas create generous plaza space for gathering and impromptu events (e.g. vendor tents) Drop Off / Loading Zone·Curb-cut loading zone area, striped for loading zone only. ·Plaza is largely open to drop-off area wihch becomes a natural extension of the plaza. Concrete unit pavers & concrete banding extend to face of curb to enhance spatial gesture. Vertical Elements ·Tapered aluminum poles varying 10'-20' heights positioned throughout plaza, cable strung between. LED linear lights connected to table, vines planted at base of some of the poles. Relationship to architectural elements (parking garage screen, window fins)·Plaza trees with delicate canopies allow sunlight and reflected light from building facade into the plaza seating areas. ZONE 2: STREET FRONTAGE 6 Terraced Landscape Plantings ·Gabion walls march through site on east-west axis, mediating substantial grade change from frontage to rear property line.·Gabion walls slide past each other to conceal a site ramp at egress stairs while obscuring access (doors are intended for emergency exit only), on E. Grand Ave. frontage.·Stormwater treatment planters along face of building, located at upper terrace level. Low CMU block retaining walls 2'-4' high run perpendicular to gabion walls to create terraces, the top of walls stepping down with grade. Stormwater Treatment Planters·Stormwater treatment areas consistent with South San Francisco C3 requirements.·Mix of swales, rain gardens and flow-through planters.·Stormwater treatment areas planted with species that are adapted to occasionally wet conditions and flooding during large storm events. Pathway and Site Elements ·Sidewalk diverges from curb and into site, creating varied planting areas and gathering spaces. Gentle meander along frontage. Walk follows slope of street, and levels out at gathering areas. Longitudinal slope does not exceed 5%, cross-slope less than 2%.·Possible columnar trees at facade to mitigate between human scale and building scale.·Roadway lighting at Roebling, possible pedestrian lighting mounted to the same poles to achieve egress requirements. Supplement roadway standards with light columns. Passive Seating Areas ·Possible DG seating areas, conc.unit pavers or integral color concrete to distinguish seating areas from concrete sidewalk.·Embedded tables and chairs, 25% ADA accessible. Site Flagpoles and Signage·Possible flagpoles at E. Grand Ave. frontage. ·Possible building signage integrated into prominent gabion walls, in direction of travel from nearby highway exits. 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 ZONE 3: PERIMETER, SERVICE AREA & RAILS-TO-TRAILS 12 Service Areas and Site Equipment Emergency Vehicle Access and Drive·26’ wide loop per South San Francisco standards·Drive loops around site perimeter, providing required access to all buildings.·Existing cul-de-sac to remain at terminus of Roebling Rd. Perimeter Retaining Walls ·Concrete retaining walls (or possible gabion walls) at back-of-curb, along southeast and northeast property line. Loading Docks ·Sufficient space for WB65 access/ exit via perimeter access drive. Parking Garage Entry / Exit (Vehicular) Rails-to-Trails·Connections to planned walking / bike trail, connecting to South San Francisco CalTrain station. Trail by others. Perimeter Planting Areas 13 15 14 LEGEND Limit of Work Property Line 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN 0 10' 20' 40' NORTH K J H G F E D C B A 10987654321 1098765432 A B C D E F G H J K 1 Rev Date Description Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number 19419-00 DF YL, LE03/13/2020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Project Title Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Healthpeak 328 Roebling Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 TRUENORTHPROJECTNORTH 2325 3rd street, suite 413 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.431.7878 e office@fletcherstudio.com OVERALL SITE PLAN L-101DNUPUP1 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 7 7 8 9 7 13 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 12 10 11 10 5 5 15 6 14 11 ROEBLING ROADEAS T G R A N D A V E 39 6 F O R B E S 40 0 F O R B E S RA I L T O T R A I L S ZONE 1: MAIN PLAZA 1 Plaza Gathering Spaces·Varied concrete unit paver patterns, accentuating circulation from parking garage to office lobby and programmatic "bar" of seating on east-west axis. ·Seating areas arranged in a programmatic "bar" of activity. Circulation cuts through on north-south axis. ·Gabion wall motif from frontage space continues into plaza. Short utilitarian walls with average 18"-24" height. ·Possible sculptural seating elements add whimsy to the urban setting. ·Limited planting areas create generous plaza space for gathering and impromptu events (e.g. vendor tents) Drop Off / Loading Zone·Curb-cut loading zone area, striped for loading zone only.·Plaza is largely open to drop-off area wihch becomes a natural extension of the plaza. Concrete unit pavers & concrete banding extend to face of curb to enhance spatial gesture. Vertical Elements·Tapered aluminum poles varying 10'-20' heights positioned throughout plaza, cable strung between. LED linear lights connected to table, vines planted at base of some of the poles. Relationship to architectural elements (parking garage screen, window fins) ·Plaza trees with delicate canopies allow sunlight and reflected light from building facade into the plaza seating areas. ZONE 2: STREET FRONTAGE 6 Terraced Landscape Plantings·Gabion walls march through site on east-west axis, mediating substantial grade change from frontage to rear property line. ·Gabion walls slide past each other to conceal a site ramp at egress stairs while obscuring access (doors are intended for emergency exit only), on E. Grand Ave. frontage.·Stormwater treatment planters along face of building, located at upper terrace level. Low CMU block retaining walls 2'-4' high run perpendicular to gabion walls to create terraces, the top of walls stepping down with grade. Stormwater Treatment Planters ·Stormwater treatment areas consistent with South San Francisco C3 requirements. ·Mix of swales, rain gardens and flow-through planters. ·Stormwater treatment areas planted with species that are adapted to occasionally wet conditions and flooding during large storm events. Pathway and Site Elements·Sidewalk diverges from curb and into site, creating varied planting areas and gathering spaces. Gentle meander along frontage. Walk follows slope of street, and levels out at gathering areas. Longitudinal slope does not exceed 5%, cross-slope less than 2%. ·Possible columnar trees at facade to mitigate between human scale and building scale. ·Roadway lighting at Roebling, possible pedestrian lighting mounted to the same poles to achieve egress requirements. Supplement roadway standards with light columns. Passive Seating Areas·Possible DG seating areas, conc.unit pavers or integral color concrete to distinguish seating areas from concrete sidewalk.·Embedded tables and chairs, 25% ADA accessible. Site Flagpoles and Signage·Possible flagpoles at E. Grand Ave. frontage. ·Possible building signage integrated into prominent gabion walls, in direction of travel from nearby highway exits. 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 ZONE 3: PERIMETER, SERVICE AREA & RAILS-TO-TRAILS 12 Service Areas and Site Equipment Emergency Vehicle Access and Drive ·26’ wide loop per South San Francisco standards·Drive loops around site perimeter, providing required access to all buildings.·Existing cul-de-sac to remain at terminus of Roebling Rd. Perimeter Retaining Walls·Concrete retaining walls (or possible gabion walls) at back-of-curb, along southeast and northeast property line. Loading Docks·Sufficient space for WB65 access/ exit via perimeter access drive. Parking Garage Entry / Exit (Vehicular) Rails-to-Trails·Connections to planned walking / bike trail, connecting to South San Francisco CalTrain station. Trail by others. Perimeter Planting Areas 13 15 14 LEGEND Limit of Work Property Line 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN 0 10' 20' 40' NORTH K J H G F E D C B A 10987654321 1098765432 A B C D E F G H J K 1 Rev Date Description Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number 19419-00 DF YL, LE03/13/2020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Project Title Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Healthpeak 328 Roebling Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH 2325 3rd street, suite 413 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.431.7878 e office@fletcherstudio.com OVERALL SITE PLAN L-101 Proposed Landscape Plan SHEET NOTE1. FLOOR ELEVATI ONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURALSLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. SEE SHEETTOFOR STRIPING, SIGNS ANDGRAPHI C I NFORMATI ON.3. COORDINATE STRUCTURAL WITH SPRI NKLER DESI GN ANDLAYOUT. PROVIDE SLEEVE LOCATI ON(S) AS NECESSARY.4. PROVIDE MEDIUM BROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHEREELASTOMERI C CATI NG OCCURS.5. ALL EXPOSED EXTERIOR SURFACES AND ALL I NTERIORSURFACES (WALLS, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SOFFI TS) TO BEPAINTED, COLOR TO BE SELECTD BY ARCHI TECT.6. SEE SHEETFOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAI LS.7. SEE SHEETFOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE. RAMP UP ELECTRICALROOM BICYCLEENCLOSURE STAIR01 ELEV STAIR02 STAIR03 FD FD FD FD FD FD UP UP BLDG -A 5 -STORIES 146,341 SF BLDG -B 6 -STORIES 179,679 SF PARKING GARAGE 4 LEVELS OVER GRADE 954 CARS SERVICE YARD SERVICE YARD F O R B E S B L V D .ALLERTON AVE.MAIN PARKING ENTRY MAIN ACCESS DRIVEDR O P -OF F CENTRAL PARK MAIN ENTRY MAIN ENTRY MAIN ENTRY ALLERTON PARKING ENTRY GENER.ELEC.CHEM STORAGEELEC.GENER.HC H C HC HC HC HC HC H C HC H C CHEM. STORAGE Sheet NumberScale 1" = 40'-0"A-012PRECISE PLAN6/28/19 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 10'20'40'0' NORTH PROJECT DATA BUILDING F.A.R.1.0 BUILDING AREA 326,020 SF BLDG A 146,341 SF BLDG B 179,679 SF TOTAL 326,020 SF PARKING PARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF 913 CARS GARAGE LEVEL AT GRADE 141 LEVEL 2 201 LEVEL 3 201 LEVEL 4 201 ROOF 188 SUBTOTAL 932 SURFACE PARKING 25 TOTAL 957 ACCESSIBLE PARKING ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL 20 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES 18 ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING 4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING 22 0’30’60’ 120’ 595 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 14DNUPUPEAS T G R A N D A V EROEBLING ROAD39 6 F O R B E S 40 0 F O R B E S RA I L T O T R A I L S 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 ZONE 1: MAIN PLAZA1 TREES Cordyline indivisa Mountain Cabbage Tree Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust PERENNIALS & GRASSES Asparagus retrofractus Ming Asparagus Fern Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze'Dwarf Mat Rush Lomandra longifolia 'Nyalla'Nyalla Mat Rush Lomandra longifolia 'Lime Tuff' Lime Tuff Lomandra ZONE 2: STREET FRONTAGE ZONE 3: PERIMETER, SERVICE AREA AND RAILS-TO-TRAILS STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANTERS 2 3 4 TREES Alnus rhombifolia White Alder Olea europaea 'Wilsonii'Wilson Olive Tree SHRUBS Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' Trailing Rosemary Salvia microphylla 'Hot Lips'Hot Lips Salvia Salvia greggii 'Pink'Pink Texas Sage PERENNIALS & GRASSES Asparagus retrofractus Ming Asparagus Fern Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Erigeron karvinskianus Santa Barbara Daisy Festuca rubra Red Fescue Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze'Dwarf Mat Rush Lomandra longifolia 'Nyalla'Nyalla Mat Rush Lomandra longifolia 'Lime Tuff'' Lime Tuff Lomandra TREES Aesculus californica California Buckeye Populus nigra Black Poplar Alnus rhombifolia White Alder SHRUBS Cistus x hybridus White Rockrose Pittosporum tenuifolium 'Silver Sheen'Silver Sheen Kohuhu Rhamnus californica 'Eve Case' Coffeeberry PERENNIALS & GRASSES Achillea millefolium White Flowering Yarrow Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush PERENNIALS & GRASSES Carex barbarae Santa Barbara Sedge Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush Festuca rubra Red Fescue Juncus pallidus Great Pale Rush LEGEND Limit of Work Property Line 1 PROPOSED PLANTING PLAN 0 10' 20' 40' NORTH K J H G F E D C B A 10987654321 1098765432 A B C D E F G H J K 1 Rev Date Description Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number 19419-00 DF YL, LE03/13/2020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Project Title Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Healthpeak 328 Roebling Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH 2325 3rd street, suite 413 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.431.7878 e office@fletcherstudio.com PROPOSED PLANTING PLAN L-201DNUPUPEAS T G R A N D A V EROEBLING ROAD39 6 F O R B E S 40 0 F O R B E S RA I L T O T R A I L S 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 ZONE 1: MAIN PLAZA1 TREES Cordyline indivisa Mountain Cabbage Tree Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust PERENNIALS & GRASSES Asparagus retrofractus Ming Asparagus Fern Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze'Dwarf Mat Rush Lomandra longifolia 'Nyalla'Nyalla Mat Rush Lomandra longifolia 'Lime Tuff' Lime Tuff Lomandra ZONE 2: STREET FRONTAGE ZONE 3: PERIMETER, SERVICE AREA AND RAILS-TO-TRAILS STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANTERS 2 3 4 TREES Alnus rhombifolia White Alder Olea europaea 'Wilsonii'Wilson Olive Tree SHRUBS Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' Trailing Rosemary Salvia microphylla 'Hot Lips'Hot Lips Salvia Salvia greggii 'Pink'Pink Texas Sage PERENNIALS & GRASSES Asparagus retrofractus Ming Asparagus Fern Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Erigeron karvinskianus Santa Barbara Daisy Festuca rubra Red Fescue Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze'Dwarf Mat Rush Lomandra longifolia 'Nyalla'Nyalla Mat Rush Lomandra longifolia 'Lime Tuff'' Lime Tuff Lomandra TREES Aesculus californica California Buckeye Populus nigra Black Poplar Alnus rhombifolia White Alder SHRUBS Cistus x hybridus White Rockrose Pittosporum tenuifolium 'Silver Sheen'Silver Sheen Kohuhu Rhamnus californica 'Eve Case' Coffeeberry PERENNIALS & GRASSES Achillea millefolium White Flowering Yarrow Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush PERENNIALS & GRASSES Carex barbarae Santa Barbara Sedge Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush Festuca rubra Red Fescue Juncus pallidus Great Pale Rush LEGEND Limit of Work Property Line 1 PROPOSED PLANTING PLAN 0 10' 20' 40' NORTH K J H G F E D C B A 10987654321 1098765432 A B C D E F G H J K 1 Rev Date Description Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number 19419-00 DF YL, LE03/13/2020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Project Title Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Healthpeak 328 Roebling Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH 2325 3rd street, suite 413 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.431.7878 e office@fletcherstudio.com PROPOSED PLANTING PLAN L-201 Landscape Planting Zones SHEET NOTE1. FLOOR ELEVATI ONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURALSLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. SEE SHEETTOFOR STRIPING, SIGNS ANDGRAPHI C I NFORMATI ON.3. COORDINATE STRUCTURAL WITH SPRI NKLER DESI GN ANDLAYOUT. PROVIDE SLEEVE LOCATI ON(S) AS NECESSARY.4. PROVIDE MEDIUM BROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHEREELASTOMERI C CATI NG OCCURS.5. ALL EXPOSED EXTERIOR SURFACES AND ALL I NTERIORSURFACES (WALLS, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SOFFI TS) TO BEPAINTED, COLOR TO BE SELECTD BY ARCHI TECT.6. SEE SHEETFOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAI LS.7. SEE SHEETFOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE. RAMP UP ELECTRICALROOM BICYCLEENCLOSURE STAIR01 ELEV STAIR02 STAIR03 FD FD FD FD FD FD UP UP BLDG -A 5 -STORIES 146,341 SF BLDG -B 6 -STORIES 179,679 SF PARKING GARAGE 4 LEVELS OVER GRADE 954 CARS SERVICE YARD SERVICE YARD F O R B E S B L V D .ALLERTON AVE.MAIN PARKING ENTRY MAIN ACCESS DRIVEDR O P -OF F CENTRAL PARK MAIN ENTRY MAIN ENTRY MAIN ENTRY ALLERTON PARKING ENTRY GENER.ELEC.CHEM STORAGEELEC.GENER.HC H C HC HC HC HC HC H C HC H C CHEM. STORAGE Sheet NumberScale 1" = 40'-0"A-012PRECISE PLAN6/28/19 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 10'20'40'0' NORTH PROJECT DATA BUILDING F.A.R.1.0 BUILDING AREA 326,020 SF BLDG A 146,341 SF BLDG B 179,679 SF TOTAL 326,020 SF PARKING PARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF 913 CARS GARAGE LEVEL AT GRADE 141 LEVEL 2 201 LEVEL 3 201 LEVEL 4 201 ROOF 188 SUBTOTAL 932 SURFACE PARKING 25 TOTAL 957 ACCESSIBLE PARKING ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL 20 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES 18 ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING 4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING 22 0’30’60’ 120’ 596 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 15 K J H G F E D C B A 10987654321 1098765432 A B C D E F G H J K 1 Rev Date Description Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number 19419-00 DF YL, LE03/13/2020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Project Title Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Healthpeak 328 Roebling Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 TRUENORTHPROJECTNORTH 2325 3rd street, suite 413 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.431.7878 e office@fletcherstudio.com SITE SECTIONS L-103 NTS1ROEBLING RD. FACADE KEY PLAN NTS3MAIN PLAZA ENTRY NTS2MAIN PLAZA P.L. P.L. EAST GRAND AVEMAIN PLAZA SLOPED WALK / TERRACED LANDSCAPE AREAS (BEYOND)PASSIVE SEATING AREA, 2% MAX. SLOPE STREETSCAPE SLOPED WALK / TERRACED LANDSCAPE AREAS (BEYOND)PASSIVE SEATING AREA 123PASSIVE SEATING AREA, 2% MAX. SLOPE SLOPED WALK SERVICE AREAROEBLING RD.PLANTING AREA / GATHERING SPACE MAIN PATHWAY DROP-OFF/ LOADING ZONE GATHERING SPACEPARKING GARAGE PLAZA ENTRY PLAZA ENTRYPLANTING AREA PASSIVE SEATING AREA PLANTING AREA Landscape Site Sections 597 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 16 TREES AESCULUS CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE ALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA WHITE ALDER ARBORDYLINE INDIVISA MOUNTAIN CABBAGETREE GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS HONEY LOCUST MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'SAMUEL SOMMER' SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA OLEA EUROPAEA 'WILSONII'WILSON OLIVE TREE POPULUS NIGRA BLACK POPLAR SHRUBS CISTUS X HYBRIDUS WHITE ROCKROSE PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM 'SILVER SHEEN' SILVER SHEEN KOHUHU RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'EVE CASE' COFFEEBERRY ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'PROSTRATUS' TRAILING ROSEMARY SALVIA MICROPHYLLA 'HOT LIPS'HOT LIPS SALVIA SALVIA GREGGII 'PINK'PINK TEXAS SAGE PERENNIALS & GRASSES ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM WHITE FLOWERING YARROW ASPARAGUS RETROFRACTUS MING ASPARAGUS FERN CAREX BARBARAE SANTA BARBARA SEDGE CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSH ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUS SANTA BARBARA DAISY ESCHSCHOLZIA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA POPPY FESTUCA RUBRA RED FESCUE JUNCUS PALLIDUS GREAT PALE RUSH LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'DWARF MAT RUSH LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'NYALLA'NYALLA MAT RUSH LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'LIME TUFF' LIME TUFF LOMANDRA MASTER PLANTING SCHEDULE K J H G F E D C B A 10987654321 1098765432 A B C D E F G H J K 1 Rev Date Description Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number 19419-00 DF YL, LE03/13/2020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Project Title Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Healthpeak 328 Roebling Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 TRUENORTHPROJECTNORTH 2325 3rd street, suite 413 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.431.7878 e office@fletcherstudio.com PROPOSED PLANTING PALETTE L-202 TREES SHRUBS & GROUNDCOVERS A B C D E F G I K L N O M K J I H L F E D C B A G N O PERENNIALS & GRASSES H J M Landscape Planting Types 598 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 17 Site Materials & Landscape Furnishing K J H G F E D C B A 10987654321 1098765432 A B C D E F G H J K 1 Rev Date Description Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number 19419-00 DF YL, LE03/13/2020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Project Title Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Healthpeak 328 Roebling Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 TRUENORTHPROJECTNORTH 2325 3rd street, suite 413 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.431.7878 e office@fletcherstudio.com SITE MATERIALS & FURNISHINGS L-104 NARROW CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS (PEDESTRIAN) MODEL: 12"X24" ACKERSTONE COLORS: MIX OF LIGHT, MEDIUM & DARK GREY M N K LJ HGF DCBADG STABILIZED FINES (AT SEATING AREAS) COLOR: TAN CONCRETE PAVING COLORS: VARIES BY LOCATION NATURAL & INTEGRAL FINISHES: VARIES BY LOCATION, MEDIUM BROOM & EXPOSED AGGREGATE BLACK BASALT MULCH (AT BIO-RETENTION AREAS) RECYCLED BLACK CHIP MULCH (AT REGULAR PLANTING AREAS) GABION WALLS MIX OF 2' & 3' WIDE BASKETS, DEPTH T.B.C. FILL WITH 1/3 STONE AT FACE OF WALL, 2/3 RECYCLED CONCRETE (GRADED 6"-9" PIECES) BURNISHED CMU WALLS RAKED HORIZONTAL JOINTS, FLUSH VERTICAL JOINTS LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALL LOCATION: AT SERVICE SCREEN BIKE RACKS, EMBEDDED POSTS CIRCULAR TABLES & CHAIRS, EMBEDDED FOOTINGS MFR: LANDSCAPE FORMS, PARC CENTRE TABLES WITH MATCHING SEATS (MODIFIED) TAPERED LIGHT POLES WITH MULTIPLE LUMINAIRES COLOR: SILVER HEIGHT: VARIES MFR/MODEL: 'RAMA' BY LANDSCAPE FORMS LED ACCENT LIGHTING (AT BENCH REVEALS)P 'MULTIPLICITY' LITTER & RECYCLING RECEPTACLES MFR: LANDSCAPE FORMS PRECAST CONC SCULPTURE 'LUNGO MARE' BY ESCOFET (CONTACT LANDSCAPE FORMS) COLOR: NATURAL I CONCRETE SEAT WALLS LOCATION: MAIN PLAZA O LINEAR LED LIGHTS SUSPENDED FROM CABLES ABOVE K J H G F E D C B A 10987654321 1098765432 A B C D E F G H J K 1 Rev Date Description Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number 19419-00 DF YL, LE03/13/2020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Project Title Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Healthpeak 328 Roebling Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 TRUENORTHPROJECTNORTH 2325 3rd street, suite 413 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.431.7878 e office@fletcherstudio.com SITE MATERIALS & FURNISHINGS L-104 NARROW CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS (PEDESTRIAN) MODEL: 12"X24" ACKERSTONE COLORS: MIX OF LIGHT, MEDIUM & DARK GREY M N K LJ HGF DCBADG STABILIZED FINES (AT SEATING AREAS) COLOR: TAN CONCRETE PAVING COLORS: VARIES BY LOCATION NATURAL & INTEGRAL FINISHES: VARIES BY LOCATION, MEDIUM BROOM & EXPOSED AGGREGATE BLACK BASALT MULCH (AT BIO-RETENTION AREAS) RECYCLED BLACK CHIP MULCH (AT REGULAR PLANTING AREAS) GABION WALLS MIX OF 2' & 3' WIDE BASKETS, DEPTH T.B.C. FILL WITH 1/3 STONE AT FACE OF WALL, 2/3 RECYCLED CONCRETE (GRADED 6"-9" PIECES) BURNISHED CMU WALLS RAKED HORIZONTAL JOINTS, FLUSH VERTICAL JOINTS LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALL LOCATION: AT SERVICE SCREEN BIKE RACKS, EMBEDDED POSTS CIRCULAR TABLES & CHAIRS, EMBEDDED FOOTINGS MFR: LANDSCAPE FORMS, PARC CENTRE TABLES WITH MATCHING SEATS (MODIFIED) TAPERED LIGHT POLES WITH MULTIPLE LUMINAIRES COLOR: SILVER HEIGHT: VARIES MFR/MODEL: 'RAMA' BY LANDSCAPE FORMS LED ACCENT LIGHTING (AT BENCH REVEALS)P 'MULTIPLICITY' LITTER & RECYCLING RECEPTACLES MFR: LANDSCAPE FORMS PRECAST CONC SCULPTURE 'LUNGO MARE' BY ESCOFET (CONTACT LANDSCAPE FORMS) COLOR: NATURAL I CONCRETE SEAT WALLS LOCATION: MAIN PLAZA O LINEAR LED LIGHTS SUSPENDED FROM CABLES ABOVE K J H G F E D C B A 10987654321 1098765432 A B C D E F G H J K 1 Rev Date Description Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number 19419-00 DF YL, LE03/13/2020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Project Title Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Healthpeak 328 Roebling Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 TRUENORTHPROJECTNORTH 2325 3rd street, suite 413 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.431.7878 e office@fletcherstudio.com SITE MATERIALS & FURNISHINGS L-104 NARROW CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS (PEDESTRIAN) MODEL: 12"X24" ACKERSTONE COLORS: MIX OF LIGHT, MEDIUM & DARK GREY M N K LJ HGF DCBADG STABILIZED FINES (AT SEATING AREAS) COLOR: TAN CONCRETE PAVING COLORS: VARIES BY LOCATION NATURAL & INTEGRAL FINISHES: VARIES BY LOCATION, MEDIUM BROOM & EXPOSED AGGREGATE BLACK BASALT MULCH (AT BIO-RETENTION AREAS) RECYCLED BLACK CHIP MULCH (AT REGULAR PLANTING AREAS) GABION WALLS MIX OF 2' & 3' WIDE BASKETS, DEPTH T.B.C. FILL WITH 1/3 STONE AT FACE OF WALL, 2/3 RECYCLED CONCRETE (GRADED 6"-9" PIECES) BURNISHED CMU WALLS RAKED HORIZONTAL JOINTS, FLUSH VERTICAL JOINTS LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALL LOCATION: AT SERVICE SCREEN BIKE RACKS, EMBEDDED POSTS CIRCULAR TABLES & CHAIRS, EMBEDDED FOOTINGS MFR: LANDSCAPE FORMS, PARC CENTRE TABLES WITH MATCHING SEATS (MODIFIED) TAPERED LIGHT POLES WITH MULTIPLE LUMINAIRES COLOR: SILVER HEIGHT: VARIES MFR/MODEL: 'RAMA' BY LANDSCAPE FORMS LED ACCENT LIGHTING (AT BENCH REVEALS)P 'MULTIPLICITY' LITTER & RECYCLING RECEPTACLES MFR: LANDSCAPE FORMS PRECAST CONC SCULPTURE 'LUNGO MARE' BY ESCOFET (CONTACT LANDSCAPE FORMS) COLOR: NATURAL I CONCRETE SEAT WALLS LOCATION: MAIN PLAZA O LINEAR LED LIGHTS SUSPENDED FROM CABLES ABOVE 599 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 18 K J H G F E D C B A 10987654321 1098765432 A B C D E F G H J K 1 Rev Date Description Drawn By Rev. No. Checked By Date Project Phase Project Number Sheet Title Sheet Number 19419-00 DF YL, LE03/13/2020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Project Title Project Key Plan Stamps & Approvals NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Healthpeak 328 Roebling Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH 2325 3rd street, suite 413 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.431.7878 e office@fletcherstudio.com SITE VIGNETTES L-102 4 MAIN PLAZA - EYE LEVEL 2 STREET FRONTAGE - EYE LEVEL 3 MAIN PLAZA - AERIAL 1 STREET FRONTAGE - AERIAL Site Vignettes 600 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 19 ENLARGED VICINITY MAP WITH VIEW LOCATIONS 1 4 3 2 VIEW 1 AERIAL VIEW OF SITE - SOUTH VIEW 3 AERIAL VIEW OF SITE - WEST VIEW 2 VIEW 4 Existing Site PhotosROEBLING RO E B L I N G E. G R A N D E. GRAND601 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 20 Elevations 18' - 0"LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0"ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0"LEVEL 10' - 0"PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4"PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6"PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16" PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF) 18' - 0"LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0"ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0"LEVEL 1 0' - 0" PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4"PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6" PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16" PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF)20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"11' - 4"10' - 2"8' - 2 5/16"DRIVE ACCESS PARKING STRUCTURE E. GRAND AVE TO TRAILS RAILS TOWERPLAZA 20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ADJACENT PROPERTY 213 E. GRAND ADJACENT PROPERTY 396 FORBES ADJACENT PROPERTY213 E. GRAND ADJACENT PROPERTY 269 E. GRAND ADJACENT PROPERTY 269 E. GRAND ROEBLING RD.TOWER DRIVE ACCESS ROEBLNG RD PARKING STRUCTURE DRIVE ACCESS 11' - 4" 10' - 2" 8' - 2 5/16"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE8 7 9 11 10 1 3 10 2 4 5 2 1 3 6 6 5 10 10 10 7 8 9 6 18' - 0"LEVEL 2 35' - 0"LEVEL 3 52' - 0"LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1 0' - 0" PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4"PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6"PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16"PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF) 18' - 0"LEVEL 2 35' - 0"LEVEL 3 52' - 0"LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1 0' - 0" PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4" PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6" PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16" PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF)20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"11' - 4" 10' - 2" 8' - 2 5/16" DRIVE ACCESS PARKING STRUCTURE E. GRAND AVE TO TRAILS RAILS TOWERPLAZA 20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ADJACENT PROPERTY 213 E. GRAND ADJACENT PROPERTY 396 FORBES ADJACENT PROPERTY213 E. GRAND ADJACENT PROPERTY 269 E. GRAND ADJACENT PROPERTY 269 E. GRAND ROEBLING RD.TOWER DRIVE ACCESS ROEBLNG RD PARKING STRUCTURE DRIVE ACCESS 11' - 4"10' - 2"8' - 2 5/16"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE8 7 9 11 10 1 3 10 2 4 5 2 1 3 6 6 5 10 10 10 7 8 9 618' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1 0' - 0" PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4" PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6" PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16" PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF)20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE TO TRAILS RAILS328 ROEBLINGE. GRAND AVE PARKING STRUCTURE DRIVE ACCESS 11' - 4"10' - 2" 8' - 2 5/16" 10 3 1 2 5 2 8 9 7 18' - 0"LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0"ROOF 106' - 0"ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ROEBLING RD 328 ROEBLING ACCESS DRIVE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACETENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACELOBBY 10 3 1 2 5 10 4 10 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE328 REOBLING 20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ACCESS DRIVEROEBLING RD. TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE 10 3 1 2 5 10 1/32" = 1'-0"1 LONGITUDINAL SITE SECTION PERCISE PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0"2 TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION II PERCISE PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0"3 TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION PERCISE PLAN MATERIAL LEGEND HIGH PERFORMANCE GLASS1 SHADOW BOX SPANDREL GLASS - HIGH PERFORMANCE GLASS3 LOW IRON VISION GLASS 2 SHADOW BOX SPANDREL GLASS - LOW IRON VISION GLASS4 7 ALUMINUM FIN9 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE8 CURTAIN WALL VERTICAL FIN5 SOLID METAL PANEL 10 PERFORATED METAL PANEL 11 ROLL UP DOOR6 WIRE MESH INFILL PANEL West Elevation - Along Roebling1 South Elevation - Along E. Grand2 South Elevation - Along Plaza3 1 2 3 0’30’60’120’ 602 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 21 18' - 0"LEVEL 2 35' - 0"LEVEL 3 52' - 0"LEVEL 4 69' - 0"LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0"ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1 0' - 0" PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4" PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6"PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16" PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF) 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0"ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0"LEVEL 1 0' - 0" PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4"PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6" PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16"PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE11' - 4" 10' - 2" 8' - 2 5/16" TOWER PARKING STRUCTURE DRIVE ACCESS TO TRAILS RAILSE. GRAND AVE 18' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"20' - 0"ROEBLING RDTOWER DRIVE ACCESS 11' - 4"10' - 2"8' - 2 5/16"ROEBLING RDPARKING STRUCTURE TOWER BEYOND DRIVE ACCESS ADJACENT PROPERTY 396 FORBES ADJACENT PROPERTY 269 E. GRAND ADJACENT PROPERTY 269 E. GRANDADJACENT PROPERTY 213 E. GRAND ADJACENT PROPERTY 213 E. GRAND 10 11 10 1 3 9 7 8 10 11 10 3 1 2 4 5 9 7 8 18' - 0"LEVEL 2 35' - 0"LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0"LEVEL 1 0' - 0"PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4"PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6" PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16"PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF) 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0"LEVEL 4 69' - 0"LEVEL 5 86' - 0"ROOF 106' - 0"ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0"LEVEL 1 0' - 0"PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4"PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6"PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16"PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE11' - 4"10' - 2"8' - 2 5/16"TOWER PARKING STRUCTURE DRIVE ACCESS TO TRAILS RAILSE. GRAND AVE 18' - 0" 17' - 0" 17' - 0" 17' - 0" 17' - 0" 20' - 0" ROEBLING RDTOWER DRIVE ACCESS 11' - 4" 10' - 2" 8' - 2 5/16" ROEBLING RDPARKING STRUCTURE TOWER BEYOND DRIVE ACCESS ADJACENT PROPERTY 396 FORBES ADJACENT PROPERTY 269 E. GRAND ADJACENT PROPERTY 269 E. GRANDADJACENT PROPERTY 213 E. GRAND ADJACENT PROPERTY 213 E. GRAND 10 11 10 1 3 9 7 8 10 11 10 3 1 2 4 5 9 7 8 Elevations 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1 0' - 0" PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4" PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6" PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16" PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF)20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE TO TRAILS RAILS328 ROEBLINGE. GRAND AVE PARKING STRUCTURE DRIVE ACCESS 11' - 4"10' - 2" 8' - 2 5/16" 10 3 1 2 5 2 8 9 7 18' - 0"LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0"ROOF 106' - 0"ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ROEBLING RD 328 ROEBLING ACCESS DRIVE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACETENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACELOBBY 10 3 1 2 5 10 4 10 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE328 REOBLING 20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ACCESS DRIVEROEBLING RD. TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE 10 3 1 2 5 10 1/32" = 1'-0"1 LONGITUDINAL SITE SECTION PERCISE PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0"2 TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION II PERCISE PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0"3 TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION PERCISE PLAN MATERIAL LEGEND HIGH PERFORMANCE GLASS1 SHADOW BOX SPANDREL GLASS - HIGH PERFORMANCE GLASS3 LOW IRON VISION GLASS 2 SHADOW BOX SPANDREL GLASS - LOW IRON VISION GLASS4 7 ALUMINUM FIN9 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE8 CURTAIN WALL VERTICAL FIN5 SOLID METAL PANEL 10 PERFORATED METAL PANEL 11 ROLL UP DOOR6 WIRE MESH INFILL PANEL East Elevation - Along Access Drive1 North Elevation - Along Plaza2 North Elevation - Along Rails to Trails3 1 2 3 0’30’60’120’ 603 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 22 Sections 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0"LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0"LEVEL 1 0' - 0"PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4" PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6"PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16" PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF)20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE TO TRAILS RAILS328 ROEBLINGE. GRAND AVE PARKING STRUCTURE DRIVE ACCESS 11' - 4"10' - 2" 8' - 2 5/16" 10 3 1 2 5 2 8 9 7 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0"LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ROEBLING RD 328 ROEBLING ACCESS DRIVE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACETENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACELOBBY 10 3 1 2 5 10 4 10 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0"LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0"LEVEL 1PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE328 REOBLING 20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ACCESS DRIVEROEBLING RD. TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE 10 3 1 2 5 10 1/32" = 1'-0"1 LONGITUDINAL SITE SECTION PERCISE PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0"2 TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION II PERCISE PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0"3 TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION PERCISE PLAN MATERIAL LEGEND HIGH PERFORMANCE GLASS1 SHADOW BOX SPANDREL GLASS - HIGH PERFORMANCE GLASS3 LOW IRON VISION GLASS 2 SHADOW BOX SPANDREL GLASS - LOW IRON VISION GLASS4 7 ALUMINUM FIN9 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE8 CURTAIN WALL VERTICAL FIN5 SOLID METAL PANEL 10 PERFORATED METAL PANEL 11 ROLL UP DOOR6 WIRE MESH INFILL PANEL 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0"LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1 0' - 0" PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4"PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6" PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16" PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF)20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE TO TRAILS RAILS328 ROEBLINGE. GRAND AVE PARKING STRUCTURE DRIVE ACCESS 11' - 4"10' - 2" 8' - 2 5/16" 10 3 1 2 5 2 8 9 7 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ROEBLING RD 328 ROEBLING ACCESS DRIVE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACETENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACELOBBY 10 3 1 2 5 10 4 10 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0"LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE328 REOBLING 20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ACCESS DRIVEROEBLING RD. TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE 10 3 1 2 5 10 1/32" = 1'-0"1 LONGITUDINAL SITE SECTION PERCISE PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0"2 TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION II PERCISE PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0"3 TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION PERCISE PLAN MATERIAL LEGEND HIGH PERFORMANCE GLASS1 SHADOW BOX SPANDREL GLASS - HIGH PERFORMANCE GLASS3 LOW IRON VISION GLASS 2 SHADOW BOX SPANDREL GLASS - LOW IRON VISION GLASS4 7 ALUMINUM FIN9 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE8 CURTAIN WALL VERTICAL FIN5 SOLID METAL PANEL 10 PERFORATED METAL PANEL 11 ROLL UP DOOR6 WIRE MESH INFILL PANEL 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1 0' - 0" PS GROUND LEVEL 11' - 4" PS SECOND LEVEL 21' - 6" PS THIRD LEVEL 29' - 8 5/16" PS FOURTH LEVEL (ROOF)20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE TO TRAILS RAILS328 ROEBLINGE. GRAND AVE PARKING STRUCTURE DRIVE ACCESS 11' - 4"10' - 2" 8' - 2 5/16" 10 3 1 2 5 2 8 9 7 18' - 0"LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0"ROOF 106' - 0"ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ROEBLING RD 328 ROEBLING ACCESS DRIVE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACETENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACELOBBY 10 3 1 2 5 10 4 10 18' - 0" LEVEL 2 35' - 0" LEVEL 3 52' - 0" LEVEL 4 69' - 0" LEVEL 5 86' - 0" ROOF 106' - 0" ROOF SCREEN 0' - 0" LEVEL 1PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE328 REOBLING 20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"18' - 0"ACCESS DRIVEROEBLING RD. TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE 10 3 1 2 5 10 1/32" = 1'-0"1 LONGITUDINAL SITE SECTION PERCISE PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0"2 TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION II PERCISE PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0"3 TRANSVERSE SITE SECTION PERCISE PLAN MATERIAL LEGEND HIGH PERFORMANCE GLASS1 SHADOW BOX SPANDREL GLASS - HIGH PERFORMANCE GLASS3 LOW IRON VISION GLASS 2 SHADOW BOX SPANDREL GLASS - LOW IRON VISION GLASS4 7 ALUMINUM FIN9 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE8 CURTAIN WALL VERTICAL FIN5 SOLID METAL PANEL 10 PERFORATED METAL PANEL 11 ROLL UP DOOR6 WIRE MESH INFILL PANEL Longitudinal Site Section1 Transverse Site Section - 12 Transverse Site Section - 23 1 2 3 0’30’60’120’ PLAZATOWER TOWER TOWER 604 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 23 Building - Level 1 Plan DN UP UP B 1 2 3 4 LL MM 3.9 C E F G H J K L MA AA 2.5 J.5 BB DA.3 H.8 3.3 A.9 STAIR 2 CIRCULATION ELEV. VEST LOBBY SERVICE ELEV. ELEV. TELECO MPOE IDF WOMEN MEN TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE ELEV. 4' - 0"5' - 10"4' - 10"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 7"3' - 5"11' - 0"11' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"1' - 6"41' - 0"30' - 0"42' - 6"SOFFIT ABOVE AT LEVEL 3 SOFFIT ABOVE AT LEVEL 2 SHOWERS SHOWERS ELEV. LOBBY SOFFIT ABOVE MECH. SHAFT ABOVE MECH. SHAFT ABOVE MAIN ELECTRICAL ROOM EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL ROOM CHEMICAL STORAGE CHEMICAL STORAGE DELIVERY/ MAIL ROOM GENERATOR AND TRANSFORMERS BULK CHEMICAL STORAGE (FUTURE) TRASH FIRE WATER PUMP ROOM CHEMICAL STORAGE CIRCULATION DOMESTIC PUMP ROOM FIRE COMMAND CENTER LOADING DOCK ROLL DOWN DOOR STAINLESS STEEL BOLLARD TYP. DOCK LEVELER 17' - 0"STAIR 1 MAIN ENTR< PLAZA 0’30’60’ SHEET NOTE1. FLOOR ELEVATI ONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. S EE SHEETTOFOR STRIPING, SIGNS ANDGRAPHI C I N FORMATI O N.3. C OORDINATE STRUCTURAL WITH SPRI N K LER DESI G N ANDLAYOUT. P R OVI D E SLEEVE LOCATI O N (S) AS NECESSARY.4. P ROVIDE MEDI U M B ROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHERE ELASTOMERI C C A T I N G OCCURS.5. A LL EXPOSED EXTERIOR SURFACES AND ALL I N T E R IORSURFACES (WALLS, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SOFFI T S ) T O BEPAINTED, COLOR TO BE SELECTD BY ARCHI T E C T.6. S EE SHEETFOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAI L S . 7. S EE SHEETFOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE.RAMP UPELECTRICALROOMBICYCLEENCLOSURESTAIR01ELEVSTAIR02STAIR03FDFDFDFDFDFDUPUPBLDG -A5 -STORIES146,341 SFBLDG -B6 -STORIES179,679 SFPARKING GARAGE4 LEVELS OVER GRADE954 CARSSERVICEYARDSERVICEYARDFORBES BLVD.ALLERTON AVE.MAIN PARKING ENTRYMAIN ACCESS DRIVEDROP-OFFCENTRAL PARKMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYALLERTON PARKING ENTRYGENER.ELEC.CHEM STORAGEELEC.GENER.HCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCCHEM. STORAGESheet NumberScale1" = 40'-0"A-012PRECISE PLAN6/28/19PROPOSED SITE PLAN10'20'40'0'NORTHPROJECT DATABUILDINGF.A.R.1.0BUILDING AREA 326,020 SFBLDG A146,341 SFBLDG B179,679 SFTOTAL 326,020 SFPARKINGPARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF 913 CARSGARAGELEVEL AT GRADE 141LEVEL 2201LEVEL 3201LEVEL 4201ROOF188SUBTOTAL 932SURFACE PARKING 25 TOTAL957ACCESSIBLE PARKINGACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL 20ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES18ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING2215’ 605 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 24 UP UPUP B 1 2 3 4 LL MM 3.9 C E F G H J K L MA AA 2.5 J.5 BB DA.3 H.8 3.3 A.9 STAIR 2 SHAFTSHAFT 4' - 0" 10' - 8"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 7"3' - 5" 11' - 0"11' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"1' - 6"41' - 0"30' - 0"42' - 6"SOFFIT ABOVE 17' - 0"STAIR 1 14' - 8"2' - 6"2' - 6"2' - 6 3/16"TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE SERVICE ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. ELEC. ROOM ELEV. VEST IDF MEN WOMEN Building - Level 2 Plan 0’30’60’ SHEET NOTE1. FLOOR ELEVATI ONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. S EE SHEETTOFOR STRIPING, SIGNS ANDGRAPHI C I N FORMATI O N.3. C OORDINATE STRUCTURAL WITH SPRI N K LER DESI G N ANDLAYOUT. P R OVI D E SLEEVE LOCATI O N (S) AS NECESSARY.4. P ROVIDE MEDI U M B ROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHERE ELASTOMERI C C A T I N G OCCURS.5. A LL EXPOSED EXTERIOR SURFACES AND ALL I N T E R IORSURFACES (WALLS, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SOFFI T S ) T O BEPAINTED, COLOR TO BE SELECTD BY ARCHI T E C T.6. S EE SHEETFOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAI L S . 7. S EE SHEETFOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE.RAMP UPELECTRICALROOMBICYCLEENCLOSURESTAIR01ELEVSTAIR02STAIR03FDFDFDFDFDFDUPUPBLDG -A5 -STORIES146,341 SFBLDG -B6 -STORIES179,679 SFPARKING GARAGE4 LEVELS OVER GRADE954 CARSSERVICEYARDSERVICEYARDFORBES BLVD.ALLERTON AVE.MAIN PARKING ENTRYMAIN ACCESS DRIVEDROP-OFFCENTRAL PARKMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYALLERTON PARKING ENTRYGENER.ELEC.CHEM STORAGEELEC.GENER.HCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCCHEM. STORAGESheet NumberScale1" = 40'-0"A-012PRECISE PLAN6/28/19PROPOSED SITE PLAN10'20'40'0'NORTHPROJECT DATABUILDINGF.A.R.1.0BUILDING AREA 326,020 SFBLDG A146,341 SFBLDG B179,679 SFTOTAL 326,020 SFPARKINGPARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF 913 CARSGARAGELEVEL AT GRADE 141LEVEL 2201LEVEL 3201LEVEL 4201ROOF188SUBTOTAL 932SURFACE PARKING 25 TOTAL957ACCESSIBLE PARKINGACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL 20ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES18ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING2215’ 606 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 25 UP UP B 1 2 3 4 LL MM 3.9 C E F G H J K L MA AA 2.5 J.5 BB D A.3 A.3 H.8 3.3 A.9 TENANT SPACE STAIR 2 SHAFTSHAFT TENANT SPACE 4' - 0" 5' - 10" 4' - 10"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 7"3' - 5" 11' - 0"11' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"1' - 6"41' - 0"30' - 0"42' - 6"STAIR 1 1' - 5"2' - 6"SERVICE ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. ELEC. ROOM ELEV. VEST IDF TENANT SPACE WOMEN MEN ELEV. LOBBY Building - Typical Plan (3-5) 0’30’60’ SHEET NOTE1. FLOOR ELEVATI ONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. S EE SHEETTOFOR STRIPING, SIGNS ANDGRAPHI C I N FORMATI O N.3. C OORDINATE STRUCTURAL WITH SPRI N K LER DESI G N ANDLAYOUT. P R OVI D E SLEEVE LOCATI O N (S) AS NECESSARY.4. P ROVIDE MEDI U M B ROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHERE ELASTOMERI C C A T I N G OCCURS.5. A LL EXPOSED EXTERIOR SURFACES AND ALL I N T E R IORSURFACES (WALLS, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SOFFI T S ) T O BEPAINTED, COLOR TO BE SELECTD BY ARCHI T E C T.6. S EE SHEETFOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAI L S . 7. S EE SHEETFOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE.RAMP UPELECTRICALROOMBICYCLEENCLOSURESTAIR01ELEVSTAIR02STAIR03FDFDFDFDFDFDUPUPBLDG -A5 -STORIES146,341 SFBLDG -B6 -STORIES179,679 SFPARKING GARAGE4 LEVELS OVER GRADE954 CARSSERVICEYARDSERVICEYARDFORBES BLVD.ALLERTON AVE.MAIN PARKING ENTRYMAIN ACCESS DRIVEDROP-OFFCENTRAL PARKMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYALLERTON PARKING ENTRYGENER.ELEC.CHEM STORAGEELEC.GENER.HCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCCHEM. STORAGESheet NumberScale1" = 40'-0"A-012PRECISE PLAN6/28/19PROPOSED SITE PLAN10'20'40'0'NORTHPROJECT DATABUILDINGF.A.R.1.0BUILDING AREA 326,020 SFBLDG A146,341 SFBLDG B179,679 SFTOTAL 326,020 SFPARKINGPARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF 913 CARSGARAGELEVEL AT GRADE 141LEVEL 2201LEVEL 3201LEVEL 4201ROOF188SUBTOTAL 932SURFACE PARKING 25 TOTAL957ACCESSIBLE PARKINGACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL 20ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES18ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING2215’ 607 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 26 UP B 1 2 3 4 MM 3.9 C E F G H J K L MA AA 2.5 J.5 BB DA.3 H.8 3.3 A.9 4' - 0" 5' - 10" 4' - 10"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 7"3' - 5" 11' - 0"11' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"1' - 6"41' - 0"30' - 0"42' - 6"ELEV. OVERRUN SHAFT TOP SHAFT TOP WINDOW WASHING DAVIT PEDESTAL TYP. OPEN MECHANICAL ROOF ROOF SCREEN PARAPET Building - Roof Plan 0’30’60’ SHEET NOTE1. FLOOR ELEVATI ONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. S EE SHEETTOFOR STRIPING, SIGNS ANDGRAPHI C I N FORMATI O N.3. C OORDINATE STRUCTURAL WITH SPRI N K LER DESI G N ANDLAYOUT. P R OVI D E SLEEVE LOCATI O N (S) AS NECESSARY.4. P ROVIDE MEDI U M B ROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHERE ELASTOMERI C C A T I N G OCCURS.5. A LL EXPOSED EXTERIOR SURFACES AND ALL I N T E R IORSURFACES (WALLS, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SOFFI T S ) T O BEPAINTED, COLOR TO BE SELECTD BY ARCHI T E C T.6. S EE SHEETFOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAI L S . 7. S EE SHEETFOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE.RAMP UPELECTRICALROOMBICYCLEENCLOSURESTAIR01ELEVSTAIR02STAIR03FDFDFDFDFDFDUPUPBLDG -A5 -STORIES146,341 SFBLDG -B6 -STORIES179,679 SFPARKING GARAGE4 LEVELS OVER GRADE954 CARSSERVICEYARDSERVICEYARDFORBES BLVD.ALLERTON AVE.MAIN PARKING ENTRYMAIN ACCESS DRIVEDROP-OFFCENTRAL PARKMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYALLERTON PARKING ENTRYGENER.ELEC.CHEM STORAGEELEC.GENER.HCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCCHEM. STORAGESheet NumberScale1" = 40'-0"A-012PRECISE PLAN6/28/19PROPOSED SITE PLAN10'20'40'0'NORTHPROJECT DATABUILDINGF.A.R.1.0BUILDING AREA 326,020 SFBLDG A146,341 SFBLDG B179,679 SFTOTAL 326,020 SFPARKINGPARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF 913 CARSGARAGELEVEL AT GRADE 141LEVEL 2201LEVEL 3201LEVEL 4201ROOF188SUBTOTAL 932SURFACE PARKING 25 TOTAL957ACCESSIBLE PARKINGACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL 20ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES18ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING2215’ 608 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 27 Garage - Level 1-2 Plan 0’30’60’ SHEET NOTE1. FLOOR ELEVATI ONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. S EE SHEETTOFOR STRIPING, SIGNS ANDGRAPHI C I N FORMATI O N.3. C OORDINATE STRUCTURAL WITH SPRI N K LER DESI G N ANDLAYOUT. P R OVI D E SLEEVE LOCATI O N (S) AS NECESSARY.4. P ROVIDE MEDI U M B ROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHERE ELASTOMERI C C A T I N G OCCURS.5. A LL EXPOSED EXTERIOR SURFACES AND ALL I N T E R IORSURFACES (WALLS, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SOFFI T S ) T O BEPAINTED, COLOR TO BE SELECTD BY ARCHI T E C T.6. S EE SHEETFOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAI L S . 7. S EE SHEETFOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE.RAMP UPELECTRICALROOMBICYCLEENCLOSURESTAIR01ELEVSTAIR02STAIR03FDFDFDFDFDFDUPUPBLDG -A5 -STORIES146,341 SFBLDG -B6 -STORIES179,679 SFPARKING GARAGE4 LEVELS OVER GRADE954 CARSSERVICEYARDSERVICEYARDFORBES BLVD.ALLERTON AVE.MAIN PARKING ENTRYMAIN ACCESS DRIVEDROP-OFFCENTRAL PARKMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYALLERTON PARKING ENTRYGENER.ELEC.CHEM STORAGEELEC.GENER.HCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCCHEM. STORAGESheet NumberScale1" = 40'-0"A-012PRECISE PLAN6/28/19PROPOSED SITE PLAN10'20'40'0'NORTHPROJECT DATABUILDINGF.A.R.1.0BUILDING AREA 326,020 SFBLDG A146,341 SFBLDG B179,679 SFTOTAL 326,020 SFPARKINGPARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF 913 CARSGARAGELEVEL AT GRADE 141LEVEL 2201LEVEL 3201LEVEL 4201ROOF188SUBTOTAL 932SURFACE PARKING 25 TOTAL957ACCESSIBLE PARKINGACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL 20ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES18ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING2215’ 609 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 28 Garage - Level 2-3 Plan 0’30’60’ SHEET NOTE1. FLOOR ELEVATI ONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. S EE SHEETTOFOR STRIPING, SIGNS ANDGRAPHI C I N FORMATI O N.3. C OORDINATE STRUCTURAL WITH SPRI N K LER DESI G N ANDLAYOUT. P R OVI D E SLEEVE LOCATI O N (S) AS NECESSARY.4. P ROVIDE MEDI U M B ROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHERE ELASTOMERI C C A T I N G OCCURS.5. A LL EXPOSED EXTERIOR SURFACES AND ALL I N T E R IORSURFACES (WALLS, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SOFFI T S ) T O BEPAINTED, COLOR TO BE SELECTD BY ARCHI T E C T.6. S EE SHEETFOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAI L S . 7. S EE SHEETFOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE.RAMP UPELECTRICALROOMBICYCLEENCLOSURESTAIR01ELEVSTAIR02STAIR03FDFDFDFDFDFDUPUPBLDG -A5 -STORIES146,341 SFBLDG -B6 -STORIES179,679 SFPARKING GARAGE4 LEVELS OVER GRADE954 CARSSERVICEYARDSERVICEYARDFORBES BLVD.ALLERTON AVE.MAIN PARKING ENTRYMAIN ACCESS DRIVEDROP-OFFCENTRAL PARKMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYALLERTON PARKING ENTRYGENER.ELEC.CHEM STORAGEELEC.GENER.HCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCCHEM. STORAGESheet NumberScale1" = 40'-0"A-012PRECISE PLAN6/28/19PROPOSED SITE PLAN10'20'40'0'NORTHPROJECT DATABUILDINGF.A.R.1.0BUILDING AREA 326,020 SFBLDG A146,341 SFBLDG B179,679 SFTOTAL 326,020 SFPARKINGPARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF 913 CARSGARAGELEVEL AT GRADE 141LEVEL 2201LEVEL 3201LEVEL 4201ROOF188SUBTOTAL 932SURFACE PARKING 25 TOTAL957ACCESSIBLE PARKINGACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL 20ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES18ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING2215’ 610 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 29 Garage - 3-Roof Plan 0’30’60’ SHEET NOTE1. FLOOR ELEVATI ONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. S EE SHEETTOFOR STRIPING, SIGNS ANDGRAPHI C I N FORMATI O N.3. C OORDINATE STRUCTURAL WITH SPRI N K LER DESI G N ANDLAYOUT. P R OVI D E SLEEVE LOCATI O N (S) AS NECESSARY.4. P ROVIDE MEDI U M B ROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHERE ELASTOMERI C C A T I N G OCCURS.5. A LL EXPOSED EXTERIOR SURFACES AND ALL I N T E R IORSURFACES (WALLS, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SOFFI T S ) T O BEPAINTED, COLOR TO BE SELECTD BY ARCHI T E C T.6. S EE SHEETFOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAI L S . 7. S EE SHEETFOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE.RAMP UPELECTRICALROOMBICYCLEENCLOSURESTAIR01ELEVSTAIR02STAIR03FDFDFDFDFDFDUPUPBLDG -A5 -STORIES146,341 SFBLDG -B6 -STORIES179,679 SFPARKING GARAGE4 LEVELS OVER GRADE954 CARSSERVICEYARDSERVICEYARDFORBES BLVD.ALLERTON AVE.MAIN PARKING ENTRYMAIN ACCESS DRIVEDROP-OFFCENTRAL PARKMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYMAIN ENTRYALLERTON PARKING ENTRYGENER.ELEC.CHEM STORAGEELEC.GENER.HCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCHCCHEM. STORAGESheet NumberScale1" = 40'-0"A-012PRECISE PLAN6/28/19PROPOSED SITE PLAN10'20'40'0'NORTHPROJECT DATABUILDINGF.A.R.1.0BUILDING AREA 326,020 SFBLDG A146,341 SFBLDG B179,679 SFTOTAL 326,020 SFPARKINGPARKING REQUIRED AT 2.8/1,000 SF 913 CARSGARAGELEVEL AT GRADE 141LEVEL 2201LEVEL 3201LEVEL 4201ROOF188SUBTOTAL 932SURFACE PARKING 25 TOTAL957ACCESSIBLE PARKINGACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED AT 2% OF TOTAL 20ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES18ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING2215’ 611 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 30 Garage - Building Sections 3030 31 31 31 0’30’15’60’ 612 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 31 Garage - Building Sections 3030 31 31 31 0’30’15’60’ 613 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 32 Rendering of 2012 Entitled Building - Corner of E. Grand and Roebling 7 REVISED 04/26/2012 614 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 33 Rendering of Proposed Building - Corner of E. Grand and Roebling 615 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 34 Rendering of 2012 Entitled Building - Along Roebling Rd 9 REVISED 04/26/2012 616 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 35 Rendering of 2012 Proposed Building - Along Roebling Rd. 617 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 36 Rendering of 2012 Entitled Building - Along E. Grand 8 REVISED 04/26/2012 618 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 37 Rendering of Proposed Building - Along E. Grand 619 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 38 Rendering of Proposed Building - Along Roebling Rd. 620 PRECISE PLAN03/23/2020 39 Rendering of Proposed Building - Aerial View From E. Grand 621