The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-03-22 Planning Commission AgendaThursday, November 3, 2022 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Virtual Meeting Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 1 November 3, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda WELCOME If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about our procedure. This meeting is being held in accordance with the Brown Act as currently in effect under the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 which allows attendance by members of the Planning Commission, City staff and the public to participate and conduct the meeting by teleconference. Teleconference locations are not open to the public. Planning Commissioners teleconferencing: Michele Evans, Norm Faria, JulieAnn Murphy, Sam Shihadeh, Alex Tzang, Luis De Paz Fernandez, Sarah Funes. You may need to also install the Zoom app on your device prior to joining the meeting: Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/82584801637 Or One tap mobile: US: +16699006833,,82584801637# or +13462487799,,82584801637# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or 888 475 4499 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0282 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5257 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 825 8480 1637 International numbers available: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/u/kcIkA6wMWz Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the Zoom Meeting session, join the meeting from your computer or mobile device, enter your name, and request to comment through the “Chat” function and a staff person will add you to the queue for comments and unmute your microphone during the comment period. In the alternative, you may also provide email comments received during the meeting will be read into the record. Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject not on the Agenda will have 3 minutes to discuss their item. The Clerk will read the name and type of application to be heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain the proposal. The first person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons commenting on the proposal. The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes on any Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022 2 November 3, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda agenda item. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. Remote Public Comments: Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The email and phone line below will be monitored during the meeting and public comments received will be read into the record. The City encourages the submission of comments by 6:00pm on the date of the Public Hearing to facilitate inclusion in the meeting record. A maximum of 3 minutes per individual comment will be read into the record. Comments that are not in compliance the Planning Commission’s rules of decorum may be summarized for the record rather than read verbatim. Email: PCcomments@ssf.net Electronic Comments received by email will be monitored during the meeting and read into the record. We ask that you limit your electronic comments so that they comply with the 3-minute time limitation for public comment. Planning Division Hotline: (650) 829-4669 Voice messages will be monitored during the meeting, and read into the record. Your voicemail should be limited so that it complies with the 3 minute time limitation for public comment. Observing the Meeting: This teleconference meeting may be observed via live stream: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/planning-commission Additional Meeting Materials: Additional meeting materials received or provided after initial publication of the Public Hearing agenda may be f o u n d h e r e : https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planning-division/planning-commission Any interested party will have 15 calendar days from the date of an action or decision taken by the Planning Commission to appeal that action or decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk as provided under Chapter 20.570 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. In the event an appeal period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or any other day the City is closed, the appeal period shall end at the close of business on the next consecutive business day. If any interested party, other than the applicant, wishes to obtain a copy of a Notice of Action for any Planning Commission action or decision at a hearing, the interested party must file a written request of such notification with the Planning Division in advance of that Planning Commission hearing. When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you will go to the Planning Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535 or by e-mail at planning@ssf.net. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022 3 November 3, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Sam Shihadeh, Chairperson Alex Tzang, Vice Chairperson Norm Faria, Commissioner JulieAnn Murphy, Commissioner Michele Evans, Commissioner Sarah Funes, Commissioner Luis De Paz Fernandez, Commissioner Tony Rozzi, Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Staff Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner Adena Friedman, Principal Planner Billy Gross, Principal Planner Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner Christy Usher, Senior Planner Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner Victoria Kim, Associate Planner Kelsey Evans, Clerk Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and participate in this meeting should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 877-8505, five working days before the meeting. In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022 4 November 3, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW The Planning Commission will inquire and staff will report on any change or order, deferral and/or removal of items on this meeting agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items not on the agenda. Under the Brown Act, the Commission cannot act on items raised during public communications, but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; refer the item to staff; or place the item on the next meeting agenda. DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for Planning Commissioners to disclose any communications, including site visits, they have had on current agenda items, or any conflict of interest regarding current agenda items. CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration of draft minutes from the October 6, 2022 Planning Commission1. 10-06-22 Draft MinutesAttachments: Report regarding making findings and determining that the vacation of a portion of Cypress Avenue in relation to the Firehouse Work and Firehouse Live projects located at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District is in conformity with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402). (Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) 2. Attachment 1 - Proposed Street VacationAttachments: PUBLIC HEARING Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022 5 November 3, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the repurposing of a structure into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District and a Class 1, Section 15301 categorical exemption under CEQA in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) 3. Attachment 1 - Draft Findings and Conditions of Approval Attachment 2 - Project Plans Attachment 3 - 201 Baden Avenue Historic Resource Evaluation, dated May 28, 2019 Attachment 4 - 201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review, dated October 20, 2022 Attachment 5 - Design Review Board (DRB) Comment Letter, dated May 2, 2022 Attachment 6 - Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, dated May 10, 2022 Attachments: Report regarding consideration of an application for Design Review, Use Permit, Development Agreement, and Transportation Demand Management Plan to construct a new 12-story, 165 foot tall, 350 room, 261,000 square foot hotel building, with 232 surface parking spaces and site improvements, located at 367 Marina Boulevard in the Oyster Point Specific Plan zone district, and determination that the project is within the scope of a previously adopted Programmatic EIR under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168. (Christy Usher, Senior Planner) 4. Attachment 1 Applicant's Written Project Narrative Attachment 2 Applicant's Response to DRB letter Attachment 3 Public Comment from OneShoreline dated July 5, 2022 Attachments: Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council determine that the environmental effects of the proposed Oyster Point Hotel at 367 Marina Boulevard in the Oyster Point Specific Plan Area is consistent with the adopted Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR and would not necessitate the need for preparing a subsequent environmental document pursuant to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168, and is eligible for streamlining per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. 4a. Exhibit A - Environmental Checklist Exhibit B - MMRP OP Hotel Exhibit C - 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR Attachments: Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022 6 November 3, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve entitlements for the proposed hotel project including Design Review (DR22-0005), Use Permit (UP22-0001), and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0006) and adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement (DA22-0001) to construct a new 12-story, 165 foot tall, 350 room, 261,000 square foot hotel building, with 232 surface parking spaces and site improvements, located at 367 Marina Boulevard in the Oyster Point Specific Plan zone district 4b. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval OP Hotel Exhibit B - Project Plans OP Hotel Exhibit C - TDM Plan OP Hotel Exhibit D - Parking Management Plan OP Hotel Exhibit E - Transportation Assessment Memo OP Hotel Exhibit F - Draft Development Agreement Exhibit G - Design Review Board Letter OP Hotel Attachments: ITEMS FROM STAFF Staff may report on items of general interest. Discussion of Planning Commission Alternative Start Times and Return to In-Person Meetings (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) 5. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION The Commission may report on items of general interest. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC This portion of the meeting is reserved for additional comment on items not on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022 7 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-907 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:1. Consideration of draft minutes from the October 6, 2022 Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™8 October 6, 2022 Minutes Page 1 of 3 MINUTES October 6, 2022 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:01 PM AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consideration of draft minutes from the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) 2. Consideration of draft minutes from the August 9, 2022 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) Motion to approve Consent Calendar – Commissioner Norm Faria, Second – Commissioner Alex Tzang, approved by roll call (7-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2022-10-06 7:00 PM (granicus.com) PUBLIC HEARING 3. Report regarding consideration of a Use Permit to convert an existing Indoor Warehouse to Personal Storage at 1349 San Mateo Avenue in the Mixed Industrial Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from California ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Chair Shihadeh, Vice Chair Tzang, Commissioners: Evans, Faria, Fernandez, Funes, Murphy ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi - Chief Planner – Adena Friedman – Principal Planner - Associate Planner – Victoria Kim – Associate Planner 9 October 6, 2022 Minutes Page 2 of 3 Environmental Quality Act. (Victoria Kim, Associate Planner) Public Hearing opened 7:09 pm Public Hearing closed 7:19 pm Motion to approve: Commissioner JulieAnn Murphy with Errata, Second SFO (7-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2022-10-06 7:00 PM (granicus.com) 4. Report regarding consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the repurposing of a structure into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District and a Class 1, Section 15301 categorical exemption under CEQA in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) Public Hearing opened 7:22 pm – Continued item to date certain November 2, 2022 Public Hearing closed 7:22 pm Motion to approve: Commissioner Norm Faria, Second Commissioner Luis De Paz Fernandez Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2022-10-06 7:00 PM (granicus.com) 5. Report regarding consideration of a Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Master Sign Program, Transportation Demand Management Plan and Environmental Consistency Analysis with the Downtown Station Area Plan Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to allow two office / R&D buildings totaling approximately 541,000 square feet, ancillary uses, and associated parking at 100 East Grand in the Transit Office / Research & Development (TO/RD) Zoning District. (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) 5a. Resolution making findings and a determination that the environmental effects of the proposed office / R&D project at 100 East Grand Avenue (“Project”) were sufficiently analyzed under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168, and that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines 15183, and that the proposed project is statutorily exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 5b. Resolution making findings and approving the entitlements request for the 100 East Grand R&D Project, Project P21-0087, including Use Permit (UP21-0011), Design Review (DR21-0038), Tentative Parcel Map (PM22-0001), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM21-0010), and Master Sign Program (SIGNS22-0008), subject to the draft Conditions of Approval. 10 October 6, 2022 Minutes Page 3 of 3 Motion on Resolution 5a: Commissioner JulieAnn Murphy motioned, Commissioner Norm Faria seconded (7-0-0) Motion on Resolution 5b: Commissioner JulieAnn Murphy motioned, Commissioner Norm Faria seconded (7-0-0) Public Hearing opened from previous meeting on 9/15/22 Public Hearing closed 8:11 pm Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2022-10-06 7:00 PM (granicus.com) ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS • None. ITEMS FROM STAFF • None. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC • None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Shihadeh adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:21PM. Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner, AICP Sam Shihadeh, Chairperson or Alex Tzang, Vice Chairperson Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco TR/tr 11 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-920 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:2. Report regarding making findings and determining that the vacation of a portion of Cypress Avenue in relation to the Firehouse Work and Firehouse Live projects located at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning District is in conformity with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402).(Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine,by motion,that the vacation of a portion of Cypress Avenue in relation to the Firehouse Work and Firehouse Live projects located at 201 Baden Avenue is in conformity with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402). MOTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1) Move to find the proposed vacation is consistent with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan. BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION Site Overview The project site,currently owned by the City,is located at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)sub-district of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)District.The site consists of three parcels (APNs 012-335-100 and 012-335-110,with the third not possessing an APN),and a portion of the Cypress Avenue public right-of-way bisects the property.There is an existing retired firehouse and surface parking lot on the site. As part of a larger proposal for the site,which includes the retention of the existing firehouse for commercial purposes on one half of the site (Firehouse Work)and the development of housing on the second half of the site (Firehouse Live),the project site will be reconfigured and a portion of Cypress Avenue will be vacated.As such,a Lot Line Adjustment and Street Vacation would be required for the overall project to develop this site.It should be noted that the Firehouse Work component of the project is currently moving forward and is separately being considered by the Planning Commission at its November 3 meeting. The Street Vacation involves vacating a portion of Cypress Avenue that bisects the property and extends from Baden Avenue to Second Lane.This portion of Cypress Avenue has not been used as a public right-of-way and is already developed with the existing firehouse and surface parking lot (Attachment 1). GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY In accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt.Code Section 65402),prior to disposition of real property and vacation of a public right-of-way,the Planning Commission as the planning agency for the City is required to find such street vacation is in conformity with the adopted general plan.On September 16,2021,the Planning Commission determined that the disposition of two City of South San Francisco-owned properties located at 201 Baden Avenue (APN 012-335-100 and APN 012-335-110)in the Downtown Transit Core for the purposes of the overall project and site development is in conformity with the South San Francisco adopted City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™12 File #:22-920 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:2. General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the 201 Baden Avenue property is Downtown Transit Core,which includes specific policies related to development within the Downtown in an effort to “Promote infill development,intensification,and reuse of currently underutilized sites”.The proposed vacation of the portion of Cypress Avenue that bisects the subject property will allow for the completion of entitlements for a larger project that will include activating an underutilized site and promoting infill development,as well as providing a mix of new housing and commercial opportunities that will still be compatible in scale with the Downtown district and conform to the General Plan Land Use Policies.The proposed vacation will allow the Firehouse Work and Firehouse Live projects in furtherance of these goals.Therefore,the proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed street vacation is necessary for the proposed restoration of the Firehouse for commercial purposes and the development of a fully-affordable (82 unit housing project)with ground floor commercial. The Firehouse Work and Firehouse Live projects are subject to separate CEQA analysis as part of the respective projects.The current request to the Planning Commission is to make a finding of the consistency with respect to the Cypress Avenue street vacation to the General Plan.Therefore,no CEQA action is required by the Planning Commission at this time. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Planning Commission make findings that determines that the vacation of a portion of Cypress Avenue in relation to the Firehouse Work and Firehouse Live projects located at 201 Baden Avenue, in the Downtown Transit Core Zoning District,is in conformity with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402). Attachments: 1.Proposed Street Vacation City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™13 14 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-863 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:3. Report regarding consideration of a Conditional Use Permit,Design Review,and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the repurposing of a structure into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning District and a Class 1,Section 15301 categorical exemption under CEQA in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed Conditional Use Permit (UP22- 0002),Design Review (DR22-0006),and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0001)for the repurposing of the old Firehouse into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction at 201 Baden Avenue is categorically exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 1,Section 15301,Existing Facilities,and approve a Conditional Use Permit,Design Review,and Transportation Demand Management Plan based on the attached Draft Findings and subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval. MOTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1) Move to make CEQA determination and approve project subject to attached findings and conditions. BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION This item was continued from the October 6, 2022 public hearing to the November 3, 2022 meeting. Site Overview The project site is located at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)sub-district of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)District.The site is a through lot extending from Baden Avenue to Second Lane and is located mid-block between Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard.The project site,currently owned by the City,is approximately 22,460 square feet (0.51 acres)and consists of three parcels (APNs 012-335-100 and 012-335-110,with the third not possessing an APN).There is an existing retired firehouse and surface parking lot on the site. Proposal The applicant is proposing to repurpose the retired firehouse into office space and potential commercial space. The project includes:1)exterior modifications including painting,replacement of existing doors and windows, and signage;2)interior tenant improvements to create a multi-tenant office space with shared facilities;and 3) associated site work for landscaping, pathways and surface parking. This project is part of a larger proposal for the site.In September 2017,the City of South San Francisco issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)to create a high quality,mixed-use,transit-oriented development on the project site.Ultimately,a developer team that proposed to retain the existing firehouse for commercial purposes on one half of the site and develop housing on the second half of the site was selected -Firehouse Work LLC (the applicant). City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 1 of 6 powered by Legistar™15 File #:22-863 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:3. The City has been negotiating the disposition of the project site with the applicant since August 2018.During this time,the applicant has worked with various housing partners to fulfill the housing aspect of their proposal, as submitted in response to the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP). The applicant is moving forward with the Firehouse Work component of the overall project,and the Firehouse Live (or residential)component will continue to be negotiated with the relevant parties and processed for entitlements at a future date.As part of the completion of this initial component,the project site will be reconfigured into two parcels,and a Vacation and Lot Line Adjustment will be processed through the Engineering Division.A Parcel Map for the Vacation and Lot Line Adjustment has already been reviewed and will move forward to City Council approval after Planning entitlements have been approved. Historic Resource Evaluation A Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE)was prepared for the project site to determine the historic significance, if any,of the existing firehouse due to its age (Attachment 3).The building was constructed in 1949 as the location of South San Francisco Fire Department’s Central Station.Designed by architect William Henry Rowe, the subject building served as the City’s first purpose-built fire station between 1949 and 2006,when it was vacated, and fire operations were relocated to a newly constructed station. The HRE evaluated the building based on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)criteria for historic significance,as well as the City’s criteria for designation of historic resources found in South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC Chapter 2.56 (Planning Commission)).The subject building appears to be individually eligible for listing in the CRHR under two of the four criteria for historic significance and also appears to qualify under several evaluative criteria for local historic listing under the SSFMC. At this time,the City has not opted to undergo the application process to designate the structure as a historic resource.The structure is also not listed in the CRHR at this time.However,because the HRE concluded that the existing firehouse appears to be individually eligible for listing in the CRHR,the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines generally requires the City,as the project’s lead agency,to treat the structure as a historically significant resource (Pub.Res.Code Section 5024.1;CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(3)-(4)). In order to confirm that the proposed alterations to the structure included in the project would not have a significant impact on the historic integrity of the resource,a Standards Compliance Review to provide guidance on the compliance of proposed alterations to the structure with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (SOI Standards)(codified at 36 C.F.R 68)was prepared as a supplement to the HRE (Attachment 4).The SOI Standards are a series of administrative regulations that provide guidance on,among other things, the protection of historic building materials and character-defining features as a historic building or resource is altered to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.Compliance with these guidelines would preserve a historic resource instead of creating a significant adverse effect upon its features and characteristics. The Standards Compliance Review analyzed the proposal against 10 key elements listed by the SOI Standards that should be considered when new uses or architectural modifications are undertaken within historic resources and determined that the proposed alterations are compliant with seven of the 10 key elements and marginally compliant with three of the 10.A compliant rating indicates that the alteration has little or no impact on the resource.A marginally compliant rating indicates that the overall historical significance of the resources is not impacted enough to warrant re-evaluation, but modifications to the proposed design are strongly recommended. The Standards Compliance Review concludes that the proposed project is compliant overall with the SOI City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 2 of 6 powered by Legistar™16 File #:22-863 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:3. The Standards Compliance Review concludes that the proposed project is compliant overall with the SOI Standards.Overall compliance is not necessarily a direct sum of the level of compliance with each individual standard.However,that information is weighed with the overall impact on both the design and historical significance of the resource.Depending on the reasons for significance and the level of importance of the resource,different levels of overall compliance may result.The majority of character-defining features and most of the remaining historic steel windows would be retained by the proposed project.For those elements with a marginally compliant rating,inclusion of a minor modification is suggested to decrease the impact on the historic resource and raise its proposed design into more compliance with the SOI Standards.The suggested modification is listed below related to infill of three steel windows and included as a recommended Condition of Approval in Attachment 1 with slight modifications to language as necessary.It should be noted that the report conservatively assumes the infill of these windows as a possibility for the project. Proposed Infill of Steel Windows The proposed infill of the three historic steel windows next to the proposed trash enclosure should be avoided if possible.It is unclear if this would be needed due to structural or aesthetic purposes.If based on structural issues,this should be noted,and the proposed infill of the three windows in question should be indicated on the final drawing set.If solely based on aesthetic reasons, the necessity for infill should be re-evaluated and reconsidered by the architect so that the building might retain as many historic windows as possible. ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Proposed Use The project site is located in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)sub-district of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)District.Per SSFMC Section 20.280.003 (Land Use Regulations-Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts),office uses are allowed by-right,and a variety of commercial uses are allowed,either by-right or with the approval of a Use Permit.At this time,the three new tenant spaces are proposed for office use with the potential for one tenant space to possibly be used for retail.A condition of approval has been recommended that requires that any potential commercial use for the one tenant space to be evaluated for zoning consistency during the business license process and/or building permit process for interior tenant improvements. Design Review The project includes the renovation and exterior modification of the existing firehouse.Exterior modifications include new paint,the replacement of overhead doors with storefront windows and doors,and the infilling of some doors and windows.Additional site work,including new landscaping,pathways and a surface parking lot, as well as the expansion of the existing sidewalk along Baden Avenue,are also proposed.The exterior modifications present an improvement over the present conditions and is compatible with the design guidelines for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, as well as current development standards. Parking Reduction Request and TDM Plan The conversion of the existing firehouse into new office tenant spaces requires a reevaluation of required parking for the site.Pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.330.007 (Required On-Site Parking Spaces,Downtown Districts),a total of 29 parking spaces is required,using the required parking ratio for business and professional office use.If one of the tenant spaces will be used for commercial use,the total number of parking spaces required decreases to 25.The parking ratio for retail use is the same as the ratio for business and professional City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 3 of 6 powered by Legistar™17 File #:22-863 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:3. use, but no parking is required for the first 1,500 square feet of floor area for retail sales. A new surface parking lot containing five parking spaces with access from Second Lane is proposed,which is 24 spaces less than what is required.As mentioned above,this proposal is part of a larger project for the site that includes the reconfiguration of the parcels that make up the project site,and this proposal will be located on a parcel of its own.The new configuration for this parcel will cause the existing building to take up a majority of the site, creating limited opportunity to provide additional parking spaces on-site. Pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.330.006,applicants may obtain a parking reduction for any use through applying for a Conditional Use Permit,which the Planning Commission would review and may only grant such permit if it finds that:(a)special conditions-including but not limited to the nature of the proposed operation; proximity to frequent transit service;transportation characteristics of persons residing,working,or visiting the site;or because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program-exist that will reduce parking demand at the site;(b)use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking;and (c) parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area. In support of the parking reduction request,the applicant has voluntarily proposed a draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM)plan (Attachment 4).Pursuant to SSFMC Chapter 20.400 (Transportation Demand Management),a TDM plan is required for all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips,based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)trip generation rates.A trip generation analysis was prepared for the project and determined that the project would not generate more than 100 daily trips.Therefore,this project would otherwise not require the implementation of a TDM plan,but one has been submitted to help relieve parking demand and support a reduction in on-site parking spaces. The draft TDM plan provides a concise description of TDM Measures that the project will implement in order to comply with the DSASP’s goal to “provide for a balanced mix of travel modes -including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and automobiles.” The location of the project site within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)area,which promotes pedestrian and bicycle travel in a high-density area of complementary land uses,and within a ¼-mile radius of the Caltrain Station and four SamTrans bus routes,which promotes use of alternate modes of transportation,will help reduce the parking demand at the project site.The adjacent proximity of the Caltrain plaza and station,as well as four SamTrans bus routes and retail and amenity uses in Downtown,will promote opportunities for office employees to walk or use public transportation and reduce dependency on single- occupancy vehicles.Additionally,the installation of eight long-term bicycle parking spaces within the renovated building will promote alternative modes of transportation.For those employees opting for vehicular use,the project site is located within proximity to several existing Downtown parking garages that will adequately serve their needs. Due to the project’s transit-oriented location,implementation of the measures outlined in the draft TDM plan, and availability of public parking in the surrounding area,staff supports the request for a parking reduction from 29 to five parking spaces.Further,a Condition of Approval for project entitlements will be included to ensure TDM compliance. It is worth noting that effective January 1,2023,most projects within ½mile of a major transit station such as SSF Caltrain will be exempt from Parking Minimums by State Law.Consideration of parking reductions like this in the areas of the City close to SSF BART,SSF Caltrain,the El Camino Real Corridor and near SamTrans City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 4 of 6 powered by Legistar™18 File #:22-863 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:3. this in the areas of the City close to SSF BART,SSF Caltrain,the El Camino Real Corridor and near SamTrans high volume service will not be subject to local decision. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan,which designates the site as Downtown Transit Core (DTC).This land use designation is envisioned to be a vibrant,mixed-use area,and due to its proximity to the Caltrain Station,this area is suitable for higher intensities to support transit ridership.The project includes repurposing a vacant,unused building into new office tenant space,which revitalizes and activates the area, meeting the intent of the adopted General Plan designation. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB)on April 19,2022.The DRB had a positive reception to the design concept and liked the re-use of the retired firehouse.Additionally,the DRB commented that the exterior modifications are an improvement to the project site.The DRB supported the design and recommended approval to the Planning Commission with minor comments,most of which have already been incorporated into the project plans (see Attachments 2 and 5).A Condition of Approval for any DRB comments that have not been addressed has been included in the draft Conditions of Approval found in Attachment 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW It is staff’s assessment that the proposed project is categorically exempt under the provisions of CEQA,Class 1, Section 15301,Existing Facilities.The project site is an existing developed property surrounded by existing commercial buildings.The proposal includes minor exterior modifications to renovate the exterior of the building and interior improvements to create new tenant spaces.As noted in the Discussion section above,the existing firehouse is potentially eligible but not included on any historic resources list,but the proposed project nonetheless is overall consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of historic properties, and thus would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. CONCLUSION The project,as conditioned,is compliant with the City’s Municipal Code,General Plan,Zoning Development Standards and Design Criteria.Therefore,staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed Conditional Use Permit (UP22-0002),Design Review (DR22-0006),and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0001)for the repurposing of the old Firehouse into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction is categorically exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),Class 1,Section 15301,Existing Facilities,and approve the Conditional Use Permit,Design Review,and Transportation Demand Management Plan based on the attached Draft Findings and subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1.Draft Findings and Conditions of Approval 2.Project Plans 3.201 Baden Avenue Historic Resource Evaluation, dated May 28, 2019 4.201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review, dated October 20, 2022 5.Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, dated May 10, 2022 6.Design Review Board (DRB) Comment Letter, dated May 2, 2022 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 5 of 6 powered by Legistar™19 File #:22-863 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:3. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 6 of 6 powered by Legistar™20 DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL P21-0128: UP22-0002, DR22-0006 & TDM22-0001 201 BADEN AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff on November 3, 2022) As required by the Transportation Demand Management, Design Review, and Use Permit Procedures (SSFMC Chapters 20.400, 20.480, and 20.490), the following findings are made in support of a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the repurposing of the old Firehouse into commercial and office space and a Parking Reduction at 201 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), based on public testimony and materials submitted to the South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Application materials submitted January 27, 2022; project plans dated stamp received July 27, 2022; Planning Commission staff report dated November 3, 2022; and Planning Commission hearing of November 3, 2022. 1. Use Permit (Parking Reduction) A. The location of the project site within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) area, which promotes pedestrian and bicycle travel in a high-density area of complementary land uses, and within a ¼-mile radius of the Caltrain Station and four SamTrans bus routes, which promotes use of alternate modes of transportation, will help reduce the parking demand at the project site. Additionally, the applicant will implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan that will include design features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the roadway and parking demand that would be generated by the project; B. The use will adequately be served by existing parking on-site and surrounding parking in seven Downtown parking garages. Additional parking on-site is not feasible and, like most existing structures in the Downtown area, there is no ability to add additional on-site parking; and C. Based on the proposed uses and improvements described, parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area in that the surrounding area has available capacity to accommodate excess parking as needed. Furthermore, the applicant will implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan that will include design features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the parking demand that would be generated by the project. 21 Findings of Approval Page 2 of 2 2. Design Review A. The Project is consistent with the applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance because as submitted and modified through the Design Review Process, this Project meets or complies with the applicable standards included in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District (Chapter 20.280); B. The Project is consistent with the General Plan because it is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Downtown area; C. The Project is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed use is consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District Regulations and Standards included in Section 20.280.004; D. The proposed Project is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Reduction, and those findings have been made in the above section; and E. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the Project has been evaluated against, and found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Transportation Demand Management A. The proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the proposed use and the project’s location, size, and hours of operation because the proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan includes required trip reduction measures that would help to minimize traffic impacts; and B. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target alternative mode use established for the project by SSFMC Chapter 20.400 will be achieved and maintained because the proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan identifies strategies and resources to promote alternative transportation means for the site. Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and triennial report 22 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P21-0128: UP22-0002, DR22-0006 & TDM22-0001 201 BADEN AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff on November 3, 2022) PLANNING CONDITIONS GENERAL 1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Division’s Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects as amended, and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as otherwise amended by the following Conditions of Approval. 2. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared by Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc., dated July 27, 2022, and approved by the Planning Commission in association with P21-0128, as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner. 3. The construction drawings shall comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval, including the plans prepared by Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc., dated July 27, 2022. 4. The project shall be completed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, as applicable. 5. The recommendations included in the Historic Resource Evaluation, dated May 28, 2019, and subsequent Standards Compliance Review, dated October 20, 2022, prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. shall be incorporated in the building permit plan set. 6. The proposed infill of the three historic steel windows next to the proposed trash enclosure shall be avoided if possible. If infill is needed based on structural issues, the proposed infill of the three windows in question shall be indicated on the final drawing set. If solely based on aesthetic reasons, the necessity for infill shall be re-evaluated and reconsidered by a qualified historical architect so that the building might retain as many historic windows as possible. 7. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and 23 Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 29 approved by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 8. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 9. A Parcel Map application for the Vacation and Lot Line Adjustment shall be filed with the Engineering Division and approved by the City Council prior to building permit issuance. 10. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) for 201 Baden Avenue relating to Firehouse Work. 11. Any proposed businesses for the new commercial tenant spaces shall obtain approval of a business license prior to occupation of the tenant space and commencement of the business. Prior to issuance of any business license, the proposed commercial use or other use requiring said business license shall be reviewed and evaluate by the City for consistency with applicable zoning designations and regulations. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any uses that is not consistent with said applicable regulations as evaluated by the City, prior to issuance of any aforementioned business license. 12. Any proposed interior tenant modifications for the new commercial tenant spaces shall require issuance of a building permit. CONSTRUCTION 13. 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. 14. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 15. During construction, the applicant shall provide parking on-site, or shall arrange for off- site parking, for construction workers. DESIGN REVIEW / SITE PLANNING 16. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall. 24 Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 29 Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility locations, stand-pipes, equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 17. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the City’s Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with SSFMC Section 20.300.007, Landscaping. 18. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans demonstrating compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO), as outlined in SSFMC Section 20.330.007, Landscaping, if applicable. a) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO. b) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the performance measures required by the MWELO. c) For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the City, upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system. 19. The applicant shall contact the South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash enclosures and work with staff to locate and design the trash enclosure in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.300.014, Trash and Refuse Collection Areas. The applicant shall submit an approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger to the Chief Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 20. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the Design Review Board from their meeting of April 19, 2022. 21. Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Any removal or pruning of protected trees shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and the applicant shall obtain a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees and avoid tree roots during trenching for utilities. 25 Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 29 22. The applicant shall install three-inch diameter, PVC conduit along the project frontage, in the right-of-way, if any trenching is to take place, for the purpose of future fiber installation. Conduit shall have a pull rope or tape. A #8 stranded trace wire will be installed in the conduit or other trace wire system approved by the City. 23. All landscaping installed within the public right-of-way shall be maintained by the property owner. 24. Prior to receiving certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install street furniture, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks along the project sidewalk frontages. The Planning Division shall review and approve all street furniture, trash receptacles and bicycle rack options during the Building Permit process. 25. Permanent project signage is not included in project entitlements. Prior to installation of any project signage, the applicant shall submit an appropriate sign application per SSFMC Chapter 20.360, Signs, for review and approval. TRANSPORTATION / PARKING 26. The applicant has prepared and submitted a draft TDM Plan, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated May 10, 2022. In accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan for review and approval by the Chief Planner. a) The Final TDM Plan shall include all mandatory elements included in the Ordinance and shall substantially reflect the Preliminary TDM Plan prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated May 10, 2022. The Plan shall be designed to achieve a goal of 28% alternative mode usage by the Project. b) The Final TDM Plan shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring, including annual surveys. The initial annual survey will be submitted one (1) year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy. The initial annual survey shall either: (1) state that the applicable property has achieved 28% alternative mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not achieved the 28% alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the TDM goal of 28% alternative mode usage. c) The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs 26 Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 29 associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM Program on an annual basis. The annual monitoring fee is $1,848 and is updated by the City Council on an annual basis. The monitoring fee for the Project’s first year of operation is due to the City prior to the project receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. d) The Final TDM plan shall be subject to review and approval by the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments. The property owner shall ensure compliance with the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program Land Use Implementation Policy (C/CAG TDM Policy). Specifically, the property owner shall ensure that the measures identified in the approved C/CAG TDM Checklist are implemented over the life of the project, and that the property owner and tenants acknowledge the requirement to participate in the periodic monitoring and reporting requirements identified in the C/CAG TDM Policy. Accordingly, itis recommended that the property owner and/or developer clearly identify these TDM provisions and responsibilities in any sales and/or lease or sublease transactions. 27. The proposed long-term bicycle parking shall meet the following standards: a) Location. Long-term bicycle parking must be located on the same lot as the use it serves. In parking garages, long-term bicycle parking must be located near an entrance to the facility. b) Covered Spaces. At least 50 percent of required long-term bicycle parking must be covered. Covered parking can be provided inside buildings, under roof overhangs or awnings, in bicycle lockers, or within or under other structures. c) Security. Long-term bicycle parking must be in at least one of the following facilities: i. An enclosed bicycle locker; ii. A fenced, covered, locked or guarded bicycle storage area; or iii. A rack or stand inside a building that is within view of an attendant or security guard or visible from employee work areas. d) Size and Accessibility. Each bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. Two feet of clearance shall be provided between bicycle parking spaces 27 Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 29 and adjacent walls, poles, landscaping, street furniture, drive aisles, and pedestrian ways and at least five feet from vehicle parking spaces. 28. The applicant shall purchase, using the City’s online permit management system, a minimum of 24 either monthly or quarterly parking permits from the Downtown Parking District. If the permits are sold out, contact Public Works at parking@ssf.net and attach conditions of approval to the email. At the time of purchase and annual renewal, the applicant shall provide proof of purchase to the Planning Division. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 29. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the developer shall revise the development plans to include the following Climate Action Plan requirements, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee: a) Electric Vehicle Charging Installations Measure 2.1, Action 5: Require new large-scale nonresidential developments to provide conduit for future electric vehicle charging installations and encourage the installation of conduits or electric vehicle charging stations for all new development. b) Heat Island Reductions Measure 3.4, Action 1: Encourage the use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the voluntary CALGreen standards. c) Alternative Energy Facilities Measure 4.1, Action 2: Require the construction of any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more, to comply with one of the following standards: i. Meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity needs with on- site renewable energy sources. To calculate 50% of building electricity needs for the new conditioned space, the applicant shall calculate building electricity use as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Total electricity use shall include total use for the new conditioned space excluding process energy. ii. Participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity use. Building electricity use shall be calculated using the method identified above. 28 Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 29 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. IMPACT / DEVELOPMENT FEES **Fees are subject to annual adjustment and will be calculated based on the fee in effect at the time that the payment of the fee is due. The fees included in these Conditions of Approval are estimates, based on the fees in place at the time of project approval.** 30. CHILDCARE IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay any applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.310. This fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022, the childcare impact fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $1.51/SF x 11,467 SF. = $17,315.17 29 Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 29 31. CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay applicable transportation impact fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.73. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022, the Citywide Transportation Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $34.85/SF x 11,467 SF. = $399,624.95 32. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable commercial linkage fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.69, based on the current fee for each applicable land use category. The fee shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Based on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022, the commercial linkage fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $17.38/SF x 11,467 SF = $199,296.46 33. LIBRARY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the development, the applicant shall pay applicable Library Impact Fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.74. Based on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022, the Library Impact Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $0.14/SF x 11,467 SF = $1,605.38 34. PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the Parkland Acquisition Fee and Parkland Construction Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.67. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022, the park fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $3.54/SF x 11,467 SF = $40,593.18 35. PUBLIC SAFEY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay applicable Public Safety Impact Fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.75. Based on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022, the Public Safety Impact Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $1.31/SF x 11,467 SF = $15,021.77 30 Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 29 36. PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT: All non-residential development is subject to the Public Art Requirement, per South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76. The public art requirement for this project shall be satisfied by providing qualifying public art, as defined in South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 and reviewed and approved by the Cultural Arts Commission or designee, with a value equal to not less than 1% of construction costs for acquisition and installation of public art on the project site; or electing to make a public art contribution payment in an amount not less than 0.5% of construction costs into the public art fund. The in-lieu contribution payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. Contact: Stephanie Skangos, Planning Division, at (650) 877-8535 or stephanie.skangos@ssf.net 31 Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 29 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MIXED USE, AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Entitlement and Permit Status 1. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two (2) years of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on that date. A one-year permit extension may be granted in accordance with provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (Common Procedures). 2. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a duly authorized representative files an affidavit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, stating that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the conditions of the permit. 3. The permit shall be subject to revocation if the project is not operated in compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. Minor changes or deviations from the conditions of approval of the permit may be approved by the Chief Planner and major changes require approval of the Planning Commission, or final approval body of the City, per SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (Common Procedures). 5. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall authorize, require or permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances specifically named therein. 6. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City’s Building Division. 7. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the affected City Departments and Planning and Building Divisions prior to occupancy of any building. Any request for temporary power for testing equipment will be issued only upon substantial completion of the development. Lighting, Signs, and Trash Areas 8. All exterior lights shall be installed in such a manner that is consistent with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards), and there shall be no illumination on adjacent properties or streets which might be considered either objectionable by 32 Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 29 adjacent property owners or hazardous to motorists. 9. No additional signs, flags, pennants or banners shall be installed or erected on the site without prior approval, as required by SSFMC Chapter 20.360 (Signs). 10. Adequate trash areas shall be provided as required by SSFMC 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 11. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. If being installed in a food service facility the drain must be connected to a grease interceptor prior to the connection to the sanitary sewer. Landscaping, Construction, & Utilities 12. The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce to a minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation. 13. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 14. All sewerage and waste disposal shall be only by means of an approved sanitary system. 15. Prior to any on-site grading, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. 16. All existing utility lines, underground cable conduits and structures which are not proposed to be removed shall be shown on the improvement plans and their disposition noted. 17. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be maintained in fully operable condition at all times, and which complies with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 18. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained weed free. 19. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to develop. 33 Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 29 20. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner. Parking Areas, Screening, & Drainage 21. All ducting for air conditioning, heating, blower systems, accessory mechanisms and all other forms of mechanical or electrical equipment which are placed on or adjacent to the building shall be screened from public view, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 22. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping areas shall be kept free of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site, structures, paving, landscaping, light standards, pavement markings and all other facilities shall be permanently maintained. 23. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, and turn-around areas must drain and be plumbed to the sanitary sewer. Public Safety 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, “Minimum Building Security Standards” Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. 25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code, “Fire Code” Ordinance. The Fire Department reserves the right to make additional safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. 26. All fire sprinkler test and/or drain lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. Revised March 2013 34 Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 29 ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS The Plans are generally approved by Engineering, but the following items shall be addressed during Permit submittals. 1. Per Muni Code, a parcel is only allowed a single sanitary sewer lateral. There are two existing laterals from the site and one new proposed lateral (serving the trash enclosure). The project shall revise the design to only reuse the existing laterals and not install a new lateral. Essentially, combine the flows so that the project only has two laterals in the post- development condition. 2. The proposed storm drain line in the western alley likely will conflict with the water service since the water meter is located at that location. The project will either end up relocating the water service or the storm drain alignment. Below are the special conditions that may apply to the subject permit, which may overlap with any standard development conditions – these conditions are subject to change. Permits 1. At the time of each permit submittal, the Applicant shall submit a deposit for each of the following permit reviews and processing: a) Building Permit plan check and civil review. Provide an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of on-site improvements for deposit amount calculation. b) Hauling/Grading plan check and permit processing. Provide Cubic Yards for deposit amount calculation. c) Public Improvement plan check and permit processing. Provide an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of ROW improvements for deposit amount calculation. 2. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 35 Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 29 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 buildings. The demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division and the Applicant shall pay all fees and deposits for the permit. The Applicant shall provide letters from all public utilities stating all said utilities have been properly disconnected from the existing buildings. 5. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 6. The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. To help meet this goal, a city ordinance requires completion of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects identifying how at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage. The Contractor shall submit a WMP application and fee payment prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 7. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work proposed within the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall pay all permit, plan check, and inspection fees, as well as, any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. Plan Submittal 8. The Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California, along with three printed copies. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets; Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan, Horizontal Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Detail Sheet(s), Erosion 36 Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 29 Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant may submit all related documentation along with the Building Permit. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for all proposed work within the City ROW and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the Encroachment Permit. Applicant shall provide an engineer’s estimate for all work performed with in the public right-of-way and submit a bond equal to 110% of the estimate. The submittal of the bonds is required prior to the execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 11. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 12. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 13. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit, grading permit, or public improvement permit. Mapping and Agreements 14. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of any mapping application. 15. Prior to Building Permit issuance, all applicable mapping shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Clerk Recorder’s Office. 16. The Applicant shall process a Parcel Map to vacate the Public ROW to the two adjacent parcels such that existing or proposed buildings do not straddle a property line. 17. All required public easement dedications to the City on the project site shall be established via a Parcel Map for the property. 37 Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 29 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 required for any mapping application prior to review. Right-of-Way 20. Prior to building permit issuance and prior to any work within the City Right-of-Way, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Engineering Division. All new public improvements required to accommodate the development shall be installed at no cost to the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City Standards. All new public improvements shall be completed prior to Final Occupancy of the project or prior any Temporary Occupancy as approved by the City Engineer. 21. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a video survey of the adjacent streets (perimeter of proposed property location) to determine the pre-construction condition of the streets at no cost to the City. The Applicant will be responsible to ensure that the condition of the streets and striping is in at least existing condition or better after construction is completed. 22. Per the Transportation Demand Management Plan by Hexagon, the Applicant shall install the following improvements: a) Required Measure 3: provide lighting and landscaping along the project frontage to enhance pedestrian safety. 38 Conditions of Approval Page 17 of 29 b) Required Measure 7: widen sidewalks to a minimum 5-ft wide and include planting strips along the project frontage. 23. Existing driveway approaches or portions of approaches along the property frontage that will not serve the new development or do not serve any other access shall be removed and replaced with new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Where new work is required, monolithic curbs, gutter, and sidewalks are to be constructed to current City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet current City standards. 24. The Applicant shall reconstruct the existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Baden Avenue frontage of the subject property. All sidewalks shall be constructed to current City and Caltrans standards and specifications. 25. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the site, the Applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, at their expense, as required to conform to City Standards, all public improvements including driveways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street pavements along the street frontages of the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 26. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work in Baden Avenue and/or any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. 27. Any work within the public sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian routes shall require pedestrian routing plans along with traffic control plans. Temporary lane or sidewalk closures shall be approved by the City Engineer and by the Construction Coordination Committee (if within the CCC influence area). For any work affecting the sidewalks or pedestrian routes greater than 2 days in duration, the adjacent parking lane or adjacent travel lane shall be closed and temporary vehicle barriers placed to provide a protected pedestrian corridor. Temporary ramps shall be constructed to connect the pedestrian route from the sidewalk to the street if no ramp or driveway is available to serve that purpose. 28. No foundation or retaining wall support shall extend into the City Right-of-Way without express approval from the Engineering Department. Applicant shall design any bioretention area, flow-through planters, or private development treatment structures 39 Conditions of Approval Page 18 of 29 adjacent to the property line such that the facility and all foundations do not encroach within the City Right-of-Way or into an adjacent parcel. 29. The project shall not include any permanent structural supports (retaining walls, tiebacks, etc.) within the ROW. City Engineer approval is required for any temporary structural supports within the ROW. Any temporary structural supports shall be removed after construction. Stormwater 30. Post-development stormwater runoff peak flow and volume shall not exceed that of the pre-development condition for each discharge point from the site. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be a 10-year design storm based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of 10 minutes. 31. On-site and off-site storm drainage conveyance systems shall be designed to accommodate the 10-year design storm. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of 10 minutes. 32. Hydraulic Grade lines shall not be less than 1 foot from the ground surface. 33. Runoff Coefficients used for hydraulic calculations shall be as follows: a) Parks and open areas—0.35 b) Residential areas—0.50 c) Multiple dwelling areas—0.65 d) Commercial and paved areas—0.95 34. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across subdivision boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this purpose. 35. All off-site drainage facilities required by the City Engineer to accommodate the runoff from the subdivision shall be provided by the Applicant at no cost to the City. 36. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge into an approved drainage device or facility that meets the C3 stormwater treatment requirements of Municipal Regional Permit. 40 Conditions of Approval Page 19 of 29 37. All storm drainage shall be directed toward Baden Avenue. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff shall not be surface drained into surrounding private property or public streets. In no case shall storm drainage connect to a sanitary sewer facility. 38. Existing on-site drains that are not adequately sized to accommodate run-off from the fully developed property and upstream drainage basin shall be improved as required by the Applicant’s civil engineering consultant’s plans and specifications as approved by the City Engineer. These on-site improvements shall be installed at no cost to the City. 39. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Sanitary Sewer 40. Applicant shall video inspect the sanitary sewer mains along the project frontage to the nearest manholes upstream and downstream of the project point of connection both prior to construction and post construction. Video must be submitted to City Engineering for review as part of the improvement plans submittal and shall confirm the number of existing sewer laterals serving the site that must be abandoned. 41. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) private sewer laterals serving the property. a) Any existing private sewer lateral that is not proposed to be reused shall be abandoned per City Standards. The number of sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be shown on the plans and shall be confirmed by the review of a video inspection of the private sanitary sewer main. b) Any existing private sewer lateral that is proposed to be reused shall obtain a Certificate of Compliance, which requires video inspection and review, prior to the lateral’s reuse. c) Any new private sewer laterals shall be installed to City Standards including a cleanout in the sidewalk and a new wye connection at the main. Lateral sizes of 8- inch or larger require a manhole connection at the City sewer main. 41 Conditions of Approval Page 20 of 29 42. All utility crossings shall be potholed, verified and shown on the plans prior to the building permit submittal. 43. The on-site sanitary sewer system/plumbing shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, as amended and adopted by the City, and in accordance with the requirements of the South San Francisco Building Division. Utilities 44. All electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground within the property being developed and to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility vault. Pull boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed within pedestrian walkway areas. 45. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service/Westborough Water for all water-related issues. All water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of the California Water Service or the Westborough Water District, as appropriate. 46. The Applicant shall install fire hydrants at the locations specified by the Fire Marshal. Installation shall be in accordance with City Standards as administered by the Fire Marshall. On-site Improvements 47. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 48. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy form the Building Division, the Applicant shall require his Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to certify that it conforms to the approved site plan and that there is positive drainage away from the exterior of the building. The Applicant shall make any modifications to the grading, drainage, or other improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans. 49. The Applicant shall submit a proposed workplan and intended methodologies to ensure any existing structures on or along the development’s property line are protected during proposed activities. 42 Conditions of Approval Page 21 of 29 50. All common areas are to be landscaped and irrigated and shall meet the requirements of the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Submit landscape, drainage and grading plans for review and approval by the Engineering Division. 51. Any monument signs to be installed for the project shall be located completely on private property and shall not encroach into the City’s right-of-way. The Developer shall ensure that placement of the monument signs do not obstruct clear lines of sight for vehicles entering or exiting the site. Grading 52. The recommendations contained within the geotechnical report shall be included in the Site Grading and Drainage Plan. The Site Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by the developer’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. 53. The entire project site shall be adequately sprinkled with water to prevent dust or sprayed with an effect dust palliative to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried onto adjacent private and public property. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Should any problems arise from dust, the developer shall hire an environmental inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with the grading permit. 54. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco shall be cleaned daily, or more often, as required by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets or private driveways. 55. The Applicant shall submit a winterization plan for all undeveloped areas within the site to control silt and stormwater runoff from entering adjacent public or private property. This plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to September 1 of each year. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to November 1 of each year. 56. Prior to placing any foundation concrete, the Applicant shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks from confirmed property lines as shown on the Plans. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. 57. The applicant is required by ordinance to provide for public safety and the protection of public and private property in the vicinity of the land to be graded from the impacts of the proposed grading work. 43 Conditions of Approval Page 22 of 29 58. All hauling and grading operations are restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for residential areas and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for industrial/commercial areas, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 59. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no grading in excess of 200 cubic yards shall be accomplished between November 1 and May 1 of each year. Engineering Impact Fees 60. The Applicant shall pay the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (per Res 120-2020) prior to Building Permit Issuance. Contact: Jason Hallare at Jason.Hallare@ssf.net FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS After review of application and plans provided for this project, the Fire Department has the following comments. Applicant is advised that the following Fire Department Standard Conditions apply to this project: 1. Projects shall be designed in compliance with established regulations adopted by the City of South San Francisco affecting or related to structures, processes, premises and safeguards regarding the following: a) The hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials or devices. b) Conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises. c) Fire hazards in the structure(s) or on the premises from occupancy or operation. d) Matters related to the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of the fire suppression or alarm systems. e) Conditions affecting the safety of fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. 44 Conditions of Approval Page 23 of 29 2. Fire service features for buildings, structures and premises shall comply with all City adopted building standards, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Building Standards and South San Francisco City Code. 3. Permit(s) shall be required as set forth in adopted California Building Code (CBC) Section 105, California Residential Code (CRC) Section R105 and California Fire Code (CFC) Sections 105.6 and 105.7. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional. Where special conditions exist, the code official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional. a) Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on suitable material. Electronic media documents shall be submitted. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of adopted codes and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the code official. b) Shop drawings for the fire protection system(s) shall be submitted directly to the Fire Department to indicate conformance with adopted codes and the construction documents and shall be approved prior to the start of system installation. Shop drawings shall contain all information as required by the referenced installation standards in Chapter 9. c) The construction documents shall show in sufficient detail the location, construction, size, and character of all portions of the means of egress including the path of the exit discharge to the public way in compliance with the provisions of adopted codes. In other than occupancies in Groups R-2, R-3, and R-2.1, the construction documents shall designate the number of occupants to be accommodated on every floor, and in all rooms and spaces. d) The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The code official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan 45 Conditions of Approval Page 24 of 29 where the application for permit is for alteration or repair or where otherwise warranted. e) Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access roads and construction documents, hydraulic calculations and material specifications for fire hydrant, fire protection or detection systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. 4. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except where approved alternative methods of protection are provided. 5. For the purposes of prescribing minimum safeguards for construction, alteration, and demolition operations to provide reasonable safety to life and property from fire during such operations. building, facilities, and premises in the course of construction, alteration or demolition, including those in underground locations shall be in compliance with CFC Chapter 33 and NFPA 241. Applicant is advised that the following Fire Department Specific Conditions apply to this project: 6. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved illuminated or other approved means of address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabetic letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Character size and stroke shall be in accordance with CFC Section 505.1.1 through 505.1.2. Where required by the fire code official, address identification shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response in accordance with this code and CFC Section 505.1.3. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way or when determined by the fire code official, a monument, pole, or other approved illuminated sign or other approved means shall be used to identify the structure(s). Address identification shall be maintained. 7. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises on which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction, in accordance with CFC Section 507, Appendices B & C. 46 Conditions of Approval Page 25 of 29 a) Fire-flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings and facilities shall be determined by adopted CFC Appendix B. b) Fire hydrant systems shall comply with adopted CFC Section 507.5.1 through 507.5.8 and Appendix C. 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with CFC Section 503 and Appendix D. a) Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. i. Traffic calming measures (bollards, speed bumps, humps, undulations, etc.) are not approved as a part of this review and require specific approval from the Fire Department. ii. Should a security gate be planned to serve the facility, the gate shall be equipped with a Knox Company key operated electric gate release switch. During a power failure, gate shall release for manual operation OR be equipped with standby power or connected to the building emergency panel. In addition to sending the request to exit signal to the gate operator, the magnetic detection loop (when activated) shall prohibit the gate from closing upon fire apparatus. b) Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with CFC D105. For purposes of this requirement, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. One or more of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet and not greater than 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire long-side of the building or as approved by the fire code official. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. 47 Conditions of Approval Page 26 of 29 Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. There shall be no architectural features, projections or obstructions that would limit the articulation of the aerial apparatus. c) Required Fire Department access roads shall be signed “No Parking – Fire Lane” per current Fire Department standards and California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500. d) A Fire Department key box shall be provided on the front of each structure for access to fire protection equipment within the building. 9. The provisions of the adopted CFC shall specify where fire protection and life safety systems are required and shall apply to the design, installation, inspection, operation, testing and maintenance of all fire protection systems. a) Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in adopted CFC Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.20. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing buildings and structures shall be provided in locations described in adopted CFC Section 903.6. i. Structure will be required to be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 1. If required Fire Department Connection (FDC) for the sprinkler and/or standpipe systems shall be located on the street side of the structure or facing approved fire apparatus access roadway fully visible and recognizable from the street, and within 100 feet an approved fire hydrant. b) Structure will be required to install a standpipe system in the building. i. Not less than one standpipe shall be provided for use during construction. Such standpipes shall be installed prior to construction exceeding 40 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. Such standpipes shall be provided with fire department hose connections at floor- level locations adjacent to stairways as construction progresses, such standpipes shall be extended to within one floor of the highest point of construction having secured decking or flooring. 48 Conditions of Approval Page 27 of 29 10. A change of occupancy shall not be made unless the use or occupancy is made to comply with the requirements of the City adopted California Fire Code and the California Existing Building Code. Where approved by the fire code official, a change of occupancy shall be permitted without complying with the all requirements of this code and the California Existing Building Code, provided that the new or proposed use or occupancy is determined to be less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use or occupancy. 11. The following are a list of deferred plan submittal items that are required by the Fire Department - additional items may be called out based on subsequent permit reviews: a) Standpipe System b) Fire Sprinkler System modifications c) Fire Alarm/Fire Sprinkler Monitoring System modifications d) Emergency Responder Radio System (to be determined) e) Gates and barricades across fire apparatus access roads (to be determined) Contact: Ian Hardage, Fire Marshal, at (650) 829-6645 POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS All construction must conform to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48.070 Minimum- security standards for nonresidential buildings, (Ord. 1477 § 1C, 2013; Ord. 1166 § 1, 1995). 15.48.085 Additional Security Measures May Be Required Per South San Francisco Municipal Code 15.48.085 - Additional Security Measures, the following conditions will also be required: 1. The hardware design of any doorways shall prevent any doors from being secured in a closed position to either another door or a fixed object within four feet of any door by means of a rope, cable, chain, or similar item. This is to prevent malicious prevention of egress and/or ingress by building occupants or first responders. 2. All exterior doorways shall be illuminated during darkness by a white light source that has full cut-off and is of pedestrian scale. 3. Any exterior bicycle racks installed shall be of an inverted “U” design, or other design that allows two different locking points on each bicycle. 49 Conditions of Approval Page 28 of 29 4. Any publicly accessible benches shall be of a design that prevents persons from lying on them, such as a center railing. 5. Any publicly accessible power outlets shall be of a design that prevents their access of use during those hours the business is normally closed. 6. Any publicly accessible raised edge surfaces, such as retaining walls, concrete benches, handrails, or railings, shall be of a design that prevents or discourages skateboard use on those surfaces. 7. The mature height of all shrubbery shall be no higher than three feet, if so, it shall be maintained at a maximum height of three feet, and tree canopies shall be no lower than six feet above grade. 8. The Police Department reserves the right to review and comment upon the submission of revised and updated plans. Contact: Mike Toscano, Police Department, at (650) 877-8927 or mike.toscano@ssf.net WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION CONDITIONS The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Water Quality Control Stormwater and/or Pretreatment Programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. Storm drains must be protected during construction. Discharge of any demolition/construction debris or water to the storm drain system is prohibited. 2. Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street or drive aisles. Drains in street must have inlet and throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to breakage from vehicular traffic. 3. No floatable bark shall be used in landscaping. Only fibrous mulch or pea gravel is allowed. 4. If site falls in a Moderate Trash Generation area per South San Francisco’s Trash Generation Map (http://www.flowstobay.org/content/municipal-trash-generation-maps), determined by the Water Quality Control Division: 50 Conditions of Approval Page 29 of 29 -Regional Water Quality Control Board-approved full trash capture devices must be installed to treat the stormwater drainage from the site. -At a minimum, a device must be installed before the onsite drainage enters the City’s public stormwater system (i.e. trash capture must take place no farther downstream than the last private stormwater drainage structure on the site). -An Operation & Maintenance Agreement will be required to be recorded with San Mateo County, ensuring the device(s) will be properly maintained (template attached). -A full trash capture system is any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area or designed to carry at least the same flow as the storm drain connected to the inlet. 5. Fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and be clearly shown on plans. 6. If trash storage area to be located outside, trash enclosure must be covered (roof, canopy) and contained (wall/fence). Details of trash enclosure shall be clearly provided on plans. 7. Wherever feasible, install landscaping that minimizes irrigation runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes use of pesticides and fertilizers and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping programs (such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). Contact: Andrew Wemmer, Water Quality Control, at (650) 829-3840 or Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net 51 ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A0.0 COVER SHEET A2016-001 FIREHOUSE WORK 201 BADEN AVENUE, 94080 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION 2 JULY 27, 2022 PROJECT TEAM ARCHITECT:CIVIL: GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH + PLANNING: 211 LINDEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 T: (650) 871-0709 F: (650) 871-7911 CONTACT: JONATHAN HARTMAN BKF ENGINEERS 255 SHORELINE DRIVE, SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 T: (650) 482-6306 CONTACT: JONATHAN TANG PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK: THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES RE-PURPOSING THE OLD FIREHOUSE FOR AN OFFICE SPACE. THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE OLD FIREHOUSE INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR SURFACE PARKING, PATHWAYS, AND LANDSCAPING; REPLACING OVERHEAD DOORS WITH STOREFRONT; PAINTING; NEW BUILDING AND CODE SIGNAGE; AND OUTFITTING THE INTERIOR TO CREATE A MULTI-TENANT OFFICE SPACE WITH SHARED FACILITIES. LOCATION MAP: SHEET INDEX SHEET NO. SHEET NAME A0.0 COVER SHEET A0.4-0 PROJECT AND CODE DATA A0.4-4 CODE -MAXIMUM OPENINGS SOUTH A0.4-5 CODE -MAXIMUM OPENINGS EAST A0.4-6 CODE - MAXIMUM OPENINGS WEST A0.4-7 CODE PLAN A1.0-0 SITE PHOTOS A1.0-2 EXISTING SITE PLAN C1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C2.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C3.0 SAN MATEO COUNTY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES L1.0 LANDSCAPE A1.1-1 SITE PLAN A1.1-2 SITE PLAN SURROUNDINGS A2.0-1 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT A2.0-2 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - FIRST FLOOR A2.0-3 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - SECOND FLOOR A2.0-4 DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS A2.0-5 DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS A2.1 RENDERED ELEVATIONS A2.4-0 FLOOR PLAN- BASEMENT A2.4-1 FLOOR PLAN- FIRST FLOOR A2.4-2 FLOOR PLAN- SECOND FLOOR A2.4-3 ROOF PLAN A2.5-0 FLOOR PLAN - TENANT AREAS A3.1-1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.1-2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEFERRED SUBMITTALS: A. STANDPIPE SYSTEM B. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS C. FIRE ALARM/FIRE SPRINKLER MONITORING SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS. D. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO SYSTEM E. GATES AND BARRICADES ACROSS FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS 2 2 ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 52 ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A0.4-0 PROJECT AND CODE DATA A2016-001 APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24), AND ALL LOCALLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS & RELATED ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS & REGULATIONS. APPLICABLE CODES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: PART 2-2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) PART 3-2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) PART 4-2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) PART 5-2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) PART 6-2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE PART 9-2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC) PART 11-2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALGREEN) CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE ZONING CHAPTER 1 -SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 3 -USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION CHAPTER 5 -GENERAL BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS CHAPTER 8 -INTERIOR FINISHES CHAPTER 9 -FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS CHAPTER 7 -FIRE AND SMOKE PROTECTION FEATURES FIRE RESISTANCE RATINGS AND FIRE TESTS (703) FIRE RESISTANCE RATING OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS (704) REFER TO SECTION 601 FOR FIRE RATING (IN HOURS) FOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE AND DEGREE OF OPENING PROTECTION (705.8) FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE DEGREE OF OPENING PROTECTION ALLOW. AREA 3 FT TO LESS THAN 5 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 15% 5 FT TO LESS THAN 10 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 25% 10 FT TO LESS THAN 15 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 45% 15 FT TO LESS THAN 20 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 75% FIRE WALLS (706) NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT FIRE BARRIERS (707) INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAYS/RAMPS (1023.2) CONNECTING ≥4 STORIES 2 HOURS SHAFTS AND ELEVATOR HOISTWAYS (713.4) CONNECTING ≥4 STORIES:2 HOURS SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION (707.5.1) 1 HOUR FIRE PARTITIONS (708) CORRIDORS SERVING TYPE 'B' OCCUPANCY (1018.1)0 HOURS ELECTRICAL ROOM (CEC 450.21)1 HOUR SMOKE PARTITION (710) ELEVATOR LOBBIES WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM (CBC 3006.2) PENETRATIONS (714) PENETRATIONS OF NONFIRE-RESISTANCE RATED FLOOR OR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLIES OR THE CEILING MEMBRANE OF A NONFIRE-RATED ROOF/CEILING ASSEMBLY SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 713 OR SHALL COMPLY WITH 714.5.1 OR 714.5.2 (714.5) PENETRATING ITEMS THAT CONNECT NOT MORE THAN TWO STORIES ARE PERMITTED, PROVIDED THAT THE ANNULAR SPACE IS FILLED WITH AN APPROVED MATERIAL TO RESIST THE FREE PASSAGE OF FLAME AND THE PRODUCTS OF COMBUSTION (714.5.2) OPENING PROTECTIVE (716) OPENING FIRE PROTECTION ASSEMBLIES, RATINGS AND MARKINGS (716.5) 2 HOUR RATED ASSEMBLY 1 1/2 HOUR MINIMUM FIRE DOOR/SHUTTER ASSEMBLY 1 HOUR RATED ASSEMBLY 3/4 HOUR MINIMUM FIRE DOOR/SHUTTER ASSEMBLY 1 HOUR FIRE PARTITION-CORRIDOR 1/3 HOUR MINIMUM FIRE DOOR/SHUTTER ASSEMBLY 1 HOUR FIRE PARTITION-OTHER 3/4 HOUR MINIMUM FIRE DOOR/SHUTTER ASSEMBLY 1 HOUR RATED EXTERIOR WALLS 3/4 HOUR MINIMUM FIRE DOOR/SHUTTER ASSEMBLY CHAPTER 6 -TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE PLANE: 49 FT ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET ABOVE GRADE PLANE (504.3): TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED) BUSINESS (B): 60 FT STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE: 4 (NON-CONFORMING) ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE (504.4): TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED) BUSINESS (B): 3 ALLOWABLE AREA FACTOR (506.2) (503): TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED), WITHOUT HEIGHT INCREASE) BUSINESS (B): 27,000 SF BUILDING AREA FOURTH FLOOR AREA: 346 SF THIRD FLOOR AREA: 346 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA: 3,904 SF FIRST FLOOR AREA: 6,871 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA (ABOVE GRADE PLANE): 11,467 SF ALLOWABLE AREA FACTOR PER TABLE 506.2, TYPE V-B: TYPE V-B SM = 27,000 SF EQUATION 5-2: Aa = [ At + (NS * If)] * Sa Aa = [ 27,000 + (9,500 * 0)] * 2 Aa = 54,000 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA (ABOVE GRADE PLANE): 11,467 SF < 54,000 SF = OK CHAPTER 15 -ROOF ASSEMBLY TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED)(602) FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (601): TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED) PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME: 0 HOURS BEARING WALLS (EXTERIOR): 0 HOURS BEARING WALLS (INTERIOR):0 HOURS NONBEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS (INTERIOR): 0 HOURS FLOOR CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED SECONDARY MEMBERS: 0 HOURS ROOF CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED SECONDARY MEMBERS: 0 HOURS FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTERIOR WALLS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION DIST. (602) FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY B X < 5 V-B 1 HOUR 5 ≤X < 10 V-B 1 HOUR 10 ≤X < 30 V-B 0 HOURS X ≥30 V-B 0 HOURS TABLE 803.11, INTERIOR WALL AND CEILING FINISH REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE 'B' OCCUPANCY IN SPRINKLED BUILDINGS INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAYS, INTERIOR EXIT RAMPS AND EXIT PASSAGEWAYS CLASS B CORRIDORS AND ENCLOSURE FOR EXIT ACCESS STAIRWAYS AND EXIT ACCESS RAMPS CLASS C ROOMS AND ENCLOSED SPACESC CLASS C PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS (906) -REQUIRED IN TYPE 'B' OCCUPANCY FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEMS (907) –REQUIREMENTS BASED ON B OCCUPANCY SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS PER CBC 903.2.1.3, BUILDING IS EQUIPPED WITH AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM THROUGHOUT. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM PER SECTION 907.2 AND NFPA 72, A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM WITH AN EMERGENCY VOICE/ALARM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED. ROOF CLASSIFICATION PER CBC 2019 SECTION 1505.1 -FIRE CLASSIFICATION, ROOF MINIMUM FIRE RETARDANT CLASS FOR TYPE III-B: ROOF CLASS: C ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS (APN): 012-335-100 and 012-335-110 PER CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, PARCEL IS CONFIRMED TO BE DTC, DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE WITH AN EXISTING USE OF C/I MISC. REQUIRED PROPOSED NORTH SETBACK: 10 FT FROM CURB 10 FT FROM CURB EAST SETBACK:NO REQUIREMENT VARIES, SEE A0.4 SERIES SOUTH SETBACK: 10FT [ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (E)]VARIES, SEE A0.4 SERIES WEST SETBACK: NO REQUIREMENT 9' -11" BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT: 85' -0"49' -0" PER TABLE 20.280.004-2 LOT, DENSITY AND FAR STANDARDS, THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR AT LEAST 65% OF THE LINEAR STREET FRONTAGE. FIREHOUSE WORK, LLC PROPOSES TO RETAIN AND REDEVELOP THE EXISTING FIREHOUSE STATION INTO COMMERCIAL SPACE. OCCUPANCY TYPES, INCLUDING: B: SPACES USED FOR OPERATIONAL AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES (304). 53 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" ABCDEFGH T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3"14' - 6"TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 37' - 7"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 741.4 SF 217.7 SF 45% OK 29.4% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 37' - 7"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 741.4 SF 261.9 SF 45% OK 35.4%TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 4' - 2"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 338.7 SF 23.9 SF 15% OK 7.1%TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 5' - 0" 10' - 2"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 656 SF 160.2 SF 25% OK 24.5% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 4' - 2"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 211.4 SF 20.6 SF 15% OK 9.8% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 4' - 2"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 292 SF 20.6 SF 15% OK 7.1% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 4' - 2"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 217 SF 20.6 SF 15% OK 9.5% EGRESS COURT, (E) 4-HR FIRE RESISTANCE RATED 8" CONCRETE WALL10' - 0"ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A0.4-4 CODE -MAXIMUM OPENINGS SOUTH A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (CO) EL- SOUTH ELEVATION 2 SOUTH AXONOMETRIC N 54 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 11' - 8"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 199.3 SF 18.6 SF 15% OK 9.4% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 11' - 8"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 156.7 SF 18.6 SF 45% OK 11.9% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 10' - 3"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 190 SF 71.5 SF 45% OK 37.7% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 3' - 0" 11' - 8"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 302.8 SF 31.4 SF 15% OK 10.4% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 10' - 3"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 559.4 SF 221 SF 45% OK 39.5%TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 5'-0" TO 10'-0" 5' - 0"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 485.8 SF 94.6 SF 25% OK 19.6%TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 10' - 0" 11' - 8"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 397.2 SF 102.4 SF 45% OK 25.8% INFILL WINDOW WITH 1-HR WALL ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A0.4-5 CODE -MAXIMUM OPENINGS EAST A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (CO) EL- EAST ELEVATION 2 EAST AXONOMETRIC N 55 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1234567 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 5' - 0" TO 10' - 0" 9' - 11"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 1167 SF 221.2 SF 25% OK 19% TOTAL WALL OPENING AREA TOTAL WALL AREA TABLE 705.8 FSD AND UNPROTECTED OPENING IN SPRINKLERED BUILDING 9' - 11"PROVIDED FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 1466.7 SF 196.34 SF 25% OK 13.4% 5' - 0" TO 10' - 0" INFILL WINDOW WITH 1-HR WALL ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A0.4-6 CODE - MAXIMUM OPENINGS WEST A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (CO) EL- WEST ELEVATION 2 WEST AXONOMETRIC N 56 UP BADEN AVENUECYPRESS AVENUEAIRPORT BOULEVARD2ND LANE PROPERTY LINE 211 BADEN AVE199 AIRPORT BLVD 100 BADEN AVE RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48" WIDE ACCESSIBLE PATH FOR ENTRYEXISTING FIRE HOUSE FIREHOUSE LIVE 201 BADEN AVE 10' - 7 1/2"4' - 2 1/4"18' - 7 1/8"10' - 6"9' - 11 1/8"5' - 0" 21' - 0 1/2"39' - 9" 66' - 8 7/8" 33' - 1 11/16"127' - 7 5/8" 8. (7) PARALLEL PARKING TO BE ELIMINATED. 8. (4) PARALLEL PARKING TO BE ELIMINATED. SITE PLAN LEGEND 48" WIDE ACCESSIBLE PATH FOR ENTRY PROPERTY LINE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR SHEET NOTES A0.4-7 CODE PLAN A2016-001 1/16" = 1'-0"1 CO- CODE PLAN 1. EXISTING 8” CONCRETE WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THREE (3) PUNCHED OPENINGS FOR WINDOWS. Proposed property line: 3’-2” from face of existing building Per CBC Table 602, an FSD of less than 5’-0” for Type V-B construction requires a 1-hour exterior wall. Per CBC Table 722.2.1.1, the max required thickness for 1-hr rating for a solid concrete wall is 3.5”.Per the same table, the 8” concrete wall is 4-hr rated. Per CBC Table 705.8, an unprotected, sprinklered wall with a FSD greater than 3’-0” but less than 5’-0”is allowed to have no more than 15% openings per floor. The existing wall is approximately 29% open. The proposed plan is to infill two of the three existing exterior openings with 1-hr rated walls. The remaining single opening will represent 9.7% of the wall area, which complies with Table 705.8. No accessible path of travel is anticipated along this side of building. An accessible exterior travel from Baden will occur along the west side of the building. 2.EXISTING 8” CONCRETE WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH FOUR (4) PUNCHED OPENINGS FOR WINDOWS, PLUS AN EXTERIOR DOOR. Proposed property line: 10’-2” from face of existing building Per CBC Table 602, an FSD greater than 10’-0” for Type V-B construction requires a 0-hour exterior wall. Per CBC Table 722.2.1.1, the max required thickness for 1-hr rating for a solid concrete wall is 3.5”.Per the same table, the 8” concrete wall is 4-hr rated. Per CBC Table 705.8, an unprotected, sprinklered wall with a FSD greater than 10’-0” but less than 15’-0” is allowed to have no more than 45% openings per floor. The existing wall is approximately 24.5% open, which will complies with Table 705.8. No accessible path of travel is anticipated along this side of building. 3.EXISTING 8” MIN. CONCRETE WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH ONE (1) PUNCHED OPENINGS FOR WINDOWS, PLUS AN EXTERIOR DOOR WITH NON-RATED GLASS BLOCK SURROUND. Proposed property line: 10’-6” from face of existing building Per CBC Table 602, an FSD greater than 10’-0” for Type V-B construction requires a 0-hour exterior wall. Per CBC Table 722.2.1.1, the max required thickness for 1-hr rating for a solid concrete wall is 3.5”.Per the same table, the 8” concrete wall is 4-hr rated. Per CBC Table 705.8, an unprotected, sprinklered wall with a FSD greater than 10’-0” but less than 15’-0” is allowed to have no more than 45% openings per floor. The existing wall at the ground floor level is approximately 24.5% open, which will complies with Table 705.8. All floors above also comply (9.9%, 11.2%, 8.8%) The existing training tower element has a basement that extends eastward into the site approximately 7’-4”. There is a sidewalk-door style opening in the hardscape that allows access into the basement from the exterior. This opening is not required by code and is intended to be filled in with concrete. An accessible path from the parking area in the rear of the building to the rear entry door of the stair tower does pass along this face of the building. Per CBC 11B-403.5.1-Ex3, a 48” wide path of travel is required. A compliant 48” wide path will be provided. 4.EXISTING 8” MIN. CONCRETE WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH ONE (1) EXTERIOR DOOR. Proposed property line: 4’-2” from face of existing building Per CBC Table 602, an FSD of less than 5’-0” for Type V-B construction requires a 1-hour exterior wall. Per CBC Table 722.2.1.1, the max required thickness for 1-hr rating for a solid concrete wall is 3.5”.Per the same table, the 8” concrete wall is 4-hr rated. Per CBC Table 705.8, an unprotected, sprinklered wall with a FSD greater than 3’-0” but less than 5’-0”is allowed to have no more than 15% openings per floor. The existing wall at the ground floor level is approximately 7.1% open, which will complies with Table 705.8. All floors above also comply (9.5%, 9.8%, 7.1%) The existing exterior door, due to its location in overlapping FSD areas, has an FSD of greater than 50’ and does not need to be rated. An accessible path from the parking area in the rear of the building to the rear entry door of the stair tower does pass along this face of the building. Per CBC 11B-403.5.1-Ex3, a 48” wide path of travel is required. A compliant 48” wide path will be provided. Per CBC 1028.4.2, an “egress court” condition applies when the width of the path of travel is greater than 44” and less than 10’-0”. In such cases, a 1-hr rated wall is required for a minimum height of 10’-0”. The existing concrete wall is a 4-hr wall and has no openings in this area, and is therefore compliant. The upper three floors of the training tower have an existing exterior fire escape system. The system is comprised of steel ladders and open grille-work platforms. Because the platforms are open-grille and have free air movement through them, they are not governed by the projection requirements of CBC 705.2. CBC 1021 and 1027 discuss exterior fire stairs, but not fire escapes. The California Existing Building Code speaks explicitly about fire escapes as in Section 314, which has been adopted by the SFM for existing high-rise buildings. While this training tower does not meet the height requirements of a high-rise building, this project proposes to apply the high-rise standards to this existing fire escape as a conservative approach to a second exit from training tower spaces on the second, third, and fourth floors of the tower. Section 314.8 gives the enforcing agency the ability apply exiting requirements in these situations with reasonable judgement. Section 314.9 allows for fire escapes to be accessible by a window operable from the interior with a minimum dimension of 29 inches when open. The existing operable windows are approximately 40” x 60” when open. Section 314.10 allows for protection of exterior openings within 5’ horzinontally of landings to be protected as appropriate by the enforcing agency. The walls within 5’ horizontally of the fire escape are 8” thick concrete, a 4-hr rated wall. The fire escape is partially within the area bounded by the 4’-2” property line. Given that the interior floor plates of the training tower are approximately 280sf per floor, and over 82sf of each floor level is taken up by the utility access stair that provides primary access and egress, there is a usable floor area of less than 200sf per level which equates to a B-occupancy of 2 person per level. This project proposes to use the existing fire escape in its current configuration and location as shown as a second means of egress from the upper floors of the existing training tower. 5. EXISTING 8” CONCRETE WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH TWO (2) PUNCHED OPENINGS FOR WINDOWS, PLUS AN EXTERIOR DOOR ON THE GROUND FLOOR. Proposed property line: 10’-6” from face of existing building Per CBC Table 602, an FSD greater than 10’-0” for Type V-B construction requires a 0-hour exterior wall. Per CBC Table 722.2.1.1, the max required thickness for 1-hr rating for a solid concrete wall is 3.5”.Per the same table, the 8” concrete wall is 4-hr rated. Per CBC Table 705.8, an unprotected, sprinklered wall with a FSD greater than 10’-0” but less than 15’-0” is allowed to have no more than 45% openings per floor. The existing wall at the ground floor level is approximately 39.5% open, which will complies with Table 705.8. The floor above also complies (37.7%) An accessible path from the parking area in the rear of the building to the rear entry door of the stair tower does pass along this face of the building. Per CBC 11B-403.5.1-Ex3, a 48” wide path of travel is required. A compliant 48” wide path will be provided. 6.TRAINING TOWER This is served by an existing, non-conforming utility stair. This stair is not enclosed by any shaft. The project proposes to make adjustments to handrails and handrail extensions to enhance conformity. 7.GRAND STAIR The existing grand staircase has dimensionally code-conforming stair treads, risers and landings. Current handrails and guardrails are non- conforming. The project proposes to make adjustments to handrails, guardrails and handrail extensions to enhance conformity. 8.2ND LANE PARALLEL PARKING There are currently seven (7) parallel parking spaces striped on 2nd Lane to the south of the existing 201 Baden Property (between Giorgi and 199 Airport. There are no existing parallel parking spaces that are striped on 2nd Lane behind 199 Airport. Per discussions with SSF Fire Department, it is understood that with the development of the existing 201/205 Baden Property, there shall be no parallel parking on 2nd Lane from Linden to Airport. This includes the seven (7) spaces adjacent to 201/205 Baden, as well as four (4) additional spaces adjacent to 211 Baden, for a total of eleven (11) spaces that will be eliminated. 1 ▲1 REVISION PER 02/25 PLANNING COMMENTS ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 2 57 ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A1.0-0 SITE PHOTOS A2016-001 NORTH FACADE SOUTH FACADE CONCRETE DETAIL -NORTH FACADE CONCRETE PIERS -NORTH FACADE GENERAL VIEW OF THE AREA ENTRANCE -NORTH FACADE WEST FACADE EAST FACADE BIRD'S EYE VIEW PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 58 LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PRIOR TO LOT ADJUSTMENT 201 BADEN -PARKING AREA 201 BADEN -EXISTING BUILDING(11) PARALLEL PARKING SPACES AT SECOND LANE TO BE REMOVED. ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A1.0-2 EXISTING SITE PLAN A2016-001 1/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN 59 I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4080 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,NING CRAE TCEIT SC S N N 7 S 5 06 C 0718 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 60 I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4080 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,NING CRAE TCEIT SC S N N 7 S 5 06 C 0718 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 61 I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4080 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,NING CRAE TCEIT SC S N N 7 S 5 06 C 0718 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 62 2ND LANE 211 BADEN AVE RESIDENTIAL (N) ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROPERTY LINE (N) CONC. WALKWAY, ACCESSIBLE PATH FOR ENTRY FIREHOUSE LIVE 201 BADEN AVE EXISTING FIRE HOUSE 205 BADEN AVE BADEN AVENUE (N) TRASH ENCLOSURE (N) GATE (N) PLANTING AREA, 5-GALLON BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA ‘GREEN BEAUTY’, 36-48" O.C. MAX HEIGHT 3' -0" (N) FENCE (N) SLOPED WALKWAY LESS THAN 1:20 GRADIENT (E) CONC. PAD 6' - 6 3/16" (N) DECOMPOSED GRANITE (N) PLANTING AREA, 5-GALLON BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA ‘GREEN BEAUTY’, 36-48" O.C (N) PLANTING AREA, 5-GALLON BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA ‘GREEN BEAUTY’, 36-48" O.C. ALIGN (N) PLANTING AREA, 5-GALLON MANZANITA HOWARD MCMINN, 30-36" O.C. PARKING AREA LANDSCAPE PARKING LOT AREA: 66.74' x 33.28' = 2221.11ft2 2221.11ft2 x 0.10 = 222.11ft2 PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AREA 49.33' x .4.58' = 225.93 ft2 225.93 ft2 > 222.11ft2 COMPLY WITH AREA REQ. SIDEWALK MIN. WIDTH CLEARANCE: 6'-0" 12' - 3 5/8"8' - 6"5' - 2"18' - 0"5' - 10"(N) GATE 18' - 0"5' - 10"49' - 4" (N) FENCE 8' - 6"8' - 6"8' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 10 15/16"1/2" / 12"11/16" AIRPORT BOULEVARD211 BADEN AVE 199 AIRPORT BLVD 100 BADEN AVE RESIDENTIAL (N) ACCESSIBLE PARKING 10' - 0 1/2"PROPERTY LINE FIREHOUSE LIVE 201 BADEN AVE EXISTING FIRE HOUSE 205 BADEN AVE BADEN AVENUECYPRESS AVENUE(N) GATE (N) GATE (N) PLANTING AREA, S.L.D. (N) FENCE (N) TRASH PICK UP(N) SLOPED WALKWAY LESS THAN 1:20 GRADIENT (E) CONC. PAD 6' - 6" (N) DECOMPOSED GRANITE (N) PLANTING AREA (N) PLANTING AREA, S.L.D. LOT SIZE 9,513 SF LOT SIZE 13,002 SF SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING, SEE A2.4-1 WIDENING OF SIDEWALK AND EXTENDING PLANTED AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT FRONTAGE 53' - 7 3/8"18' - 7 1/8"67' - 10 1/2"5' - 0" 10' - 7 1/2"4' - 3 5/8"10' - 6" 39' - 9" 21' - 0 1/2" SIDEWALK MIN. WIDTH CLEARANCE: 6'-0" (N) PLANTING AREA 1 (N) LOADING ZONE (N) CAR-POOL PARKING 66' - 8 7/8"94' - 0 1/2" 160' - 9 3/8"140' - 0 7/16"33' - 1 11/16"127' - 7 5/8"140' - 0 7/16"160' - 9 3/8" 2ND LANE 2 29' - 11 1/8"FIRST FLOOR GROSS AREA: 6,910 SF LOT SIZE: 12,294 SF LOT COVERAGE RATIO: 53.4% LOT COVERAGE SITE PLAN LEGEND 48" WIDE ACCESSIBLE PATH FOR ENTRY PROPERTY LINE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR SHEET NOTES A1.1-1 SITE PLAN A2016-001 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SP- SITE PLAN 1. SEE A2.4-1 FLOOR PLAN -FIRST FLOOR, FOR THE DESIGNATED TRASH COLLECTION LOCATION AND THE SLOPED WALKWAY FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO THE BADEN ENTRANCE. 2. SIX PARKING SPOTS WILL BE PROVIDED INCLUDING ONE ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL. 1 1 1 1 1 ▲1 REVISION PER 02/25 PLANNING COMMENTS ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 64 CYPRESS AVENUEAIRPORT BOULEVARD2ND LANE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FIREHOUSE LIVE 201 BADEN AVE EXISTING FIRE HOUSE 205 BADEN AVE BADEN AVENUE12 15 4 3 11 7 68910 1 5 2 13 14 16 ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A1.1-2 SITE PLAN SURROUNDINGS A2016-001 1/32" = 1'-0"1 SP- SITE PLAN SURROUNDINGS 5. VIEW OF INTERSECTION IN FRONT OF SUBJECT SITE 4. PROPERTY ACROSS FRONT STREET OF SUBJECT SITE 7. PROPERTIES ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 8. PROPERTIES ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 9. PROPERTIES ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 11. REAR VIEW OF PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT OF SUBJECT SITE 10. PROPERTIES ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 12. FRONT VIEW OF PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT OF SUBJECT SITE 3. FRONT VIEW OF PROPERTY ON THE LEFT OF SUBJECT SITE 6. VIEW OF PROPERTY ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 1. VIEW OF PROPERTIES ON REAR STREET ACROSS SUBJECT SITE 15. PROPERTY ACROSS FRONT STREET OF SUBJECT SITE 2. REAR VIEW OF PROPERTY ON THE LEFT OF SUBJECT SITE 1 13. PROPERTY ACROSS FRONT STREET OF SUBJECT SITE 14. PROPERTY ACROSS FRONT STREET OF SUBJECT SITE 16. PROPERTY ACROSS FRONT STREET OF SUBJECT SITE ▲1 REVISION PER 02/25 PLANNING COMMENTS 65 UP UP A2.0-5 5 A2.0-4 A2.0-5 A2.0-4 1 7 2 ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 BUILDING FOOTPRINT D002 D001 0110 OBSERVATION ROOM 2 SMOKE ROOM 1 BOILER ROOM 3 ENGINE TEST PIT D024 DEMOLITION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL, TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.0-1 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (D) FP00-BASEMENT-DEMOLITION KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0110 ENGINE TEST PIT D001 (R) DOOR, TYP. D002 (R) WALL, TYP. D024 (R) STAIR, PREP FOR INFILL 66 UP DN UP UP A2.0-5 5 A2.0-4 A2.0-5 A2.0-4 1 7 2 ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 DN D003 D003 D003 D003 D001 D001 D004 1241 D001 1 0108 D008 D008 D001 D006 D007 D005D005 REPAIR SHOP 102 STORAGE 103 OIL STORAGE 104 APPARATUS ROOM 101 ALARM ROOM 114 STAIR HALL 115 DRILL TOWER 116 BATTERY 113 MEN 110 WOMEN 109 CLEANING RM 111 ASS'T CHIEF 108 FIRE CHIEF 107A KITCHEN 106 RECREATION ROOM (DINING AND CLASSROOM) 105 FIRE CHIEF 107B HALLWAY 112 0549 D011 0636 D015 D015 D015 D024 DEMOLITION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL, TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.0-2 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - FIRST FLOOR A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (D) FP01- FIRST FLOOR PLAN-DEMOLITION KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 1 SPRAYED FIRE-RESISTIVE MATERIAL OVER W14X61 COLUMNS, SEE TABLE A ON A0.4-9 & A0.4-10 0549 (E) COLUMN TO REMAIN 0636 BARRE D001 (R) DOOR, TYP. D003 (R) ROLL UP DOOR, PREP FOR NEW STOREFRONT D004 (R) SIDEWALK DOOR, PREP FOR INFILL D005 (R) WINDOWS, PREP FOR NEW WINDOWS D006 (R) CASEWORK, TYP. D007 (R) PLUMBING FIXTURES, TYP. D008 (R) WINDOWS, PREP FOR INFILL D011 (R) CONCRETE SLAB AND PREP FOR NEW WALKWAY D015 (R) CONCRETE WALL, PREP FOR NEW DOOR D024 (R) STAIR, PREP FOR INFILL 67 UP UP A2.0-5 5 A2.0-4 A2.0-5 A2.0-4 1 7 2 ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 1D007 D001 D007 D002 0105 DORMITORY 201B DORMITORY 201A DRILL TOWER 211 STAIR HALL 210 DRYING ROOM 209 OFFICERS 206 WRITING 207 OFFICERS 208 SHOWERS 205 LAVATORIES 204 LOCKER ROOM 202 STORAGE ROOM 203 ROOF ROOF D012 0727 D013 D014D014D014 DEMOLITION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL, TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.0-3 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - SECOND FLOOR A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (D) FP02-SECOND FLOOR PLAN-DEMOLITION KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 1 SPRAYED FIRE-RESISTIVE MATERIAL OVER W14X61 COLUMNS, SEE TABLE A ON A0.4-9 & A0.4-10 0105 OPEN TO BELOW D001 (R) DOOR, TYP. D002 (R) WALL, TYP. D007 (R) PLUMBING FIXTURES, TYP. D012 (R) BUILT-UP ROOF, PRE FOR NEW ROOF D013 (R) FLOOD LIGHTS, TYP. D014 (R) HVAC EQUIPMENT 68 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" ABCDEFGH T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" 0735 D004 D001 D005D005 0736 D013D013 D013 D014D014D014 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" A B C D E F G H T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" D003 D003D003 D003 D014D014D014 ELEVATION COLOR LEGEND EXISTING ELEMENT TO REMAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ELEMENT TO BE DEMOLISHED ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.0-4 DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0735 (E) FINISH 0736 ROOF LADDER D001 (R) DOOR, TYP. D003 (R) ROLL UP DOOR, PREP FOR NEW STOREFRONT D004 (R) SIDEWALK DOOR, PREP FOR INFILL D005 (R) WINDOWS, PREP FOR NEW WINDOWS D013 (R) FLOOD LIGHTS, TYP. D014 (R) HVAC EQUIPMENT 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (D) EL- SOUTH ELEVATION-DEMOLITION 1/8" = 1'-0"2 (D) EL- NORTH ELEVATION-DEMOLITION 69 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" T.O. 2ND CEILING 26' -3" D008 D004 D003 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1234567 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" 0736 D008 ELEVATION COLOR LEGEND EXISTING ELEMENT TO REMAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ELEMENT TO BE DEMOLISHED ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.0-5 DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS A2016-001 1/8" = 1'-0"7 (D) EL- EAST ELEVATION-DEMOLITION 1/8" = 1'-0"5 (D) EL- WEST ELEVATION-DEMOLITION KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0736 ROOF LADDER D003 (R) ROLL UP DOOR, PREP FOR NEW STOREFRONT D004 (R) SIDEWALK DOOR, PREP FOR INFILL D008 (R) WINDOWS, PREP FOR INFILL 70 PLACEHOLDER MARQUEE SIGNAGE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.1 RENDERED ELEVATIONS A2016-001 1 SOUTH ELEVATION RENDERING 2 EAST ELEVATION RENDERING 3 NORTHWEST ELEVATION RENDERING 4 NORTH ELEVATION RENDERING 2 ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 71 UP ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 0109 BUILDING FOOTPRINT ABOVE STORAGE 1 STORAGE 2 1242 RENOVATION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN (N) NON-BEARING WALL (N) 1-HR RATED WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE BASEMENT/ SUBGRADE EXISTING & PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN AREA FIRST LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 960 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF EXISTING AREA 750 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF PROPOSED AREA NOTES FILL IN ENGINE PIT NO CHANGE NO CHANGE ST 07-31-2023 OARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.4-0 FLOOR PLAN- BASEMENT A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0109 INFILL WITH LOST FORM AND CONCRETE 1242 EIGHT (8) WALL MTD. LONG TERM BIKE PARKING 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FP00-BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ROOM SCHEDULE - BASEMENT ROOM NO. ROOM NAME AREA FUNCTION 1 STORAGE 260 SF STORAGE 2 STORAGE 380 SF STORAGE ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 2 2 72 UP UP UP ABCDEFGH 33 44 55 66 77 1 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-1 3 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-2 1 A3.4-2 TENANT 2 120 TENANT 1 100 RESTROOMS 131 TENANT 1 OFFICE 140 TENANT 2 OFFICE 122 A0.4-51 A3.1-1 2 A3.1-1 1 A3.1-22 A3.1-2 1 0401 0401 2201 2210 0401 0401 STAIR HALL 130 0121 0121 0122 0723 2202 2206 LOBBY 112 STORAGE 141 STORAGE 142 0401 0829 0829 0723 0723 0723 TENANT 2 121TENANT 2 123 3201 1239 1238 12' - 0"18' - 0"0534 5' - 2"5' - 10"4' - 0"1241 42' - 1 1/4"7' - 3 7/16"18' - 6"9' - 9 1/2" 8' - 6"8' - 6"8' - 6"8' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 9 3/8" 8' - 8 1/2" 6"3' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0" 1240 CONCRETE SLAB "NO PARKING" SIGNAGE ON FRONT OF GATE (N) CMU WALL 1 HR RATED METAL GATE 7'-0" WIDE 5' - 5 5/8"4' - 0"RENOVATION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN (N) NON-BEARING WALL (N) 1-HR RATED WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE BASEMENT/ SUBGRADE EXISTING & PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN AREA FIRST LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 960 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF EXISTING AREA 750 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF PROPOSED AREA NOTES FILL IN ENGINE PIT NO CHANGE NO CHANGE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.4-1 FLOOR PLAN- FIRST FLOOR A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0121 (N) ASPHALT AND STRIPING 0122 (N) PLOT DIVISION 0401 (N) CONCRETE WALL INFILL, MATCH ADJACENT 0534 (N) 2"X8" STEEL WIRE SYSTEM FENCE, 6'-0" HIGH, COATED & PAINTED BLACK 0723 ACM PANEL 0829 (N)STEEL WIRE GATE SYSTEM. H: 6'-1/16", COATED PAINT TO MATCH WINDOW FRAME COLOR 1238 KIOSK DISPLAY FOR TRANSPORTATION RELATED INFORMATION 1239 LOCKERS FOR EMPLOYEES WHO CHOOSE TO WALK OR BIKE TO WORK 1240 FOUR (4) SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING, TYP. SEE SHEET L1.0 1241 TWO (2) WALL MTD. LONG TERM BIKE PARKING 2201 (N) LAVATORY, TYP. 2202 (N) W.C., TYP. 2206 (N) LAVATORY, CERAMIC, WALL MOUNTED 2210 (N) ROLL-IN SHOWER 3201 PARKING STALL DESIGNATED FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONE ONLY 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FP01-FIRST FLOOR PLAN ROOM SCHEDULE - LEVEL 1 ROOM NO. ROOM NAME AREA FUNCTION 100 TENANT 1 2670 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 112 LOBBY 380 SF SHARED LOBBY 113 SHOWER 70 SF SHARED RESTROOM 120 TENANT 2 440 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 121 TENANT 2 200 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 122 TENANT 2 OFFICE 190 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 123 TENANT 2 1030 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 130 STAIR HALL 260 SF 131 RESTROOMS 280 SF SHARED RESTROOM 140 TENANT 1 OFFICE 720 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 141 STORAGE 80 SF STORAGE 142 STORAGE 60 SF STORAGE 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ▲1 REVISION PER 02/25 PLANNING COMMENTS ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 1 1 1 1 2 73 UP UP ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 1 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-2 1 A3.4-2 STORAGE 230 STAIR HALL 231TENANT 3 200 OLD DRILL TOWER 232 A3.1-1 2 A3.1-1 1 A3.1-22 0806 0109 DE 33 44 55 2 A3.4-1 1 A3.4-2 0109 OLD DRILL TOWER - 3 300 DE 33 44 2 A3.4-1 0109 OLD DRILL TOWER - 4 400 RENOVATION WALL TYPE LEGEND EXISTING WALL, TO REMAIN (N) NON-BEARING WALL (N) 1-HR RATED WALL LINE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE BASEMENT/ SUBGRADE EXISTING & PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN AREA FIRST LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 960 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF EXISTING AREA 750 SF 6910 SF 4280 SF PROPOSED AREA NOTES FILL IN ENGINE PIT NO CHANGE NO CHANGE ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.4-2 FLOOR PLAN- SECOND FLOOR A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0109 INFILL WITH LOST FORM AND CONCRETE 0806 (N) SKYLIGHT 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FP02-SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"2 FP03 - THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"3 FP04 - FOURTH FLOOR PLAN ROOM SCHEDULE - LEVEL 2, 3 & 4 ROOM NO. ROOM NAME AREA FUNCTION 200 TENANT 3 3090 SF RETAIL/ OFFICE 230 STORAGE 60 SF STORAGE 231 STAIR HALL 30 SF CIRCULATION 232 OLD DRILL TOWER 280 SF CIRCULATION/ OFFICE 300 OLD DRILL TOWER - 3 280 SF CIRCULATION/ OFFICE 400 OLD DRILL TOWER - 4 280 SF CIRCULATION/ OFFICE 74 ABCDEFGH 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 1 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-1 3 A3.4-1 2 A3.4-2 1 A3.4-2 A3.1-1 2 A3.1-1 1 A3.1-22 A3.1-2 1 0120 ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOF APP +16'-0" APP +29'-3 1/2" APP +24'-5 1/2" APP +12'-8" APP +10'-1" APP +46'-10 1/2" 2304 2304 1/2" / 12"ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.4-3 ROOF PLAN A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0120 ROOF HATCH 2304 (N) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 1/8" = 1'-0"1 RP - ROOF PLAN 75 3470 SF Tenant 1 1840 SF Tenant 2 TENANT LEGEND Tenant 1 Tenant 2 3110 SF Tenant 3 TENANT LEGEND Tenant 3 ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- N 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A2.5-0 FLOOR PLAN - TENANT AREAS A2016-001 3/32" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR 3/32" = 1'-0"2 SECOND FLOOR 1. AREAS SHOWN HAVE BEEN CALCULATED AS USABLE AREA. 76 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" A B C D E F G H T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" 0802 08020802080808080302 2304 2304 0805G 1056 105810581058 10592 1055 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" ABCDEFGH T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" 0305 08040804 03050305 2304 26022602 05340805 1057 11 1 1 0805 0805G05349' - 10"2 ELEVATION COLOR LEGEND EXISTING ELEMENT TO REMAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ELEMENT TO BE DEMOLISHED ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A3.1-1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0302 (N) SLOPED WALKWAY, RISE TO RUN NOT TO EXCEED 1:20 0305 (N) CONCRETE INFILL, FINISH TO MATCH ADJACENT 0534 (N) 2"X8" STEEL WIRE SYSTEM FENCE, 6'-0" HIGH, COATED & PAINTED BLACK 0802 (N) STOREFRONT 0804 (N) WINDOW 0805 (N) ACCESS DOOR 0805G (N) GATE WITH 2X8 STEEL MESH TO MATCH ADJACENT FENCE, COATED & PAINTED BLACK 0808 (N) DOOR 1055 MAIN BUILDING SIGN "FIREHOUSE" 1056 BUILDING ADDRESS SIGN "205" FACING BADEN STREET ILLUMINATED 1057 BUILDING ADDRESS SIGN "205" FACING THE PARKING LOT ON 2ND LANE ILLUMINATED 1058 LAMINATED TENNANTS' SIGNS AT STOREFRONT WINDOWS 1059 KNOX BOX 2304 (N) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 2602 (N) LED LIGHT FIXTURE, WHITE LIGHT WITH FULL CUTOFF 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EL- NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EL- SOUTH ELEVATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. IMAGE OF SIMILAR FENCE INSTALATION 1. IMAGE OF SIMILAR FENCE INSTALATION ▲1 REVISION PER 02/25 PLANNING COMMENTS ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 2 1 2 2 77 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" T.O. 2ND CEILING 26' -3" 03050802 2602 2602 2304 FIRST FLOOR 0" SECOND FLOOR 16' -0" 1234567 T.O. HOSE TOWER 49' -0" T.O. BUILDING 32' -3" 0305 2304 2602 2602 2602 ELEVATION COLOR LEGEND EXISTING ELEMENT TO REMAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ELEMENT TO BE DEMOLISHED ST 07-31-2023 O ARCHITECT FOFCALE REN. AT A RNNO. S EJONATHANLICNE C-30361D TECHIT ARC HARTMAN I U E I H U 9 AS.O A FRANCN 4 0 8 0 H I N S L11 AL E CR NDEN VA ,N I N G CRAE TCEI T SC S N N G R O U P 7 S 5 06 C 07 18 2 P R A O 90 A EU C + ER 4 SHEET TITLE AND NO. ISSUE DATE PROJECT: CA REG. Project Arch.-- ---- 201 BADEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FIREHOUSE WORK PLANNING REVIEW 12/22/2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 03/23/2022 PLANNING REVIEW REISSUE 2 07/27/2022 MO/DA/YEAR A3.1-2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A2016-001 KEYNOTE NO. KEYNOTE TEXT 0305 (N) CONCRETE INFILL, FINISH TO MATCH ADJACENT 0802 (N) STOREFRONT 2304 (N) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 2602 (N) LED LIGHT FIXTURE, WHITE LIGHT WITH FULL CUTOFF 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EL- EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EL- WEST ELEVATION ▲2 REVISION PER 04/02 PLANNING COMMENTS 2 78 201 Baden Avenue South San Francisco, CA Historic Resource Evaluation – DRAFT Prepared for Dawn Merkes Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. 211 Linden Ave South San Francisco, CA Prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. May 28, 2019 Source: South San Francisco Public Library 79 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Resource Description .............................................................................................................................. 3 Historic Context: South San Francisco ............................................................................................... 10 Site Evolution and Construction Chronology .................................................................................. 16 Evaluation Framework ......................................................................................................................... 23 Evaluation Findings .............................................................................................................................. 26 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 33 References .............................................................................................................................................. 34 Appendix A: ........................................................................................................................................... A Appendix B: Available Building Permits ........................................................................................... B 80 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 1 INTRODUCTION PROJECT OVERVIEW Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. (GA) was contracted by Dawn Merkes, Principal, Group 4 Architecture of South San Francisco, in March of 2019 to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the property at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco (Figures 1 and Figure 2). This report has been requested in connection with proposed modifications to the property. The building has not been previously evaluated for individual historical significance. Figure 1. Aerial view of subject property outlined in red, with building highlighted in yellow (Google Maps, amended by author) Figure 2. San Mateo County Assessor’s Map with subject property shaded red (San Mateo County Assessor’s Office. Amended by author) 81 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 2 This HRE will address the subject property’s individual eligibility for listing as a historic resource on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and as a local historic resource under the criterion described in the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 2.56. METHODOLOGY GA staff conducted a site visit and survey of the property’s interior and exterior on April 9, 2019. During this visit, staff documented the building’s configuration and architectural elements with photographs and field notes. The client provided GA with historic architectural drawings of the building. All photographs herein were taken by GA on April 9, 2019, unless otherwise noted. GA also conducted additional archival research on the subject property and surrounding area. The following repositories/collections were consulted to complete the research process (see References section for complete list of resources). • Ancestry.com • Calisphere.org • Newspapers.com • Online Archive of California • San Mateo County History Museum • San Mateo County, Office of the Assessor-Recorder • San Francisco Public Library, History Room • South San Francisco Historical Society, Museum • South San Francisco Historical Society, Plymire Schwarz Museum • South San Francisco Planning Department, Building Division • South San Francisco Public Library 82 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 3 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION SITE The subject .52-acre site is rectangular in shape and consists of three parcels: APN 012-335-100; APN 012-335-110; and an adjoining, un-numbered parcel, in downtown South San Francisco. The site is bound by Baden Avenue (north) and 2nd Lane (south). A multi-story Giorgi Bros. furniture store is situated on the neighboring parcel to the west, and a restaurant building is situated on the neighboring parcel to the east. The subject site contains a former fire station building, a driveway off of Baden Avenue at the east, and a parking lot at the rear.1 Figure 3. Aerial view of subject property outlined in red, with building highlighted in yellow and building volumes labeled (Google Maps, amended by author) BUILDING Exterior The fire station is a reinforced-concrete building comprised of three volumes of varying height, including: a one-story east volume, two-story west volume, and a five-story drill tower. All volumes have flat roofs covered with composition materials. The three volumes combine to form an L-shaped plan, with the drill tower situated south (rear) of the intersecting east and west volumes (Figure 3). The exterior is finished with painted, architectural concrete and minimally adorned with fluted concrete piers between window bays and fluted concrete cornices. All window openings are rectangular and contain single, paired, or tripartite arrangements. Within the west volume and 1 Acreage estimated sourced from CSS Environmental Services, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment: 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, California-CSS Project No: 6527, (South San Francisco: City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development, November 20, 2017). EAST WEST Drill Tower 83 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 4 east volume, windows are primarily replacement, anodized-aluminum with operable awning lites, referred to as “replacement windows” hereafter. The west wall of the apparatus bay at the first story of the west elevation, and the south wall of the maintenance bay at the first story of the south elevation retain original steel windows. The drill tower is fenestrated with original, operable (hinged) steel-casement windows containing eight lites of wired glass each. Entrances and the building’s central stairwell are lighted additionally by original glass block grids set into aluminum frames. Entry doors are flush-wood with aluminum frames. Additional features include a tall radio tower mounted to the roof. All roof planes are flat and are surrounded by shallow concrete parapets. North (Front) The facade of the building fronts Baden Avenue and is recessed from the public sidewalk by a short distance, providing a narrow lawn area in front of the building (Figure 4). The front personnel entrance is recessed into the facade and flanked by bays of single and paired replacement windows. The entrance is accessed by concrete steps with metal railings, and contains a flush-wood door with a glass block surround and an aluminum frame. To the immediate west of the entrance, the exterior shows signs of a removed feature that was at one mounted adjacent to the recessed entryway (Figure 5 to Figure 7). Further west, the building’s height increases to two stories at the west volume, which contains three apparatus bays at the first story and three window bays at the second story. Each apparatus bay contains a paneled- wood, roll-up door, with a massive concrete column separating each bay (Figure 8). Concrete wheel guards remain in place at the base of each column (Figure 9). A modest concrete canopy with curved ends is visible above the garage bays. Replacement windows at the second story are paired, with tripartite transoms. Figure 4. Facade viewed from Baden Avenue, looking southwest. 84 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 5 Figure 5. Windows, fluted concrete details, and entrance at east end of facade, looking west. Figure 6. Recessed entrance with flush-wood door and glass block surround at facade, looking south. Figure 7. Missing exterior feature to immediate west of entrance, looking south. Figure 8. Apparatus bay doors, looking west. Figure 9. Concrete columns and concrete wheel guards at apparatus bays. 85 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 6 East The north end of the east elevation features three bays of paired, replacement windows separated by fluted concrete piers at the first story (Figure 10). Far recessed from the first story, the second story contains two similar replacement windows in singular arrangements, which are more easily viewed from points north of the building (see Figure 4). Figure 10. Replacement aluminum windows at north end of east elevation, looking north. Continuing toward the rear of the building, the east facing elevation is comprised of portions of the west volume and the connected drill tower (Figure 11). The east elevation features a wood, roll-up garage door at the repair shop entrance located at the south end of the building. To the north, the east elevation has a flush-wood, single-entry door set beneath a tripartite, steel-sash horizontal window. Above, a tripartite replacement window is visible at the second story. To the north, the drill tower extends from the elevation to a height of four stories. The tower is fenestrated with operable steel-sash windows; each window contains 8 lites. The south wall of the tower has an anodized metal fire escape and a metal ladder extending to the roof (Figure 12). Figure 11. View of east elevation (left) and south elevation (right), looking northwest. 86 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 7 Figure 12. South portion of east elevation with garage bay, drill tower, and rear entrance, looking west. To the north of the drill tower, the first story contains a rear personnel entrance with similar door and glass block surround to that at the front of the building (Figure 13). This entrance, however, is roughly flush with the facade plane and is set beneath a curved overhang shared with an adjacent entry door at the south elevation. Above, a grid of prismatic glass block is punched into the elevation at the second story; this grid lights an interior stair (Figure 14). Figure 13. Flush wood door surrounded by prismatic glass block, at east elevation. Partially boarded-over flush wood door at south elevation pictured at right, looking northwest. Figure 14. Column of prismatic block glass at east elevation, looking northwest. South At the west, the south elevation features two single-entry doors–one boarded-over and the other infilled with concrete–and two bays containing steel sash windows that are boarded over at the exterior (Figure 15 and Figure 16). Windows are intact and visible at the interior of the repair shop. Doors were unable to be accessed from the interior during the site visit. The second story of the south elevation volume features replacement aluminum windows (see Figure 11). Within the east volume, the south elevation contains a partially boarded-over single entry door and four bays fenestrated with single and paired replacement windows (Figure 17). 87 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 8 Figure 15. Infilled and boarded-over door and window openings at west end of south elevation, first story. Standard replacement windows at second story. Figure 16. Boarded-over door and infilled door at first story of south elevation, looking north. Figure 17. Standard replacement windows at east portion of south elevation, looking north. West The west elevation is setback from the west property line a short distance and faces the neighboring commercial building to the west. Fenestration consists of steel windows at the first story and standard replacement windows at the second story (Figure 18 and Figure 19). A shed roof addition is located near the southwest corner of the building at the first story (Figure 20). A chain-link fence encloses the west side yard of the property at the southwest corner of the building (Figure 21). 88 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 9 Figure 18. Steel windows located along first story of the west elevation. Shed roofed addition pictured in background, looking south. Figure 19. Replacement windows at the second story of the west elevation, looking south. Figure 20. Window located near the rear of the building along the west elevation, looking north. Figure 21. Chain-link fence and gate between southwest corner of building and neighboring building to west, looking north. 89 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 10 HISTORIC CONTEXT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The following historic context for South San Francisco is excerpted from Chapter 1.2 of the South San Francisco General Plan: Evolution of South San Francisco The modern history of South San Francisco began in 1827, when the 15,000-acre Rancho Buri Buri was given to Jose Antonio Sanchez as a provisional land grant.2 In 1856, Charles Lux purchased 1,500 acres of the Rancho and founded the town of Baden, named for Lux’s native region in Germany. At that time, the Baden area was used for cattle grazing and dairy operations. The meat industry played an important role in South San Francisco’s evolution. The Gustavus Swift meat packing plant, established on Point San Bruno in 1888, was the City’s first industrial development. Swift organized a “beef trust” with other Midwestern meat packing companies to join in building a community of stockyards and packing plants on Point San Bruno, and organized for the development of an industrial town. In 1890, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company purchased 3,400 acres on the former site of the Rancho Buri Buri for development of the town. The arrangement of residential and industrial uses intentionally took advantage of stable ground and Bay access at Point San Bruno, as well the prevailing winds from San Bruno Gap that blew offensive odors away from residential areas and over the Bay. Community Growth Industry and [community] growth have been closely intertwined throughout South San Francisco’s history. The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) line between San Francisco and San Jose in 1904-1907 expanded opportunities for goods shipping from South San Francisco, and steel mills began to take advantage of the city’s abundant land with excellent transportation access. A major lack of housing and services and a battle over a copper smelter precipitated incorporation, allowing South San Francisco to control its industrial future and provide the services needed to attract resident workers. When the City incorporated on September 19, 1908, it had 1,989 residents and 14 major industries. Industries continued to locate and grow in South San Francisco in the 1920s and 1930s. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and the Edwards Wire Rope Factory were some of the city’s major establishments whose products helped build California’s modern transportation and communications infrastructure. In the 1930s, shipping also emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more attractive as a shipping terminal, and the city became the central distribution point for the entire Peninsula. 2 Information on South San Francisco’s history is primarily drawn from Linda Kaufman, South San Francisco: A History (1976) and Joseph A. Blum, “South City: The Town That Could” San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, September 4, 1983. 90 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 11 Downtown and Civic Development Grand Avenue has always been the spine of the city’s commercial core, extending west from the industrial areas, and had almost reached El Camino Real by the time incorporation occurred. With Sign Hill to the north and marshlands to the south limiting expansion, the oldest part of the city was developed with a strong east-west orientation, reinforced by a directional grid pattern of 950 by 300 foot blocks. The rail spur along Railroad Avenue formed the City’s southern boundary. […] In the years following incorporation, South San Francisco’s civic improvements kept pace with its growing industry. The City Hall was opened in 1920 and the 20-acre Orange Memorial Park was developed in 1925. Residential Development and Hillside Growth Constrained by marshlands to the south, residential development began to extend north around and along the slopes of Sign Hill as the city grew, requiring the introduction of a curvilinear street form. Industries expanded to the south and west, taking advantage of the SPRR and spurs along Railroad Avenue and other streets west of the rail right-of-way. […] The growth of South San Francisco’s steel and, later, shipbuilding industries through the 1920s and World War II helped spur residential growth. Between 1940 and 1960, South San Francisco’s population increased more than six-fold from 6,290 to 39,418.3 Over 46 percent of South San Francisco’s existing housing units were constructed between 1940 and 1959.4 Government-built housing for military personnel and shipyard workers was developed during the war on the former marshland between Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. The area is still known as Lindenville after the largest government development. Demolition of the housing in the late 1950s paved the way for redevelopment of the area with warehouses, light industry, and single-family housing in the Mayfair Village subdivision. Post-War Transformation By the end of the 1950s, South San Francisco had essentially reached its present level of urbanization between U.S. 101 and Junipero Serra Boulevard. Many of the residential subdivisions west of Sign Hill and El Camino Real were complete. Except at the city’s northwestern corner, Junipero Serra Boulevard formed the city’s western edge, and Hillside Boulevard/Randolph Avenue was the northern boundary. During this decade, the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the city for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a 600- acre industrial park adjacent to the newly-developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco’s first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design, and performance provisions, and 3 City of South San Francisco, Land Use, Transportation, and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, 1986. 4 1990 U.S. Census. 91 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 12 featured a 0.5 FAR, ample parking, and consistent landscaping and building design. The park heralded South San Francisco’s industrial future. In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research, development, and biotechnology. Because the city’s industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry will continue to play an important role in South San Francisco’s future. With some important exceptions, land use in South San Francisco since the 1960s has stemmed from internal change rather than outright expansion. Infill development occurred along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, and U.S. 101. Major expansion did occur in the Westborough area and the East of 101 area, enabled respectively by the construction of Interstate 280 and landfill at Oyster and Sierra Points. The city has recently entered its last phase of expansion with multi-use development at San Bruno Mountain. Future opportunities for growth other than redevelopment are limited to remaining unincorporated islands. South San Francisco Fire Department Firefighting in South San Francisco is rooted in the foundation of a volunteer fire company, South San Francisco Hose Company No. 1 (Hose Company No. 1), founded in 1892.5 In 1896, the Citizens Mutual Protection Association, founded 1895, purchased a cast iron bell to alert volunteer fire fighters. Due to limited funds and equipment failure, Hose Company No. 1 disbanded in 1900.6 As reported by the Vincent Mager of the Brisbane Bee: The [San Mateo] [C]ounty Board of Supervisors responded to a petition from residents to establish a fire department. By 1902, a Fire Commission was formed and new equipment purchased in time for the hose company to be reorganized in 1903. The fire house [built in 1904] was located at Grand and Linden avenues. Later, additional companies were houses at Aspen and Linden and the school house on Grand.7 In 1907, two new hose houses were built: Hose Company No. 2 at Aspen Linden Avenues and Hose Company No. 3 at the school house lot on Grand Avenue.8 The South San Francisco Fire Department was founded in 1908 as a small volunteer department that responded to fires with a hand drawn cart.9 5 Jacquelyne Kious, South San Francisco Fire Department, 1892-2003, (South San Francisco, CA: Jacquelyne Kious, December 2003), 5. 6 Ibid., 5. 7 Vincent Mager, “Today’s Sophistication Far Cry from First Volunteer Fire Outfit in South City,” Brisbane Bee, September 7, 1983. 8 Kious, 5. 9 City of South San Francisco, California, “Fire Department,” online. Accessed April 10, 2019. http://www.ssf.net/departments/fire. 92 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 13 Following the establishment of a paid fire department in 1910 by city ordinance, the department acquired two Seagrave pumper engines between 1916 and 1927. During this period, South San Francisco purchased an electric fire alarm system and installed fire alarm boxes on utility poles throughout the city. City Hall, dedicated in 1920, housed the city’s first firehouse in its basement. Despite construction of a second fire house on E. Grand Avenue in 1928, the basement of City Hall continued to house the department’s administrative offices until the completion of the subject building in 1949.10 In 1932, Alex Welte was appointed to the position of fire chief and building inspector. Welte, the department’s third chief, abolished the volunteer department and instituted a call system. During the 1930s, Welte sought additional department funding from the City council and established a local fire college. Welte’s efforts included sending firefighters out into the community to generate support for additional department funding, and were rewarded in 1947 when city residents voted to fund a bond program that enabled the construction of Central Station in 1949. The funding also beget acquisition of a pumper engine, the department’s first aerial truck, and construction of the Buri Buri substation on the west side of El Camino Real, which opened in 1950.11 With the completion of Central Station and the hiring of the department’s first full-time, paid firefighters in 1949, South San Francisco Fire Department entered a modern era of firefighting. Central Station was among the region’s best-equipped, modern fire stations. The 10,000 square foot building contained offices, a kitchen, watch room, storeroom, maintenance shop, and three apparatus bays at the first story. The second story housed dormitories, captain’s office, and locker rooms. The four-story drill tower contained a smoke room, dry standpipe system, exterior fire escapes, and provided space for hose drying. The tower was also equipped with a flood light system for night drills.12 In 1960, Station No. 2 was opened, and replaced the auxiliary station on E. Grand Avenue. In 1962, Welte retired, after serving as fire chief for three decades. Welte’s impact on the day-to-day operations of the fire department was evidenced by completion of Central Station in 1949, and the development of a staff of over 40 paid staff. In the 1970s, groundwork was laid for the addition of paramedic services. The paramedic program was first proposed in March of 1973 and enacted in 1975, giving the department the distinction of being the first, and only fire department to provide full paramedic transport services in San Mateo County.13 In 1980, Fire Administrative was relocated from Central Station to the Municipal Services Building. In 2006, Central Station was vacated as the department shifted operations to a new station at 480 N. Canal Street. Fire Stations 10 Ibid., 6-7. 11 Ibid., 8-9, 40. 12 Ibid., 45. 13 “EMS-South San Francisco Paramedics,” Accessed April 10, 2019. http://www.ssf.net/departments/fire/about-us. 93 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 14 The following historic context of the development of the fire station typology is adapted from Tom Wilkinson’s “Typology: Fire Stations.”14 The Fire Station building typology is one reflective of changes in firefighting technology that have occurred over many centuries, from efforts to fight fires bucket-by-bucket in ancient Rome, and later the invention of motorized fire engines by the turn of the twentieth century. By the mid-seventeenth century, firefighting equipment was began to be mounted on horse-drawn carriages, which required stations that accommodated such equipment and personal. Leather fire houses invented in Amsterdam in 1673 required hanging to dry out to avoid rot; hence, the need for hose towers at many stations. By the mid-1700s, both private and volunteer firefighting companies were established in the United States, preceding the establishment of municipal crews as cities grew rapidly. Stations were often limited by the narrow urban lots they were built upon, necessitating vertical space and multiple stories to house equipment and personnel. As Wilkinson notes: Fire crews had to take the stairs until David B Kenyon…invented the firehouse pole in 1878. This made his unit noticeably faster and was quickly adopted worldwide. Motori[z]ed engines were introduced around 1900, but these slotted fairly easily into existing buildings. By the middle of the century, however, a number of technological changes altered firefighting. Structural steel made buildings taller, requiring much longer ladders, and cherry pickers were also added to the kit. These innovations made fire engines bigger and this rendered many older stations unfit for purpose. A new wave of buildings was constructed with Modernist disregard for historical precedent, for instance Robert Mallet-Stevens’ 1936 station in Paris, Owen Williams’ 1938 station for the Boots drug factory in Nottingham, and Claude Ferret’s 1954 Bordeaux station surmounted by a Corbusian accommodation block. From the mid 1960s to the 1980s the Greater London Council built a large number of stations, such as the one at Shoreditch with its exposed concrete frame and cantilevered apartments. Hose towers were no longer disguised as campaniles or machicolated keeps, but stripped down to skeletal béton brut [rough textured concrete common to Brutalist style architecture].15 The subject building may be categorized as a modernistic station that features typical features of a fire station such as apparatus bays, spaces for personnel (offices and dormitories), and a drill tower for practice and training. The building is rendered in architectural concrete with modest exterior detail; primarily fluting at piers between windows and along the roofline. William Henry Rowe, Architect (Designer of Central Station) 14 Tom Wilkinson, “Typology: Fire Stations,” The Architectural Review, February 3, 2016. Accessed online, April 16, 2019. https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/typology-fire-stations/10002048.article. 15 Ibid. 94 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 15 William Henry Rowe (1894-1984) was a prominent architect whose career was based out of offices in San Francisco and San Mateo County between the 1920s and 1960s. Rowe frequently designed civic and institutional buildings, and school buildings, along with a select few residences, in Northern and Central California. Rowe designed the Central Fire Station under his private practice, William Henry Rowe, Architect, as indicated on the title block of original drawings for the building. Rowe’s design was completed between 1947 and 1948, based on dates on the provided plans. Rowe was born in Watsonville, California in 1894 and entered into architectural practice as a draftsman with the Watsonville-based firm of architect William Henry Weeks in 1913.16 Between 1915 and 1923, Rowe was employed as a draftsman and resident architect for the Spreckels Sugar Company in Spreckels, Monterey County, California.17 Census data from 1920 shows that Rowe resided with fellow employees during is time with Spreckels Sugar Company.18 Rowe relocated to San Francisco in 1923, the year he married Jean Charlotte Stevens (1901-1975) of Oakland, California, and began working as an architect for the firm Weeks & Day.19 By 1930, Rowe relocated to Burlingame, California, and in 1931, founded his eponymous firm. By 1940, Rowe resided in Hillsborough, California and continued to operate a private architectural practice.20 In the 1956 American Architects Directory, sponsored by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Rowe listed several principle works, including: • Spreckels Art Gallery, 1922-1923 • South San Francisco Civic Buildings, 1946-1949 • Elementary Schools at Moss Landing, 1952 • Paso Robles Civic Buildings, 1952 • Alisal School District, Salinas – 4 School buildings, 1953 • San Bruno Civic Buildings, 195621 Rowe joined the Northern California Chapter of the AIA in 1947 and served as its directory between 1951 and 1953. Rowe was also a member of the Peninsula Art Association, serving as president between 1952 and 1953, and served in the U.S. Army between 1917 and 1918, and U.S. Navy between 1942 and 1944.22 16 Edited by George S. Koyl, American Architects Directory, First Edition, (New York: R.R. Bowker Company under sponsorship of American Institute of Architects, 1955, 475. 17 World War I Draft Registration Card for William Henry Rowe, accessed at Ancestry.com.; American Architects Directory, First Edition, 475. 18 1920 U.S. Federal Census Data for William Henry Rowe. Accessed at Ancestry.com. 19 Ancestry.com. California, Marriage Records from Select Counties, 1850-1941; and, American Architects Directory, First Edition, 475. 20 1940 U.S. Federal Census Data for William Henry Rowe. Accessed at Ancestry.com. 21 American Architects Directory, First Edition, 475.; and, “Alisal Trustess Approve Budget, Set $1.35 Tax Rate,” The Californian, August 8, 1958, 2. 22 American Architects Directory, First Edition, 475. 95 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 16 SITE EVOLUTION AND CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY SITE DEVELOPMENT Historic Sanborn fire insurance survey maps and historic aerial photographs show the majority of the land contained within the subject site was vacant prior to its use as a fire station beginning in 1949 (Figure 22 and Figure 23). By 1925, South City Lumber & Supply Co. occupied the property to the immediate west, currently occupied by Giorgi Bros. furniture store, which ca. 1925 extended southward to Commercial Avenue. During this five-decade period, Cypress Avenue extended southward through what is currently the middle portion of the site. Figure 22. 1925 Sanborn map with approximate future location of subject property outlined with red dashed line (San Francisco Public Library. Amended by author) 96 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 17 Figure 23. 1946 aerial photograph of subject site and vicinity (Environmental Site Assessment, 201 Baden Avenue, EDR. Amended by author) The subject building was constructed in 1949 as Fire Station 61, and became known as Central Station (Figure 24 to Figure 26). As part of the site’s redevelopment, Cypress Avenue was cut off north of Baden Avenue.23 In early May 1949, the station neared completion, with occupancy targeted at the end of the month. The station was described in The South San Francisco Journal as: …two stories tall with a drill tower. The second story contains dormitory lockers and their officer quarters. The lower floor has two offices, a kitchen, fire alarm room store room, shop, apparatus floor and drill tower, with a test pit in the rear. The fire chief’s office in on the ground floor in the northeast corner.24 Following the occupancy of the station in late May, a dedication and ceremony was held on July 17, 1949. The ceremony provided South San Francisco residents an opportunity to inspect the new fire station and the department’s new equipment, including a 75-foot aerial truck and two pumper engines.25 23 Todd R. Brown, “South City Firefighters Bid Farewell to Old Station,” San Mateo County Times, March 11, 2006. 24 “New Fire Station Occupancy Soon,” The South San Francisco Journal, May 6, 1949. 25 “SSF to Inspect New Fire Station Sun.: Short Program Planned for Two O’Clock,” The South San Francisco Journal, May 6, 1949. 97 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 18 Figure 24. Central Station viewed from Cypress Avenue, shorty after its opening in 1949. Note the original apparatus bay doors did not feature a paneled exterior. (South San Francisco Library, History Room) 98 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 19 Figure 25. Firefighters with ladders outside drill tower, ca. 1949. Rear entrance beneath curved canopy at bottom-right. (South San Francisco Library, History Room) Figure 26. Undated photograph of Central Fire Station. Note the addition of “CENTRAL FIRE STATION” above apparatus bay entrance, growth of plantings adjacent to building perimeter, and light fixture adjacent to recessed entrance (South San Francisco Library, History Room) 99 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 20 The 1950 Sanborn map of South San Francisco was the first to record the subject building following its construction. Identified features included reinforced-concrete and wood-frame with curtain wall structural systems, concrete floors, a central stairwell, drill tower, and a shop at the rear of the building (Figure 27). Figure 27. 1950 Sanborn map of subject site and vicinity, with approximate site boundary outlined in red (San Francisco Public Library) According to newspaper reports, between 1980 and 2006, the department’s administration was relocated from the subject building to the Municipal Services buildings, prior to rejoining the crews of the new Central Station in 2006.26 Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the building was deemed seismically unfit, and the City purchased the former Black Mountain Water building at 480 N. Canal Street about two years ago (ca. 2004) for use as a new central station.27 Fire Station 61 crews moved into the new facility on March 10, 2006, and the subject building was vacated. CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY The following building permits are on file at the South San Francisco Permit Center. The subject building was built in 1949. No major alterations to the building are indicated on available building permits, which range from 1976 to 2000. Alterations not indicated on available permits, include: replacement of the original roll-up apparatus bay doors with paneled-wood apparatus bay doors at an unknown date after 1949; installation of wood paneling on some interior walls (office spaces); removal of the station’s fire poles at the interior; boarding over or infilling of select windows and doors at the rear of the building. Replacement, anodized-aluminum windows within the station were installed ca. 1968, based upon date stamps visible on window hardware. Research indicates that this date is consistent with the introduction of anodized-aluminum as a common window material in the 1950s and 26 Todd R. Brown, South City Firefighters Bid Farewell to Old Station,” San Mateo County Times, March 11, 2006. 27 Ibid. 100 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 21 1960s.28 Changes to the site, include: the removal of an oil fire test pit once located at the southeast corner of the site; removal of two flag poles that once flanked the front entrance; removal of a light fixture adjacent to the front entrance; and removal of station name letters that were once mounted above the apparatus bays at the exterior. Construction Chronology Table Date Permit No. Owner Work 1949 Plans City of South San Francisco Construction of Fire Station. 5/5/1976 19018 City of South San Francisco Electrical work. 7/2/1976 76390 City of South San Francisco Minor interior alterations. Description illegible. Appears to note carpets, lighting, may involve wall panels at interior. 11/17/1977 77807 Roof repair above repair garage. 5/22/1981 80276 City of South San Francisco Minor mechanical work. 10/22/1985 85980 City of South San Francisco 2 plys of glass ply felts, pan in on walls, install new jacks and galvanized metal on outside edge of roof. Flood coat etc. 1988 88700 City of South San Francisco Roof work 6/15/1992 91-669 Alteration to existing women’s restroom. 8/24/1994 94752 City of South San Francisco Ventilation/fan work. Diesel emission control, sliding balancer truck assorted ductwork, motor blower, control panel to be installed in garage area. 8/31/1998 14471 City of South San Francisco Environmental Health permit. Soil borings. 5/24/2000 M00-327 City of South San Francisco Replace HVAC unit on roof. 5/26/2000 E00-329 City of South San Francisco Electrical permit: circuit-related work. 6/7/2000 B00-743 City of South San Francisco Repair 2x3 hole in floor of fire station. OWNERSHIP HISTORY The ownership of the subject property was not intensively researched, as records of the City of South San Francisco indicated the property has been owned by the City since the subject building’s construction. 28 Kaaren R. Staveteig, National park Service Preservation Tech Notes: Windows Number 22-Maintenance and Repair of Historic Aluminum Windows, (Washington, D.C., National Park Service, May 2008), 3. 101 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 22 Biographical Information Alex Welte, Fire Chief 1932-1962 Alex Welte (1897-1976) served as Fire Chief of the South San Francisco Fire Department between 1932 and 1962. Welte was a firefighter with the department beginning in 1930 and resided in South San Francisco with his wife Gladys (1899-1941) and daughter Evelyn (1925-?). An obituary published in the San Francisco Examiner, in 1976 describes: A native of South San Francisco, he worked in the city’s meat packing industry and was a volunteer fireman until the city council chose him to the be the city’s first paid fireman in 1930. When he retired in 1962 he had expanded the department into a team of 46 paid employees manning three engine companies and an aerial ladder out of three stations. He served in the AEF in France in World War I and was active in veterans’ affairs as well as the Elks Lodge, and served as the first exalted rule of the South San Francisco lodge when it was formed.29 Welte was the department’s longest-tenured fire chief and the first chief to occupy the subject building upon its completion in 1949. 29 “Alex Welte,” San Francisco Examiner, November 23, 1976, 28. 102 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 23 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is the official list of properties, structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state, or national level. California Register properties must have significance under one of the four following criteria and must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and convey the reasons for their significance (i.e. retain integrity). The California Register utilizes the same seven aspects of integrity as the National Register. Properties that are eligible for the National Register are automatically eligible for the California Register. Properties that do not meet the threshold for the National Register may meet the California Register criteria. 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to the local, California or national history 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value; or 4. Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. CRHR criteria are similar to National Register of Historic Places criteria, and are tied to CEQA, so any resource that meets the above criteria, and retains a sufficient level of historic integrity, is considered an historical resource under CEQA. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE (SSFMC) CHAPTER 2.56 The SSFMC describes: a “historic resource” means as a structure, a natural feature, or a site which if 50 years old or older, of architectural, artistic, cultural, engineering, aesthetic, archeological, historical, political, or social significance to the citizens of the city of South San Francisco, the state, or nation.30 The SSFMC provides the following criteria for designation of historic resources: a) Its character, interest, or value as a significant part of the heritage of the City, the state, or the nation; and b) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or 30 South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 2.56, Planning Commission, 2.56.080 Historic preservation findings and purposes, 2.56.090 Definitions. Accessed online, April 8. 2019. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=2-2_56&showAll=1. 103 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 24 c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City, the state, or the nation; or d) Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or e) Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the City f) Its identification as the creation, design, or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly influenced the heritage of the City, the State, or the nation; or g) Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural, and/or engineering design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or h) Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity and character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood); or i) Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of the City; or j) Its potential of yielding significant information of archaeological interest ; or k) Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well being of the people of the City, the State, or the nation (for example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or some other feature that contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco). (Ord. 1440 § 2, 2011). 31 HISTORIC INTEGRITY When evaluating a resource for the CRHR, one must evaluate and clearly state the significance of that resource to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A resource may be considered individually eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one or more of the above listed criteria for significance and it possesses historic integrity. Historic properties must retain sufficient historic integrity to convey their significance. The following seven aspects define historic integrity: • Location. The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. • Design. The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. • Setting. The physical environment of a historic property. 31 South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 2.56 Planning Commission, 2.56.110 Criteria for historic designation. Accessed online, April 8, 2019. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=2-2_56- 2_56_110&frames=on. 104 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 25 • Materials. The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship. The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. • Feeling. A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. • Association. The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. To retain historic integrity, a resource should possess several of the above-mentioned aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is essential for a resource to convey its significance. Comparisons with similar properties should also be considered when evaluating integrity as it may be important in deciding what physical features are essential to reflect the significance of a historic context. 105 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 26 EVALUATION FINDINGS CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES This section uses the historic information discussed above to evaluate the property at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco for historic significance. The CRHR uses generally the same guidelines as the National Register of Historic Places (developed by the National Park Service); as such, selected language from those guidelines will be quoted below to help clarify the evaluation discussion. To be potentially eligible for individual listing on the CRHR, a structure must usually be more than 50 years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity. The subject building at 201 Baden Avenue was constructed in 1949 and therefore meets the age requirement. In terms of historic significance, the CRHR evaluates a resource based on the following four criteria: Criterion 1 (Events) As stated by the National Park Service (NPS), this criterion “recognizes properties associated with single events, such as the founding of a town, or with a pattern of events, repeated activities, or historic trends, such as the gradual rise of a port city's prominence in trade and commerce.”32 When considering a property for significance under this criterion, the associated event or trends “must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case of the town, or development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city…Moreover, the property must have an important association with the event or historic trends”33 The subject building appears to be individually eligible under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the development of modern municipal services and civic buildings in the City of South San Francisco, and as the City’s first purpose-built fire station, originally known as Central Station. The period of significance for this criterion is 1949, representing the building’s year of construction. The station’s construction in 1949 reflects the growth of the City of South San Francisco during the early twentieth century as industry and commerce, and a growing population, required extension of municipal services. Although the subject building does not associate with the origination of firefighting in South San Francisco, its association with the City’s development during the mid-twentieth century, remains important. Further, the subject building was the first purpose-built fire station in South San Francisco. Prior to the subject building’s construction, firefighting administration was housed in the basement of City Hall, and an auxiliary firehouse was used for equipment storage. Precedent buildings were utilized by Hose Company’s and do not appear to be extant. Criterion 2 (Persons) This criterion applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. The NPS defines significant persons as “individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context. The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person's important achievements. The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic context.” The NPS also specifies that these 32 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources staff, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,” National Register Bulletin, no. 15 (1990: revised for internet 1995). 33 Cultural Resources staff, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” 106 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 27 properties “are usually those associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance.”34 The subject building does not appear to be individually eligible under Criterion 2 (Persons) for its association with a person or persons who have made significant contributions to local, State, or national history. Of the many firefighters and individuals associated with the South San Francisco Fire Department and the subject building, which operated as Central Station between 1949 and 2006, long-time Fire Chief Alex Welte appears to be the individual whose career bears the greatest association with the building, particularly as Welte lobbied for the construction of a modern station that was realized with the completion of the subject building, and because Welte served as a Fire Chief with an office in the building during a large portion of his career. Research shows that Welte was an influential member of the department for over three decades, and was integral to the development of modern firefighting practices in South San Francisco throughout his career, including the efforts to obtain funding for Central Station. Despite Welte’s strong association with the subject building, which served as his primary location of employment during the prime of his career, the existing body of scholarship on the history of firefighting in South San Francisco and broader historic trends related to firefighting do not enable a thorough understanding of the relative importance of Welte’s achievements when compared to other professionals in his field contemporaneously. Criterion 3: Architecture According to the NPS, “ ‘Type, period, or method of construction’ refers to the way certain properties are related to one another by cultural tradition or function, by dates of construction or style, or by choice or availability of materials and technology. A structure is eligible as a specimen of its type or period of construction if it is an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history.”35 The subject building appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 as a building that embodies the distinct characteristics of a modern fire station typology rendered with elements of the International style, constructed in 1949 in South San Francisco. The period of significance for this criterion is 1949, representing the building’s year of construction. The building does not appear to be eligible as a representative work of a master architect. The building was designed by architect William Henry Rowe, whose career began as a draftsman for the firm of William H. Weeks, and later Spreckels Sugar Company, prior to Rowe’s establishment of a private architectural practice in 1931. Among design professionals active during Rowe’s career, which spanned ca. 1913 to the 1960s, Rowe does not stand out as a highly influential or innovate designer, or for a association with a building type, style, or philosophy of design that has made a particularly significant impact on the field of architecture. Nonetheless, Rowe’s design for the subject building provides an excellent local example of a modern fire station typology. The building’s concrete structure, restrained ornamentation, and distinct massing embody characteristics of the fire station typology that evolved from early high-style urban fire houses, to more utilitarian examples completed during the mid-twentieth century, that accommodated larger fire engines, hose drying and drill towers, and space for staff. 34 Cultural Resources staff, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” 35 Ibid. 107 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 28 Criterion 4: Information Potential Archival research and physical investigation of the site focused on the above ground resource only. Therefore, no informed determination could be made regarding the property’s eligibility for CRHR under Criterion 4. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES Assessment of various features is done according to a prioritized evaluation system. Once the character defining features have been identified, each is assigned a priority rating to create a sense of the relative historical importance of these spaces and features. A rating scale of “Premier-Important-Contributing-Non-Contributing” is used. In general, this system allows for the analysis of the structure as a whole to guide what types of work should be done, and where such work could be completed with the least damage to the historic integrity of the resource. The character-defining features of the residence and property at 201 Baden Avenue, include: Primary § Massing (east wing, west wing, and drill tower at rear) § Architectural concrete exterior § Fluted concrete details at concrete piers and along cornice line § Three apparatus bays (dimension of apparatus bays exclusive of replacement doors) § Glass block door surrounds § Steel casement windows in drill tower § Steel windows at additional locations § Windows set into banks or ribbons creating a horizontal emphasis Important § Glass block stairwell window at drill tower exterior § Curved concrete columns and wheel guards at apparatus bays § Front, recessed entrance § Rear entrance beneath curved canopy Contributing § Canopy with curved ends over apparatus bays § Flat roofs § Flush-wood doors Non-Contributing § Apparatus bay doors (previously altered) § Replacement aluminum windows installed ca. 1968 108 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 29 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE (SSFMC) CHAPTER 2.56 a) Its character, interest, or value as a significant part of the heritage of the City, the state, or the nation; and Eligible. The subject building has a distinct character among buildings in the city as a modern fire station typology. As the first purpose-built fire station in South San Francisco, and an example of its type, the building is associated with the development of municipal services in the growing city during the mid-twentieth century. The building is also reflective of building trends during the mid-twentieth century as firefighting modernized, and stations were typically constructed with less elaborate designs that accommodate larger fire engines, space for staff, and utilitarian spaces such as hose drying and drill towers. The building appears to be among the most intact examples of architecture of its period in the City of South San Francisco. b) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or Not Eligible. The subject building is not known to have been the location of a significant event. Events such as dedication ceremonies, or other commemorative events such as dinners or banquets held at the station do not appear to stand out among many similar events held throughout the City’s history. c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City, the state, or the nation; or Not Eligible. The subject building does not appear to be identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City, the State, or nation. d) Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or Eligible. The subject building is among the City of South San Francisco’s strongest examples of a modernist building; the building embodies the application of International style elements to a fire station typology. The building features apparatus bays, a drill tower, and additional volumes containing office space. These aspects of the building’s original use, and purpose-built design reflected through its utilitarian and minimally adorned exterior finishes, steel and aluminum windows set in horizontal bands or ribbons. The building is reflective of fire fighting practices ca. 1949 that revolved around a building that combined spaces for equipment storage, maintenance, along with office and dormitory spaces for personnel. 109 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 30 e) Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the City Eligible. The subject building appears to be the best remaining example of a modern (mid-twentieth century) fire station in the City of South San Francisco. f) Its identification as the creation, design, or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly influenced the heritage of the City, the State, or the nation; or Not Eligible. The subject building does not appear to be eligible under this criterion as the building’s designer is not known to have significantly influenced the heritage of the City, State, or nation. g) Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural, and/or engineering design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or Eligible. The subject building’s design, materiality, and evidence of craftsmanship ca. 1949, through the retention of many historic elements, enables the building to demonstrate outstanding attention to architectural design, materials, and craftsmanship. Although the building is modestly adorned, its utilitarian design remains reflective of its intended use, and is highly reflective of buildings practices of its period of construction. h) Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity and character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood); or Not Eligible. The subject building does not appear to be an element of a larger cohesive neighborhood, beyond being located within the downtown area. The building appears to be a stand-alone resource in terms of its significance and does not appear to be essential to the integrity of other resources. i) Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of the City; or Eligible. The subject building exhibits a distinct architectural design within downtown South San Francisco, reflective of building trends for civic buildings during the mid- twentieth century. The building’s singular design characteristics have been minimally altered, and, although the building’s setting has been altered by the construction of the west neighboring building, it remains a familiar and established visual feature of the City. 110 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 31 j) Its potential of yielding significant information of archaeological interest; or Not Eligible. This evaluation was limited to survey and evaluation of above-ground resources. Therefore, no informed determination could be made regarding the property’s eligibility under this criterion. k) Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well being of the people of the City, the State, or the nation (for example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or some other feature that contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco). (Ord. 1440 § 2, 2011). 36 Not Eligible. The subject property is not a natural environment, and therefore does not qualify for eligibility under this criterion. HISTORIC INTEGRITY The subject building and property at 201 Baden Avenue has been found to be potentially significant, and as such will be evaluated for its integrity. Location: The subject building retains integrity of location as it has not been relocated from its site of original construction. Design: The subject building retains integrity of design. Review of available building permit records and historic documentation (photographs, Sanborn maps) shows the building’s design has been minimally altered since its original construction in 1949. The building retains its original architectural concrete exterior, distinct massing comprised of three volumes, and key features such as apparatus bays, fluted concrete details. Replacement of original steel windows within anodized-aluminum windows ca. 1968 does not appear to have altered the size or location of openings within the building, or the characteristic horizontality of the building’s historic fenestration. Thus, the building’s design continues to express its essential form, embodying its 1949 appearance. Setting: The subject building retains integrity of setting. The subject building remains situated in an area of primarily commercial uses in downtown South San Francisco. The subject site retains similar spatial characteristics with respect to its spatial arrangement as designed in 1949. The L- plan building occupies the north, northwest, and west portions of the site, while a large parking area occupies the remainder of the site. Materials: The subject building retains integrity of materials. The building was originally designed with an architectural concrete exterior, wood doors set into aluminum frames, steel and glass block windows, and wood apparatus bay doors. Although the apparatus bay doors have been replaced by paneled-wood roll-up doors, and many original steel windows were replaced ca. 1968 by anodized-aluminum windows, steel windows have been retained in the 36 South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 2.56 Planning Commission, 2.56.110 Criteria for historic designation. Accessed online, April 8, 2019. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=2-2_56- 2_56_110&frames=on. 111 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 32 drill tower and at select windows bays, providing evidence of the building’s historic materiality. Workmanship: The subject building retains integrity of workmanship. The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory is evidenced through the retention of many historic windows, doors and glass block surrounds, exterior architectural concrete, and fluted concrete detailing at piers between window openings and along the cornice line. Feeling: The subject building retains integrity of feeling. The building’s original design in terms of massing, materiality, and evidence of workmanship has been retained as many original materials have been retains, and the building’s massing, scale, and overall design remain highly expressive of modern fire stations. The building feels like a 1949 modern fire station due to the retention of features including apparatus bays, its multi-story drill tower, period windows, and minimal modern detailing including fluted concrete elements. Association: The subject building retains integrity of association. The building continues to associate with a period of modern development, and its design as a modern fire station typology through its design, retention of a downtown setting, location, and evidence of period materiality and workmanship. Historic Integrity Summary The subject building retains all seven aspects of integrity. Thus, the building remains expressive of its significance under the above outlined criteria of the California Register, and the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 112 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 33 CONCLUSION The property at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco was developed in 1949 as the location of South San Francisco Fire Department’s Central Station. Designed by architect William Henry Rowe, the subject building served as the City’s first purpose-built fire station between 1949 and 2006, when it was vacated and fire operations were relocated to a newly constructed station. The subject building appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 1 for its association with the development of firefighting, extension of municipal services, and the growth of South San Francisco during the mid- twentieth century. Additionally, although the building’s designer, William Henry Rowe, AIA was a prominent and well-respected designer during his career, existing scholarship and understanding of Rowe’s influence does not suggest that he would be considered a master-level designer. Nonetheless, the subject building’s design provides an excellent example of a modern fire station typology, with high historic integrity, such that the building appears individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 for its embodiment of a type and period of construction. The building also appears to qualify under several evaluative criteria for local historic listing under the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 113 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 34 REFERENCES Blum, Joseph A. “South City: The Town That Could.” San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, September 4, 1983. Brown, Todd R. “South City Firefighters Bid Farewell to Old Station.” San Mateo County Times, March 11, 2006. City of South San Francisco, California. “Fire Department.” Accessed online. April 10, 2019. http://www.ssf.net/departments/fire. City of South San Francisco. Land Use, Transportation, and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, 1986. CSS Environmental Services, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment: 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, California-CSS Project No: 6527. South San Francisco: City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development, November 20, 2017. Kaufman, Linda. South San Francisco: A History. 1976. Kious, Jacquelyne. South San Francisco Fire Department, 1892-2003. South San Francisco, CA: Jacquelyne Kious, December 2003. Koyl, George S. Editor. American Architects Directory, First Edition. New York: R.R. Bowker Company under sponsorship of American Institute of Architects, 1955. Mager, Vincent. “Today’s Sophistication Far Cry from First Volunteer Fire Outfit in South City.” Brisbane Bee, September 7, 1983. Staveteig, Kaaren R. National park Service Preservation Tech Notes: Windows Number 22- Maintenance and Repair of Historic Aluminum Windows, (Washington, D.C., National Park Service, May 2008), 3. Wilkinson, Tom. “Typology: Fire Stations.” The Architectural Review, February 3, 2016. Accessed online, April 16, 2019. https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/typology-fire- stations/10002048.article. “Alex Welte.” San Francisco Examiner. November 23, 1976. “EMS-South San Francisco Paramedics.” Accessed April 10, 2019. http://www.ssf.net/departments/fire/about-us. “New Fire Station Occupancy Soon.” The South San Francisco Journal, May 6, 1949. “Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals.” The Californian (Salinas, CA). December 24, 1952. “Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals.” The Californian (Salinas, CA), October 6, 1949. 114 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 35 “SSF to Inspect New Fire Station Sun.: Short Program Planned for Two O’Clock.” The South San Francisco Journal. May 6, 1949. South San Francisco Municipal Code. Chapter 2.56, Planning Commission, 2.56.080 Historic preservation findings and purposes, 2.56.090 Definitions. Accessed online, April 8. 2019. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=2-2_56&showAll=1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources staff. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” National Register Bulletin, no. 15 (1990: revised for internet 1995). Ancestry.com. Newspapers.com. San Mateo County Assessor’s Office San Mateo County History Museum. South San Francisco Building Division. South San Francisco Historical Society Museum. South San Francisco Library History Collection. 115 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 A APPENDIX A: ORIGINAL PLANS 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 201 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT May 28, 2019 B APPENDIX B: AVAILABLE BUILDING PERMITS 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 M E M O R A N D U M Date: October 20, 2022 To: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. ATTN: Jonathan Hartman 211 Linden Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 From: Kathleen McDonald, Conditions Assessment Specialist/Architectural Historian Project: 201 Baden Avenue GA Job #2019019 Re: Standards Compliance Review – 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco Via: jhartman@g4arch.com Dear Jonathan, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. (GA) has been retained by Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (G4) to provide guidance on the compliance of proposed alterations to the building at 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Such a review has been requested by the City of South San Francisco Planning Department because the 201 Baden property has been determined as individually eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This determination of eligibility was made as part of a Historic Resource Evaluation undertaken by GA in 2019. Proposed project drawings and plans, dated October 7, 2022, were provided for review. The building at 201 Baden Avenue was designed by architect William Henry Rowe in 1949 for use as a fire station. It was known as Fire Station 61, and later as Central Station. It has been determined eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 1: Events because its “construction in 1949 reflects the growth of the City of South San Francisco during the early twentieth century as industry and commerce, and a growing population, required extension of municipal services.”1 It has also been noted as eligible under Criterion 3: Architecture, “as a building that embodies the distinct characteristics of a modern fire station typology rendered with elements of the International style, constructed in 1949 in South San Francisco.”2 1 Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, CA: Historic Resource Evaluation (2019). 2 Ibid. 582 MARKET ST. SUITE 1800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 T: 415.391.9633 F: 415.391.9647 www.garavaglia.com 159 201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review October 20, 2022 Page 2 of 10 PROJECT INFORMATION Site and Building Description The subject .52-acre site is rectangular in shape and consists of three parcels: APN 012-335-100; APN 012-335-110; and an adjoining, un-numbered parcel, in downtown South San Francisco. The site is bound by Baden Avenue (north) and 2nd Lane (south). A multi-story Giorgi Bros. furniture store is situated on the neighboring parcel to the west, and a restaurant building is situated on the neighboring parcel to the east. The subject site contains a former fire station building, a driveway off of Baden Avenue at the east, and a parking lot at the rear.3 The fire station is a reinforced-concrete building comprised of three volumes of varying height, including: a one-story east volume, two-story west volume, and a five-story drill tower. All volumes have flat roofs covered with composition materials. The three volumes combine to form an L-shaped plan, with the drill tower situated south (rear) of the intersecting east and west volumes (Figure 1). Figure 1. Aerial view of subject property outlined in red, with building highlighted in yellow and building volumes labeled (Google Maps, amended by author). The exterior is finished with painted, architectural concrete and minimally adorned with fluted concrete piers between window bays and fluted concrete cornices. All window openings are rectangular and contain single, paired, or tripartite arrangements. Within the west volume and east volume, windows are primarily replacement, anodized-aluminum units with operable awning lites, referred to as “replacement windows” hereafter. The west wall of the apparatus bay at the first story of the west elevation, and the south wall of the maintenance bay at the first story of the south elevation retain original steel windows. The drill tower is fenestrated with original, operable (hinged) steel-casement windows containing eight lites of wired glass each. Entrances and the building’s central stairwell are lighted additionally by original glass block grids set into aluminum frames. Entry doors are flush wood with aluminum frames. Additional 3 Acreage estimated sourced from CSS Environmental Services, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment: 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, California-CSS Project No: 6527, (South San Francisco: City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development, November 20, 2017). EAST WEST Drill Tower 160 201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review October 20, 2022 Page 3 of 10 features include a tall radio tower mounted to the roof. All roof planes are flat and are surrounded by shallow concrete parapets. Character-Defining Features GA identified character-defining features as part of the HRE in 2019. Each was assigned a priority rating of “Premier-Important-Contributing-Non-Contributing” to create a sense of the relative historical importance of spaces and features. In general, this system allows for the analysis of the structure as a whole, to guide what types of work should be done, and where such work could be completed with the least damage to the historic integrity of the resource. The character-defining features of the property at 201 Baden Avenue, include: Primary • Massing (east wing, west wing, and drill tower at rear) • Architectural concrete exterior • Fluted concrete details at concrete piers and along cornice line • Three apparatus bays (dimension of apparatus bays exclusive of replacement doors) • Glass block door surrounds • Steel casement windows in drill tower • Steel windows at additional locations • Windows set into banks or ribbons creating a horizontal emphasis Important • Glass block stairwell window at drill tower exterior • Curved concrete columns and wheel guards at apparatus bays • Front, recessed entrance • Rear entrance beneath curved canopy Contributing • Canopy with curved ends over apparatus bays • Flat roofs • Flush-wood doors Non-Contributing • Apparatus bay doors (previously altered) • Replacement aluminum windows installed ca. 19684 Project Summary The project under review proposes to re-purpose the old Firehouse for an office space. The overall scope of work includes associated site work for surface parking, pathways, and landscaping, replacing overhead doors with storefront, painting, new building and code signage, and outfitting the interior to create a multi-tenant office space with shared facilities. Specific alterations include: 4 Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, CA: Historic Resource Evaluation (2019). 161 201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review October 20, 2022 Page 4 of 10 • Removal of all non-historic roll-up doors on the apparatus bays (north and east facades); replacement with aluminum storefronts with mullion patterns that are evocative of the historic doors • Removal of two historic steel windows on the south facade due to deterioration; replacement with aluminum storefronts with matching mullion patterns • Infill of four doors on the south facade • Infill of windows on the east and west facades; infill would be shallower than the exterior wall plane to show relief o Infill of one of the three aluminum replacement windows on the single-story portion of the east facade due to proximity to the property line o Infill of one of the historic steel windows on the first floor of the west facade for structural reasons o Possible infill of three other historic steel windows on the first floor of the west facade due to the location of the trash enclosure* • Construction of a ramp leading up to the front entrance for ADA access; the ramp would be parallel to the facade; the original steps to the front door would remain • Construction of a lean-to trash enclosure on the west elevation *The provided set of plans does not indicate the infill of these three windows, but it was brought to GA’s attention by G4 that this may be a possibility. For the purposes of this review, it was assumed by GA that these three windows are to be infilled, and they are addressed as such in the following discussion. APPLYING THE STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION TO 201 BADEN AVENUE Compliance The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation lists 10 key elements to consider when new uses or architectural modifications are undertaken within historic resources. The following presents these 10 standards and briefly discusses the level of compliance of the proposed project at 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco. For each Standard, a level of compliance is given: Compliant, Marginally Compliant, or Not Compliant. A compliant rating indicates that the alteration has little or no impact on the resource. A marginally compliant rating indicates that the overall historical significance of the resources is not impacted enough to warrant re-evaluation, but modifications to the proposed design are strongly recommended. Not compliant indicates that the proposed design would severely negatively impact the resource and its eligibility for formal listing on a local, state, or national inventory. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The building has not been used as a fire station as it was historically since 2006. Since then, it has been used for storage.5 The project under review proposes to convert the building into a multi-tenant office space. The conversion to office spaces would require minimal changes to the character-defining features of the building, including the infill of select windows and doors, replacement of existing non-contributing apparatus bay 5 Everything South City website, “SSF City Council Approves Sale of Old Baden Avenue Fire Station for Mixed-Used Development Including Affordable Housing for Seniors,” https://everythingsouthcity.com/2021/11/ssf-city-council-approves-sale-of-old-baden-avenue- fire-station-for-mixed-used-development-including-affordable-housing-for-seniors. 162 201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review October 20, 2022 Page 5 of 10 doors, replacement of two deteriorated historic steel windows, and the installation of an ADA ramp leading to the front entrance of the building. Overall, the proposed project is compliant with Standard 1. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. The property at 201 Baden Avenue was determined eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 1 (Events). This is due to the building’s association with the development of modern municipal services and civic buildings in the City of South San Francisco, and because it was the City’s first purpose-built fire station, originally known as Central Station. This association will not be affected by the new design and the building will retain eligibility under Criterion 1. 201 Baden was also determined eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 3 (Architecture). The building’s eligibility was determined based on its concrete structure, restrained ornamentation, and distinct massing that embody characteristics of the fire station typology that evolved from early high-style urban fire houses, to more utilitarian examples completed during the mid-twentieth century, that accommodated larger fire engines, hose drying and drill towers, and space for staff. The project under review does not propose any changes to the building’s concrete structure, restrained ornamentation, or overall massing. The proposed project calls for the infill of select windows and doors. Infill of windows would include both replacement aluminum windows and historic steel windows. While the aluminum windows themselves are not contributing, the window openings and horizontal banks of windows are historic character-defining features. The historic steel windows proposed for infill are primary character-defining features, though they are not on a primary elevation. None of the doors that are proposed for infill were found to be character-defining features in GA’s HRE for the property. On the interior, the primary interior space indicative of the building’s original use as a fire station – the apparatus bay – would remain open. The use of storefronts with mullions to mimic the pattern of the apparatus bay doors would help to retain and evoke the historic feeling of the space. The existing wood apparatus bay doors are not historic, but the proposed approach to this significant space supports the building’s historic nature. The drill tower would remain intact on the exterior, although its interior would be used for storage and restrooms on the basement and first floors, respectively. The fire poles, which would have been features indicative of the building’s original use, were already removed sometime before 2019. The proposed project is marginally compliant with Standard 2, due to the proposed removal and infill of select windows. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. As proposed, the project does not include the addition of any conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings. Replacement windows and apparatus bay doors would replicate the mullion patterns and panel configurations of the existing as 163 201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review October 20, 2022 Page 6 of 10 closely as possible. The proposed trash enclosure on the west facade would allow the historic building form to be read and would still being compatible with the original design. The proposed project is compliant with Standard 3. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. The building was purpose-built as a fire station in 1949. According to building permits, no major alterations were done to the building between 1976 and 2000. Sometime before GA began work on the HRE in 2019, several alterations had been made, some of which were not indicated on building permits. Alterations made before 2019 include replacement of the original roll-up apparatus bay doors, replacement of some historic steel windows with aluminum units, removal of the station’s fire poles at the interior, boarding over or infilling of select windows and doors at the rear of the building, and removal of an oil fire test pit once located at the southeast corner of the site.6 GA’s HRE found the existing wood roll-up apparatus bay doors and aluminum windows that replaced the historic features to be non-contributing. Therefore, the current proposal, including the replacement of the apparatus bay doors and the infill of one aluminum replacement window, would not be changing any added features that have acquired historic significance in their own right. The proposed project is compliant with Standard 4. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 201 Baden’s historic steel windows and windows set into banks or ribbons to create a horizontal emphasis were determined to be primary character-defining features of the building. The proposed project calls for the infill of select windows that would include both replacement aluminum windows and historic steel windows. While the aluminum windows themselves are not contributing, the window openings and horizontal banks of windows are historic character-defining features. It should be noted that the project under review does propose to refurbish most of the historic steel windows, including the steel casement windows on the drill tower. Only two would need to be replaced due to deterioration, and four on the west side of the main apparatus bay would be infilled. The historic steel windows proposed for replacement or infill are primary character-defining features, though they are not on a primary elevation. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property would be retained through the massing, architectural concrete exterior and detailing, glass block door surrounds, and remaining steel windows and horizontal window bands. 6 Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., 201 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, CA: Historic Resource Evaluation (2019). 164 201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review October 20, 2022 Page 7 of 10 The proposed project is marginally compliant with Standard 5, due to the proposed removal and infill of select windows. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. The only deteriorated historic features proposed for replacement are the two steel windows on the south facade. Replacement for these windows is proposed due to extreme deterioration. Replacements would match the old in design and visual quality, but the proposed material is aluminum, rather than steel. Although the proposed material is not an exact match, it is still metal, and matching material is not expressly required by this standard. The majority of the other remaining historic steel windows would be refurbished, and a select few are proposed to be infilled (as discussed above). The proposed project is compliant with Standard 6. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Retention of existing finishes should be undertaken during construction. Use of compatible new materials is recommended to prevent cracking at the juncture between new and old finishes. As proposed, the project is compliant with Standard 7. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. No known archeological finds have been made in the area. However, should materials be found during construction, a qualified archeologist should be consulted for assessment and mitigation recommendations. Based on available information, the proposed project is complaint with Standard 8. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Replacement windows and apparatus bay doors would replicate the mullion patterns and panel configurations of the existing as closely as possible. While a certain level of similarity is needed for a cohesive design, differentiation between the new and the old is recommended. Differentiation between new and old is provided through the use of aluminum rather than steel for replacement windows. Select windows need to be infilled due to structural or code issues; infill would include both aluminum replacement windows and historic steel windows. Although the infill 165 201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review October 20, 2022 Page 8 of 10 would result in the loss of historic windows and window openings, the proposed infill of windows would be inset slightly, so that the location of the historic window openings is evident. The historic steel windows proposed for infill are also not on a primary elevation. The proposed trash enclosure on the west facade allows the historic building form to be read while still being compatible with the original design. It is differentiated by its smaller scale and use of materials. However, the location of the trash enclosure would necessitate the removal and infill of three historic steel windows. It is unclear if this would be done due to structural or aesthetic issues. As proposed, the project is marginally compliant with Standard 9, due to the infill of historic window openings and the removal of historic steel windows. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. If removed in the future, the proposed trash enclosure on the west elevation and the proposed ramp on the front (north) elevation would not diminish the historic significance of the property in terms of the seven aspects of integrity. The overall massing, scale, materiality, and design would be unimpaired by the proposed new additions. No other new additions or new construction are proposed at this time. The proposed project is complaint with Standard 10. Project Compliance Summary The proposed project at 201 Baden Avenue is compliant with Standards 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 and it is marginally compliant with Standards 2, 5, and 9. Overall compliance is not necessarily a direct sum of the level of compliance with each individual standard, however that information is weighed with the overall impact on both the design and historical significance of the resource. Depending on the reasons for significance and the level of importance of the resource, different levels of overall compliance may result. For 201 Baden Avenue, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. finds the proposed project to be compliant overall. Inclusion of a minor modification is suggested to decrease the impact on the historic resource and raise its proposed design into compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Suggested Modification to Proposed Project Proposed Infill of Steel Windows The proposed infill of the three historic steel windows next to the proposed trash enclosure should be avoided if possible. It is unclear if this would be needed due to structural or aesthetic purposes. If based on structural issues, this should be noted, and the proposed infill of the three windows in question should be indicated on the final drawing set. If solely based on aesthetic reasons, the necessity for infill should be re-evaluated and reconsidered by the architect so that the building might retain as many historic windows as possible. Conclusion Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. concludes that the proposed project at 201 Baden Avenue is compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The majority of character-defining features, such as the distinctive massing, architectural concrete exterior, glass 166 201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review October 20, 2022 Page 9 of 10 block door surrounds, and most of the remaining historic steel windows would be retained by the proposed project. More careful consideration of the infill of three historic steel windows on the west facade could bring the project more fully into compliance with the Standards. 167 201 Baden Avenue Standards Compliance Review October 20, 2022 Page 10 of 10 Professional Qualifications Kathleen McDonald Ms. McDonald is a conditions assessment specialist and architectural historian with a solid background in historic preservation, materials investigation, and historic documentation. Ms. McDonald’s experience includes existing conditions analysis, treatment recommendations based on the Sercretary of the Interior’s Standards, and documentation and identification of historic resources through field surveys and archival research. Her work at Garavaglia Architecture to date has included involvement with historic structure reports and multiple conditions assessments. Ms. McDonald’s educational background includes a Master of Historic Preservation and a Bachelor of Design in Architecture from the University of Florida. She meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural Historians. cc: Jay Manzo – Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. Elizabeth Rajphackdy – Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. file: 000-Architecture-NAS:2019019 - 201 Baden Ave HRE:Reports:SISR:201 Baden SISR_DRAFT.doc 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Firehouse Work (FHW), LLC at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco, CA Prepared for: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. May 10, 2022 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 175 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Hexagon Job Number:19TD02 Phone: 925.225.1439 192 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Transportation Facilities ..................................................................................................... 4 3. Parking ........................................................................................................................................... 11 4. TDM Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 13 List of Tables Table 1 SamTrans Services ................................................................................................................ 7 Table 2 Vehicular Parking Spaces Requirement .............................................................................. 11 Table 3 Recommended Trip Reduction Measures ........................................................................... 14 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location .......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Existing Bicycle Network ........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3 Existing Transit Service ....................................................................................................... 10 193 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 1 1. Introduction Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single–occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, and air pollution problems. The purpose of TDM is to (1) reduce the amount of traffic generated by new development; (2) promote more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage; (3) reduce the parking demand generated by new development and allow for a reduction in parking supply; and (4) establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to guarantee the desired trip and parking reductions are achieved. The main purpose of the proposed TDM plan for the proposed Firehouse Work (FHW), LLC project is to evaluate the parking reduction requirements outlined in Section 20.330.007 (Downtown Parking) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The code states that for the Downtown Parking District, the Planning Commission shall review any request for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces and make a determination whether there is sufficient parking within the District to accommodate the proposed use. As the project proposes to provide less on-site parking than what is typically required for downtown commercial developments, the project will implement a TDM program to encourage alternative modes of travel and offset the on-site parking deficit. Project Description The proposed FHW project will repurpose the existing two-story Firehouse station located at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco into 11,940 square feet of office space, with three different tenants. The project site is bordered by Baden Avenue to the north and 2nd Lane to the south. Located on the west side of the project is the Giorgi Bros Furniture Showroom, and on the east side is a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant. Vehicular access to the site is proposed on the back side of the building via 2nd Lane. The building frontage on Baden Avenue is proposed to include landscaping and wide sidewalks. Only pedestrian access will be provided on Baden Avenue. The project site location and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. The project is located in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area, which covers properties within 0.5 miles of the City’s Caltrain Station. The City of South San Francisco completed the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) and EIR that was adopted in February 2015. The land uses proposed for this project are consistent with those set forth in the DSASP EIR. Downtown Location and Proximity to Transit Also called location efficiency, the location of a project within or adjacent to a central business district promotes pedestrian and bicycle travel in a high-density area of complementary land uses. The project 194 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 2 is located in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) and will provide development within a ¼ -mile radius of the Caltrain Station, which will promote ridership and reduce emissions. Also, the project site is located within one quarter mile of four SamTrans bus routes. Chapter 2 describes the existing transit services in the study area. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into three chapters. Chapter 2 describes the transportation facilities and services in the vicinity of the project site. Chapter 3 describes the parking proposed by the project. Chapter 4 presents the TDM plan that is recommended for the proposed project, including the program for implementing and monitoring the TDM plan. 195 South San Francisco 101 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave Park W y Park Wy Poletti Wy Poletti W yRailroa d A v e Railroad Ave N Cana l S t N Canal St Airport BlvdLux Ave Park W y Poletti Wy Railroa d A v e N Cana l S t 3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Maple AveLinden AveGrand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n Gateway BlvdDubuque AveCypress AveS Canal St S Linden AveHarbor WayS Airport BlvdS Maple AveS Spruce AveMitchell Ave Ar m o u r A v e Utah Ave C o r p o r a t e D r E Grand Ave San Mateo AveHill s i d e B l v d = Site Location LEGEND South SanFranciscoCaltrainStation Firehouse Work, LLC TDM - South San Francisco, CA Figure 1 Site Location 196 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 4 2. Existing Transportation Facilities Transportation facilities and services that support sustainable modes of transportation include SamTrans bus routes, BART, Caltrain, shuttles, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities. This chapter describes the existing facilities and services near the 201 Baden Avenue project site. Information on the nearby roadway network is also included in order to provide a more comprehensive description of the nearby transportation network. Roadway Network Regional access to the project study area is provided by US 101. US 101 is a north-south major freeway through eastern San Mateo County between San Francisco and San Jose. It is the primary north/south route connection to I-280 and I-80 north of South San Francisco. US-101 is typically congested in both directions during both peak periods as people commute to and from San Francisco and the Silicon Valley. Access to the freeway from the project site is provided via interchanges at Miller Avenue, Airport Boulevard, and Grand Avenue. The following roadways provide local access to the site: Airport Boulevard is a major north/south arterial route through South San Francisco parallel to US-101. North of Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction. Airport Boulevard provides access to the site via Baden Avenue. Baden Avenue is primarily a two-lane local roadway that extends from Chestnut Avenue in the west to Airport Boulevard in the east. It is a four-lane roadway between Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard with no on-street parking. The project frontage is located along Baden Avenue with only pedestrian access provided along Baden Avenue. No vehicular access will be provided on Baden Avenue. Grand Avenue is a two- to six-lane roadway that extends from Mission Road to its termination point at Point San Bruno Park. West of US-101, Grand Avenue has one travel lane in each direction with on- street angled parking on both sides of the street. Linden Avenue is a two-lane local roadway that extends north from San Mateo Avenue at the city limits and terminates at Airport Boulevard. There are traffic signals at most major intersections, with the remainder of its intersections controlled by stop signs. Linden Avenue intersects Baden Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Miller Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. 197 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 5 2nd Lane is a one-way (eastbound) local roadway that extends east from Chestnut Avenue to Airport Boulevard. On-street parking is generally provided on the north side of the street. Vehicular access to the proposed project is provided on the backside of the project via 2nd Lane. Existing Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are pathways, separate from roadways, which are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III) are existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs. According to the Bicycle Master Plan, the City has 48.3 miles of existing bikeways, though most of them are not signed (see Figure 2). Transit stations, schools, parks and retail centers are all accessible by these bikeways. The following bicycle facilities exist in the project study area. Class I Bikeway (Multi-Use Path) • Grand Avenue has a bike path that extends from Industrial Way, crosses over East Grand Avenue and ends at Harbor Way. This path connects to Class II bike lanes that begin on Gateway Boulevard south of Grand Avenue. Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) • Airport Boulevard has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin north of Miller Avenue and connect to the Class III bicycle routes on Miller Avenue and Linden Avenue. • Gateway Boulevard has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin south of Grand Avenue and extend to South Airport Boulevard. • Grand Avenue has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin west of Spruce Avenue and connect to the Class III bicycle route on Spruce Avenue. • Railroad Avenue has a Class II bike lane in the eastbound direction that extends east from Spruce Avenue to Maple Avenue, after which it becomes a Class III bicycle route with sharrows. This lane connects to the Class III bicycle route on Spruce Avenue. Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) • San Mateo Avenue is a Class III bicycle route without sharrow markings. The route extends from Airport Boulevard past South Linden Avenue, connecting to the Class III bicycle route on Linden Avenue. • Linden Avenue is a Class III bicycle route without sharrow markings. The route extends south from Airport Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue. • Spruce Avenue is a Class III bicycle route with sharrow markings between Grand Avenue and Victory Way. The route connects to Class II bicycle lanes on Grand Avenue. The City of South San Francisco adopted its Citywide bicycle master plan in 2010, the goal of which is to expand the bicycle network to make it easier and safer for people to bicycle through the City. In the 198 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 6 project vicinity, bike lanes are planned in both directions on Airport Boulevard between Miller Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. Bike lanes are also planned in both directions on Grand Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard. As part of the proposed Caltrain Station reconstruction, a new ped/bike rail crossing tunnel is proposed at the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection that would directly connect to the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The new ped/bike tunnel would also provide a good bicycle connection between the downtown and the employment zone to the east of US 101. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are provided on most streets in the immediate vicinity of the project. Sidewalks exist in both directions on Airport Boulevard and on Baden Avenue along the project frontage. In the immediate vicinity of the project, crosswalks exist at the signalized intersections of Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue (on the west leg and the south leg) and Linden Avenue/Baden Avenue (on all four approaches) for pedestrians to get to downtown destinations. Pedestrian access improvements are proposed in the area covered under the Specific Plan and citywide under the South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan. The plan calls for area-wide improvements, such as establishing a Downtown pedestrian-priority zone, making pedestrian-friendly alley improvements to Downtown lanes, and completing the street grid to reduce block lengths immediately surrounding the Caltrain station. The new South San Francisco Station, located directly south of its previous location, is now accessible from Downtown and Poletti Way in South San Francisco. The station now features a 700-foot center- boarding platform and pedestrian underpass. Passengers no longer have to cross the tracks to board the train. The improvements also make the station fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Overall, the existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other points of interest in the downtown area. Existing Transit Service Transit services in the study area include local buses, express buses, shuttles, BART, Caltrain and ferry service. A majority of the public transit trips through the area are commuters who use the Caltrain station or connect from BART to Downtown and East of US-101 employers via employer shuttles. Employer sponsored shuttles connect to employment destinations east of the Caltrain station and other commuter connections in the area. These shuttles are available to individual riders not associated with sponsor employers for a monthly fee. See Figure 3 for the existing transit services. 199 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 7 SamTrans Bus Routes Existing bus service to the study area is provided by San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). Bus services to the study area are described in Table 1. Table 1 SamTrans Services BART Service Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates regional rail service in the Bay Area, connecting between San Francisco International Airport and the Millbrae Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco to the north, and cities in the East Bay. The BART stations closest to the South San Francisco Caltrain station area are the San Bruno Station located near Huntington Avenue east of El Camino Real, and the South San Francisco Station, located on Mission Road and McLellan Drive. Both stations are located within 3 miles of the South San Francisco Caltrain station, and SamTrans provides service from the BART stations to Downtown South San Francisco. BART trains operate on 15-minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways during off-peak hours Route1 Route Description Weekday Hours of Operation2 Headways2 (minutes) Express, SFO and Multi-City Route 397 San Francisco – Palo Alto Transit Center (Limited Overnight Service) - Serves SF Airport 12:45 AM - 6:30 AM 60 Express, SFO and Multi-City Route 292 San Francisco – Hillsdale Mall - Serves SF Airport 3:55 AM - 2:45 AM 10 to 30 North County Route 37 Alta Loma School - Hillside/Grove (School-day only) 8:10 AM - 8:30 AM 2:30 PM - 4:00 PM North County Route 130 Daly City BART - Airport/Linden 5:00 AM - 12:00 AM 15 North County Route 141 Airport/Linden – Shelter Creek 6:10 AM - 8:00 PM 30 South City Shuttle Provides access to SSF schools, parks, Municipal Services Building, downton SSF, Kaiser Hospital, senior centers, and provide connecting transportation to Santrans stops and the SSF BART station 7:15 AM - 7:00 PM 40 to 50 Notes: Source: SamTrans Service Schedule and Map, September 2021 1. Closest bus stop to bus routes 397 and 292 is located at Airport Boulevard and Baden Avenue (350 feet from the project location) and bus stop for routes 37, 130, and 141 are at Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue (800 feet from the project location). 2. Approximate weekday operation hours and headways during peak periods in the project area, as of September 2021. 200 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 8 Caltrain Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project is located within 0.5 miles of the new South San Francisco Caltrain station. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local trains, with 23 northbound and 23 southbound weekday trains. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station provides weekday service from 5:10 AM to 12:35 AM, with 60-minute headways. Previously, the only access to the South San Francisco Downtown used to be from the west side of the train tracks, via the Grand Avenue overpass. This overpass requires a long and circuitous detour for people walking and bicycling, who have to cross Grand Avenue and descend either a tall metal staircase or use Dubuque Avenue. The city in partnership with Caltrain recently completed the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Reconstruction project to improve safety and connectivity to nearby businesses. Caltrain passengers are now able to get to the east of Caltrain Station from the station’s center platform via ramps that connect to a tunnel underneath the tracks. The tunnel connects to a pedestrian plaza at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard on the west side of the tracks and a transit plaza at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Poletti Way on the east side of the tracks. Buses and shuttles pick up and drop off Caltrain passengers from the new east-side plaza instead of the parking lot on the west side of the station, which makes it easier for residents commuting to the City’s biotech job center on the east side of the tracks. East of US-101 Area Shuttles • The Oyster Point Caltrain Shuttle connects the South San Francisco Caltrain station to Oyster Point, Forbes Boulevard and Eccles Avenue. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between 6:30 AM and 10:00 AM, and between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM with 30-minute headways. • The Utah-Grand Caltrain Shuttle connects South San Francisco Caltrain station to East Grand Avenue and Utah Avenue. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between 5:30 AM and 9:30 AM, and between 4:00 PM and 6:15 PM with 30-minute headways. Bus Stops The nearest bus stop for Route 37, 130 and 141 is located near the Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue intersection, which is less than 800 feet walking distance from the project site. The nearest bus stops for Routes 292 and Route 397 going northbound are located on Airport Boulevard, just south of Baden Avenue, and the nearest stops for Route 292 and Route 397 going south bound are located on Airport Boulevard, just south of Grand Avenue. The shuttle services can be accessed at the Caltrain station, which is within walking distance of the project. Continuous sidewalks are present for pedestrians walking between the proposed project and the nearest bus stops. 201 South San Francisco101Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave P a r k W y P ark W y Poletti WyPoletti WyAirport BlvdLux Ave P a r k W y Poletti Wy3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Grand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n S Linden AveS A i rpo r t B lvdS Maple AveLinden AveMaple AveGateway BlvdS Spruce AveSan Mateo AveCypress AveDubuque AveUtah Ave Mitchell Ave E G r a n d A v e N Canal S t S Canal St Comm e r c i a l A v e South San Francisco Caltrain Station = Site Location LEGEND = Proposed Class II Bike Lanes = Proposed Class III Bike Routes = Proposed Class I Bike Paths = Existing Class II Bike Lanes = Existing Class III Bike Routes = Existing Class I Bike Paths = Proposed Ped/Bike Rail Crossing/Tunnel at Station = Proposed Ped Priority Street/Alley Firehouse Work, LLC TDM - South San Francisco, CA Figure 2 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 202 292 397 292 397 292 397 South San Francisco101 85 87 17 237 37 130 141 141 141 130 37 37 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave P a r k W y P ark W y Poletti WyPoletti WyAirport BlvdLux Ave P a r k W y Poletti Wy3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Grand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n S Linden AveS A i rpo r t B lvdS Maple AveLinden AveGateway BlvdS Spruce AveSan Mateo AveCypress AveDubuque AveUtah Ave Mitchell Ave E G r a nd Av e S Canal S t N Cana l S t Commer c i a l A v e Maple Ave292,397 37,130,141 37,130,141 = Site Location LEGEND = Oyster Point Ferry Shuttle (OPF) = SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART and Caltrain Stations = Bus Stop = Oyster Point Caltrain Shuttle (OPC) = Utah Grand Caltrain Shuttle (OGC) = Genesis Towers Shuttle (OTP) XXX = SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART StationsXXX = SamTrans School-day Only RoutesXX South SanFranciscoCaltrainStation Firehouse Work, LLC TDM - South San Francisco, CA Figure 3 Existing Transit Services 203 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 11 3. Parking The South San Francisco Municipal Code includes parking requirements for office projects within the Downtown Plan Area (Section 20.330.007). The parking requirements are as follows: 1 space per 400 s.f. of floor area of business and professional office. The project as proposed would redevelop the existing Firehouse building to consist of 11,490 square feet of office space. Based on the municipal code, this would require 29 vehicular parking spaces. The vehicular parking requirements are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Vehicular Parking Spaces Requirement According to the project site plan, the project would provide a total of 5 parking spaces: 4 standard spaces and 1 American Disability Act (ADA) compliant parking space. There would be a deficit of 24 spaces for the proposed office use. Given the project’s location and its proximity to the Caltrain station, it is expected that many employees would use public transportation and would not need a car. Also, the project is required to implement a comprehensive TDM plan, as described in Chapter 4 to encourage employees to use alternative modes of transportation and to reduce the project’s parking demand. For employees that are unable to take alternative modes of transportation to commute to work and are unable to park on the project site, paid parking permits as described below should be provided. Since paid parking works against the TDM goals of reducing single occupant vehicles, employers should be encouraged to have employees pay all or part of the parking cost. Alternatively, employers can implement a parking cash out program. Parking cash out is a commuter benefit in which an employer offers employees the option to accept taxable cash income instead of a free or subsidized parking space at work. Given a choice of cash or a parking space, many people would prefer to receive cash. Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement OfficeParking 11,490 29 Total 29 Notes: SF = square feet 1 Vehicular parking requirements per Table 20.330.007 of the South San Francisco Municpal Code Project Size Required SpacesParking Rate 1 1 per 400 sf 204 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 12 Paid Parking Permits and Parking Validation. The project applicant or the individual tenants should provide parking permits for all employees who do not use public transportation to park in designated City maintained parking lots. The City’s Parking Place Commission manages public parking in Downtown South San Francisco. Monthly parking is available in the following public lots, which are located within one-third of a mile from the project: • Parking Lot #2A at 216 Linden Avenue • Parking Lot #2B at 216 Baden Avenue • Parking Lot #4 at 241 Grand Avenue • Parking Lot #5 at 319 Baden Avenue • Parking Lot #12, at 337 Baden Avenue • Parking Lot # 15 at 201 Grand Avenue • Miller Parking Garage The project should coordinate with the City on the availability and how to purchase monthly parking permits for employees. Parking validation should be provided for all visitors. Visitors would park on the street, where on-street parking is provided or in the public parking lots. Since the project is not expected to generate a significant number of visitors, the project would not adversely impact the availability of public parking. It is noted that all on-street parking in the vicinity of the project is metered with a 2-hour time limit. 205 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 13 4. TDM Plan The TDM measures recommended for the Firehouse Work project include design features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the roadway and parking demand that would be generated by the project. The City’s Municipal Code requires all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips to implement a transportation demand management (TDM) program to reduce the number of vehicle trips by increasing access to and use of alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking. Although the proposed project could potentially generate fewer than 100 daily trips (based on all office tenants), the project is required to implement a TDM Plan as the project does not meet the minimum required number of on-site parking spaces. The project site is well suited to have a successful TDM Plan based on its location near residential development and other commercial and retail areas and its access to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Table 3 presents a summary of the measures recommended in this plan in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 20.400.004, along with an indication of who should have primary responsibility for implementing each measure. All measures should be implemented upon occupancy of the building. Proposed TDM Measures The following 14 TDM measures, all of which are required by Chapter 20.400.004 of the City’s zoning ordinance, and 2 supplemental trip reduction measures should be implemented for the proposed project. All of the measures that are required by the City should be implemented as soon as the project is constructed and occupied. Required Measures Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Services and Incentive Programs (Required Measure 1). The Employer Contact should promote the 511 RideMatch service, which assists employees in finding ridesharing partners who work nearby. The 511 Ridematch service is an interactive, on-demand system that helps commuters find others with similar routes and travel patterns with whom they may share a ride. Registered users are provided with a list of other commuters near their employment or residential ZIP code, along with the closest cross street, email, phone number, and hours they are available to commute to and from work. Participants are then able to select and contact others with whom they wish to commute. The service also provides a list of existing carpools and vanpools in their residential area that may have vacancies. 206 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 14 Table 3 Recommended Trip Reduction Measures Designated Employer Contact (Required Measure 2). The project applicant should identify an employee for each tenant who will be the official contact for the TDM program and should provide that person’s name and contact information to the City. The Employer Contact will serve as the on-site TDM Coordinator. Their responsibilities will include organizing and implementing the promotional programs, updating information on the information board/kiosk, administering the carpool and vanpool ridematching services, and serving as the official contact for the administration of the annual survey. Direct Route to Transit (Required Measure 3). The project is located within walking distance of the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The recently completed pedestrian tunnel connects the station directly to the east end of downtown’s Grand Avenue. The pedestrian plaza on Grand Avenue is #Required TDM Measures Implementation Responsibility 1 Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Services Available to public 2 Designated Employer Contact Building Developer 1 3 Direct Route to Transit Building Developer 4 Guaranteed Ride Home Trans.Coordinator 5 Information Boards/Kiosks Building Developer 1 6 Passenger Loading Zones Building Developer 1 7 Pedestrian Connections Building Developer 8 Promotional Programs Trans.Coordinator 9 Shower/Clothes Lockers Building Developer 10 Shuttle Program 2 11 Transportation Management Association (TMA)Building Developer 12 Bicycle Parking, Long-Term Building Developer 13 Bicycle Parking, Short-Term Building Developer 14 Free Parking for Carpools and Vanpools 3 Building Developer Other TDM Measures Transit Subsidies Trans.Coordinator Telecommuting Individual Tenants Paid Parking Permits Individual Tenants Notes: Trip Reduction Measures from South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 20.400.004) 1 The building developer will have initial responsibility for creating an online kiosk and appointing the Transportation Coordinator. After the building is occupied, the Transportation Coordinator will have ongoing responsibility for the online kiosk and i l t 3 Based on the interest of the employees, one parking space will be designated for carpool/vanpool in the future. 2 The South City Shuttle provides free service around South San Francisco and provides transit connections with SamTrans and BART. 207 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 15 located approximately 500 feet to the north and east of the proposed project. The project will provide lighting and landscaping along the project frontage on Baden Avenue to enhance pedestrian safety. Guaranteed Ride Home (Required Measure 4). The purpose of an Emergency Ride Home program is to guarantee that employees need not worry about being stranded at work without a car in the event of illness, family emergency, or unexpected overtime if they carpool or vanpool or take transit. By reassuring commuters who do not drive alone that they can have timely and paid transportation in the event of an emergency, this program removes one of the largest concerns expressed by most employees about using alternative modes of transportation. Commute.org has created a program that provides employees from participating employers with a free taxi ride in the case of an emergency. There is no need for employees to sign up for the program in advance, and the employer only pays when the service is used. The San Mateo County GRH Program reimburses people who commute to a workplace in San Mateo County for the cost of their ride home in the event they have an emergency. Commuters can use any form of transportation to get home, such as public transit, ride-hailing app (e.g. Uber or Lyft), carshare, or taxi, and be reimbursed a maximum of $60 per trip up to 4 times per calendar year. The Alliance’s website at www.commute.org provides detailed information on participating in the GRH program. Online Information Center (Required Measure 5). The project should maintain an online kiosk where transportation-related information can be displayed. The Employer Contact should post the following information: transit routes and schedules, carpooling and vanpooling information, information about bikeways and taking bikes on transit services, and information about incentive programs and transit subsidies. Passenger Loading Zone (Required Measure 6). It is recommended that one parking space on site be designated as a passenger loading zone for carpool and vanpool drop-off and pickup in the parking lot. Pedestrian Connections (Required Measure 7). The site is currently well-served by pedestrian amenities including sidewalks and crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads. Improvements to these existing facilities, including the widening of sidewalks and the addition of planting strips along the project frontage to provide buffer between vehicles and pedestrians by the development will encourage individuals to walk to nearby destinations. Promotional Programs (Required Measure 8). The Employer Contact should: • Prepare and distribute new employee orientation packets on transportation alternatives and the services available to employees. • Post, email, or distribute flyers, posters, brochures, and other materials on commute alternatives. The Commute.org can help provide marketing materials. • Promote special events such as Rideshare Week (October), Spare the Air days, or other events, such as the Alliance’s “Rethink Your Commute” contest. • Provide trip planning assistance to employees who are considering an alternative mode. Maintain a supply of up-to-date transit schedules and route maps for SamTrans, BART, and Caltrain and be knowledgeable enough to answer employees’ questions. Showers and Clothes Lockers (Required Measure 9). The project will provide a shower in the men’s and women’s restrooms for employees who walk or bicycle to work to use free of charge. Providing a shower and changing rooms will encourage employees to walk or bicycle to the site. 208 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 16 Shuttle Program (Required Measure Service 10). The South City Shuttle provides free service around South San Francisco and provides transit connections to SamTrans and the South San Francisco BART station. This free shuttle is open to the general public. The closest bus stop on this route is located at the intersection of Linden Avenue and Baden Avenue, which is approximately 300 feet west of the project site. Transportation Management Association (TMA) (Required Measure 11). The project will be required to participate in Commute.org, an alliance of 17 cities and the county of San Mateo, which provides comprehensive and ongoing support for alternative commute programs in San Mateo County. By joining the Alliance, the Employer Contact need not “re-invent the wheel” to develop an effective TDM program. All employers in San Mateo County can utilize the resources, incentive programs, and services provided by the Alliance to promote commute alternatives. The Alliance’s website at www.commute.org provides detailed information on their programs. Long-Term Bicycle Parking (Required Measure 12). Providing secure bicycle parking encourages bicycle commuting and reduces daily vehicle trips. Per the zoning ordinance, for estalishments with 25 or more employees, long-term bicycle parking should be provided at a ratio of one space per 25 vehicle spaces. The project should provide at least 2 long-term bicycle parking space on site. Short-Term Bicycle Parking (Required Measure 13). The zoning ordinance requires short-term bicycle parking spaces at a rate of 10 percent of the number of required automobile parking spaces. Bicycle parking in downtown districts may be located within the public right of way provided an unobstructed sidewalk clearance of four feet is maintained for pedestrians at all times. As the project is required to provide a total of 29 vehicular parking spaces, the project should provide at a minimum three short-term bicycle parking spaces. Parking for Carpools and Vanpools (Required Measure 14). The TDM ordinance requires that 10% of all vehicle parking spaces shall be reserved for carpools or vanpools. These spaces are to be in premium and convenient locations and should be free of charge. Due to limited parking on site, the need to provide a designated parking space for carpool/vanpool will be evaluated in the future based on the interest of the tenants and employees. Additional TDM Measures The project should implement the following supplemental trip reduction measures to encourage employees to use public transportation and to offset the limited on-site parking. Subsidized Transit Passes. The individual tenants should be required to provide monthly subsidized transit passes to all employees. This will encourage employees to use transit for commuting to work. The Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for administering the program. Each employee will be given a clipper card that can be used on various transit systems like BART, Caltrans and SamTrans. Clipper is the all-in-one transit card for the Bay Area and can be used on all Bay Area transit systems, including Muni. The Clipper card can also be used as an access key to Bikeshare by linking the card to a Bay Wheels (a regional public bicycle sharing system in California’s San Francisco Bay Area) account. Telecommuting. This measure provides employees with opportunities and the ability to work off-site. The individual tenants should allow an employee to telecommute on a case-by-case basis. 209 Firehouse Work, LLC – Transportation Demand Management Plan May 10, 2022 Page | 17 Paid Parking at Prevalent Market Rates. Due to limited on-site parking, paid parking permits will be provided by individual tenants in nearby City parking lots/garage for employees who drive. Alternatively, employees can apply this monetary amount towards offsetting the cost of public transportation. Program Monitoring and Reporting The project applicant shall submit a final TDM Plan to the City and shall be responsible for ensuring that the TDM measures are successfully implemented and remain in substantial compliance with the Downtown Specific Area Plan. The trip reduction measures included in this TDM Plan should be incorporated into the project. It is anticipated that, after the project is constructed, an individual from the owner or property management team within the project will be designated as the Transportation Coordinator and assume responsibility for the ongoing TDM measures. When any ownership, management, or contact information changes, the City should be notified of the name, phone number, and email address of the designated Transportation Coordinator. The TDM Coordinator should prepare a one-time annual monitoring report of the site one-year after completion and occupancy of the project site. The TDM monitoring report should include employee surveys with travel pattern information and use of TDM measures provided by the site to determine adjustments to this TDM Plan. The report should be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. Conclusions The TDM measures recommended to be implemented by the project complement the attributes of the site location, the site design, and surrounding uses. Such measures encourage walking, biking, and use of transit. The project will implement all trip reduction measures required by the code. Additionally, the project will provide subsidized transit passes, telecommuting and monthly parking permits for employees to park in City designated parking lots in order to offset on-site parking deficit. 210 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-900 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. Report regarding consideration of an application for Design Review,Use Permit,Development Agreement,and Transportation Demand Management Plan to construct a new 12-story,165 foot tall,350 room,261,000 square foot hotel building,with 232 surface parking spaces and site improvements,located at 367 Marina Boulevard in the Oyster Point Specific Plan zone district,and determination that the project is within the scope of a previously adopted Programmatic EIR under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168. (Christy Usher, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1.Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council make findings and a determination that the 367 Marina Boulevard Oyster Point Hotel is consistent with the adopted Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR and would not necessitate the need for preparing a subsequent environmental document pursuant to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168,and is eligible for streamlining per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. 2.Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council make findings and approve the entitlements request for Project P22-0014 including Use Permit (UP22-0001),Design Review (DR22-0005), Development Agreement (DA22-0001)and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0006), subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. MOTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1) Move to adopt the resolution recommending a CEQA determination. (2) Move to adopt the resolution recommending entitlements. PROJECT OVERVIEW The project includes construction of a new 12-story,350-room hotel building,site improvements,and surface parking at 367 Marina Boulevard.The proposed hotel building is approximately 261,00 sf and 165 feet in height.An additional 14,200 square feet of building space is anticipated as a future expansion phase to include an event ballroom and additional meeting space for a total square footage of 275,200.The project would include approximately 232 surface parking spaces. The Project is located along Marina Boulevard near the eastern terminus of Oyster Point Boulevard,which connects to US-101 and major arterials within South San Francisco.The Project includes three driveways or vehicle access points along Marina Boulevard and a public access trail along the eastern edge of the site connecting to the Bay Trail. The project site is 204,742 square feet or 4.7 acres.The project site is currently vacant and maintained as anCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 1 of 8 powered by Legistar™211 File #:22-900 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. The project site is 204,742 square feet or 4.7 acres.The project site is currently vacant and maintained as an active construction site after relocation of some landfill material and the regrading of the remaining refuse and landfill cap and cover. Land uses in the project vicinity include a mixture of industry,warehousing,retail,offices,hotels,marinas,and bioscience research and development facilities.The area is also currently separated from most of South San Francisco’s residential uses by U.S.101 (the closest of which are about 3,500 feet to the west)though some live -aboard boats are located at the two marinas located on Oyster Point and Oyster Cove marinas in the OPSP area. The site is flanked by the existing marina to the north and the San Francisco Bay to the south.The Bay Trail extends along the southern edge of the site and connects around the end of the peninsula.To the west of the site a dedicated public open space is planned while to the east are existing commercial buildings and parking lots with access to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal.The site is a “Brownfield site”that has been regraded and capped by Kilroy Realty,the master developer of the specific plan,and is currently sitting vacant,ready for development. Proposed hotel amenities include a restaurant,lobby lounge,event ballroom,meeting rooms,fitness facilities, and roof top bar.Hotel amenities,specifically the restaurant,lounge,and roof top bar,are intended to be available to the public and provide views both north and south across the San Francisco Bay. The project site is proposed to be landscaped around the perimeter and throughout the proposed hotel building. The planting palette focuses on evergreen,dense screening trees and shrubs along the perimeter of outdoor spaces to protect against the cold winds while still providing a lush,water-wise garden aesthetic in the central program areas.When possible,materials such as permeable pavers,flag stone,decomposed granite and gabion walls will be used as part of the design vocabulary.These planting and hardscape design philosophies are seen throughout the site. BACKGROUND The Project is located within the Oyster Point Specific Plan area,an 81 acre redevelopment in South San Francisco approved in 2011.The OPSP included replacing the existing 403,212 square feet of light industrial/office space known as the Oyster Point Business Park with an up to 2,300,000 square foot office/research and development (R&D)development,improvements to the site circulation,utilities,and the landfill cap,provision of a flexible use recreation area and bay-front open space,and replacement of uses in the Oyster Point Marina area,potentially including one or two hotels with an aggregate of up to 350 rooms.The Specific Plan’s Phase One buildings (660,000 square feet)were completed in early 2022,while remaining phases are underway. The approximately 85-acre OPSP site is located about 3/4 of a mile east of U.S.101,at the eastern end (Bay side)of Oyster Point and Marina Boulevards.The OPSP is part of the City of South San Francisco’s “East of 101”planning area,the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and technological businesses.The East of 101 area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land bound by San Francisco Bay on the east side,U.S.101 and railway lines on the west,the City of Brisbane and San Francisco Bay on the north,and San Francisco International Airport on the south. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 2 of 8 powered by Legistar™212 File #:22-900 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The site is zoned Oyster Point Specific Plan and the project is consistent with the development standards established for the Oyster Point Specific Plan zoning district.While the project requires a Use Permit for the hotel reduced parking;these entitlement requests are permitted in the City’s code when a project satisfies the findings to approve the entitlements.The Findings for approval of the requested entitlements for the hotel project are supported and documented in the staff report,findings,and conditions of approval for the project. As conditioned,the proposed project is compliant with all development standards and regulations and provisions for entitlements in the City’s Municipal Code. Table 1. Development Standard Compliance Proposed Project Development Standard Minimum Lot Size 204,742 sf (4.7 acres)10,000 sf Floor Area 261,000 sf 327,587-450,432 sf Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)1.3 1.6-2.2* Height 165 ft FAA regulations Setbacks**n/a n/a Maximum Lot Coverage 27%60% *FAR Maximum Floor Area Ratio with Incentives Program (20.110.003)allows the permitted FAR of 1.6 to be increased to 2.2 (Table 20.110.003(C))based on Specified Trip Reduction Standards (See Chapter 20.400. Table 20.400.003, Transportation Demand Management) ** No setbacks are required in OPSP zone district. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan goals,policies,and implementation measures of the General Plan because the project as proposed and conditioned will minimize the effects of traffic,parking,storm water run-off,and construction dust and emissions,on adjacent land uses and properties in the project vicinity. ·Allow parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods (4.3-I-18, Transportation Element); ·Strive to maintain LOS D or better at all intersections (4.2-G-15, Transportation Element); ·Require new development pay a fair share of the cost of street and other traffic and transportation improvements (4.2-I-7, Transportation Element); ·Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking (4.3-I-7, Transportation Element) ·Methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonus for TDM programs and ensure continued maintenance of measures (4.3-I-15, Transportation Element). ·Require off-site improvements that are directly necessary as a result of development (4-35, Transportation Element) ·Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards in South San Francisco. (8.1-G-1, Safety Element) ·Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. These measures would reduce particulate emissions from construction and grading activities.(7.3-I-3, City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 3 of 8 powered by Legistar™213 File #:22-900 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. Conservation and Open Space Element) ·Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation,including bicycling,bus transit,and carpooling (7.3-G-4,Conservation and Open Space Element) REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS As required by the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC),the proposed project requires the following entitlements: ·Design Review for the proposed hotel building and site improvements; ·Use Permit for the proposed parking reduction, ·Transportation Demand Management plan for a nonresidential project resulting in more than 100 average daily trips. ·Development Agreement for business terms All signage for the proposed hotel will be applied for under separate permits. Design Review (SSFMC 20.480) The project was reviewed by the City’s Development Review Board (DRB)on May 17,2022.The DRB liked the design concept and recommended approval with conditions due to the project’s well thought out architecture and landscape design as evident in the building elevations and landscape materials.The Board commented the design is beautiful,the lighting is wonderful,and the outdoor space is well designed for wind and the SSF climate The DRB also provided input and feedback to the applicant regarding landscaping,screening service areas and parking stalls and ramps,landscaping and retaining walls.The applicant has revised the plans in response to the DRB’s comments and concerns. The proposed project was reviewed and recommended for approval to the Planning Commission by the DRB because the proposed hotel building and site improvements are consistent with the City’s applicable design guidelines, including but not limited to the following: ·The proposed hotel building includes adequate design features to create architectural interest and avoid a large-scale, bulky and “box-like” appearance. ·Long facades are broken up into smaller visual components through variations in form and texture. ·Wall planes are varied and exterior building walls vary in depth and/or direction. ·Building walls exhibit offsets,recesses,or projections with significant depth,or a repeated pattern of offsets, recesses, or projections of smaller depth. ·There is variety in height and roof forms.Building height is varied so that portions of the building have a change in height and are varied over different portions of the building through changes in the roof parapets, elevators and stairway projections. ·The building façade incorporates details such as window recesses and changes in material.The use of materials, textures, and colors enhance architectural interest and emphasize details and changes in plane. ·Some of the architectural features of the main façade are incorporated into the rear and side elevations. The hotel is designed in such a way to maximize bay views while providing protected amenity spaces from the prevailing winds.The hotel massing steps back as it raises to the higher floors,providing suite terraces and a City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 4 of 8 powered by Legistar™214 File #:22-900 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. break from the vertically on the ends. The proposed materials consist of two-tones of darker bronze and champagne bronze anodized metal panels accented through darker grey metal panels.Two different glazing tints are considered,a vision glass to pair with the bronze panels and a darker blue glazing to pair with the dark grey metal.The combination of these materials provide contrast in the massing forms and help further break up the façade of the tower.At the base of the hotel,a split face,dry stacked stone base helps break up massing and integrate it into the landscape amenities.Site walls are executed using gabion walls to prevent site settlement cracks that may occur due to the nature of the soil’s conditions. While the location and views are a premium resource,the environmental factors of harsh winds,cold climate and poor soil conditions were also taken into account by the design.To work with these conditions,the planting palette focuses on evergreen,dense screening trees and shrubs along the perimeter of outdoor spaces to protect against the cold winds while still providing a lush,water-wise garden aesthetic in the central program areas. When possible,materials such as permeable pavers,flag stone,decomposed granite and gabion walls will be used as part of the design vocabulary.These planting and hardscape design philosophies are seen throughout the site Use Permit for Reduced Parking for Airport-Oriented Hotels and Motels 20.330.006(C) For airport-oriented hotels a Use Permit may be approved for a reduced off-street parking ratio if the applicant provides substantial justification. Justification shall take into account the following factors and conditions: 1.Distance the hotel or motel is located from the airport.Airport-oriented hotels and motels are usually located no further than three miles from the San Francisco International Airport.The proposed Hotel would be located within three miles of the San Francisco International (SFO) Airport’s border. 2.Availability of airport bus and/or limousine service.The location of this hotel will be served by various airport shuttle, bus and limousine services. 3.Proximity of auto rental agencies to the site.Additional parking may be required for rental facilities on the site.Since San Francisco International Airport is located in close proximity to the hotel there are many rental car services nearby.There are approximately 6-8 car rental facilities all within less than 3 miles of the proposed hotel. 4.Availability of parking facilities adjoining the site which have peak use hours different from peak hours of the hotel or motel.In the project vicinity there is a combination of several large scale public and private surface parking lots which would have alternate parking peaks from the hotel. 5.Documentation of actual use of parking spaces at an existing and comparable facility for an extended period of time.Parking demand estimated using standard rates published by ITE in Parking Generation,5th Edition is expected to be 259 parking spaces,a deficit of 27 spaces.However,with the implementation of the TDM plan measures,discussed further in the following section,the proposed parking supply is expected to be adequate. 6.Availability of on-site meeting rooms and conference facilities.The project as proposed would provide approximately 14,300 square feet of on-site meeting rooms and conference facilities. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 5 of 8 powered by Legistar™215 File #:22-900 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. 7.Designation of additional parking spaces to allow for extended parking for guests using the airport.As proposed,the Hotel would not be providing extended parking (e.g.,for long-term airport parking).As proposed, the Hotel would not be providing extended parking (e.g.,for long-term airport parking).As proposed,the parking stalls would be solely for overnight guests and employees. 8.In determining the required number of off-street parking spaces needed for an airport-oriented hotel or motel,the Planning Commission shall include provisions for additional off-street parking spaces to serve employee needs at the rate of one-half space per employee and for related uses such as restaurants and conference/meeting rooms.As calculated the provided parking includes parking spaces to serve employee needs and any ancillary uses. As documented above, the project satisfies the conditions for reduced parking for airport oriented hotels. The project proposes a reduction in the number of required parking spaces on site and is projected to be able to meet parking demand with the implementation of the Transportation Demand Management plan and as discussed in the Parking Study. Transportation Demand Management Plan (20.400.006) A Transportation Demand Management program is required for a nonresidential project resulting in more than 100 average daily trips to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development. According to the transportation assessment,the proposed project is expected to generate an average of 2,798 trips per day, including 161 total trips during the a.m. peak hour and 207 total trips during the p.m. peak hour. The Transportation Demand Management plan for the proposed hotel outlines numerous trip reduction measures applicable to both guests and employees including but not limited to subsidized transit passes for employees encouraging uses of Caltrain,BART,SF Bay Ferry and SamTrans services,bicycle storage showers and lockers and repair,and strategies to reduce employee commutes such as carpool/vanpool ridematching, guaranteed ride home programs,and free parking for carpool/vanpools just to name a few.All of these and more trip reduction measures discussed in the project TDM plan are feasible and relevant to the operation of the proposed hotel land use and it’s guests and employees. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The Applicant and the City are negotiating a Development Agreement to clarify and obligate Project features and mitigation measures.The parties are still engaged in active negotiations and many of the deal points are still outstanding.However,all outstanding deal points relate to business terms;the parties are in agreement on the nature and density of the development.A draft of the Development is attached to the entitlements resolution. Key features of the Development Agreement where the parties are in agreement include: ·The term of the Development Agreement is ten (10) years. ·Execute and Implement an Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City providing the City and/or the Water Board with financial assurance for completion of Buyer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures. ·Developer to enter into a Transient Occupancy Tax Rebate Agreement with the City providing for 50% City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 6 of 8 powered by Legistar™216 File #:22-900 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. ·Developer to enter into a Transient Occupancy Tax Rebate Agreement with the City providing for 50% TOT rebate for fifteen years with a total TOT rebate cap of $44,530,000.If hotel exceeds profitability forecasts at time of sale, the City will receive a percentage of the sale proceeds. ·Developer commits to participate in CFD assessments up to $1 per square foot of development. ·Developer will contribute $250,000 towards the construction of a new sewer pump station. ·Developer will undertake certain ongoing mitigation and monitoring activities required due to the fact that the site is a closed landfill. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project site is within the area planned for development as a part of the 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan and associated 2011 Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2010022070).The current project is located on the eastern peninsula portion of the 85-acre OPSP area,including the area identified in the in the OPSP as the Future Hotel Site. Consistent with the OPSP and its associated EIR,a 350-room hotel is currently being proposed.The current project proposes up to 275,200 square feet of area,including approximately 12,000 square feet of restaurant space plus other amenities common for a hotel use including an entry lobby with lounge,meeting rooms, fitness facilities,roof top bar,and the associated back of house facilities to service the amenities.This total square footage also includes an additional 14,200 square feet of building space proposed as a future expansion phase to include an event ballroom and additional meeting space.The exterior space includes parking and circulation elements, landscaping, and outdoor terraces and event spaces. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168 provide that when a Programmatic EIR has been prepared and certified,later activities (such as the current project)determined by the lead agency as being within the scope of the that EIR do not require subsequent environmental review when the project meets the criteria outlined in Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines section 15183 provides that projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning policies or community plan for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review,except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. The environmental checklist prepared for the project dated October 2022 concludes that the project is within the analysis outlined in the 2011 EIR and that as applied to the project, the criteria outlined in Sections 15162 and 15168 do not necessitate preparation of an additional environmental document. The environmental checklist also demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. The checklist serves as substantial evidence that the current project is within the scope of the previous analysis and that subsequent CEQA analysis is not required for the proposed project. CONCLUSION The project,as conditioned,is compliant with the City’s Municipal Code,Development Standards and Design City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 7 of 8 powered by Legistar™217 File #:22-900 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4. The project,as conditioned,is compliant with the City’s Municipal Code,Development Standards and Design Criteria, General Plan and Oyster Point Specific Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1.Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council make findings and a determination that the 367 Marina Boulevard Oyster Point Hotel is consistent with the adopted Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR and would not necessitate the need for preparing a subsequent environmental document pursuant to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168,and is eligible for streamlining per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. 2.Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council make findings and approve the entitlements request for Project P22-0014 including Use Permit (UP22-0001),Design Review (DR22-0005), Development Agreement (DA22-0001)and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0006), subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. Attachments 1.Applicant’s Written Project Narrative 2.Applicant response to the DRB Recommendations, dated June 30, 2022 3.Public Comment from OneShoreline, dated July 5, 2022 Associated Resolutions and Exhibits to Resolutions I.CEQA Resolution (File ID# 22-902) A.Environmental Checklist, dated October 2022 B.Mitigation Monitoring Report C.2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR (available online at <https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/0/doc/270123/Page1.aspx> II.Entitlements Resolution (File ID#22-903) A.Conditions of Approval B.Project Plans, dated September 28, 2022 C.Transportation Demand Management Study, dated October 3, 2022 D.Parking Study, dated October 17, 2022 E.Transportation Assessment Memo, dated October 21, 2022 F.Draft Development Agreement, dated November 3, 2022 G.Design Review Board letter City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 8 of 8 powered by Legistar™218 Scott A. Lee, AIA, LEED AP Bruce A. Wright, AIA, LEED AP Mark S. Sopp, AIA, LEED AP Jorey S. Friedman N. Pinar Harris, AIA, LEED AP Project Description - Oyster Point Hotel Revised: June 27, 2022 Prepared by SB Architects on behalf of Ensemble Real Estate Investments 1. Introduction: Ensemble Real Estate Investments (“Applicant”) proposes to develop a full-service hotel on the peninsula of Oyster Point designated within South San Francisco specific plan (formal address yet to be assigned). The applicant seeks approval of the Precise Plan (“Entitlements”) by the end of 2022 with the intent of submitting to the building department for permit approval by the end of 2023. The project intends to service the Oyster Point developments currently under construction or planned to be built by Kilroy Reality while also providing public amenities to the broader community East of the 101 area. 2. Setting: The property is approximately 204,742 square foot parcel (4.70 acres; APN: 015-011-350) that sits on the peninsula of the Oyster Point specific plan and is dedicated for a future hotel development. The site is flanked by the existing marina to the north and the San Francisco Bay to the south. The Bay Trail extends along the southern edge of the site and connects around the end of the peninsula. To the west of the site a dedicated public open space is planned while to the east are existing commercial buildings and parking lots with access to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The site is a “Brownfield site” that has been regraded and capped by Kilroy Reality, the master developer of the specific plan, and is currently sitting vacant, ready for development. 3. Proposed Project a. Project Features The proposed project would consist of 350 hotel rooms, restaurant, lobby lounge, event ballroom, meeting rooms, fitness facilities, roof top bar and the associated back of house facilities to service the amenities. Hotel amenities, specifically the restaurant, lounge, and roof top bar, are intended to be available to the public and provide views both north and south across the San Francisco bay. A dedicated arrival for the restaurant from outside guests is currently considered adjacent to a new pedestrian connection that connects the southern Bay Trail to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. 219 In total the gross building area is approximately 254,000 square feet in habitable area and will provide a total of 207 parking spaces of which 148 will be uncovered surface parking spaces and 59 covered parking spaces (40 of which will be valet operated as a mechanically stacked system). A screened loading dock with space allocated for two dedicated service trucks is provided adjacent to the back of house facilities with access through the central parking lot. The building will be classified high-rise at 12 habitable floors with the last floor served sitting at 119ft above grade. Additional height is considered at the top of the building for mechanical equipment screening and elevator overruns that will put the overall height of the building at approximately 148 feet above grade. Landscape & Site Design Narrative Oyster Point Hotel is nestled in prime real estate along the east bay of South San Francisco city. While the location and views are a premium resource, the environmental factors of harsh winds, cold climate and poor soil conditions allow for creative design solutions. To work with these conditions, the planting palette will focus on evergreen, dense screening trees and shrubs along the perimeter of outdoor spaces to protect against the cold winds while still providing a lush, water-wise garden aesthetic in the central program areas. When possible, materials such as permeable pavers, flag stone, decomposed granite and gabion walls will be used as part of the design vocabulary. These planting and hardscape design philosophies are seen throughout the site and are key to the cohesive hotel guest experience. The start of the landscape experience begins at the main hotel entry drive flanked by specimen trees that greet you into the arrival courtyard. The courtyard features an elegant porte-cochere and outdoor living room space that transitions guest into the hotel lobby. This space can also be reached by foot from the street or the adjacent public BCDC trail to the east through the enhanced pedestrian links. To the west of the building entrance is the valet parking lot that doubles as a flexible event space with a pre-function terrace attached to the lobby. The ground plane is a combination of enhanced concrete pavers, grasscrete and turf lawn which help soften the look of the valet parking area and provide permeable surfaces for water quality control opportunities. The edges are wrapped by a mixture of pine, specimen and accent trees which protect the space from harsh winds and screen any unwanted views of the off-site facilities to the south-west. From inside the lobby, guest can look out to the south-east over the hotel’s art garden and toward the beautiful bay views. This garden area acts as a retreat for the hotel guest which includes a variety of amenities such as a breakout lawn, fire pit, spa terrace, art moments 220 and group seating clusters. The landscape design in this area is also a much more diverse and colorful California Coastal Garden Palette that features variety of flowing shrubs and plant textures. To the east of the art garden is the multi-purpose event court. This area is mostly a passive reflection space that can be set up to host a variety of events including wedding receptions, bayside garden dining, and small concerts. Views are set up along two axes orientated toward a background of either large specimen trees or open views of the bay. The ground plane is a mixture of enhanced concrete pavers, flagstone and decomposed granite which give the space a more organic, natural feel. Overall, the landscape design aims to welcome guest to experience the outdoor program as an extension of the hotel’s interior spaces. Architecture & Materiality: The hotel is positioned in such a way to maximize bay views while provided protected amenity spaces from the prevailing winds. The tower steps the massing as it raises to the higher floors, providing suite terraces and a break from the vertically on the ends. Guests arrive at an outdoor living room and are oriented on view through the transparent lobby to the bay beyond. The materiality of the tower consists of two-tones of darker bronze and champagne bronze anodized metal panels accented through darker grey metal panels. Two different glazing tints are considered, a vision glass to pair with the bronze panels and a darker blue glazing to pair with the dark grey metal. The combination of these materials provide contrast in the massing forms and help further break up the façade of the tower. As the tower lands on the site, a split face, dry stacked stone base helps receive the tower and integrate it into the landscape amenities. Site walls are executed using gabion walls to prevent site settlement cracks that may occur due to the nature of the soil’s conditions. b. Requested Approvals The applicant plans to submit the Precise Plan application by May 1, 2022 and is seeking approval of the project’s Precise Plan by the end of calendar year 2022. Pending approval of the precise plan, the Applicant intends to submit the project plans for construction permit by the end of 2023. Additional review will be submitted to the FAA for confirmation of building height with respect to the airport approach corridors. 221 c. Public Benefits The Project aims to fill the market need, providing a 4-star hotel to service the growing business developments within the Oyster Point specific plan and surrounding areas. The project will provide additional function and meeting space while being positioned at an International Audience for business travelers. The project amenities will provide an anchor for the community with its food and beverage offerings as well as gathering opportunities within the lounge and bar spaces. The hotel can further support the potential for a future ferry terminal proposed by the South San Francisco City within the marina to the north of the hotel while providing employment and career opportunities for the South San Francisco workforce. The estimated tax revenue for the city is projected at $146,349,000 over a 20-year period. 222 Scott A. Lee, AIA, LEED AP Bruce A. Wright, AIA, LEED AP Mark S. Sopp, AIA, LEED AP Jorey S. Friedman N. Pinar Harris, AIA, LEED AP Oyster Point Hotel - DRB Comment Responses June 30, 2022 Prepared by SB Architects & IMA on behalf of Ensemble Real Estate Investments Narrative documents the Design Review Board comments addressed from the Precise Plan Submittal dated 04/29/2022. Design Team responses to the Design Review Board Recommendations dated June 1, 2022 Project No: P22-0014: UP22-0001, DR22-005, DA22-0001 Please see below our corrections in response to the comments. Item No. Description Design Review Board Response Narrative 1. The Board liked the rise, terraces, porte-cochere, shape, and flow of the proposed design concept, and throughout the design was well articulated. The Board commented that the architecture and landscape design are both thoughtful as evident in the building elevations and landscaping materials. Response: • Comment noted, no response needed. 2. The Board also commented the design is beautiful, the lighting is wonderful, and the outdoor space is well designed for the wind. The Board stated the proposed project is the best design of a hotel the city has seen in many years. Response: • Comment noted, no response needed. 3. The development has an excellent outdoor space for individuals to utilized and is well planned for the wind conditions. Response: • Comment noted, no response needed. 223 4. Review the landscaping plans, as some species will not survive the SSF elements due to wind and cold issues. • Holly Oak will not work well on this site. • Coast Redwood will not survive the harsh wind. • Arbutus unedo is more of a shrub, consider using Arbutus unedo ‘Marina’, which is a successful evergreen tree in SSF. • Leyland Cypress is often a short-lived tree in the area. • Myoporum laetum are attacked by thrips and many of them died or died back severely during the last big frost. • Cistus, Rockrose will need good sandy soil, and is often short lived. • Clematus armandii vine will not take wind. Take care of the orientation if used. • Liriope suffers from snail infestations and requires additional maintenance. Response: • Quercus ilex, Sequoia sempervirens, Cupressocyparis x leylandii, Myoporum laetum, Cistus salvifolius ‘Prostratus’, Clematus armandii and Liriope spp. will all be removed from the current planting palette. • Arbutus unedo will be replaced with Arbutus unedo ‘Marina’. • The above is a condition of approval at future design phase. 5. Consider planting clusters of trees off-site on the adjacent vacant parcel and coordinate with the City to plant beyond the south edge, if possible, for a more organic look and feel rather than a strict line of trees at the perimeter of the site and parking area. Response: • Proposed trees along the perimeters on the hotel site will be laid out more informally and have irregular spacing to create an organic appearance. o Adjacent Open Space Parcel: Design Team is working with Kilroy, SSF City and BCDC to incorporate the required North/South pedestrian connection and will provide landscaping on the hotel property long side of this. Note that the latest interim design of the open space access locates a public parking lot and access to Marina Blvd. at the northeast corner of the open space and would prevent the design team from planting any cluster of trees like what has been planned adjacent to Kilroy’s Phase 1. o Northeast Hotel Parcel: Fire Lane access is being revised to provide additional planting at the northeast corner. Planting along the entire east property line may be limited due to increased width of fire lane, although the design team is working with the fire marshal for potential alternative fire access measures. 6. Consider adding ground floor solar panels. Response: • Photovoltaic/Solar panels placement are currently considered integrated as part of the roof parapet screening at the top of the hotel tower. Additional areas can be identified for solar ready locations pending additional need on lower, southern facing, roof expanses. 224 7. Screen service areas on the façade including but not limited to the trash enclosure. Response: • Gabion site walls with operated gates will screen the hotel service dock & employee parking zone. These will only be opened when vehicles arrive or leave from the service area and will be promptly closed once able. • Dedicated loading dock is provided to keep trucks screened further from the service zone. • Design will provide hedges and vines around trash enclosure, service, and MEP areas in conjunction with proposed site walls and gates for maximum screening. 8. Maintain the curved corners on the future development and building out on site to continue the nautical look and feel. Response: • Noted, future Phase 2 expansion will include rounded corner conditions, rounded shade canopies and materiality to match the current hotel design. 9. BCDC will also review and comment on the proposed project including but not limited to the lighting. Response: • Design team has coordinated with BCDC on position and design requirements of the required north/south connector trail. Revised design based on discussion held on June 15, 2022, is being prepared for distribution to BCDC. 225 July 5, 2022 City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Development Review Comments on Oyster Point Hotel (Project) April 29, 2022 Project Precise Plan Staff at the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) have reviewed the Project documents and offer the following comments: 1. So that the Project and adjacent public and private assets can function under long-term future climate-driven conditions, the Project’s stormwater conveyance infrastructure should be designed with those conditions in mind. For areas adjacent to San Francisco Bay, OneShoreline’s objective assumes six feet of sea level rise. 2. As another aspect of climate change in our area is the occurrence of infrequent, but more extreme, storm events, the Project should ensure that the first 1.25 inches of rainwater from an individual storm event remains on the Project site rather than impact adjacent properties. Please provide documentation of the Project’s stormwater storage capacity. 3. The Applicant should expect that sea level rise protection and enhancements related to trails and the environment in the Project area will be aligned with adjacent areas of the shoreline. To ensure that alignment and avoid the need to retrofit and disrupt the Project site, the Applicant should coordinate with staff of OneShoreline and the City. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input for the long-term viability and success of this important project. Sincerely, Len Materman Chief Executive Officer 226 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-902 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4a. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council determine that the environmental effects of the proposed Oyster Point Hotel at 367 Marina Boulevard in the Oyster Point Specific Plan Area is consistent with the adopted Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR and would not necessitate the need for preparing a subsequent environmental document pursuant to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168, and is eligible for streamlining per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. WHEREAS,Oyster Point Holdco,LLC (“Applicant”)has proposed construction of an approximately 261,00 square foot hotel.An additional 14,200 square feet of building space is anticipated as a future expansion phase to include an event ballroom and additional meeting space for a total square footage of 275,200 at 367 Marina Boulevard (“Project Site”); and WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the Oyster Point Specific Plan (OPSP) zoning district; and WHEREAS,the applicant seeks approval of a Design Review (DR22-0005),Use Permit (UP22-0001), Development Agreement (DA22-0001)and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0006)for the Project; and WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,the City Council approved the Oyster Point Specific Plan in 2011,which articulates the vision for growth and development throughout Oyster Point; and WHEREAS,the City Council certified the Oyster Point Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)in March,2011 (State Clearinghouse number 2010022070)in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of Oyster Point; and WHEREAS,the City and applicant prepared an environmental checklist for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4).Such environmental checklist concluded that per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and CEQA Guidelines 15162,the Project is within the scope of the Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR and development of the Project does not require the preparation of an additional environmental document; and WHEREAS,CEQA Guidelines section 15183 provides that projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning policies or community plan for which an EIR was certified shall not require City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™227 File #:22-902 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4a. established by existing zoning policies or community plan for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review,except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site.The environmental checklist also demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 as there are no project- specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. WHEREAS,on November 3,2022,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all reports, recommendations, and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.) (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000,et seq.);the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the Oyster Point Specific Plan,and the Oyster Point Specific Plan Program EIR;the Oyster Point Hotel Environmental Checklist,all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed November 3,2022 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code Sections 21080(e)and 21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.Exhibit A attached to this Resolution,The Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist, is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner, Tony Rozzi. B.CEQA Findings 1.For the reasons stated in this Resolution,there is not substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that approval of the Project will result,as contemplated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162,in significant environmental effects beyond those adequately evaluated and addressed by the Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR nor are there new or alternative mitigation measures that the applicant declines to impose.Therefore,the Project is within the scope of the City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™228 File #:22-902 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4a. measures that the applicant declines to impose.Therefore,the Project is within the scope of the Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR and may be used for this later activity pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because the Project is a subsequent project within the scope of the Project Description as analyzed in the Program EIR for the 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan.All applicable regulations and mitigation measures (Exhibit B)identified in the 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR will be applied to the Project or otherwise made conditions of approval of the Project. 2.For the reasons stated in this Resolution,the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning,community plan,or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified and therefore,the Project does not require additional environmental review,except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.The environmental checklist demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION 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 make a determination that the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed under the 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR (EIR)pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168 and no additional environmental review is required.The environmental checklist also demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ******* City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™229 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN EIR SCH# 2010022070 Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 Prepared By: Lamphier–Gregory, Inc. 4100 Redwood Road Ste 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 October 2022 230 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page i Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ i I. Project Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 1 II. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 2 III. Background, Purpose, and Organization ............................................................................ 3 IV. Project Description ............................................................................................................ 6 V. Summary of CEQA Findings .............................................................................................. 22 VI. Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................. 23 A. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 24 B. Agricultural and Forest Resources ...................................................................................... 26 C. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 27 D. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 31 E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 35 F. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 36 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 39 H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire ................................................................. 42 I. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................... 46 J. Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 49 K. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................... 50 L. Noise .................................................................................................................................... 51 M. Population & Housing ........................................................................................................ 53 N. Public Services & Recreation .............................................................................................. 54 O. Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................................... 55 P. Utilities and Service Systems and Energy ............................................................................ 58 Attachments A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program B: Fehr & Peers Transportation Assessment 231 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 1 I. Project Characteristics 1. Project Title: Oyster Point Hotel 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: Christy Usher, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco, Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083‐0711 Phone: 650‐829‐6633 4. Project Location: 367 Marina Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA Assessor’s Parcel Number: 015‐011‐350 5. Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses: Oyster Point Holdco, LLC Contact: Randy McPherson 444 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: 602‐327‐1305 rmcpherson@ensemble.net 6. Existing General Plan Designations: Coastal Commercial 7. Existing Zoning: Oyster Point Specific Plan District (OPSPD) 8. Requested Approvals: Precise Plan Approval 232 Page 2 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist II. Executive Summary The project site is within the area planned for development as a part of the 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan and associated 2011 Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2010022070). The current project is located on the eastern peninsula portion of the 85‐acre OPSP area, including the area identified in the in the OPSP as the Future Hotel Site. Consistent with the OPSP and its associated EIR, a 350‐room hotel is currently being proposed. The current project proposes up to 275,200 square feet of area, including approximately 12,000 square feet of restaurant space plus other amenities common for a hotel use including an entry lobby with lounge, meeting rooms, fitness facilities, roof top bar, and the associated back of house facilities to service the amenities. This total square footage also includes an additional 14,200 square feet of building space proposed as a future expansion phase to include an event ballroom and additional meeting space. The exterior space includes parking and circulation elements, landscaping, and outdoor terraces and event spaces. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168 provides that when a Programmatic EIR has been prepared and certified, later activities (such as the proposed project) determined by the lead agency as being within the scope of the that EIR do not require subsequent environmental review, unless the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 triggering subsequent environmental review are met. This document serves as substantial evidence that the proposed project is within the scope of the OPSP EIR and that subsequent environmental review is not required since the project would not have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, and no substantial changes or new information has arisen that would result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. This document also examines the proposed project’s consistency with the OPSP EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which allows for streamlining the environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. 233 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 3 III. Background, Purpose, and Organization Background The project site is within the 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan (OPSP) area. The OPSP was originally approved in March 2011, together with amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20.230), and the associated EIR was certified (2011 EIR). The OPSP included replacing the existing 403,212 square feet of light industrial/office space known as the Oyster Point Business Park with an up to 2,300,000 square foot office/research and development (R&D) development, improvements to the site circulation, utilities, and the landfill cap, provision of a flexible use recreation area and bay‐front open space, and replacement of uses in the Oyster Point Marina area, potentially including one or two hotels with an aggregate of up to 350 rooms. The OPSP, being a specific plan, was analyzed in the 2011 EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2010022070) as a whole on a programmatic level. The 2011 EIR additionally analyzed the Phase 1 development on a project level, as project‐level details were proposed for that phase at the time. Development of office/R&D in the Phase 1 area, including refuse relocation and regrading of this hotel site, consistent with the 2011 EIR has previously been approved and was completing construction at the time of this report. The 2011 EIR for the OPSP 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: http://weblink.ssf.net under Planning Division/Environmental Reports/Oyster Point Specific Plan. Purpose This Environmental Checklist examines the environmental effects of the proposed project to determine whether the proposed project is within the scope of the 2011 EIR for the OPSP or whether further environmental review is required. This document has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of South San Francisco. CEQA Guidelines section 15168 provides that later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared and specifies how a program EIR is used with those later activities. (1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152. (2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the 234 Page 4 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR. (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program. (4) Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR. (5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed project description and analysis of the program, many later activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. CEQA Guidelines section 15183 provides that projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning policies or community plan for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project‐ specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. In such cases, the City must limit its examination of environmental effects to those that the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: (1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off‐site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. Notably, If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an EIR is not required. This Environmental Checklist demonstrates that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 or 15168 have occurred because as proposed, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than what was analyzed in the 2011 EIR; therefore, no further environmental review is required. This Environmental Checklist also demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA 235 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 5 Guidelines section 15183 as there are no project‐specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Organization Section I, Project Characteristics presents a quick reference of the project details. Section II, Executive Summary includes a summary of conclusions of this document. Section III, Purpose and Organization (this section). Section IV, Project Description details the proposed project. Section V, Summary of CEQA Findings explains the findings of this document. Section VI, Environmental Checklist details the potential environmental impacts of the project, including the impact findings of the 2011 EIR and relevant Mitigation Measures (MMs) and explains whether the current project would cause new or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the 2011 EIR. Attachment A includes full text of the MMs applicable to the current project in the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 236 Page 6 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist IV. Project Description Project Site and Vicinity The approximately 85‐acre OPSP site is located about 3/4 of a mile east of U.S. 101, at the eastern end (Bay side) of Oyster Point and Marina Boulevards. The OPSP is part of the City of South San Francisco’s “East of 101” planning area, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and technological businesses. The East of 101 area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land bound by San Francisco Bay on the east side, U.S. 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane and San Francisco Bay 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 also currently separated from most of South San Francisco’s residential uses by U.S. 101 (the closest of which are about 3,500 feet to the west) though some live‐aboard boats are permitted at the two marinas located on Oyster Point and Oyster Cove marinas in the OPSP area. The currently proposed project consists of one 4.7‐acre parcel on the eastern peninsula of the 85‐ acre OPSP area, including the area identified in the OSPS as the Future Hotel Site (APN 015‐011‐ 350). The project site is flanked by the existing marina to the north and the San Francisco Bay to the south. The Bay Trail extends along the eastern and southern edges of the site. Existing commercial buildings and parking lots with access to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal are located to the east. While currently vacant following recent landfill debris relocation and recapping/covering, a dedicated public open space is planned to the west between the project site and the Phase 1 office/R&D development under construction during preparation of this document. The location of the current project is shown in Figure 1. The project site is currently vacant and maintained as an active construction site after relocation of some landfill material and the regrading of the remaining refuse and landfill cap and cover. While there had been existing buildings partially located at this site that were mentioned in the 2011 EIR, these were previously removed as part of the prior activities at the site. Proposed Project Figures follow the descriptive text showing the project site plan (Figure 2), site programming (Figure 3), grading and drainage (Figure 4), floor plans (Figures 5 through 10), and elevations (Figures 11 through 14). The OPSP originally envisioned demolition of the existing building and construction of one or two hotels with a total of no more than 350 rooms plus up to 40,000 square feet of restaurant/retail uses. In that same general area, the current project proposes preparation of the site for development by adding approximately 9 feet of fill on top of the landfill cap followed by the construction of one 350 room hotel. In addition to hotel rooms and related circulation and support, this square footage includes about 12,000 square feet of restaurant space plus other amenities common for a hotel use including an entry lobby with lounge, meeting rooms, fitness facilities, roof top bar, and the associated back of house facilities to service the amenities. 237 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 7 The exterior space includes parking and circulation elements, landscaping, and outdoor terraces and event spaces. The above proposal totals approximately 261,000 square feet. An additional 14,200 square feet of building space is proposed as a future expansion phase to include an event ballroom and additional meeting space for a total square footage of 275,200. Consistent with existing hotels in the vicinity, the project would be anticipated to primarily serve nearby business and the San Francisco International Airport. Building Height and Massing The proposed project would be 12 stories tall, reaching a height of 119 feet above grade, with allowable rooftop equipment and projections reaching a height of approximately 146 feet above grade (165 feet above sea level). The proposed building footprint is 43,043 square feet, which would be expanded to 56,631 with the proposed future ballroom expansion, equating to about 28% of the site. Access and Circulation Vehicular Access: The project proposes three vehicular driveways along Marina Boulevard and a fourth connection that would act as a fire and service lane. Bicycle & Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian links are proposed between the hotel and Marina Boulevard and the Bay Trail, which is located adjacent to the east of the project site. Transit Facilities & Network Configuration: Except for the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal, the project site is not within walking distance of regional transit service, such as Caltrain and BART. Access to these services are provided by feeder shuttles operated by Commute.org. Currently, three commute.org shuttle routes provide service along and to the northern end of Oyster Point Boulevard and connect the project site with the South San Francisco BART and Caltrain stations and the South San Francisco Ferry terminal. During the weekday AM and PM peak period, each shuttle route operates on approximately 30‐minute headways in the peak direction and are timed to connect with arriving or departing ferries and Caltrain service. Service is limited to weekday commute periods and directions. Parking: Approximately 232 vehicle parking spaces would be provided, including 29 tandem spaces and 33 valet spaces. Parking for 35 bikes is proposed, including 10 for employees and 25 public spaces. A screened loading dock and yard with space allocated for two dedicated service trucks would be provided adjacent to the back of house facilities with access through the central parking lot. 238 Page 8 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Figure 1: Project Location Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 239 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 9 Figure 2: Site Plan Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 240 Page 10 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Figure 3: Site Programming Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 241 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 11 Figure 4: Preliminary Grading and Drainage Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 242 Page 12 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Figure 5: Floor Plan, Ground Floor Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 243 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 13 Figure 6: Floor Plan, Floor 2 Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 (see Legend on Figure 5) 244 Page 14 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Figure 7: Floor Plan, Floor 3 Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 (see Legend on Figure 5) 245 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 15 Figure 8: Floor Plan, Floors 4 through 7 (these floors would have substantially similar floor plans) Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 (see Legend on Figure 5) 246 Page 16 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Figure 9: Floor Plan, Floors 9 through 11 (these floors would have substantially similar floor plans) Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 (see Legend on Figure 5) 247 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 17 Figure 10: Floor Plan, Floor 12 Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 (see Legend on Figure 5) 248 Page 18 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Figure 11: Building Elevation, North Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 249 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 19 Figure 12: Building Elevation, South Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 (see Legend on Figure 11) 250 Page 20 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Figure 13: Building Elevation, East Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 (see Legend on Figure 11) 251 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 21 Figure 14: Building Elevation, West Source: SB Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 9/28/22 (see Legend on Figure 11) 252 Page 22 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist V. Summary of CEQA Findings Given the substantial evidence included in this document and attachments and the 2011 EIR for the OPSP, the current project would not require subsequent analysis to the 2011 EIR per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, as confirmed by the following statements: (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; or (3) There is no new information resulting in a new significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or a change in the feasibility (or acceptance) of mitigation measures. While specific details of the hotel development within the OPSP area have now been proposed, this assessment has determined that no further documentation is required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The 2011 EIR for the OPSP continues to serve as the applicable environmental review document pursuant to the requirements of CEQA for approval of the current project. 253 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 23 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This Environmental Checklist compares potential environmental impacts of the project to the findings of the 2011 EIR, notes whether the project would result in new significant impacts or impacts substantially greater or more severe than those previously identified in the 2011 EIR, and includes an explanation substantiating the findings for each topic. It uses the abbreviation SU for significant and unavoidable, 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 2011 EIR. The checklist also lists applicable mitigation measures from the 2011 EIR. 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 OPSP is available in the OPSP Draft and Final EIR 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 Division/Environmental Reports/Oyster Point Specific Plan. When a dash (‐‐) appears in the checklist below, it means that the OPSP EIR did not identify any MMs related to that environmental impact. N/A appears when an MM was identified but it does not apply to the current project (e.g., the project characteristics do not meet the criteria specified in the MM). As discussed below, the proposed project was designed to be in general compliance with the development, design, and performance standards of the OPSP, and the project is therefore consistent with the 2011 EIR. There is no evidence of substantial changes to the circumstances under which impacts were analyzed in the 2011 EIR, and no evidence of 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 2011 EIR was certified, that would show a new or more severe significant impact resulting from the project relative to the analysis included in the 2011 EIR. 254 Page 24 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist A. Aesthetics Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR 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 NI ☒ ☐ ‐‐ NI d. Light or Glare LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ MM Vis‐2a: Lighting Plan MM Vis‐2b: Glare Reduction LTS w/ MM Discussion Aesthetic Changes from the 2011 EIR Consistent with the OPSP, the existing building previously located on the project site has already been demolished as part of prior activities at the site. Visual models and renderings of the proposed development can be seen in Figures 3 through 5. The full description of the proposed changes can be found in Section IV: Project Description and was used to assess aesthetic impacts. The proposed changes can be summarized as follows: The 2011 EIR did not have any details about a proposed hotel design, other than the OPSP allowing for 1 or 2 hotels with a maximum of 350 rooms. The 2011 EIR included a possible hotel project in the visual modeling, which included a lower height (75 feet compared to the proposed height of 119 feet) and a larger footprint than currently proposed. This visual modeling was conducted for demonstrative purposes prior to details being available and was not intended to represent constraints on the actual development. The 2011 EIR noted that actual heights would be restricted only to those allowable under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, which this project would be required to be in compliance with. Scenic Vistas Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Vis‐1 or 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 2011 EIR despite revisions to the height of the building. While both the San Francisco Bay and San Bruno Mountains are visible from portions of the site and surrounding area, there are no designated public viewpoints for scenic vistas. The topography of the area and existing development already fully or partially blocks views from U.S. 101 and surrounding development. The conclusion of less‐than‐significant in regard to scenic vistas would remain the same even with the taller building proposed with the current project. 255 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 25 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 2011 EIR. Visual Character Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no adverse impact conclusion as commercial development consistent with applicable design criteria is not 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, industrial, and hotel buildings, with differing amounts of associated landscaping. Development of the current project would involve new construction of a modern building with a high‐quality design including private and public landscaping and pedestrian improvements. While the height would substantially increase over the existing vacant conditions, the proposed conditions are within that allowed under the zoning and consistent with other development in the East of 101 area. Therefore, consistent with conclusions of the 2011 EIR, while the site would look different following construction, the construction of a modern building meeting or exceeding the City’s design criteria would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Light and Glare Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Vis‐2, mitigation measures Vis‐2a and Vis‐2b, or the less‐than‐significant with mitigation conclusion as the proposed lighting levels and potential for light and glare would be substantially the same as under the 2011 EIR. While the development proposed with the current project has different specific building massing and location than that included in the visual model for the 2011 EIR, as specified in the 2011 EIR, the project will be required to adhere to a lighting plan (mitigation measure Vis‐2a) and incorporate exterior surfaces intended to reduce glare (mitigation measure Vis‐2b). The potential for light and glare impacts would remain substantially the same as under the 2011 EIR, and therefore the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to light and glare than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 256 Page 26 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist B. Agricultural and Forest Resources Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR 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. 257 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 27 C. Air Quality Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Conflict with Air Quality Plan SU w/MM ☒ ☐ MM Traf‐1: Transportation Demand Management Plan LTS w/MM b. Criteria Air Pollutants LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ MM AIR‐4a: Implement BAAQMD‐ Recommended Measures to Control Particulate Matter Emissions during Construction MM Traf‐1: Transportation Demand Management Plan LTS w/MM c. Sensitive Receptors LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ MM AIR‐4a: Implement BAAQMD‐ Recommended Measures to Control Particulate Matter Emissions during Construction LTS w/ MM d. Odors LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ LTS Discussion Air Quality Setting Changes from the 2011 EIR Since the 2011 EIR, 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 2011 EIR was being prepared as the 1999 BAAQMD Guidelines were being updated for the 2010 draft and the 2011 EIR compared the OPSP to both thresholds. The latest draft of the BAAQMD guidelines was issued in May 2017 and includes thresholds consistent with the 2010 draft BAAQMD Guidelines assessed in the 2011 EIR. Since the 2011 EIR, the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan updated the 2010 Clean Air Plan utilized in the 2011 EIR assessment. The latest update to the Clean Air Plan revises the way in which projects are assessed for consistency and no longer considers the ratio of population increase to vehicle use of a project to be a consistency factor. Conflict with Air Quality Plan Less Significant Conclusion (SU reduced to LTS w/ MM): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information related to the applicable air quality plans, or the less‐than‐significant with mitigation conclusion as the potential impacts would be substantially the same as under the 2011 EIR. In addition, the Clean Air Plan has been updated since the 2011 EIR and now includes different standards with which to assess a project; while no further analysis is required by CEQA, consistency with the updated Clean Air Plan is nonetheless evaluated for informational purposes below. Mitigation measure Traf‐1, requiring implementation of TDM plans, remains applicable and unchanged from the 2011 EIR and would apply to the project. The significant and unavoidable impact in the 2011 EIR was based on the previous Clean Air Plan’s requirement to consider the relative increase in population and vehicle use. This is no longer a threshold in the current Clean Air Plan. Under the current Clean Air Plan, a project’s impact would be significant if 258 Page 28 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist the project would conflict with or obstruct attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures. The primary goals of the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan are: • Attain all state and national air quality standards • Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air contaminants • Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. [This standard is addressed in Section G: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.] The current project would be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations related to emissions and health risk and would not result in a new substantial source of emissions or toxic air contaminants or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. Many of the Bay Area 2017 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 project. However, the current project is 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). The required TDM plans (MM Traf‐1) will contribute to trip reduction programs (Transportation Control Measure TR2), and improving access/connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians (Transportation Control Measure TR9). Therefore, the project does not conflict with applicable control measures, is generally consistent with the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan, and would not create any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. The project would also be subject to mitigation measure Traf‐1 requiring TDM plans for development, which would require trip reductions that would also reduce resultant emissions. Criteria Air Pollutants Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Air‐4 and the less‐than‐significant with mitigation conclusion related to construction‐period impacts or Impact Air‐5 and the less‐than‐significant with mitigation conclusion related to operational‐period impacts. Mitigation measure Air‐4b relates to refuse relocation, which has already been completed on the project site, and is therefore not applicable. As noted in the 2011 EIR, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of fugitive dust, criteria pollutants, and diesel exhaust particulate matter generated by grading, hauling, and other construction related activities. Construction emissions from redevelopment were quantified based on overall areas and building square footages and were found to be below thresholds levels with implementation of applicable controls detailed in MM Air‐4a. (MM Air‐4b relates to refuse relocation from the Phase 1 site, which has already occurred on the project site and is not a part of the current project.) As noted in the 2011 EIR, development of the OPSP would generate operational emissions from vehicle emissions and building/site operation and maintenance. Operational emissions were quantified and 259 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 29 found to be below applicable threshold levels. While not discussed in the 2011 EIR, MM Traf‐1 would further reduce this less‐than‐significant impact by reducing vehicle trips and related emissions. For these reasons, the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Sensitive Receptors Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Air‐4 and the less‐than‐significant with mitigation conclusion related to construction‐period health risk. As has become standard practice for construction projects with nearby receptors, mitigation measure Air‐4c would be added to further reduce construction‐period health risk. The current project would not introduce new sensitive receptors such as a daycare facility, which would negate the need for mitigation measure Air‐2. Regarding Impact Air‐2 and operational‐period emissions, the 2011 EIR concluded that while the increased traffic and generators would contribute to area health risks, the contribution would be less‐ than‐significant. The 2011 EIR also concluded that any proposed new sensitive uses (such as if Day Care Facilities were proposed as uses ancillary to office/R&D developments) would need to implement Air‐2 requiring a site‐specific health risk assessment and implementation of any necessary measures to reduce toxic air contaminant exposures. A hotel use is not considered to be a sensitive receptor, so mitigation measure Air‐2 would not be applicable to the current project. Regarding construction‐period health risk, the 2011 EIR concluded that with implementation of applicable construction‐period emissions controls identified in MM Air‐4a (and MM Air‐4b which applied only to refuse relocation activities on the Phase 1 site that are not applicable to the current project), the impact of the project would be less‐than‐significant. The project would comply with MM Air‐4a and would therefore not create any new or substantially more severe impacts related to construction emission impacts on sensitive receptors. In addition, as a best practice, the applicant is committing to further reduce construction emissions by utilizing construction equipment with engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Final off‐road emission standards. This voluntary improvement measure will be memorialized as a condition of approval. Improvement Measure: Construction Equipment Standards and Construction Emissions Minimization Plan. All off‐road construction equipment greater than 25 horsepower shall have engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Final off‐road emission standards. If a particular piece of off‐road equipment that meets these standards is technically not feasible; the equipment would not produce desired emissions reduction due to expected operating modes; installation of the equipment would create a safety hazard or impaired visibility for the operator; or, there is a compelling emergency need to use off‐road equipment that does not meet these standards, the Contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off‐road equipment (i.e., Tier 3 Engine with Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS), Tier 3 Engine with Level 2 VDECS, Tier 3 Engine with alternative fuel), and the Contactor shall develop a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (CEMP) to describe the process used to identify the next cleanest piece of off‐road equipment and the steps that will be taken to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants to the greatest extent practicable. The CEMP shall be submitted the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to using the equipment. 260 Page 30 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Odors Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Air‐3 and the less‐than‐significant conclusion related to odors. As noted in the 2011 EIR, hotel uses are not the types of uses that generate frequent or substantial odors and the impact related to odors would be less than significant. Odors from construction activities would be transient and temporary in nature and also less‐than‐significant; therefore, the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 261 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 31 D. Biological Resources Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Special‐Status Species LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Bio‐6: Pre‐Construction Nesting Bird Survey LTS w/MM b. Riparian/Sensitive Habitat LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ LTS c. Wetlands LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Bio‐3a: Incorporate Best Management Practices for Water Quality During Construction Bio‐3b: Minimize Soil Disturbance Adjacent to Wetland and Marsh Habitat Bio‐4: Ensure Adequate Stormwater Run‐off Capacity LTS w/MM d. Wildlife Corridors/ Nursery Sites LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Bio‐10a: Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts to Birds Bio‐10b: Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk LTS w/MM e. Conflict with Local Biological Policies LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ LTS f. Conflict with Adopted Conservation Plans NI ☒ ☐ ‐‐ NI Discussion Biological Resources Setting Changes from the 2011 EIR The 2011 EIR identified the following categories of biotic habitat/land use on the current project site: Developed/Landscaped: Comprised of hardscaped roads, buildings, parking lot surfaces, paved trail surfaces, ornamental, and landscaped areas (typically irrigated with a mulch base), and irrigated turf, developed/landscaped area provide low or very low suitability for special status species or habitat. This land use occurs over the totality of the current project area. California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub: Approximately 18.90 ac of the OPSP area are dominated by California annual grassland/coyote brush scrub. These areas vary in composition based on water availability and soil characteristics. Non‐native annual grass species are dominant throughout the annual grassland. Native purple needlegrass, (Nassella pulchra) is becoming established south of Marina Boulevard near the road along with herbaceous species such as birds‐ foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), flax (Linum sp.), and blue eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum). However, this patch of native grass is too small to be distinguished as a separate habitat type. Some shrubs such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and big saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis) have become established along the slopes above the estuarine canal south of Marina Boulevard. 262 Page 32 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist The grassland and scrubby habitats within the Project boundaries host a variety of common invertebrates, which in turn provide food for widespread reptiles and for a number of bird and mammal species. A western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and a Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya) were observed foraging at the southwestern corner of the OPSP area. Although other grassland‐ associated species occur in the Project vicinity and may forage in the OPSP area on occasion, this patch of grassland is likely too small to support nesting pairs of these species. Small mammals and mesocarnivores including house mice, striped skunks, and raccoons may forage in these habitats, and several valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows were observed in the grassland in the southwestern corner of the OPSP area. Since the 2011 EIR, the project site has undergone identified Phase 1 activities including landfill refuse relocation and recapping and regrading across the entire project site. The site would currently be considered an active construction site that was recently fully disturbed and that does not therefore have the potential to contain significant biological resources. Special‐Status Species Same Conclusion or Less than Significant Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM for some species and LTS for others or is reduced from LTS w/ MM to LTS): The current project would not change Impact Bio‐6, mitigation measure Bio‐6, or the less‐than‐significant with mitigation conclusion related to nesting birds. The current project would also not change Impacts Bio‐8 and Bio‐9 and the significance conclusions of less‐than‐significant in relation to indirect impacts on special‐status species through recreational disturbance and increased lighting. These impacts and conclusions remain substantially the same as under the 2011 EIR, as the current project would disturb the same area, involve substantially the same intensity of development, and would not therefore result in any new or substantially more severe impacts. Impact Bio‐7 and mitigation measures Bio‐7a, Bio‐7b, and Bio‐7c relate to burrowing owl, which would not be likely to be present on the project site due to its status as a currently active construction site and landfill cap and cover and therefore would now be reduced to a less‐than‐significant conclusion rather than requiring mitigation. Consistent with conclusions in the 2011 EIR, some special‐status bird species could potentially nest in or adjacent to the project area but are not expected to be significantly impacted by the OPSP. These species include the white‐tailed kite and loggerhead shrike, for which there is a very low probability of nesting, as well as the San Francisco common yellowthroat, Alameda song sparrow, and Bryant’s savannah sparrow, which have a somewhat higher probability of nesting in wetland vegetation at the nearby bay margins. The loss of any active nests due to construction noise and activity of protected birds would be in violation of federal and state laws so would require pre‐construction surveys and buffers if necessary (Bio‐6), which has not substantially changed since the 2011 EIR. The project could increase area light levels and recreational usage of the area, which could disturb sensitive species. However, consistent with conclusions of the 2011 EIR, substantial urban lighting levels and human activity already occurs in the area and the potential impact of increased recreational activity and increased light levels consistent with City requirements would be less‐than‐significant. Burrowing owls occur at scattered locations throughout the South San Francisco Bay Area where low grasslands and ruderal habitats support ground squirrel colonies. There is no grassland habitat on the current project site, which is an active construction site and landfill cap and cover. Therefore, there would not be the potential for a significant impact to burrowing owls due to development of the project site and mitigation measures Bio‐7a through Bio‐7c would not be applicable to the current project. 263 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 33 For these reasons, the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Riparian/Sensitive Habitat Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Bio‐1 or Bio‐5 or the less‐than‐significant conclusion as the loss of common terrestrial habitats and habitat for non‐ breeding special‐status wildlife species remains substantially the same as under the 2011 EIR. As noted in the 2011 EIR, the OPSP site does not contain riparian habitat. Wetland/aquatic and related habitat is discussed under the Wetland and Aquatic Habitat topic below. Development of the project site involves already disturbed areas which would not represent a biological impact. This project site is an active construction site that has been recently and fully disturbed by landfill refuse relocation and recapping and therefore does not represent a sensitive, valuable (from the perspective of providing important wildlife habitat), or exemplary habitat type, and so the loss of potential nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities at the site is considered a less‐than‐significant impact consistent with the analysis in the 2011 EIR. The project would not therefore create new or substantially more severe impacts on riparian or sensitive habitat than previously the analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Wetlands or Aquatic Habitats Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Bio‐3 and Bio‐4, mitigation measures Bio‐3a and ‐3b and ‐4, and the significance conclusions of less‐than‐ significant with mitigation as the potential for indirect impact of nearby wetland and aquatic habitat remains substantially the same as under the 2011 EIR. Impact Bio‐2 and mitigation measures Bio‐2a through Bio‐2d would not apply to this project as there are no shoreline improvements involved. Impacts Bio‐12, Bio‐13, Bio‐14, Bio‐15 and associated mitigation measures Bio‐12, Bio‐13a and b, Bio‐14a through c, and Bio‐15a through c are related to in‐water construction are not applicable to the current project because no in‐water construction is proposed. Development occurring throughout the site will be in close proximity to, and upslope from, sensitive aquatic habitats. There is thus some potential for operational and construction‐related runoff to have indirect effects on these habitats and on water quality in adjacent aquatic habitats. Mitigation measures to reduce these potential impacts to less‐than‐significant levels (mitigation measures Bio‐3a and ‐3b and ‐4) as previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR would apply to the proposed project. The project would not therefore create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Wildlife Corridors/Nursery Sites Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Bio‐10, mitigation measures Bio‐10a and Bio‐10b, or the less‐than‐significant with mitigation conclusion as with mitigation requiring appropriate design to minimize bird strikes, impacts and conclusions would be substantially the same as under the 2011 EIR. As noted in the 2011 EIR, the OPSP area is located along the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds, and the juxtaposition of wetland, shoreline, and open water habitats used by birds results in large‐scale movements of birds along the edge of San Francisco Bay, both during long‐distance movements (such as migration) and during daily movements between roosting and foraging habitats. 264 Page 34 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Within the current project site and as previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR, there is some potential for birds to collide during daytime and nocturnal flights with structures such as windows of proposed buildings. Although proposed buildings are likely to be at a lower height than most migrating birds will be flying, the 2011 EIR explained that the OPSP would create potential bird strike hazards at elevations that do not currently exist, and depending on the design of the buildings there is some potential for such mortality to occur in the absence of mitigation measures. The project would comply with MM Bio‐10a and Bio‐10b and would not therefore have any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. For informational purposes, while industry‐standards for how to reduce the potential for bird strikes have evolved since the 2011 EIR, the examples included in the measures are not proscriptive and allow for implementing measures to current standards. Conflict with Local Policies or Conservation Plans Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Bio‐11 and the less‐than‐significant conclusion as there are no conservation plans that cover the site and there are no protected trees in the current project site, which is unchanged from the 2011 EIR. 265 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 35 E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a‐e. Historical Resources, Archaeological, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources and Human Remains LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ N/A LTS Discussion Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Setting Changes from the 2011 EIR There have been no changes to the cultural and tribal cultural resources environmental setting of the project site. Since the 2011 EIR, 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 2011 EIR considered tribal cultural resources as part of the cultural resources analysis, so they are discussed here. As the current project is being built over capped landfill debris and does not have the potential to disturb native soil, no additional record searches or tribal contacts were made for this project. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources and Human Remains Less Significant Conclusion (LTS w/ MM reduced to LTS): The current project would not change the less‐ than‐significant conclusion as the site is entirely over capped landfill. As under the 2011 EIR, the project site is located over a capped landfill site. Construction activities are not expected to disturb native soils. As noted in the 2011 EIR, there are no known historic resources in the OPSP area 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. With adherence to applicable regulations and the low chance of disturbing native soils on the project site, impacts related to accidental discovery of cultural/tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 266 Page 36 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist F. Geology and Soils Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Seismic Hazards LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ Geo‐2a: Compliance with California Building Code Geo‐2b: Compliance with a design‐ level Geotechnical Investigation and with Structural Design Plans Geo‐2c: Obtain a Building Permit Geo‐3a: Compliance with a design‐ level Geotechnical Investigation and with Structural Design Plans Geo‐3b: Obtain a Building Permit Geo‐4: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation LTS w/ MM b. Soil Erosion LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Geo‐14: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan LTS w/MM c. Unstable Soil LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ Geo‐5a: Deep Foundations Geo‐5b: Predrilling and/or Pile Configuration Geo‐5c: Indicator Pile Program Geo‐6: Account for Drag Load on Deep Foundations Geo‐7: Incorporate Systems for Landfill Gas Control Geo‐8a: Avoid Significant New Loads on Landfill Waste and Bay Mud Geo‐8b: Design Building‐Soil Interface to Allow Free Movement Geo‐9a: Monitoring and Testing Geo‐9b: Locate Underground Utilities in Soil Cap Geo‐9c: Seal Trenches and Underground Structures Geo‐10: Provide For Continuity of Landfill Cap Geo‐11: Common Trenches and Vaults Geo‐12: Flexible Materials and Joints Geo‐13: Increase Flow Gradient LTS w/ MM d. Expansive Soil LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ LTS e. Septic Tanks NI ☒ ☐ ‐‐ NI f. Geologic Features 1 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 2011 EIR. 267 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 37 Discussion Geology and Soils Setting Changes from the 2011 EIR Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. prepared an updated Geotechnical Investigation, dated October 19, 2017, which is available as part of the project application on file with the City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department. Refuse materials from the nearby Phase 1 office site were removed as a part of that development and relocated to the project site and surroundings. Refuse that could be reused was utilized as the foundation layer, as well as the former cap material that was removed in the excavation. Additional fill was imported from off‐site for the clay cap and erosion protection layers. 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 2011 EIR. Seismic Hazards Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Geo‐2 through Geo‐4, mitigation measures Geo‐2a through Geo‐4, 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 2011 EIR. 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 2011 EIR. Consistent with conclusions in the 2011 EIR, while there are no known faults at the project site, the region 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 as detailed in the mitigation measures (Geo‐2a through Geo‐4). The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Soil Erosion Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Geo‐ 14, mitigation measure Geo‐14, 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 2011 EIR. While the site has been graded and the previous structures have been demolished, there will still be soil movement for landscaping, paving, and other construction activities requiring mitigation, which is addressed by mitigation measures Geo‐14. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Unstable 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‐5a through Geo‐6, or the less‐than‐significant with mitigation conclusion as the need to account for variable subsurface conditions and potential for settling have not changed since the 2011 EIR. The current project would also not change the no impact conclusion related to landslides as the lack of potential for landslides at the site has not changed since the 2011 EIR. 2011 EIR impacts Geo‐7 through Geo‐13 and associated mitigation measures Geo‐7 through Geo‐13 are related to construction in landfill areas and are applicable to the current project site as well. 2011 EIR impact Geo‐16 and associated mitigation measure are related to Crescent Park and Beach, which is located outside the current project area and is therefore not applicable to the current project. 268 Page 38 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist As noted in the 2011 EIR, soil layers at the project site include regraded refuse and a landfill cap over varying thicknesses of Bay Mud and sloping bedrock surface, which could result in settlement following building construction. These variable subsurface conditions will influence the design, performance, and constructability of foundation systems for the proposed buildings and are mitigated through appropriate foundation design as detailed in the mitigation measures. The geotechnical reports conclude that the project site would undergo significant settlement caused by the decomposition of the refuse, and consolidation and compression of the refuse and Bay Mud from the weight of refuse, existing cover soil, new fill, and/or structural loads associated with the proposed development. These processes could result in significant total and differential settlements of the ground surface and the site improvements. To reduce the potential for settlement of the structure, the proposed hotel would be supported on deep foundations gaining support in the dense to very dense sand layer or bedrock beneath the weak refuse and Bay Mud layers. Due to the thickness and depth of the Bay Mud, extending in some areas as much as 120 feet below ground surface, driven steel piles are recommended by the geotechnical investigation, with careful implementation to address the potential for disturbance of the landfill cover and preserve the integrity of the landfill components. The impact related to the wave susceptibility of the proposed Crescent Park and Beach is not applicable to the current project because this area is not within the current project site. Expansive Soils Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Geo‐15 or the less‐than‐significant conclusion related to expansive soils as soil conditions are the same and the low potential for expansive soils has not changed since the 2011 EIR. 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 2011 EIR. Geologic Features Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion related to unique geologic features as the lack of unique geologic features at the site has not changed since the 2011 EIR. 269 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 39 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. GHG Emissions SU ☒ ☐ N/A SU b. Conflict with GHG Reduction Plans NI ☒ ☐ ‐‐ NI Discussion Greenhouse Gas Emissions Setting Changes from the 2011 EIR As discussed above in connection with air quality impacts, since the 2011 EIR was certified, BAAQMD has updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD Guidelines), which assist lead agencies in evaluating and mitigating emissions impacts. The 2011 EIR was being prepared as the 1999 BAAQMD Guidelines were being updated for the 2010 draft. The 2011 EIR compared the OPSP to those in the 2010 draft. The latest draft of the BAAQMD Guidelines was issued in May 2017 and includes thresholds consistent with the 2010 draft BAAQMD Guidelines assessed in the 2011 EIR. Since the 2011 EIR, 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 2020 reduction goals. In 2016, SB 32 was passed, which codifies additional target GHG emissions reductions by 2030. In April 2022, BAAQMD issued a new GHG threshold, revising the threshold from the quantifiable level used in the 2011 EIR to a checklist of compliance, requiring consistency with either criterion A or B as follows: A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements: 1. Buildings a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development). b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. Transportation a. Achieve compliance with electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. b. Achieve a reduction in project‐generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA: i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita 270 Page 40 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Since the 2011 EIR, the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan updated the 2010 Clean Air Plan that was utilized in the 2011 EIR assessment. The latest update to the Clean Air Plan revises the way in which projects are assessed for consistency and no longer considers the ratio of population increase to vehicle use of a project to be a consistency factor. The purpose of this document, however, is to determine whether the project is within the scope of the 2011 EIR. Accordingly, this document does not address and is not required to address whether the project is consistent with regulatory changes that occurred after certification of the 2011 EIR. GHG Emissions Same Conclusion (conclusion remains SU): The current project would not change Impact GHG‐1 (combined with Impact GHG‐2) as the GHG emissions of the project were accounted for in the 2011 EIR and therefore the conclusion remains significant and unavoidable. The 2011 EIR concluded that the OPSP would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions. As a hotel project within the parameters of that analyzed in the OPSP and 2011 EIR, the GHG emissions of the project were accounted for in the prior analysis and the project would not therefore result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to GHG emissions than previously identified in the 2011 EIR. In addition, the project would be required to comply with updated GHG reduction requirements implemented since the 2011 EIR. Many of the City’s Climate Action Plan’s reduction measures are targeted to city‐wide strategies that are not directly applicable to development projects. The project is located near the ferry terminal and would include pedestrian/bicycle connections and walkways 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 would participate in recycling for waste reduction (Measure 5.1). Development projects in the city, including those in the current project, are required to complete a GHG Compliance Checklist during the plan review process demonstrating that all applicable requirements are met. The current project will comply with the Climate Action Plan. Further, BAAQMD updated its guidelines since the 2011 EIR. Although this Environmental Checklist is limited to an analysis of the project’s consistency with the 2011 EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the project was reviewed against BAAQMD’s updated thresholds and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage (see Section P: Utilities and Service Systems and Energy), would comply with required electric vehicle requirements and VMT targets (see Section O: Transportation), and would implement applicable measures from the City’s Climate Action Plan. At the time of preparation of this analysis, the City does not preclude natural gas appliances and plumbing in hotel projects. 271 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 41 Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans Same Conclusion (Conclusions remains NI): The Clean Air Plan has been updated and the South San Francisco Climate Action Plan has been adopted since the 2011 EIR but the current project remains consistent with relevant plans and the no additional impact conclusion remains unchanged from the 2011 EIR. For informational purposes, the project’s consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan is discussed above and the current project would be consistent with that plan. The current project does not conflict with applicable control measures, is generally consistent with the Clean Air Plan as well as the City’s Climate Action Plan. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 272 Page 42 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Routine Hazardous Materials Use LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ N/A LTS b. Risk of Upset LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Haz‐2: Waste Excavation and Re‐ disposition [as it pertains to continued implementation of the Site Management Plan] Haz‐4b: Deep Foundations Haz‐4c: Minimization of Irrigation Water Haz‐4e: Operation and Maintenance Activities LTS w/MM c. Hazardous Materials within a ¼‐mile of a School NI ☒ ☐ ‐‐ NI d. Hazardous Materials Site LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Haz‐6a: Site Management Plan Haz‐6b: Landfill Gas System Haz‐6c: Non‐use of Groundwater LTS w/MM 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 in its own section. This topic has been addressed here as it was in the 2011 EIR. Discussion Hazards and Hazardous Materials Setting Changes from the 2011 EIR Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. prepared a Final Closure Plan (FCP) and Post‐ Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (PCMMP) for the Phase I and II Development of the OSPS area, which is available as part of the project application on file with the City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department. The FCP provides a basis for preparing design and construction documents for landfill mitigation and monitoring components, such as the final landfill cover and landfill gas control and monitoring systems. The PCMMP provides a detailed plan for post‐ closure monitoring and maintenance activities during the various stages of development, as well as establishing the responsible parties for each required activity. As discussed in Section F: Geology and Soils, Langan excavated the original cap and some of the landfill refuse and regraded the site, re‐using some of the refuse and transporting the rest off‐site. Replacement fill was imported from off‐site, and a new clay cap was put in place. 273 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 43 Lists of hazardous materials sites are regularly updated and have been updated since the 2011 EIR, including the following two additional sites in the general vicinity of the project: Seaboard Paper Company – 336 Oyster Point Boulevard, and Wildberg Brothers – 349 Oyster Point Boulevard. However, while nearby sites have been identified as having prior releases of hazardous materials, there is no reported evidence of active leaks or contamination from these sites affecting soil or groundwater that could migrate to the project site or represent significant releases in the project area requiring any additional actions related to the proposed project, so these are not further discussed. The airport land use plan for the nearby airport has been updated since the 2011 EIR. 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. For informational purposes, since the 2011 EIR, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated to include more detailed threshold questions related to wildfire impacts in its own section. The purpose of this document, however, is to determine whether the project is within the scope of the 2011 EIR. As had been standard practice at the time, the 2011 EIR 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. Routine Hazardous Materials Use Less Significant Conclusion (LTS w/ MM reduced to LTS): Impact Haz‐1 and related mitigation measures Haz‐1a through Haz‐1e pertain to the use of hazardous materials by research laboratory uses in the office/R&D portions of the OSPS, and are not applicable to this hotel project. Operation of the hotel would use common hazardous materials such as cleaning products. State and federal laws require businesses that handle hazardous materials to ensure that the hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of; and in the event that hazardous materials are accidentally released, to prevent or reduce injury to health and the environment. The South San Francisco Fire Prevention division enforces certain fire code regulations pertaining to safe handling and proper storage of hazardous materials. Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and ensuring worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials. As a hotel use, project operations are not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. This section pertains to recurring transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of long‐ term operation. One time transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials related to construction and development is discussed in the following sections. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Risk of Upset Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Haz‐2 and ‐4, mitigation measures Haz‐2, Haz‐4b, Haz‐4c, and Haz‐4e, or the less‐than‐significant with mitigation conclusion as the potential for accidental future hazardous materials release of pre‐existing site materials remains unchanged since the 2011 EIR, with the project site being on top of the former 274 Page 44 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist landfill. Mitigation measure Haz‐4a has already been met with the clay cap upgrade performed by Langan (see Section F: Geology and Soils) and Haz‐4d is not applicable as none of the groundwater monitoring wells are on the project site property. 2011 EIR impact Haz‐3 and associated mitigation measures are related to demolition of existing structures and are not applicable to the current project because demolition of the existing building has already been completed on the project site. Impact Haz‐5 and related mitigation measures relate to the potential for accidental release of laboratory chemicals by research laboratory uses in the office/R&D portions of the OSPS, and are not applicable to this hotel project. As noted in the 2011 EIR, due to the former use of the project site as a municipal landfill, there is a potential for development on the site to lead to an increased rate of on‐site waste settlement and off‐ site migration of contaminants in groundwater. Due to the presence of methane in the soil, building on the project site present the potential for buildup of soil gases in the building; however, the project would comply with Haz‐2, Haz‐4b, Haz‐4c, and Haz‐4e and would not therefore have any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Hazardous Materials Near Schools Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion related to hazardous materials near schools as the lack of schools in the vicinity has not changed since the 2011 EIR. The OPSP area is not located within one‐quarter mile of a school site. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Hazardous Materials Site Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): Impact Haz‐6 and mitigation measures Haz‐6a through Haz‐6c related to construction on a landfill cap would be applicable to the current project. Although waste relocation, demolition, and most of the excavation have already been completed on the site, landscaping and utility placement and maintenance still carry potential impacts due to the site’s hazardous materials status. Mitigation measure Haz‐6d would not be applicable to this project as there are no current businesses on the project site. As mentioned above, Langan has drafted a PCMMP, implementation of which is anticipated to fulfill mitigation measures Haz‐6a through Haqz‐6c. The PCMMP details measures necessary to mitigate the potential impacts of landfill gas and that can build up under the soil and potentially leak into the groundwater. The hotel would be required to include an alarm system that monitors the level of methane in the building and in the event that methane levels reached a concentration activating the alarm, the mitigation system would automatically implement active mitigation activities to reduce the level of methane to acceptable levels. Monitoring activities will be required to ensure the integrity of the cap and check for groundwater contamination. Airport Hazards Same Conclusion(conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less‐than‐ significant conclusion, as the proposed heights under the current project remain within height levels considered safe in relation to the airport. The airport land use plan for San Francisco International Airport has been updated since the 2011 EIR. The OPSP area, including the current project site, is mapped in an area where critical aeronautical 275 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 45 surfaces (the height limits for development) are between approximately 425 and 450 feet above mean sea level. Structures reaching between 250 and 300 feet or more above mean sea level would be required to incorporate element to address possible obstructions. The proposed building height of 165 feet above sea level is below these heights. As a project within the Airport Land Use Plan, the project would be subject to applicable coordination with the Airport Land Use Commission and FAA to ensure compliance with applicable regulations, and would not therefore create any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Emergency Access Routes Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion as the general roadway design and requirements for adequate access have not changed since the 2011 EIR. 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 2011 EIR. 276 Page 46 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist I. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR 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: Best Management Practices Hydro‐2: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP Hydro‐3: Compliance with NPDES Requirements Haz‐4e: Operation and Maintenance Activities LTS w/MM b. Groundwater NI ☒ ☐ ‐‐ NI c. Alter Drainage NI ☒ ☐ ‐‐ NI d. Inundation LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ LTS Discussion Hydrology and Water Quality Setting Changes from the 2011 EIR The latest (April 5, 2019) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) showed no portion of the project site proposed for development as subject to flood hazards. The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as excavation and has been updated since the 2011 EIR, 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. 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 those the 16‐ and 55‐inch assumptions used in the 2011 EIR. Consistent with Phase 1 development plans in the OPSP and 2011 EIR, the project site has been recently regraded and recapped such that the ground level at the footprint of the building is approximately 19 feet (228 inches) above sea level. 277 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 47 Water Quality and Water Plans Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Hydro‐1, Hydro‐2, and Hydro‐3 and mitigation measures Hydro‐1, Hydro‐2, 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 2011 EIR. Mitigation measure Haz‐4e would also reduce impact Hydro‐1. Mitigation measure Haz‐4a, also listed under impact Hydro‐1 in the 2011 EIR, has already been completed. Although the current project would not involve demolition or excavation of landfill materials, as mentioned in impact Hydro‐3, construction activities at the site would still 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 would be mitigated through compliance with applicable permitting requirements and a project‐specific stormwater pollution prevention plan as detailed in the mitigation measures for the 2011 EIR. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 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 located in the former Bay margin and 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 2011 EIR. Alter Drainage Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion as the requirement for control of runoff and lack of potential for changes in stormwater runoff have not substantially changed since the 2011 EIR. The project represents redevelopment of a capped landfill. Consistent with the 2011 EIR, control of site stormwater runoff is addressed by required regulatory compliance and compliance with requirements would ensure no significant impacts. Siltation and erosion are discussed under water quality above and flooding is discussed under inundation below. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Inundation Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Hydro‐4 and Hydro‐5 or the less‐than‐significant conclusions related to inundation as the project will not place new structures within the 100‐year flood hazard zone and the potential for flooding due to levee or dam failure or sea level rise have not substantially changed since the 2011 EIR. As discussed above, while FEMA has reconsidered flood hazards in the area since the 2011 EIR, the current project will not place new structures within a 100‐year flood hazard zone and the impact remains unchanged from the 2011 EIR. Estimates of potential sea level rise scenarios have increased from 55 inches considered in the 2011 EIR to 66 inches (5.5 feet) by 2100. The project site has been recently regraded and capped as a part of Phase 1 landfill refuse relocation such that the ground level at the footprint of the building is 278 Page 48 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist approximately 19 feet (228 inches) above sea level. This is above the updated projected sea level rise of up to 66 inches by 2100 and consistent with conclusions in the 2011 EIR. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 279 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 49 J. Land Use Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR 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 2011 EIR There have been no substantial changes to the land use environmental setting of the OPSP site, including the hotel site with respect to land use. Development of the area has proceeded according to area plans and recent development. Since the 2011 EIR, the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan was updated in 2015 but would not substantially change impacts or conclusions for the proposed hotel. The entire General Plan is currently being updated again, 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. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. The marine support services building that was previously on the project site has been demolished since the 2011 EIR, and the project site is currently vacant. Division of an Existing Community Same Conclusion (NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion as there are no established communities in the area to divide, which has not changed since the 2011 EIR. 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 2011 EIR. The current project is consistent with the development type and density established by existing zoning and the General Plan, as previously updated for consistency with adoption of the 2011 EIR. The OPSP specified a hotel development to a total of 350 rooms. The current project proposes a hotel with up to 350 rooms. The project is consistent with development anticipated under relevant plans and therefore would not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 280 Page 50 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist K. Mineral Resources Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR 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 OPSP area, including the current project site, and there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to mineral resources. 281 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 51 L. Noise Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Noise SU w/MM (construction) LTS (operations) ☒ ☐ Noise‐5: Construction Noise SU w/MM (construction) LTS (operations) b. Vibration LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS c. Airport Noise LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS Discussion Noise Setting Changes from the 2011 EIR The noise environment has not changed substantially from that assessed in the 2011 EIR 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 has not substantially changed since the 2011 EIR, with the nearest noise sensitive receptors being live‐aboard boats located in the marinas, which could be located as close as approximately 325 feet from the edge of the project site. Noise (Construction) Same Conclusion (conclusion remains SU w/ MM for construction): The current project would not change Impact Noise‐5, mitigation measure Noise‐5, and the significant and unavoidable conclusion as the potential for loud construction activities over long periods has not changed since the 2011 EIR. As noted in the 2011 EIR, while the project would be required to comply with applicable construction noise regulations, construction activities, including pile driving, will generate substantial levels of noise at off‐site receivers over an extended period of time. Construction activities for the current project would have substantially the same potential for noise under the current project as the 2011 EIR. As noted above, as a hotel project within the parameters of that analyzed in the OPSP and 2011 EIR, the construction noise of the project were accounted for in the prior analysis and therefore the project would not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Noise (Operations) Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS for operation): The current project would not change Impacts Noise‐1 through Noise‐3 or the less‐than‐significant conclusion as the potential for operational noise impacts has not substantially changed since the 2011 EIR. As noted in the 2011 EIR, noise levels at a hotel and retail/restaurant site would not exceed the City’s noise level goal for exterior noise (65 dBA CNEL) as a result of transportation noise sources. Consistent with conclusions of the 2011 EIR, while roadway traffic and related noise would increase with the project, the ambient noise level is already characterized by traffic noise and increases from 282 Page 52 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist development of the project site would not have the potential to be substantial (would be less than 3 dBA) at noise sensitive uses. With area development, the 2011 EIR forecast an interior noise level of 35 dBA CNEL at the hotel assuming standard construction, which is consistent with interior noise standards for hotel uses. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Vibration Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Noise‐4 and the less‐than‐significant conclusion as the potential for groundborne vibration has not changed since the 2011 EIR. As noted in the 2011 EIR, 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. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Airport Noise Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Noise‐6 or the less‐than‐significant conclusion as the site is outside the area significantly impacted by aircraft noise, which has not changed since the 2011 EIR. While the airport land use plan for San Francisco International Airport has been updated since the 2011 EIR, the OPSP area remains well outside the airport’s noise‐affected 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The exterior noise environment at the OPSP area resulting from aircraft would be considered compatible with proposed uses. The project would therefore not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 283 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 53 M. Population & Housing Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR 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 2011 EIR Local and regional planning documents are regularly updated, including related to this topic, the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan in 2015 which incorporates the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Updated RHNA numbers are currently being incorporated into an updated General Plan. As an approved specific plan, OPSP development is considered as planned development in these planning documents. 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 2011 EIR. While the specifics of employment depend on the exact programming of the various spaces, a hotel of the proposed size with a restaurant and commercial amenities would be anticipated to support approximately 200 to 300 employees. As concluded in the 2011 EIR, the project would increase employment and contribute to the high jobs to housing ratio in the city and contribute to indirect population growth, but a hotel use would support nearby employment uses and would be consistent with local and area planning and would therefore not be considered unplanned growth. The project is consistent with the program previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR and therefore would not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 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 existing residents on the site since the 2011 EIR. The only current residences in the OPSP remain live‐aboard boats in the marinas, which were found to not be affected by development in the 2011 EIR. The project is consistent with the program previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR and therefore would not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 284 Page 54 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist N. Public Services & Recreation Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR 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 2011 EIR 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), located at 33 Arroyo Drive. The closest Fire Station to the project site is #62 at 249 Harbor Way, approximately 1.5 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 2011 EIR. As under the 2011 EIR, 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 project therefore would not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. While the current project does not include public open space, it is part of the OPSP development, which as noted in the 2011 EIR, included more than the standard of 0.5 acres of parks per 1,000 employees, including approximately 3 acres of park and 3.1 acres of bay front open space and would therefore create more recreational space then demand for recreational opportunities and have a net benefit on recreational facilities. The project would contribute in‐lieu fees toward the cost of the public parks and includes a spa and fitness / game lawn and outdoor open space on site for use by hotel guests. The conclusion of a less‐than‐significant impact with respect to recreation remains unchanged for the current project. 285 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 55 O. Transportation Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR Findings Applicable MMs Project Level of Significance Equal or Less Severity Substantial Increase in Severity a. Conflict with Circulation Plans or Policies LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Traf‐2b: Bay trail Continuity Provisions in Construction Management Plan LTS w/MM b. Conflict with Transportation Impact Reduction Goals1 SU ☒ ☐ Traf‐1: Transportation Demand Management Program LTS w/MM c. Increase Hazards LTS ☒ ☐ N/A LTS d. Inadequate Emergency Access LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ LTS 1 State CEQA Guidelines have been revised since the 2011 EIR 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. Discussion Traffic engineers Fehr & Peers prepared a transportation assessment as referenced in this document and included in full as Attachment B. Transportation Setting Changes from the 2011 EIR Area‐wide development has continued throughout the vicinity as anticipated under the OPSP and other area plans and included in the cumulative traffic analysis in the 2011 EIR. The City’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is regularly updated to include needed improvements. Reconfiguration of the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard was underway during preparation of this document per the OPSP as part of Phase 1 development but otherwise, there have not been substantial changes to the roadway system in the vicinity of the project since the 2011 EIR. The ferry terminal proposed as a part of OPSP development has been constructed and ferry service is in operation. Since the adoption of the 2011 EIR, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted new CEQA Guidelines in 2018 to implement the requirements of California Senate Bill (SB) 743. 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. The changes in CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 present vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as an appropriate measure of transportation impacts. While the 2011 EIR identified level of service‐based impacts and mitigation measures, these are not applicable to the current project under current CEQA law and are therefore not further discussed in this analysis. The City of South San Francisco addresses level of service and capacity upgrades through payment of the city‐wide Transportation Impact Fee and any other applicable fees and the prior impacts and mitigation measures Traf‐6 through Traf‐36 would no longer be applicable to the project and are 286 Page 56 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist not further discussed in this document. The assessment under subsection b) instead addresses VMT‐ based analysis. Conflicts with Circulation Plans or Policies Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change the less than significant conclusion with mitigation measures for Impact Traf‐2b, as the site is adjacent to the Bay Trail and would therefore require mitigation measure Traf‐2b to ensure trail continuity during construction. Impact and mitigation measures Traf‐2 and Traf‐5 would not be relevant to this project, as they are specific to Phase III and IV offices. As under the 2011 EIR, the current project could result in increased use of area pedestrian and bicycle facilities and includes enhancement and new connections to those facilities. Identified mitigation measure Traf‐2b requires continuity of the Bay Trail during construction activities and would be applicable to the project. The project is consistent with the program previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR and therefore would not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Conflict with Transportation Impact Reduction Goals Same Conclusion (SU reduced to LTS w/ MM): While the 2011 EIR had identified impacts and mitigation related to level of service, current laws require analysis on a VMT basis, which demonstrates the project would have a less‐than‐significant impact with respect to transportation impacts and would be required to implement TDM measures per City requirements (Traf‐1). Trip generation and characteristics under the current project would be consistent with the hotel development specified under the 2011 EIR. Traffic engineers Fehr & Peers prepared a trip generation comparison between the total OPSP development as analyzed in the 2011 EIR and the current project, as shown in Table 1 below. Although the 2011 EIR did not break down trip generation by land use, the project size is consistent with that assumed in the 2011 EIR and would therefore be expected to generate a comparable number of trips as the hotel identified in the 2011 EIR. Moreover, the trip generation would be well within the estimated trip generation envelope of the OPSP and therefore vehicular transportation‐related impacts are consistent with the 2011 EIR and would not be considered new impacts for the purposes of CEQA analysis. Table 1: Trip Generation Comparison Scenario Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Oyster Point Specific Plan 17,684 1,873 2,127 Oyster Point Hotel Project 2,751 135 204 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022 The City of South San Francisco provides VMT screening criteria for development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and/or location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is determined to result in less‐than‐significant impacts, and a detailed VMT analysis is not required. The project would not meet the location‐based screening as nearby transit options do not currently meet high‐quality transit standards. A hotel use is not one of the uses for which screening criteria are specifically provided. Although the City of South San Francisco does not have a threshold of significance for VMT associated with hotel uses specifically, consistent with the City’s screening criteria 287 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 57 for local serving land uses, the project would have a less than significant impact with respect to VMT if it does not result in a net increase in VMT. The project’s VMT was assessed by Fehr & Peers (Attachment B). Based on a survey of other area uses, hotels in the vicinity primarily serve nearby office/R&D uses and the San Francisco International Airport, as opposed to generating new tourism‐oriented or resort‐oriented travel. The average trip length associated with a hotel in the East of 101 area was calculated to be 3.6 to 3.9 miles, compared to average trip lengths of 12.9 miles for office/R&D and other land uses in the that area. Assuming a similar travel pattern for the proposed project as existing hotels in the vicinity, the project would not materially increase vehicle miles traveled and may help shorten trips for hotel guests that would otherwise stay at hotels farther away. Therefore, the project would not result in a net increase in VMT and would have a less‐than‐significant impact in this regard. Compliance with the City’s TDM requirements, also required by Traf‐1, would likely further reduce the project’s VMT. Hazards and Emergency Access Less Significant Conclusion (LTS w/ MM reduced to LTS): The current project would have a reduced conclusion to Impacts and mitigation measures Traf‐2 and Traf‐3 would not apply as the site has been designed to meet safety standards and is not near the Phase III and Phase IV garages. The proposed project would not reroute or change any of the city streets in its vicinity that would impact emergency vehicle access to nearby properties. The project would provide access suitable for truck traffic, which would also include emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicles would have access to all building entrances and facilities as well as the Bay Trail connection along the east side of the project. The project is consistent with the program previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR and therefore would not create new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 288 Page 58 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist P. Utilities and Service Systems and Energy Impacts Related To: OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required) PROJECT Relationship to OPSP EIR 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 w/MM ☒ ☐ Util‐2b: Oyster Point Subtrunk Replacement LTS w/MM d‐e. Solid Waste LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ LTS f. Energy 1 LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ LTS 1 Note that the current CEQA Guidelines include energy in its own section. This topic has been addressed here as it was in the 2011 EIR. Discussion Utilities and Service Systems Setting Changes from the 2011 EIR 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. Relocation of wastewater system Pump Station No. 1 as identified in the 2011 EIR is being completed as part of Phase 1 development activities and will be completed prior to development of the project site. The upsizing and improvements to Pump Station No. 2 as identified in the 2011 EIR to accommodate build‐out of the OPSP area as well as other area growth has since been included in the City’s current Capital Improvement Plan though not constructed; this pump station does not service the project site. 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 2011 EIR. As under the 2011 EIR, the current project will be served by existing facilities (or those relocated through separate projects) or on‐site and in‐roadway utility improvements that were included in analysis of OPSP development, and the current project would not change the potential for impacts related to such improvements. Consistent with assumptions in the OPSP and 2011 EIR, a new sewer pump station is proposed on or in the vicinity of the project site. The conclusion of a less‐than‐significant impact with respect to new or expanded utility facilities remains unchanged for the current project. 289 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist Page 59 Water Supply Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Util‐1 or the less‐than‐significant conclusion as the current project would not substantially change projected increases in water demand. The 2011 EIR included a Water Supply Assessment, which determined that with proposed on‐site distribution infrastructure and compliance with applicable water conservation measures, proposed water usage would be within available supply. As part of an approved specific plan, development of the project site has been included in local and regional water supply planning. The project is also smaller than the 500‐room hotel size that would have been required to prepare a project‐specific Water Supply Assessment under Senate Bill 610.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 w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Util‐2 and Util‐3, and mitigation measure Util‐2b, or the less‐than‐significant with mitigation conclusion as the current project would not substantially change projected wastewater generation or planned capacity. Mitigation measure Util‐2a would not apply as Pump Station No. 2 does not serve the project area. As part of an approved specific plan, development of the project site has been included in area‐wide wastewater planning and was determined in the 2011 EIR not to have a significant effect on system‐ wide wastewater capacity but would require localized improvements, including the off‐site improvement of a larger sized subtrunk in Oyster Point. Mitigation measure Util‐2b requiring demonstrated capacity prior to operations remains applicable to the current project to reduce potential to less than significant. The City may determine that payment of the Sewer Impact Fee satisfies this measure. Solid Waste Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Util‐5 or the less‐than‐significant conclusion as the site would be adequately served by existing facilities and comply with applicable solid waste regulations. The 2011 EIR determined that the solid waste generated by development in the OPSP area would be within availability capacity of applicable facilities and would meet reduction standards and not otherwise conflict with 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 2011 EIR conclusions. Energy Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would contribute to increased energy consumption in the OPSP area but would not change Impact Util‐6 or the less‐than‐significant conclusion as development would comply with applicable energy efficiency regulations. The OPSP 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 OPSP would trigger the need or expanded off‐site energy facilities. 290 Page 60 Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist 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 in the area, and any improvements and extensions required to accommodate the OPSP would be determined in consultation with PG&E prior to installation. As a result, although the OPSP would incrementally increase energy consumption, it would not result in a significant impact related to the provision of energy services. The project is consistent with the hotel development assumed in the 2011 EIR and would therefore be within the energy usage assumed for the OPSP and by the 2011 EIR with the less‐than‐significant energy impact identified in the 2011 EIR. 291 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ATTACHMENT A to the Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist 292 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) fulfills Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 which requires adoption of a mitigation monitoring program when mitigation measures are required to avoid or reduce a proposed projects significant environmental effects. The MMRP is only applicable if the City of South San Francisco decides to approve the proposed Project. The MMRP is organized to correspond to environmental issues and significant impacts discussed in the Addendum. The table below is arranged in the following five columns:  Recommended mitigation measures,  Timing for implementation of the mitigation measures,  Party responsible for implementation,  Monitoring action,  Party or parties responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures, and  A blank for entry of completion date as mitigation occurs. 293 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 2 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed Vis‐2a: Lighting Plan. In order to reduce sources of light and glare created by lighting within the OPSP area, the applicant shall specify fixtures and lighting that maintains appropriate levels of light at building entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots and private roads at night consistent with minimum levels detailed in the City’s building codes. These fixtures shall be designed to eliminate spillover, high intensity, and unshielded lighting, thereby avoiding unnecessary light pollution. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase of construction within the OPSP, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Design Plan for review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. The plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: ○ The Lighting Design Plan shall disclose all potential light sources with the types of lighting and their locations. ○ Typical lighting shall include low mounted, downward casting and shielded lights that do not cause spillover onto adjacent properties and the utilization of motion detection systems where applicable. ○ No flood lights shall be utilized. ○ Lighting shall be limited to the areas that would be in operation during nighttime hours. ○ Low intensity, indirect light sources shall be encouraged. ○ On‐demand lighting systems shall be encouraged. ○ Mercury, sodium vapor, and similar intense and bright lights shall not be permitted except where their need is specifically approved and their source of light is restricted. ○ Generally, light fixtures shall not be located at the periphery of Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Planning Division 294 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 3 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed the property and should shut off automatically when the use is not operating. Security lighting visible from the highway shall be motion‐sensor activated. ○ Use “cut‐off” fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light and avoid unnecessary light pollution where appropriate. ○ All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the building codes and the approved lighting plan during construction. Vis‐2b: Glare Reduction. In order to reduce sources of daytime glare created by reflective building materials, the applicant shall specify exterior building materials for all proposed structures constructed for the Phase I Project and each subsequent phase of development under the OPSP that include the use of textured or other non‐reflective exterior surfaces and non‐reflective glass types, including double glazed and non‐reflective vision glass. These materials shall be chosen for their non‐reflective characteristics and their ability to reduce daytime glare. All exterior glass must meet the specifications of all applicable codes for non‐reflective glass and would therefore reduce daytime glare emanating from the OPSP area. Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Planning Division Air‐4a: Implement BAAQMD‐Recommended Measures to Control Particulate Matter Emissions during Construction. Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and PM10 from construction are recommended to ensure that short‐term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided. Dust (PM10) Control Measures: ○ Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times. Prior to issuance of construction permits ‐and‐ During construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Building Division 295 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 4 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed ○ Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ○ Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non‐toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. ○ Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads. ○ Hydroseed or apply (non‐toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (i.e., previously‐graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more). ○ Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non‐toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles. ○ Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph. ○ Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. ○ Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site. ○ Post a publically visible sign(s) 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. Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 and other construction emissions: ○ The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy‐duty 296 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 5 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed (>50 horsepower) off‐road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet‐average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011 ○ Clear signage at all construction sites will be posted indicating that diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were onsite or adjacent to the construction site. ○ Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off‐road diesel powered equipment. Each project shall ensure that emissions from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately ○ The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. compressors). ○ Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. Bio‐3a: Incorporate Best Management Practices for Water Quality During Construction. The Plan shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality to minimize During construction Applicant for the development Verification that requirements are met during SSF Building Division 297 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 6 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed impacts in the surrounding wetland environment, sloughs and channels, and the San Francisco Bay during construction. These BMPs shall include numerous practices that will be outlined within the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including, but not limited to, the following mitigation measures: 1. No equipment will be operated in live flow in any of the sloughs or channels or ditches on or adjacent to the site. 2. No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, cement, concrete, washings, petroleum products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into aquatic or wetland habitat. 3. Standard erosion control and slope stabilization measures will be required for work performed in any area where erosion could lead to sedimentation of a waterbody. For example, silt fencing will be installed just outside the limits of grading and construction in any areas where such activities will occur upslope from, and within 50 ft of, any wetland, aquatic, or marsh habitat. This silt fencing will be inspected and maintained regularly throughout the duration of construction. 4. Machinery will be refueled at least 50 ft from any aquatic habitat, and a spill prevention and response plan will be developed. All workers will be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. constructionBio‐3b: Minimize Soil Disturbance Adjacent to Wetland and Marsh Habitat. To the extent feasible, soil stockpiling, equipment During construction Applicant for the Verification that Environmentally SSF Planning Division 298 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 7 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed staging, construction access roads, and other intensively soil‐disturbing activities shall not occur immediately adjacent to any wetlands that are to be avoided by the OPSP. The limits of the construction area shall be clearly demarcated with Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing to avoid inadvertent disturbance outside the fence during construction activities. development Sensitive Areas are avoided Bio‐4: Ensure Adequate Stormwater Run‐off Capacity. Increases in stormwater run‐off due to increased hardscape shall be mitigated through the construction and maintenance of features designed to handle the expected increases in flows and provide adequate energy dissipation. All such features, including outfalls, shall be regularly maintained to ensure continued function and prevent failure following construction. Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verification that adequate stormwater run‐off capacity is provided SSF Public Works Department Bio‐6: 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 OPSP area shall be conducted if construction commences during the avian nesting season, between February 1 and August 31. The survey should be undertaken no more than 15 days prior to any site‐disturbing activities, including vegetation removal or grading. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall determine an appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffers should be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. Prior to construction if during nesting period Applicant for the development Completion of survey and, if birds present, provision of buffer SSF Planning Division Bio‐10a: Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts to Birds. During design of any building greater than 100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant shall consult with a qualified biologist experienced with During preliminary design of any Applicant for the Incorporation of lighting that minimizes bird SSF Planning Division 299 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 8 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed bird strikes and building/lighting design issues to identify lighting‐related measures to minimize the effects of the building’s lighting on birds. Such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures, shall be incorporated into the building’s design and operation. ○ Use strobe or flashing lights in place of continuously burning lights for obstruction lighting. Use flashing white lights rather than continuous light, red light, or rotating beams. ○ Install shields onto light sources not necessary for air traffic to direct light towards the ground. ○ Extinguish all exterior lighting (i.e., rooftop floods, perimeter spots) not required for public safety. ○ When interior or exterior lights must be left on at night, the operator of the buildings shall examine and adopt alternatives to bright, all‐night, floor‐wide lighting, which may include: ○ Installing motion‐sensitive lighting. ○ Using desk lamps and task lighting. ○ Reprogramming timers. ○ Use of lower‐intensity lighting. ○ Windows or window treatments that reduce transmission of light out of the building shall be implemented to the extent feasible. building greater than 100 feet tall development impactsBio‐10b: Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk. During design of any building greater than 100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant shall consult with a qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues to identify measures related to the external appearance of the building to minimize the During preliminary design of any building greater than Applicant for the development Incorporation of design features that minimize bird impacts SSF Planning Division 300 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 9 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed risk of bird strikes. Such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures, shall be incorporated into the building’s design. ○ Use non‐reflective tinted glass. ○ Use window films to make windows visible to birds from the outside. ○ Use external surfaces/designs that “break up” reflective surfaces rather than having large, uninterrupted areas of surfaces that reflect, and thus may not appear noticeably different (to a bird) from, the sky. 100 feet tallGeo‐2a: Compliance with California Building Code. OPSP development shall meet requirements of the California Building Code, including the California Building Standards, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards will reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. Geo‐2b: Compliance with a design‐level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code. Prior to issuance of building permits ‐and‐ Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verify geotechnical recommendations are included in plans and construction contracts SSF Building Division 301 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 10 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed Geo‐2c: Obtain a building permit. The OPSP 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. Geo‐3a: 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 liquefaction potential of the site soils, particularly in the perimeter dikes. 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. Structures shall be designed to reduce 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 liquefaction potential, if the potential for liquefaction is found to exist, or other ground failure modes such as lateral spreading, seismic densification or stability of the perimeter dike slopes. Mitigation measures may include ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or jet Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant for the development Verify geotechnical recommendations are included in plans and construction contracts SSF Building Division 302 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 11 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed grouting. Geo‐3b: Obtain a building permit. The OPSP 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 should 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. Geo‐4: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation. A design‐level Geotechnical Investigation shall include an evaluation of static stability and seismic stability under a design magnitude earthquake event. Seismic analyses shall include pseudo‐static analyses to estimate permanent slope displacements due to earthquake motions. The Geotechnical Engineer shall prepare recommendations to mitigate potential slope instability, if slope stability problems are identified. Mitigation measures may include ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or jet grouting. Design‐level Geotechnical Investigations shall be completed during preliminary and final design stages and will confirm material types used in the construction of the perimeter dikes to verify that the slopes meet minimum criteria for stability under both static and seismic conditions. Knowledge of the stability of the perimeter dikes will guide the selection of any future measures to mitigate any deficiencies identified in the perimeter dike. Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant for the development Verify geotechnical recommendations are included in plans and construction contracts SSF Building Division Geo‐5a: Deep Foundations. Because of the magnitude of expected settlement of Bay Mud soils and waste fill materials that would Prior to Applicant for Verify SSF Building 303 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 12 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed occur under new building loads, the OPSP applicant must consider the use of deep foundations such as driven piles. Specific recommendations for suitable deep foundation alternatives and required penetrations will be provided during the course of a design‐level geotechnical investigation and will depend on factors such as the depth and hardness of the underlying clays, sands or bedrock, and the corrosivity of the waste materials and Bay Mud soils. Suitable deep foundation types may include driven precast, prestressed concrete piles or driven closed‐end steel pipe piles with the interior of the pile filled with concrete after driving. Deep foundations shall extend through all waste materials and Bay Mud and be tipped in underlying stiff to hard clays, dense sands or weathered bedrock. Where waste and Bay Mud soils underlie the site, wall and column loads as well as floor slabs shall be founded on deep foundations. Settlement of properly‐designed and constructed deep foundation elements is typically less than about one‐half inch. The majority of settlement typically occurs during construction as the loads are applied. Where landfill waste and Bay Mud are not present (possibly at extreme western and northwestern edges of the site) and competent soil or bedrock are present near the ground surface (within about 5 feet of finished grade elevation), shallow foundations such as footings or mats may be appropriate foundation types, as determined during the course of a design‐level geotechnical investigation. Where proposed structures straddle a transition zone between these conditions, a combination of shallow and deep foundations may be required. Any transition zones shall be identified during site‐specific geotechnical investigations for preliminary and final designs. Geo‐5b: Predrilling and/or Pile Configuration. Piles either shall be issuance of building permits the development requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction Division304 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 13 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed predrilled through the fill and landfill materials to protect the piles from damage due to unknown materials, to reduce pushing waste material deeper, and to reduce pile alignment problems or shall have a pointed tip configuration. If a drill is used, it should only loosen and break up in‐place obstructions that may cause pile damage. During recent subsurface investigations reported by Treadwell & Rollo (2009b) obstructions including concrete rubble was encountered throughout the landfill area, particularly in the northern end of the site. Even with predrilling, precast concrete piles could be damaged during installation at a landfill site such as Oyster Point. For preliminary planning purposes, a precast concrete pile breakage rate during installation of 10 to 15 percent may be considered applicable. Piles usually have to include pointed tip configurations to avoid pushing landfill waste downward. These configurations are typically readily accommodated by pile driving contractors. Geo‐5c: Indicator Pile Program. Prior to specifying the lengths of the production piles, drive indicator piles at the structure sites in order to observe the driving characteristic of the piles and the ability of the driving equipment when a driven pile is used. The driving criteria and pile length of production piles shall also be estimated from the information obtained from driving of the indicator piles. The contractor shall use the same equipment to drive both the indicator and production piles. Indicator pile lengths and locations shall be selected by the Geotechnical Engineer, in conjunction with the Structural Engineer and Contractor after the foundation plan has been finalized. The indicator pile program will serve to establish information on the following: ○ Estimates of production pile lengths; 305 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 14 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed ○ Drivability of production piles; ○ Performance of pile driving equipment; and ○ Variation in driving resistance relative to depth and location of piles. Geo‐6: Account for Drag Load on Deep Foundations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall account for accumulation of drag load in the structural design of the deep foundations elements (piles). Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant for the development Verify geotechnical recommendations are included in plans and construction contracts SSF Building Division Geo‐7: Incorporate Systems for Landfill Gas Control. Measures for the control of landfill gas shall be included in building design. Measures for the control of landfill gas typically include a collection system, floor slab shielding and interior alarms. For projects on or adjacent to the landfill area, during preliminary project design and prior to issuance of building permit Applies on a building by building basis Verification that measures for the control of landfill gas are included SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department Geo‐8a: Avoid Significant New Loads on Landfill Waste and Bay Mud. A design‐level Geotechnical Investigation shall include exploration to more thoroughly determine the thickness and areal extent of landfill waste and Bay Mud. To avoid inducing additional settlement to the settlement that is already on‐going, grading plans shall include as little additional new fill as possible, and Prior to issuance of building permit Applies to all construction Verification of adequate report SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department 306 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 15 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed significant new structure loads or any structures that are settlement‐sensitive shall be founded on deep foundations extended below the Bay Mud, as recommended in the design‐level Geotechnical Investigation report. All grading shall be planned to avoid penetrating the landfill cap and to reduce the amount of long‐term settlement in response to new fills. Because the Bay Mud and waste across most of the site are still settling under the weight of existing fill and waste decomposition and will settle more under new fills, additional settlement should be expected, with the creation of localized low‐lying surface areas. Existing low areas shall be corrected during site grading to allow for proper drainage. Long‐term maintenance planning for the development shall also include provisions for periodic grading to correct drainage problems and improve site grades, as outlined in the Disposition and Development Agreement. The Geotechnical Engineer will recommend other site‐specific recommendations based on the results of the design‐level Geotechnical Investigation to mitigate on‐going settlement and any additional settlement to be expected in response to new development. Geo‐8b: Design Building‐Soil Interface to Allow Free Movement. The Structural Engineer shall provide that structures not supported on deep foundations not be structurally tied into pile‐supported buildings, except as noted below, and shall be designed to allow free vertical movement between structures. Articulated ramps on walkways and building entrances at the interface between the pile and soil‐supported areas can provide a smooth walkway over moderate differential settlements with some amount of maintenance. As the magnitude of the differential Prior to issuance of building permit Applies to all construction Verification of compliant construction plans SSF Building Division 307 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 16 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed settlement increases, however, these ramps may need to be rebuilt or realigned to account for the larger elevation differential. Similar ramps may also reduce differential settlements between driveways and pile‐supported parking lots. Over time, voids will tend to form beneath pile‐supported buildings due to on‐going settlement of the landfill. Use of wall skirts around the building perimeter will help to reduce the visual impact of these voids. Geo‐9a: Monitoring and Testing. Special precautions shall be taken to monitor the safety conditions and to provide for the safety of workers in the area. Additionally, if excavations encounter water, this water shall be tested for contaminants and may have to undergo specialized handling, treatment and/or disposal if it is contaminated. A system to disperse methane during construction shall be installed in or adjacent to the trenches. For projects on the landfill area, prior to issuance of building permit and during construction Applies to all construction on a landfill Adherence to measures if water discovered during excavation SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department Geo‐9b: Locate Underground Utilities in Soil Cap. To the extent practicable, the utilities shall be constructed in the soil landfill cap to avoid direct contact of the utility lines and construction workers with the waste material. If construction of utilities in the waste material is necessary, proper design and construction precautions shall be taken to protect the system and the workers from the corrosive and hazardous conditions of the waste. Geo‐9c: Seal Trenches and Underground Structures. Trenches and underground structures shall be sealed to preclude gas intrusion. Typical types of sealing procedures include providing a low permeability clay cover of 1 foot over the top of the pipe, or the utility trench be lined with a relatively impervious For projects on the landfill area, prior issuance of building permit and during construction Applies to all construction on a landfill Verification of compliant plans and adherence to approved plans during construction SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department 308 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 17 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed geomembrane. Underground manholes may be shielded from methane intrusion by placement of a membrane around the outside of the structure. To reduce gas migration off‐site within the utility trenches, all trenches crossing the transition zone between the landfill and non‐landfill portions of the property shall be sealed with a clay plug surrounding the pipe or other approved methods. In addition, plugs shall also be provided at the perimeters of buildings to reduce migration of gas through the utility trenches to beneath the buildings. Geo‐10: Provide For Continuity of Landfill Cap. Following planned landfill excavation and landfill cap repair, the project Civil Engineer shall require that excavations for building foundations, utility trenches and other underground structures be configured to maintain continuity of the landfill cap. The specific configuration will depend upon the excavation depth and orientation to underlying wastes. However, a low‐permeability layer of soil or a geomembrane properly tied to surrounding cap areas may be required. For projects on the landfill area, prior to issuance of building permit and during construction Applies to all construction on a landfill Verification of landfill cap installation SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department Geo‐11: Common Trenches and Vaults. Where underground utilities are to be located in landfill areas, consideration shall be given to reducing the number of utilities trenches by locating utilities in common trenches to the extent practicable. In addition, vaulted systems shall be designed and maintained at such interfaces that provide flexible and/or expandable connections to the proposed buildings. In addition, the utility lines beneath buildings shall be suspended from hangers fastened to structural floor slabs. For projects on the landfill area, during preliminary design and prior to issuance of building permit Applies to all construction on a landfill Verification of adherence to measures SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department 309 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 18 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed Geo‐12: Flexible Materials and Joints. Utility lines shall be constructed of flexible pipe such as welded polyethylene to accommodate differential settlement within the waste material and landfill cap. At the border of the landfill, where differential settlements are expected to be large, the utility lines shall be designed to allow for rotation. As with buried utilities on a conventional site, proper bedding and backfilling shall be completed, as specified in a design‐level geotechnical investigation report. For projects on the landfill area, during preliminary design, prior to issuance of building permit and during construction Applies to all construction on a landfill Verification of adherence to measures SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department Geo‐13: Increase Flow Gradient. The Civil Engineer shall consider increasing the flow gradient in sewers and storm drains so that differential settlements will not disrupt the flow. An alternative is to provide a pumping system that does not rely on gravity flow. Such measures will reduce the impact of reduced flow gradient due to differential settlement to less than significant. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I Project. For projects on the landfill area, during preliminary design, prior to issuance of building permit and during construction Applies to all construction on a landfill Verification of adherence to measures SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department Geo‐14: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (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 (Construction General Permit, 99‐08‐DWQ). Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verification that adequate plan prepared SSF Building Division 310 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 19 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed Haz‐2: Waste Excavation and Re‐disposition. A plan shall be written for management of excavated wastes/refuse. Non‐hazardous excavated waste shall be re‐deposited in an alternate part of the site and any hazardous waste shall be relocated off‐site for appropriate disposal. The plan can be a section of the Site Management Plan (Mitigation Measure Haz‐4a), or a stand alone document. The plan shall include measures to avoid releases of wastes or waste water into the environment and to protect workers and the public. The details of the plan shall be based, in part, on the amount of material to be removed and the final design of foundation structures, but will generally include the following, as deemed appropriate by the regulatory agencies, particularly DTSC and RWQCB: ○ To the greatest extent possible, use existing boring data to obtain pre‐characterization of refuse for off‐site disposal, and to pre‐plan areas to be removed versus areas to be re‐deposited on‐site. ○ Divide excavation areas into daily sections; plan to complete excavation and backfilling a section during each working day. Minimize the time period that refuse is exposed. ○ Review existing boring data and existing site documentation to evaluate potential subsurface materials to be encountered. ○ Stake out area to be excavated. ○ If excavation is to be conducted at depths where groundwater is to be encountered, conduct dewatering to minimize worker potential direct contact with groundwater. Removed groundwater shall be treated in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Site Management Plan (Mitigation Measure Haz‐4a). Prior to issuance of building permit and during construction on the landfill area Applies to all construction Compliance with Site Management Plan SSF Public Works Department 311 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 20 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed ○ Screen excavation site with a portable photoionization detector and combustible gas monitor for landfill gasses. Continue screening progress of each excavation section as work proceeds. Use foam suppressants or 6 inches minimum of daily soil cover for nuisance odors. ○ Provide carbon dioxide gas source (fire extinguisher or cylinder) to flood excavation as necessary to prevent migration of gases into atmosphere above excavation, minimize explosive or fire potential, and control nuisance and odors. ○ Begin excavation and segregate soil and /or clay cap material above refuse for reuse as foundation layer. ○ Upon reaching refuse, place refuse into dump truck standing by on‐site. ○ Dispose of each truck load of refuse immediately after filling equipment. All loads to be covered when hauling. Refuse shall be either re‐deposited on‐site in a specified area, or hauled to an off‐site disposal facility. ○ Prior to relocation, field verify each load for disposal classification type (landfill classification, Class 3 or Class 2). If waste for off‐site disposal is characterized as either California or Federal Hazardous Waste as defined in the criteria described in CCR Title 22 Section 66261, then the hazardous waste shall be tracked using the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest System (USEPA Form 8700‐22). ○ Hazardous and if necessary, non‐hazardous waste shall be transported to the appropriate disposal facility using a permitted, licensed, and insured transportation company. Transporters of hazardous waste shall meet the requirements of 40 CFR 263 and 22 CCR 66263. Copies of 312 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 21 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed uniform hazardous waste manifests signed by the designated waste disposal facility shall be retained for at least five years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter. Copies of records pertaining to the characterization of hazardous or nonhazardous waste shall be retained for a minimum of three years. ○ Upon reaching over‐excavation depth, place a minimum of 6‐inch thick layer of appropriate backfill soil on excavation bottom to seal exposed refuse surface. Place soil by the end of the same day excavation is completed. ○ Upon completion of excavation, begin cap placement procedures. Specific measures shall be targeted to minimize the duration of waste exposure, plan for appropriate final destination of wastes based on the presence of contaminants of concern, allow for adjustment in plan based on unexpected occurrences, and to protect worker safety and the public. Additional work plan measures are discussed in Haz‐4a. In addition, worker protection measures for soil and dewatering are discussed in Haz‐6a. Measures specific to off‐site air quality during construction are included in mitigation measure Air‐4. Haz‐4b: Use Of Deep Foundations To Prevent Load Induced Settlement. Buildings on fill shall be supported using driven steel or concrete piles founded in stiff to hard clays, dense sands or weathered bedrock underlying the fill. Both the structural loads and building floor slabs shall be supported on piles. This will avoid placing additional building loads on fill material. Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant for the development Adherence to specifications provided in measure SSF Building Division Haz‐4c: Minimization of Irrigation Water Use. Landscaping of the During Applicant for SSF Building 313 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 22 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed site shall be selected to stabilize the soil, prevent erosion, and reduce the need for extensive irrigation. Excessive water could infiltrate the landfill cap and produce leachate. To prevent this, low‐water vegetation shall be selected to reduce irrigation water. In addition the thickness of the erosion resistant layer in landscaped areas will be increased to minimize intrusion of roots into the lower layers of the cover. Construction the development DivisionHaz‐4e: Operation and Maintenance Activities. Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities are expected to occur indefinitely at the site. Operation and maintenance activities shall include inspections and observations of site features to protect the landfill cap, prevent utility damage, maintain gravity flow of sewer systems, maintain the landfill gas barrier and venting systems, and monitor for leachate and groundwater contaminant concentrations. O&M shall act to prevent releases of hazardous materials by identifying deficits in engineering controls prior to release events. SSF Building Division SSF Building Division Haz‐6a: Development and Implementation of Site Management Plans. A Site Management Plan shall be prepared that addresses the exposure risk to people and the environment resulting from future demolition, construction, occupancy, and maintenance activities on the property. The plans for the landfill portion of the OPSP shall be in accordance with RWQCB order No. 00‐046, the PCMP and recommendations of the Environmental Consultant, and shall be reviewed and approved by the RWQCB, DTSC, the SMCEHD Groundwater Protection Program and the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health SSF Building Division SSF Building Division 314 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 23 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed and the environment shall be provided in the plan. At a minimum, the plan shall include the following: 1) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) shall be prepared in accordance with OSHA regulations by all contractors at the OPSP area. 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 shall be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. The plan shall also designate provisions to limit worker entry and exposure and shall show locations and type of protective fencing to prevent public exposure to hazards during demolition, site grading, and construction activities. 2) Requirements for site‐specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination shall be developed. This shall include dewatering techniques to minimize direct exposure to groundwater during construction activities, treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with local and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. Groundwater encountered in excavations shall not be discharged into the neighboring storm drain, but into a closed containment facility, unless proven to have concentrations of contaminants below established regulatory guidelines. Extracted contaminated groundwater shall be required to be stored in tanks or other sealed container until tested. If testing determines that the water can be discharged into the sanitary sewer system, then the applicant shall acquire a ground water discharge permit from the City of South San Francisco Sanitary Sewer District and meet local discharge limits before 315 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 24 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed being allowed to discharge into the sanitary sewer. Water shall be analyzed for the chemicals of concern at the site, including benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, chlorobenzene, naphthalene and additional compounds as requested by the receiving facility or the City of South San Francisco. 3) Waste relocation. Relocation or removal of existing landfill waste/refuse will be required for landfill cap upgrades and for site construction. Excavated waste can either be re‐deposited on site or disposed of at an active landfill facility. Off‐site disposal will require pre‐characterization of the waste for acceptance at an approved waste disposal facility. Waste manifests will be prepared to document transportation and disposal. On‐site disposal shall require proper placement, compaction, and capping of the refuse material. In either case, segregation of Class 2 and Class 3 from Class 1 material for disposal purposes shall be performed on‐site to the extent possible. No Class 1 material shall be relocated or re‐deposited on‐site. BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 34 section 118 documents a limited exemption for construction activities at landfill sites. This section specifies that when the construction activities are related to “installing, expanding, replacing, or repairing components of the landfill gas, leachate, or gas condensate collection and removal systems.” Excavation for cap upgrades falls under this exemption. Excavation for construction purposes will also likely fall under this exemption. As such it will be necessary to provide BAAQMD with construction plans and other documentation as detailed under this regulation for the purposes of obtaining a letter of exemption from BAAQMD. Excavation procedures are also discussed in Measure Haz‐2. 4) Future subsurface work plan. The plan shall document procedures for future subsurface landscaping work, utility maintenance, etc., with proper notification, where applicable. The 316 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 25 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed plan shall include a general health and safety plan for each expected type of work, with appropriate personal protective equipment, where applicable. This plan may be included in the operations and maintenance plan as appropriate. Haz‐6b: Landfill Gas System. Section 21160 of Title 27 of the CCR requires that closed landfills implement and maintain landfill gas control. A landfill gas (LFG) venting system shall be placed under the bottom slabs of each structure built entirely or partially over landfill material, to collect and vent the build up of gases diffusing through the landfill cap. The LFG system shall include spray‐applied vapor barrier membranes, horizontal collection and passive venting, gas detection and monitoring. The system shall either have backup active collection and venting or shall be designed to facilitate retrofitting with an active system, if measures warrant the retrofit. Potential migration of LFG into the building space shall be mitigated by the collection and venting system, and secondly by the spray‐applied membrane. Subsurface landfill gases shall be vented by a network of perforated piping placed beneath the building slabs. The exhaust gases shall be manifolded to a series of riser piping that is to be vented above structure roofs. Passive landfill gas systems do not require permits, however if an active system is installed, either at the time of construction or as part of a retrofit, a BAAQMD permit will be needed. Applicant for the development (within building on site) ‐and‐ SSF Building Division (external to building) SSF Building Division Haz‐6c: Non‐use of Groundwater. Water supply wells shall not be installed at the site. This will prevent direct contact between the public and site groundwater and leachate. All phases Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in landscaping plan SSF Building 317 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 26 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed Hydro‐1: Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be used during installation of foundation piers to reduce the potential for gaps in the subsurface confining layers around the piers. BMP requirements shall be identified in the SWPPP and shall be developed by the applicant or their authorized representative. The exact BMPs to be implemented shall depend on final pier design and type, but can include pre‐drilling and grouting of concrete piers, use of hollow steel piers, or other methods to reduce the risk of displaced refuse creating a void in the Bay Mud layer. The proposed BMPs shall be benchmarked against the California Department of Transportation Stormwater Quality Handbooks Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual (2003 and associated updates). Prior to issuance of building permits ‐and‐ During construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Building Division Hydro‐2: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the applicant of a project under the OPSP shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during construction. If the SWPP will be developed after September 2, 2011, the SWPPP shall be developed by a California Qualified SWPPP Developer in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit 2009‐009‐DWQ. 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 “Erosion & Prior to issuance of building permits ‐and‐ Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Building Division 318 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 27 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed Sediment Control Measures” manual. Silt fences shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 3) BMPs to be developed by the applicant shall be used for preventing the discharge or other construction‐related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. In accordance with the handbook C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, Version 2, permanent mitigation measures for stormwater shall be submitted as part of project application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and the Building Permit Application. Elements that shall be addressed in the submittals include the following: 5) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the OPSP area. R&D activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed OPSP area shall be described. This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the OPSP area based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. 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 319 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 28 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, etc. 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted as described in Haz‐4e. 9) Proposed pervious and impervious surfaces, including site design measures to minimize impervious surfaces and promote infiltration (except where the landfill cover is present). 10) Proposed locations and approximate sizes of stormwater treatment measures. Hydro‐3: Compliance with NPDES Requirements. Applicants for a project under the OPSP shall comply with all Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit requirements established by the CWA and the Grading Permit requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Erosion control measures to be implemented during construction shall be included in the project SWPPP. The project SWPPP shall accompany the NOI filing and shall outline erosion control and storm water quality management measures to be implemented during and following construction. The SWPPP shall also provide the schedule for monitoring performance. Refer to Mitigation Measure Hydro‐2 for more information regarding the project SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit requirements would reduce construction‐related impacts associated with erosion and/or siltation to less‐than‐significant. Prior to issuance of building permits ‐and‐ During construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Building Division Noise‐5: Construction Noise. To reduce noise levels generated by construction, the following standard construction noise control measures shall be included in all construction projects within the During construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction SSF Building Division 320 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 29 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed OPSP area. ○ Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. ○ Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly prohibited. ○ Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive receptors. Temporary noise barriers could reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA. ○ Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. ○ Route all construction traffic to and from the OPSP area via designated truck routes where possible. Prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible. ○ Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the OPSP area. ○ The contractor shall prepare and submit to the City for approval a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise‐generating construction activities. ○ Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. contracts and are met during construction 321 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 30 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. ○ For pile driving activities, consider a) pre‐drilling foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile, b) using multiple pile driving rigs to expedite this phase of construction, and/or c) the use of “acoustical blankets” for receivers located within 100 feet of the site. Traf‐1: Transportation Demand Management Program. The OPSP sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Prior to occupancy Applicant for the development Approval of TDM Program SSF Planning Division Traf‐2b: Bay Trail Continuity Provisions in Construction Management Plan. Continuity of the Bay Trail shall be included in construction management plans for all phases of development in the OPSP. When feasible, construction shall avoid disrupting the Bay Trail and when not feasible, the construction management plan shall specify plans for clear and safe detours for bicyclists and pedestrians and be ADA accessible. Prior to issuance of building permits ‐and‐ During construction Applicant for the development Verification of inclusion in the construction management plan SSF Planning Division and SSF Building Division 322 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 31 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed Util‐2b: Oyster Point Subtrunk Replacement. To provide the required sewer capacity, the Oyster Point Subtrunk will need to be replaced with a larger sized trunk line, with sizes ranging from 12, 15, and 18‐inches. The majority of these improvements are included in the Sewer Master Plan and are funded through a flat‐rate sewer connection fee for new development and a monthly impact fee. The amount of the impact fee is based on the quantity (flow) of wastewater generated. The occupants of the proposed OPSP shall pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer system upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by the OPSP. An additional 700 feet of 8‐inch diameter sewer trunk from Eccles Avenue to Gull Road needs to be upsized to a 12‐inch diameter trunk sewer. This segment of sewer trunk was not included in the recommendations in the Sewer Master Plan. The applicants shall either work with the City to include this improvement in an Sewer Master Plan update or directly fund their fair share of the improvement. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy of Phase IV or building at which warrant criteria levels are approached, if earlier Applicant for the development Payment of sewer connection fee / fair share contribution SSF Public Works Department 323 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT ATTACHMENT B to the Oyster Point Hotel Project Environmental Checklist 324 345 California Street | Suite 450 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Memorandum Date: May 4, 2022 To: Rebecca Auld, Lamphier Gregory From: Daniel Jacobson and Emily Chen, Fehr & Peers Subject: Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment SF22-1215 This memorandum provides a transportation assessment for a proposed hotel located within the Oyster Point Specific Plan area in South San Francisco (“Project”). It includes an analysis of travel demand, site access and circulation, and vehicle miles traveled, as well as a comparison to the analysis provided in the Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR. Key Findings • The Project’s hotel and restaurant uses are unlikely to materially increase vehicle miles traveled due to the Project’s proximity to office/R&D uses and the San Francisco International Airport. • The Project’s size and trip generation is well within the estimated trip generation envelope of the Specific Plan Area and therefore consistent with the transportation analysis in the Specific Plan EIR. • Access and circulation illustrated in the Project’s conceptual site plan is consistent with the Oyster Point Specific Plan and would not create or exacerbate transportation safety impacts. • Based on the above findings, there are no anticipated new impacts to transportation facilities that were not identified in the Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR. 325 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 2 of 12 Project Description The Project is located on Marina Boulevard near the eastern terminus of Oyster Point Boulevard adjacent to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The Project consists of up to 350 hotel rooms, a restaurant and bar, and meeting rooms covering about 261,000 square feet. A ballroom may be added in a future phase. Approximately 250 parking spaces would be provided (78 of which would be valet) along with a loading dock that accommodates two service trucks. The Project includes three driveways along Marina Boulevard and a public access trail along the eastern edge of the site connecting to the Bay Trail. Project Setting Land Use & Transportation Context The Project is located within the Oyster Point Specific Plan area, an 81 acre redevelopment in South San Francisco approved in 2011. The Specific Plan includes the development of up to 2.3 million square feet of office/R&D space as well as new infrastructure, recreation and open space, and the proposed Project. The Specific Plan’s Phase One buildings (660,000 square feet) were completed in early 2022, while remaining phases are underway. The Project is located along Marina Boulevard near the eastern terminus of Oyster Point Boulevard, which connects to US-101 and major arterials within South San Francisco. Gull Drive, Eccles Avenue, and Gateway Boulevard are the nearest north-south streets intersecting with Oyster Point Boulevard. The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal is located adjacent to the project site, while the South San Francisco Caltrain station and South San Francisco BART Station are accessible via peak period shuttle services provided by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org). While no SamTrans bus service currently serves the site, an extension of Route 130 along the Oyster Point Boulevard corridor is planned to occur in 2023. New pedestrian and bicycle facilities have been provided along Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard adjacent to the Project site, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and Class II bike lanes. The Bay Trail covers the perimeter of the Specific Plan area and has frontage on the southern shoreline of the Project site. Figure 1 illustrates the Project location in relation to nearby land uses and transportation facilities. Figure 2 illustrates the Oyster Point Specific Plan. 326 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 3 of 12 Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Oyster Point Specific Plan 327 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 4 of 12 Specific Plan Design Guidelines The Oyster Point Specific Plan seeks to promote alternative transportation modes to, from and within the site (Design Goal 3). To accomplish this, it includes the following applicable design guidelines related to the Project’s site access and circulation: General Guidelines • Provide convenient, efficient, and safe access to Oyster Point. • Maintain and enhance access to adjacent parcels, the waterfront, and the Ferry Terminal. • Encourage alternative transportation by emphasizing pedestrian, bicycle and transit in the roadway network design. • Promote safe pedestrian and vehicular circulation by minimizing conflicts at intersections and changes in road width and direction. Service, Delivery and Emergency Access Guidelines • Service vehicles should be accommodated by the roadway network, with clearly delineated lane markings, signals, and wayfinding signage. • Service, delivery and emergency vehicles should have access to both primary as well as secondary entrances to buildings and facilities. • These secondary entrances should be limited specifically to service, delivery, and emergency access. • Service vehicle driveways and loading areas should be screened and separated from public pedestrian walkways where possible. • Secondary access for emergency vehicles will be provided when their access is restricted from using primary entrances. Parking Access Guidelines • Parking access should be clearly delineated by lane markings, signals, and wayfinding signage. • Access to and from the parking garages should be located at intersections or from a dedicated right turn lane. • Adequate queuing space should be provided at parking garage entrances. Bicycle Circulation Guidelines • Bicycle access and parking should be clearly delineated by lane markings and wayfinding signage. 328 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 5 of 12 Streetscapes and Sidewalks Guidelines • Sidewalks should support an interconnected and public development. • Width of sidewalks should be appropriate to • accommodate an active development. • Sidewalks should be inset from roadways with a landscape buffer where possible to promote pedestrian friendly circulation. Guidelines to Support the TDM Program • The site should include dedicated passenger drop- off and shuttle stop areas. • Pedestrian connections should be provided to connect the buildings and site adjacent sidewalks, Bay Trail and shuttle stops. • Bicycle lanes, routes and/or paths should be provided to allow bicycle accessibility to all buildings at the site. • The parking areas should provide preferred parking for carpool, vanpool, low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles, and electric plug-in vehicles. • Parking should be provided for motorcycle and scooters. • Long-term (Class I) and Short-Term (Class II) bicycle parking should be provided at or adjacent to all buildings. • Shower and changing facilities should be provided in or easily accessible from all buildings. • Transportation and Commute Information Kiosks should be provided at all buildings. • In addition to the physical measures described above, the TDM program will include programmatic measures such as informational resources, transit programs, and commuter amenities. Project Travel Demand Project Trip Generation Vehicle trip estimates for the Project (Table 1) were developed by applying national trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition to the proposed land uses. Due to the continued disruptions in travel behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, ITE rates were used in lieu of conducting new vehicle counts at comparable local sites. ITE Land Use 310 (Hotel) is defined as a place of lodging and supporting facilities such as a full-service restaurant, bar, meeting rooms, ballrooms, and convention facilities, which most closely matches the facilities included in the proposed Project. ITE includes a reasonably large sample size of 28 studies for AM peak hour trip generation data and 31 studies for PM peak hour trip generation data. Daily trip generation data includes a more limited sample size of seven studies and may have a higher margin of error. 329 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 6 of 12 ITE rates are typically derived from suburban settings that lack a mix of land uses within walking distance; consequently, Fehr & Peers used the trip generation methodology known as MXD+ to calibrate the trip generation estimates to local conditions and the proximity to adjacent office/research & development (R&D) uses. The MXD+ method is based on a weighted average of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s MXD Model and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s Report 684 methodology. Additional reductions associated with the proposed transportation demand management program were not included due to limited data available for comparable hotel sites As illustrated in Table 1, the project is projected to generate approximately 2,751 vehicle trips on an average weekday with about 135 occurring in the AM peak hour and about 204 in the PM peak hour. These trip generation estimates do not account for the proposed transportation demand management program, which would further reduce the number of private vehicle trips to the project. The Project considers adding a ballroom in a future phase. Since ITE rates are based upon hotels that typically include ballrooms, the trip generation estimates in Table 1 include travel demand associated with the future ballroom. Consequently, Table 1 may present an overestimate of travel demand without the ballroom. Table 1. Oyster Point Hotel Trip Generation Land Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Hotel1 350 rooms 2,797 90 71 161 106 101 207 Internal Trip Reductions2 - (46) (8) (2) (26) (1) (2) (3) Net New Project trips - 2,751 82 69 135 105 99 204 Notes: 1Based on ITE 11th Edition (Land Use #310 – Hotel, average rate) 2Based on MXD+ trip generation methodology which accounts for Internal trip reductions account for trips made between land uses within the Specific Plan area. Trip Distribution and Assignment About half of Project vehicle travel is expected to occur within South San Francisco, Brisbane, San Bruno, and the San Francisco International Airport. Figure 3 illustrates daily vehicle trip distribution between traffic analysis zones (TAZs) for nearby clusters of hotels in South San Francisco and Brisbane based on StreetLight data, which tracks anonymized movement using cell phone location-based services data. Each site shares similar characteristics as business-oriented hotels that illustrates comparable travel behavior, offering some combination of meeting rooms, ballrooms, and restaurant/bar facilities, although most of these sites are generally older and smaller hotels. Based on this analysis, the Project’s vehicle trip distribution is expected to be most 330 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 7 of 12 heavily concentrated within the East of 101 Area (15 to 20 percent of trips), to/from the San Francisco International Airport (10 to 15 percent), and elsewhere in South San Francisco, Brisbane, or San Bruno (10 to 15 percent). The remaining 50 to 60 percent of trips would mostly be distributed across San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Figure 3: Vehicle Trip Distribution for Nearby Hotels in South San Francisco and Brisbane 331 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 8 of 12 Vehicle trips would be concentrated along Oyster Point Boulevard to access US-101. Upon reaching US-101, about 50 percent of trips are likely to travel to the south, 40 percent to the north, and 10 percent continuing along Sister Cities Boulevard. Trips occurring fully within the East of 101 Area are likely to use Gull Drive, Eccles Avenue, and Gateway Boulevard. Vehicle Miles Traveled The Project is a business-oriented hotel primarily serving nearby office/R&D uses and San Francisco International Airport. Unlike nearby office/R&D land uses in the East of 101 Area that typically generate vehicle miles, the Project would exhibit characteristics of a local-serving land use rather than a regional destination. In its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the State of California’s Office of Planning and Research notes that “local- serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT.”1 Hotels in the East of 101 Area appear to exhibit similar travel behavior as local-serving retail: as illustrated in Figure 3, vehicle trip lengths for four nearby hotel clusters in South San Francisco and Brisbane tend to be short and focused around nearby office/R&D uses and the San Francisco International Airport. As shown in Table 2, the average vehicle trip length for nearby hotels is about four miles, compared with an average trip length of about 13 miles for other land uses in the East of 101 Area. Table 2. Trip Length Comparison East of 101 Area Land Use Average Trip Length Hotels 3.6-3.9 Miles Office/R&D and Other Land Uses 12.9 miles Source: StreetLight data and C/CAG Model Hotels in the vicinity primarily serve nearby office/R&D uses and the San Francisco International Airport, as opposed to generating new tourism-oriented or resort-oriented travel. Assuming a similar travel pattern for the proposed Project as those existing in the vicinity, the Project would not materially increase vehicle miles traveled and may help shorten trips for hotel guests that would otherwise stay at hotels farther away. Although the City of South San Francisco does not have a threshold of significance for VMT associated with hotel uses, the Project may be presumed to have a less than significant impact to VMT based on the City’s screening criteria for local serving land uses that do not result in a net increase in VMT. 1 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, State of California Office of Planning & Research, 2018 https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf 332 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 9 of 12 Specific Plan & City Policy Consistency Trip Generation The Specific Plan EIR document published in 2011 estimated that the Specific Plan buildout would result in 17,684 daily trips, of which 1,873 would occur during the AM peak hour and 2,127 would occur during the PM peak hour (a net change of about 12,716 daily vehicle trips, 1,402 AM peak hour trips, and 1,621 PM peak hour trips. As shown in Table 3, the Oyster Point Hotel is expected to generate in total about 2,751 daily trips, including about 135 AM peak hour trips and 204 PM peak hour trips. Although the Specific Plan EIR did not break down trip generation by land use, the Oyster Point Hotel size is consistent with the Specific Plan, is therefore expected to generate a comparable number of trips as the hotel identified in the Specific Plan EIR. Moreover, its trip generation is well within the estimated trip generation envelope of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan and Project trip generation are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Trip Generation Comparison Scenario Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Oyster Point Specific Plan (2011) 17,684 1,873 2,127 Oyster Point Hotel Project 2,751 135 204 Sources: Oyster Point Specific Plan, 2011 and Fehr & Peers, 2022 Figure 4: Annotated Project Site Plan 333 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 10 of 12 Access & Circulation Access and circulation illustrated in the Project’s conceptual site plan is consistent with the Oyster Point Specific Plan. The site plan (Figure 4) includes driveways connecting to Marina Boulevard, pedestrian connections to the street’s sidewalk, and a Bay Trail connection on its eastern edge as identified in the Specific Plan. Service, Delivery and Emergency Access The Project would provide two onsite loading spaces for commercial deliveries and service vehicles. The Project would primarily be served by small- to mid-sized box trucks, laundry trucks, and garbage trucks (all typically 16 to 32 feet). Truck activity is expected to be spread throughout the day depending on particular functions: for example, garbage trucks typically arrive early morning, while laundry trucks typically arrive mid-morning (in coordination with housekeeping services). Service and delivery vehicles would use a screened in loading dock in the middle of the site. Trucks would enter via the easternmost driveway and conduct a three-point turn within the parking lot to back into the loading dock. The site plan remains conceptual at the time of this analysis, but it can be reasonably inferred that the proposed layout can accommodate such trucks provided that truck turning templates are used to inform the design process. Larger tractor-trailer vehicles are expected for restaurant delivery. These deliveries would primarily occur overnight. Tractor-trailer trucks would back in from Marina Boulevard to access the loading dock. Since the site is located on a relatively low volume street and these deliveries would occur outside of peak hours, large truck deliveries would not pose conflicts with other modes. Truck drivers may benefit from approaching the site from the westbound direction (via looping around the Marina turnaround) to avoid reversing into their blind side when approaching the lot. The City of South San Francisco requires five loading spaces for a 261,000 square foot commercial land use. Based on the anticipated loading activity and distribution throughout the day, city requirements likely exceed anticipated demand, and comparable hotels in the East of 101 Area typically include one to two loading spaces. The proposed loading supply is expected to be sufficient provided that hotel management staggers loading activities throughout the day. Emergency vehicles would have access to all building entrances and facilities as well as the Bay Trail connection along the east side of the Project. The Project is therefore consistent with the Specific Plan’s guidelines for efficient service, delivery, and emergency vehicle access. Parking Access Access for the proposed 250 parking spaces would be provided via three driveways along Marina Boulevard. Each driveway would serve hotel, restaurant, and meeting room uses, with the 334 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 11 of 12 westernmost driveway expected to serve as the primary entrance. Since these driveways are located along the eastern edge of Marina Boulevard, they are likely to account for a majority of vehicle traffic along the street and are unlikely to pose conflicts with the limited through traffic that occurs. Figure 5: Parking Layout The Project’s proposed parking supply includes a 26 percent reduction relative to parking requirements described in Section 20.330.006 of the zoning code. City code would require approximately 340 parking spaces, of which about one-third would be required for hotel guests and the remainder for meeting rooms, hotel employees, and other uses. The applicant has proposed a reduced parking supply due to the hotel’s proximity to nearby office/R&D uses, access to shuttle, ferry, and planned SamTrans service, and market demand at similar hotels. In particular, travel behavior of airport- and business-oriented hotel guests has shifted in recent years from relying on rental cars to Uber and Lyft, resulting in a decrease in parking demand. While occasional surges in parking demand may occur, the applicant anticipates that this may be addressed through additional valet parking, shared parking with neighboring lots, and encouraging visitors to access the hotel via other transportation modes. 335 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment May 4, 2022 Page 12 of 12 Bicycle Access Bicyclists would access the site via the Project’s driveways. Bicycle parking would be provided per City code and delineated with signage. The Project would provide 35 bicycle parking spaces, which is consistent with City code. The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan’s guidelines to incorporate bicycle travel into projects. Pedestrian Access The Project would align with the new sidewalk and trail infrastructure in the Specific Plan Area. Pedestrians would access the Project via a pathway to the lobby. Pedestrians would access the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal, Commute.org shuttles, and planned SamTrans service by crossing Marina Boulevard and walking approximately 300 feet to the east to reach the ferry terminal entrance and bus/shuttle stop. The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan’s guidelines to support an interconnected and pedestrian-friendly development. TDM-Supportive Site Plan Features The Project would be subject to the City’s TDM Ordinance requirements and would incorporate site plan elements consistent with these requirements as described above, including a passenger loading area, direct pedestrian connections to sidewalks and transit facilities, access to bike lanes and trails, and bike parking. The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan’s guidelines to encourage alternative forms of transportation. EIR Transportation Impacts The Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR identifies several significant impacts to transportation facilities, including intersection delay, freeway delay, and offramp queues. Based on the analysis above, the Project’s effects would be consistent with this analysis. Since the certification of the EIR, the State of California has adopted new CEQA guidelines that that vehicle level of service (LOS) and similar measures related to auto delay shall not be used as the sole basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts. The Project would contribute toward Transportation Impact Fees to address multimodal transportation needs around the Specific Plan Area. 336 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) fulfills Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 which requires adoption of a mitigation monitoring program when mitigation measures are required to avoid or reduce a proposed projects significant environmental effects. The MMRP is only applicable if the City of South San Francisco decides to approve the proposed Project. The MMRP is organized to correspond to environmental issues and significant impacts discussed in the Addendum. The table below is arranged in the following five columns: • Recommended mitigation measures, • Timing for implementation of the mitigation measures, • Party responsible for implementation, • Monitoring action, • Party or parties responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures, and • A blank for entry of completion date as mitigation occurs. 337 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 2 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Vis-2a: Lighting Plan. In order to reduce sources of light and glare created by lighting within the OPSP area, the applicant shall specify fixtures and lighting that maintains appropriate levels of light at building entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots and private roads at night consistent with minimum levels detailed in the City’s building codes. These fixtures shall be designed to eliminate spillover, high intensity, and unshielded lighting, thereby avoiding unnecessary light pollution. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase of construction within the OPSP, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Design Plan for review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. The plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: ○ The Lighting Design Plan shall disclose all potential light sources with the types of lighting and their locations. ○ Typical lighting shall include low mounted, downward casting and shielded lights that do not cause spillover onto adjacent properties and the utilization of motion detection systems where applicable. ○ No flood lights shall be utilized. ○ Lighting shall be limited to the areas that would be in operation during nighttime hours. ○ Low intensity, indirect light sources shall be encouraged. ○ On-demand lighting systems shall be encouraged. ○ Mercury, sodium vapor, and similar intense and bright lights shall not be permitted except where their need is specifically approved and their source of light is restricted. ○ Generally, light fixtures shall not be located at the periphery of Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Planning Division 338 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 3 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed the property and should shut off automatically when the use is not operating. Security lighting visible from the highway shall be motion-sensor activated. ○ Use “cut-off” fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light and avoid unnecessary light pollution where appropriate. ○ All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the building codes and the approved lighting plan during construction. Vis-2b: Glare Reduction. In order to reduce sources of daytime glare created by reflective building materials, the applicant shall specify exterior building materials for all proposed structures constructed for the Phase I Project and each subsequent phase of development under the OPSP that include the use of textured or other non-reflective exterior surfaces and non-reflective glass types, including double glazed and non-reflective vision glass. These materials shall be chosen for their non-reflective characteristics and their ability to reduce daytime glare. All exterior glass must meet the specifications of all applicable codes for non-reflective glass and would therefore reduce daytime glare emanating from the OPSP area. Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Planning Division Air-4a: Implement BAAQMD-Recommended Measures to Control Particulate Matter Emissions during Construction. Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and PM10 from construction are recommended to ensure that short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided. Dust (PM10) Control Measures: ○ Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times. Prior to issuance of construction permits ‐and‐ During construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Building Division 339 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 4 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed ○ Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ○ Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. ○ Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads. ○ Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (i.e., previously-graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more). ○ Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles. ○ Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph. ○ Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. ○ Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site. ○ Post a publically visible sign(s) 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. Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 and other construction emissions: ○ The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty 340 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 5 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed (>50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet- average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011 ○ Clear signage at all construction sites will be posted indicating that diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were onsite or adjacent to the construction site. ○ Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off-road diesel powered equipment. Each project shall ensure that emissions from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately ○ The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. compressors). ○ Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. Bio-3a: Incorporate Best Management Practices for Water Quality During Construction. The Plan shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality to minimize During construction Applicant for the development Verification that requirements are met during SSF Building Division 341 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 6 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed impacts in the surrounding wetland environment, sloughs and channels, and the San Francisco Bay during construction. These BMPs shall include numerous practices that will be outlined within the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including, but not limited to, the following mitigation measures: 1. No equipment will be operated in live flow in any of the sloughs or channels or ditches on or adjacent to the site. 2. No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, cement, concrete, washings, petroleum products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into aquatic or wetland habitat. 3. Standard erosion control and slope stabilization measures will be required for work performed in any area where erosion could lead to sedimentation of a waterbody. For example, silt fencing will be installed just outside the limits of grading and construction in any areas where such activities will occur upslope from, and within 50 ft of, any wetland, aquatic, or marsh habitat. This silt fencing will be inspected and maintained regularly throughout the duration of construction. 4. Machinery will be refueled at least 50 ft from any aquatic habitat, and a spill prevention and response plan will be developed. All workers will be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. construction Bio-3b: Minimize Soil Disturbance Adjacent to Wetland and Marsh Habitat. To the extent feasible, soil stockpiling, equipment During construction Applicant for the Verification that Environmentally SSF Planning Division 342 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 7 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed staging, construction access roads, and other intensively soil- disturbing activities shall not occur immediately adjacent to any wetlands that are to be avoided by the OPSP. The limits of the construction area shall be clearly demarcated with Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing to avoid inadvertent disturbance outside the fence during construction activities. development Sensitive Areas are avoided Bio-4: Ensure Adequate Stormwater Run-off Capacity. Increases in stormwater run-off due to increased hardscape shall be mitigated through the construction and maintenance of features designed to handle the expected increases in flows and provide adequate energy dissipation. All such features, including outfalls, shall be regularly maintained to ensure continued function and prevent failure following construction. Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verification that adequate stormwater run- off capacity is provided SSF Public Works Department Bio-6: 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 OPSP area shall be conducted if construction commences during the avian nesting season, between February 1 and August 31. The survey should be undertaken no more than 15 days prior to any site-disturbing activities, including vegetation removal or grading. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall determine an appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffers should be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. Prior to construction if during nesting period Applicant for the development Completion of survey and, if birds present, provision of buffer SSF Planning Division Bio-10a: Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts to Birds. During design of any building greater than 100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant shall consult with a qualified biologist experienced with During preliminary design of any Applicant for the Incorporation of lighting that minimizes bird SSF Planning Division 343 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 8 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed bird strikes and building/lighting design issues to identify lighting- related measures to minimize the effects of the building’s lighting on birds. Such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures, shall be incorporated into the building’s design and operation. ○ Use strobe or flashing lights in place of continuously burning lights for obstruction lighting. Use flashing white lights rather than continuous light, red light, or rotating beams. ○ Install shields onto light sources not necessary for air traffic to direct light towards the ground. ○ Extinguish all exterior lighting (i.e., rooftop floods, perimeter spots) not required for public safety. ○ When interior or exterior lights must be left on at night, the operator of the buildings shall examine and adopt alternatives to bright, all-night, floor-wide lighting, which may include: ○ Installing motion-sensitive lighting. ○ Using desk lamps and task lighting. ○ Reprogramming timers. ○ Use of lower-intensity lighting. ○ Windows or window treatments that reduce transmission of light out of the building shall be implemented to the extent feasible. building greater than 100 feet tall development impacts Bio-10b: Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk. During design of any building greater than 100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant shall consult with a qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues to identify measures related to the external appearance of the building to minimize the During preliminary design of any building greater than Applicant for the development Incorporation of design features that minimize bird impacts SSF Planning Division 344 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 9 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed risk of bird strikes. Such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures, shall be incorporated into the building’s design. ○ Use non-reflective tinted glass. ○ Use window films to make windows visible to birds from the outside. ○ Use external surfaces/designs that “break up” reflective surfaces rather than having large, uninterrupted areas of surfaces that reflect, and thus may not appear noticeably different (to a bird) from, the sky. 100 feet tall Geo-2a: Compliance with California Building Code. OPSP development shall meet requirements of the California Building Code, including the California Building Standards, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards will reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. Geo-2b: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code. Prior to issuance of building permits -and- Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verify geotechnical recommendation s are included in plans and construction contracts SSF Building Division 345 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 10 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Geo-2c: Obtain a building permit. The OPSP 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. Geo-3a: 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 liquefaction potential of the site soils, particularly in the perimeter dikes. 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. Structures shall be designed to reduce 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 liquefaction potential, if the potential for liquefaction is found to exist, or other ground failure modes such as lateral spreading, seismic densification or stability of the perimeter dike slopes. Mitigation measures may include ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or jet Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant for the development Verify geotechnical recommendation s are included in plans and construction contracts SSF Building Division 346 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 11 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed grouting. Geo-3b: Obtain a building permit. The OPSP 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 should 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. Geo-4: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation. A design-level Geotechnical Investigation shall include an evaluation of static stability and seismic stability under a design magnitude earthquake event. Seismic analyses shall include pseudo-static analyses to estimate permanent slope displacements due to earthquake motions. The Geotechnical Engineer shall prepare recommendations to mitigate potential slope instability, if slope stability problems are identified. Mitigation measures may include ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or jet grouting. Design-level Geotechnical Investigations shall be completed during preliminary and final design stages and will confirm material types used in the construction of the perimeter dikes to verify that the slopes meet minimum criteria for stability under both static and seismic conditions. Knowledge of the stability of the perimeter dikes will guide the selection of any future measures to mitigate any deficiencies identified in the perimeter dike. Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant for the development Verify geotechnical recommendation s are included in plans and construction contracts SSF Building Division Geo-5a: Deep Foundations. Because of the magnitude of expected settlement of Bay Mud soils and waste fill materials that would Prior to Applicant for Verify SSF Building 347 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 12 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed occur under new building loads, the OPSP applicant must consider the use of deep foundations such as driven piles. Specific recommendations for suitable deep foundation alternatives and required penetrations will be provided during the course of a design-level geotechnical investigation and will depend on factors such as the depth and hardness of the underlying clays, sands or bedrock, and the corrosivity of the waste materials and Bay Mud soils. Suitable deep foundation types may include driven precast, prestressed concrete piles or driven closed-end steel pipe piles with the interior of the pile filled with concrete after driving. Deep foundations shall extend through all waste materials and Bay Mud and be tipped in underlying stiff to hard clays, dense sands or weathered bedrock. Where waste and Bay Mud soils underlie the site, wall and column loads as well as floor slabs shall be founded on deep foundations. Settlement of properly-designed and constructed deep foundation elements is typically less than about one-half inch. The majority of settlement typically occurs during construction as the loads are applied. Where landfill waste and Bay Mud are not present (possibly at extreme western and northwestern edges of the site) and competent soil or bedrock are present near the ground surface (within about 5 feet of finished grade elevation), shallow foundations such as footings or mats may be appropriate foundation types, as determined during the course of a design- level geotechnical investigation. Where proposed structures straddle a transition zone between these conditions, a combination of shallow and deep foundations may be required. Any transition zones shall be identified during site-specific geotechnical investigations for preliminary and final designs. Geo-5b: Predrilling and/or Pile Configuration. Piles either shall be issuance of building permits the development requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction Division 348 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 13 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed predrilled through the fill and landfill materials to protect the piles from damage due to unknown materials, to reduce pushing waste material deeper, and to reduce pile alignment problems or shall have a pointed tip configuration. If a drill is used, it should only loosen and break up in-place obstructions that may cause pile damage. During recent subsurface investigations reported by Treadwell & Rollo (2009b) obstructions including concrete rubble was encountered throughout the landfill area, particularly in the northern end of the site. Even with predrilling, precast concrete piles could be damaged during installation at a landfill site such as Oyster Point. For preliminary planning purposes, a precast concrete pile breakage rate during installation of 10 to 15 percent may be considered applicable. Piles usually have to include pointed tip configurations to avoid pushing landfill waste downward. These configurations are typically readily accommodated by pile driving contractors. Geo-5c: Indicator Pile Program. Prior to specifying the lengths of the production piles, drive indicator piles at the structure sites in order to observe the driving characteristic of the piles and the ability of the driving equipment when a driven pile is used. The driving criteria and pile length of production piles shall also be estimated from the information obtained from driving of the indicator piles. The contractor shall use the same equipment to drive both the indicator and production piles. Indicator pile lengths and locations shall be selected by the Geotechnical Engineer, in conjunction with the Structural Engineer and Contractor after the foundation plan has been finalized. The indicator pile program will serve to establish information on the following: ○ Estimates of production pile lengths; 349 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 14 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed ○ Drivability of production piles; ○ Performance of pile driving equipment; and ○ Variation in driving resistance relative to depth and location of piles. Geo-6: Account for Drag Load on Deep Foundations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall account for accumulation of drag load in the structural design of the deep foundations elements (piles). Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant for the development Verify geotechnical recommendation s are included in plans and construction contracts SSF Building Division Geo-7: Incorporate Systems for Landfill Gas Control. Measures for the control of landfill gas shall be included in building design. Measures for the control of landfill gas typically include a collection system, floor slab shielding and interior alarms. For projects on or adjacent to the landfill area, during preliminary project design and prior to issuance of building permit Applies on a building by building basis Verification that measures for the control of landfill gas are included SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department Geo-8a: Avoid Significant New Loads on Landfill Waste and Bay Mud. A design-level Geotechnical Investigation shall include exploration to more thoroughly determine the thickness and areal extent of landfill waste and Bay Mud. To avoid inducing additional settlement to the settlement that is already on-going, grading plans shall include as little additional new fill as possible, and Prior to issuance of building permit Applies to all construction Verification of adequate report SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department 350 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 15 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed significant new structure loads or any structures that are settlement-sensitive shall be founded on deep foundations extended below the Bay Mud, as recommended in the design-level Geotechnical Investigation report. All grading shall be planned to avoid penetrating the landfill cap and to reduce the amount of long-term settlement in response to new fills. Because the Bay Mud and waste across most of the site are still settling under the weight of existing fill and waste decomposition and will settle more under new fills, additional settlement should be expected, with the creation of localized low- lying surface areas. Existing low areas shall be corrected during site grading to allow for proper drainage. Long-term maintenance planning for the development shall also include provisions for periodic grading to correct drainage problems and improve site grades, as outlined in the Disposition and Development Agreement. The Geotechnical Engineer will recommend other site-specific recommendations based on the results of the design-level Geotechnical Investigation to mitigate on-going settlement and any additional settlement to be expected in response to new development. Geo-8b: Design Building-Soil Interface to Allow Free Movement. The Structural Engineer shall provide that structures not supported on deep foundations not be structurally tied into pile-supported buildings, except as noted below, and shall be designed to allow free vertical movement between structures. Articulated ramps on walkways and building entrances at the interface between the pile and soil-supported areas can provide a smooth walkway over moderate differential settlements with some amount of maintenance. As the magnitude of the differential Prior to issuance of building permit Applies to all construction Verification of compliant construction plans SSF Building Division 351 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 16 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed settlement increases, however, these ramps may need to be rebuilt or realigned to account for the larger elevation differential. Similar ramps may also reduce differential settlements between driveways and pile-supported parking lots. Over time, voids will tend to form beneath pile-supported buildings due to on-going settlement of the landfill. Use of wall skirts around the building perimeter will help to reduce the visual impact of these voids. Geo-9a: Monitoring and Testing. Special precautions shall be taken to monitor the safety conditions and to provide for the safety of workers in the area. Additionally, if excavations encounter water, this water shall be tested for contaminants and may have to undergo specialized handling, treatment and/or disposal if it is contaminated. A system to disperse methane during construction shall be installed in or adjacent to the trenches. For projects on the landfill area, prior to issuance of building permit and during construction Applies to all construction on a landfill Adherence to measures if water discovered during excavation SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department Geo-9b: Locate Underground Utilities in Soil Cap. To the extent practicable, the utilities shall be constructed in the soil landfill cap to avoid direct contact of the utility lines and construction workers with the waste material. If construction of utilities in the waste material is necessary, proper design and construction precautions shall be taken to protect the system and the workers from the corrosive and hazardous conditions of the waste. Geo-9c: Seal Trenches and Underground Structures. Trenches and underground structures shall be sealed to preclude gas intrusion. Typical types of sealing procedures include providing a low permeability clay cover of 1 foot over the top of the pipe, or the utility trench be lined with a relatively impervious For projects on the landfill area, prior issuance of building permit and during construction Applies to all construction on a landfill Verification of compliant plans and adherence to approved plans during construction SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department 352 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 17 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed geomembrane. Underground manholes may be shielded from methane intrusion by placement of a membrane around the outside of the structure. To reduce gas migration off-site within the utility trenches, all trenches crossing the transition zone between the landfill and non-landfill portions of the property shall be sealed with a clay plug surrounding the pipe or other approved methods. In addition, plugs shall also be provided at the perimeters of buildings to reduce migration of gas through the utility trenches to beneath the buildings. Geo-10: Provide For Continuity of Landfill Cap. Following planned landfill excavation and landfill cap repair, the project Civil Engineer shall require that excavations for building foundations, utility trenches and other underground structures be configured to maintain continuity of the landfill cap. The specific configuration will depend upon the excavation depth and orientation to underlying wastes. However, a low-permeability layer of soil or a geomembrane properly tied to surrounding cap areas may be required. For projects on the landfill area, prior to issuance of building permit and during construction Applies to all construction on a landfill Verification of landfill cap installation SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department Geo-11: Common Trenches and Vaults. Where underground utilities are to be located in landfill areas, consideration shall be given to reducing the number of utilities trenches by locating utilities in common trenches to the extent practicable. In addition, vaulted systems shall be designed and maintained at such interfaces that provide flexible and/or expandable connections to the proposed buildings. In addition, the utility lines beneath buildings shall be suspended from hangers fastened to structural floor slabs. For projects on the landfill area, during preliminary design and prior to issuance of building permit Applies to all construction on a landfill Verification of adherence to measures SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department 353 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 18 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Geo-12: Flexible Materials and Joints. Utility lines shall be constructed of flexible pipe such as welded polyethylene to accommodate differential settlement within the waste material and landfill cap. At the border of the landfill, where differential settlements are expected to be large, the utility lines shall be designed to allow for rotation. As with buried utilities on a conventional site, proper bedding and backfilling shall be completed, as specified in a design-level geotechnical investigation report. For projects on the landfill area, during preliminary design, prior to issuance of building permit and during construction Applies to all construction on a landfill Verification of adherence to measures SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department Geo-13: Increase Flow Gradient. The Civil Engineer shall consider increasing the flow gradient in sewers and storm drains so that differential settlements will not disrupt the flow. An alternative is to provide a pumping system that does not rely on gravity flow. Such measures will reduce the impact of reduced flow gradient due to differential settlement to less than significant. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I Project. For projects on the landfill area, during preliminary design, prior to issuance of building permit and during construction Applies to all construction on a landfill Verification of adherence to measures SSF Building Division and SSF Public Works Department Geo-14: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (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 (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verification that adequate plan prepared SSF Building Division 354 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 19 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Haz-2: Waste Excavation and Re-disposition. A plan shall be written for management of excavated wastes/refuse. Non- hazardous excavated waste shall be re-deposited in an alternate part of the site and any hazardous waste shall be relocated off-site for appropriate disposal. The plan can be a section of the Site Management Plan (Mitigation Measure Haz-4a), or a stand alone document. The plan shall include measures to avoid releases of wastes or waste water into the environment and to protect workers and the public. The details of the plan shall be based, in part, on the amount of material to be removed and the final design of foundation structures, but will generally include the following, as deemed appropriate by the regulatory agencies, particularly DTSC and RWQCB: ○ To the greatest extent possible, use existing boring data to obtain pre-characterization of refuse for off-site disposal, and to pre-plan areas to be removed versus areas to be re-deposited on-site. ○ Divide excavation areas into daily sections; plan to complete excavation and backfilling a section during each working day. Minimize the time period that refuse is exposed. ○ Review existing boring data and existing site documentation to evaluate potential subsurface materials to be encountered. ○ Stake out area to be excavated. ○ If excavation is to be conducted at depths where groundwater is to be encountered, conduct dewatering to minimize worker potential direct contact with groundwater. Removed groundwater shall be treated in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Site Management Plan (Mitigation Measure Haz-4a). Prior to issuance of building permit and during construction on the landfill area Applies to all construction Compliance with Site Management Plan SSF Public Works Department 355 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 20 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed ○ Screen excavation site with a portable photoionization detector and combustible gas monitor for landfill gasses. Continue screening progress of each excavation section as work proceeds. Use foam suppressants or 6 inches minimum of daily soil cover for nuisance odors. ○ Provide carbon dioxide gas source (fire extinguisher or cylinder) to flood excavation as necessary to prevent migration of gases into atmosphere above excavation, minimize explosive or fire potential, and control nuisance and odors. ○ Begin excavation and segregate soil and /or clay cap material above refuse for reuse as foundation layer. ○ Upon reaching refuse, place refuse into dump truck standing by on-site. ○ Dispose of each truck load of refuse immediately after filling equipment. All loads to be covered when hauling. Refuse shall be either re-deposited on-site in a specified area, or hauled to an off-site disposal facility. ○ Prior to relocation, field verify each load for disposal classification type (landfill classification, Class 3 or Class 2). If waste for off-site disposal is characterized as either California or Federal Hazardous Waste as defined in the criteria described in CCR Title 22 Section 66261, then the hazardous waste shall be tracked using the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest System (USEPA Form 8700- 22). ○ Hazardous and if necessary, non-hazardous waste shall be transported to the appropriate disposal facility using a permitted, licensed, and insured transportation company. Transporters of hazardous waste shall meet the requirements of 40 CFR 263 and 22 CCR 66263. Copies of 356 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 21 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed uniform hazardous waste manifests signed by the designated waste disposal facility shall be retained for at least five years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter. Copies of records pertaining to the characterization of hazardous or nonhazardous waste shall be retained for a minimum of three years. ○ Upon reaching over-excavation depth, place a minimum of 6-inch thick layer of appropriate backfill soil on excavation bottom to seal exposed refuse surface. Place soil by the end of the same day excavation is completed. ○ Upon completion of excavation, begin cap placement procedures. Specific measures shall be targeted to minimize the duration of waste exposure, plan for appropriate final destination of wastes based on the presence of contaminants of concern, allow for adjustment in plan based on unexpected occurrences, and to protect worker safety and the public. Additional work plan measures are discussed in Haz-4a. In addition, worker protection measures for soil and dewatering are discussed in Haz-6a. Measures specific to off-site air quality during construction are included in mitigation measure Air-4. Haz-4b: Use Of Deep Foundations To Prevent Load Induced Settlement. Buildings on fill shall be supported using driven steel or concrete piles founded in stiff to hard clays, dense sands or weathered bedrock underlying the fill. Both the structural loads and building floor slabs shall be supported on piles. This will avoid placing additional building loads on fill material. Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant for the development Adherence to specifications provided in measure SSF Building Division Haz-4c: Minimization of Irrigation Water Use. Landscaping of the During Applicant for SSF Building 357 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 22 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed site shall be selected to stabilize the soil, prevent erosion, and reduce the need for extensive irrigation. Excessive water could infiltrate the landfill cap and produce leachate. To prevent this, low-water vegetation shall be selected to reduce irrigation water. In addition the thickness of the erosion resistant layer in landscaped areas will be increased to minimize intrusion of roots into the lower layers of the cover. Construction the development Division Haz-4e: Operation and Maintenance Activities. Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities are expected to occur indefinitely at the site. Operation and maintenance activities shall include inspections and observations of site features to protect the landfill cap, prevent utility damage, maintain gravity flow of sewer systems, maintain the landfill gas barrier and venting systems, and monitor for leachate and groundwater contaminant concentrations. O&M shall act to prevent releases of hazardous materials by identifying deficits in engineering controls prior to release events. SSF Building Division SSF Building Division Haz-6a: Development and Implementation of Site Management Plans. A Site Management Plan shall be prepared that addresses the exposure risk to people and the environment resulting from future demolition, construction, occupancy, and maintenance activities on the property. The plans for the landfill portion of the OPSP shall be in accordance with RWQCB order No. 00-046, the PCMP and recommendations of the Environmental Consultant, and shall be reviewed and approved by the RWQCB, DTSC, the SMCEHD Groundwater Protection Program and the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health SSF Building Division SSF Building Division 358 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 23 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed and the environment shall be provided in the plan. At a minimum, the plan shall include the following: 1) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) shall be prepared in accordance with OSHA regulations by all contractors at the OPSP area. 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 shall be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. The plan shall also designate provisions to limit worker entry and exposure and shall show locations and type of protective fencing to prevent public exposure to hazards during demolition, site grading, and construction activities. 2) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination shall be developed. This shall include dewatering techniques to minimize direct exposure to groundwater during construction activities, treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with local and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. Groundwater encountered in excavations shall not be discharged into the neighboring storm drain, but into a closed containment facility, unless proven to have concentrations of contaminants below established regulatory guidelines. Extracted contaminated groundwater shall be required to be stored in tanks or other sealed container until tested. If testing determines that the water can be discharged into the sanitary sewer system, then the applicant shall acquire a ground water discharge permit from the City of South San Francisco Sanitary Sewer District and meet local discharge limits before 359 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 24 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed being allowed to discharge into the sanitary sewer. Water shall be analyzed for the chemicals of concern at the site, including benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, chlorobenzene, naphthalene and additional compounds as requested by the receiving facility or the City of South San Francisco. 3) Waste relocation. Relocation or removal of existing landfill waste/refuse will be required for landfill cap upgrades and for site construction. Excavated waste can either be re-deposited on site or disposed of at an active landfill facility. Off-site disposal will require pre-characterization of the waste for acceptance at an approved waste disposal facility. Waste manifests will be prepared to document transportation and disposal. On-site disposal shall require proper placement, compaction, and capping of the refuse material. In either case, segregation of Class 2 and Class 3 from Class 1 material for disposal purposes shall be performed on-site to the extent possible. No Class 1 material shall be relocated or re- deposited on-site. BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 34 section 118 documents a limited exemption for construction activities at landfill sites. This section specifies that when the construction activities are related to “installing, expanding, replacing, or repairing components of the landfill gas, leachate, or gas condensate collection and removal systems.” Excavation for cap upgrades falls under this exemption. Excavation for construction purposes will also likely fall under this exemption. As such it will be necessary to provide BAAQMD with construction plans and other documentation as detailed under this regulation for the purposes of obtaining a letter of exemption from BAAQMD. Excavation procedures are also discussed in Measure Haz-2. 4) Future subsurface work plan. The plan shall document procedures for future subsurface landscaping work, utility maintenance, etc., with proper notification, where applicable. The 360 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 25 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed plan shall include a general health and safety plan for each expected type of work, with appropriate personal protective equipment, where applicable. This plan may be included in the operations and maintenance plan as appropriate. Haz-6b: Landfill Gas System. Section 21160 of Title 27 of the CCR requires that closed landfills implement and maintain landfill gas control. A landfill gas (LFG) venting system shall be placed under the bottom slabs of each structure built entirely or partially over landfill material, to collect and vent the build up of gases diffusing through the landfill cap. The LFG system shall include spray-applied vapor barrier membranes, horizontal collection and passive venting, gas detection and monitoring. The system shall either have backup active collection and venting or shall be designed to facilitate retrofitting with an active system, if measures warrant the retrofit. Potential migration of LFG into the building space shall be mitigated by the collection and venting system, and secondly by the spray-applied membrane. Subsurface landfill gases shall be vented by a network of perforated piping placed beneath the building slabs. The exhaust gases shall be manifolded to a series of riser piping that is to be vented above structure roofs. Passive landfill gas systems do not require permits, however if an active system is installed, either at the time of construction or as part of a retrofit, a BAAQMD permit will be needed. Applicant for the development (within building on site) -and- SSF Building Division (external to building) SSF Building Division Haz-6c: Non-use of Groundwater. Water supply wells shall not be installed at the site. This will prevent direct contact between the public and site groundwater and leachate. All phases Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in landscaping plan SSF Building 361 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 26 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Hydro-1: Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be used during installation of foundation piers to reduce the potential for gaps in the subsurface confining layers around the piers. BMP requirements shall be identified in the SWPPP and shall be developed by the applicant or their authorized representative. The exact BMPs to be implemented shall depend on final pier design and type, but can include pre-drilling and grouting of concrete piers, use of hollow steel piers, or other methods to reduce the risk of displaced refuse creating a void in the Bay Mud layer. The proposed BMPs shall be benchmarked against the California Department of Transportation Stormwater Quality Handbooks Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual (2003 and associated updates). Prior to issuance of building permits -and- During construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Building Division Hydro-2: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the applicant of a project under the OPSP shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during construction. If the SWPP will be developed after September 2, 2011, the SWPPP shall be developed by a California Qualified SWPPP Developer in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit 2009-009-DWQ. 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 “Erosion & Prior to issuance of building permits -and- Prior to construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Building Division 362 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 27 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Sediment Control Measures” manual. Silt fences shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 3) BMPs to be developed by the applicant shall be used for preventing the discharge or other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. In accordance with the handbook C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, Version 2, permanent mitigation measures for stormwater shall be submitted as part of project application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and the Building Permit Application. Elements that shall be addressed in the submittals include the following: 5) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the OPSP area. R&D activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed OPSP area shall be described. This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the OPSP area based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. 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 363 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 28 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, etc. 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted as described in Haz-4e. 9) Proposed pervious and impervious surfaces, including site design measures to minimize impervious surfaces and promote infiltration (except where the landfill cover is present). 10) Proposed locations and approximate sizes of stormwater treatment measures. Hydro-3: Compliance with NPDES Requirements. Applicants for a project under the OPSP shall comply with all Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit requirements established by the CWA and the Grading Permit requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Erosion control measures to be implemented during construction shall be included in the project SWPPP. The project SWPPP shall accompany the NOI filing and shall outline erosion control and storm water quality management measures to be implemented during and following construction. The SWPPP shall also provide the schedule for monitoring performance. Refer to Mitigation Measure Hydro-2 for more information regarding the project SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit requirements would reduce construction-related impacts associated with erosion and/or siltation to less-than-significant. Prior to issuance of building permits -and- During construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction contracts and are met during construction SSF Building Division Noise-5: Construction Noise. To reduce noise levels generated by construction, the following standard construction noise control measures shall be included in all construction projects within the During construction Applicant for the development Verify requirements are included in construction SSF Building Division 364 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 29 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed OPSP area. ○ Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. ○ Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly prohibited. ○ Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive receptors. Temporary noise barriers could reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA. ○ Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. ○ Route all construction traffic to and from the OPSP area via designated truck routes where possible. Prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible. ○ Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the OPSP area. ○ The contractor shall prepare and submit to the City for approval a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. ○ Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. contracts and are met during construction 365 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PAGE 30 OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. ○ For pile driving activities, consider a) pre-drilling foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile, b) using multiple pile driving rigs to expedite this phase of construction, and/or c) the use of “acoustical blankets” for receivers located within 100 feet of the site. Traf-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. The OPSP sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Prior to occupancy Applicant for the development Approval of TDM Program SSF Planning Division Traf-2b: Bay Trail Continuity Provisions in Construction Management Plan. Continuity of the Bay Trail shall be included in construction management plans for all phases of development in the OPSP. When feasible, construction shall avoid disrupting the Bay Trail and when not feasible, the construction management plan shall specify plans for clear and safe detours for bicyclists and pedestrians and be ADA accessible. Prior to issuance of building permits -and- During construction Applicant for the development Verification of inclusion in the construction management plan SSF Planning Division and SSF Building Division 366 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OYSTER POINT HOTEL PROJECT PAGE 31 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Util-2b: Oyster Point Subtrunk Replacement. To provide the required sewer capacity, the Oyster Point Subtrunk will need to be replaced with a larger sized trunk line, with sizes ranging from 12, 15, and 18-inches. The majority of these improvements are included in the Sewer Master Plan and are funded through a flat-rate sewer connection fee for new development and a monthly impact fee. The amount of the impact fee is based on the quantity (flow) of wastewater generated. The occupants of the proposed OPSP shall pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer system upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by the OPSP. An additional 700 feet of 8-inch diameter sewer trunk from Eccles Avenue to Gull Road needs to be upsized to a 12-inch diameter trunk sewer. This segment of sewer trunk was not included in the recommendations in the Sewer Master Plan. The applicants shall either work with the City to include this improvement in an Sewer Master Plan update or directly fund their fair share of the improvement. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy of Phase IV or building at which warrant criteria levels are approached, if earlier Applicant for the development Payment of sewer connection fee / fair share contribution SSF Public Works Department 367 Exhibit 1C. 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR For online access to the 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR please click the link below: https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/0/doc/270123/Page1.aspx 368 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-903 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4b. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve entitlements for the proposed hotel project including Design Review (DR22-0005),Use Permit (UP22-0001),and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0006)and adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement (DA22-0001)to construct a new 12-story,165 foot tall,350 room,261,000 square foot hotel building,with 232 surface parking spaces and site improvements, located at 367 Marina Boulevard in the Oyster Point Specific Plan zone district WHEREAS,Oyster Point Holdco,LLC (“Applicant”)has proposed to construct an approximately 261,00 square foot hotel.An additional 14,200 square feet of building space is anticipated as a future expansion phase to include an event ballroom and additional meeting space for a total square footage of 275,200 at 367 Marina Boulevard (“Project Site”); and, WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the Oyster Point Specific Plan area; and, WHEREAS,the Applicant seeks approval of the following entitlements for the project:Development Agreement, Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan; and, WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and, WHEREAS,an environmental checklist was prepared for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168,which concluded that per CEQA Guidelines sections 15168 and 15162,the project is within the scope of the certified the Oyster Point Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)(State Clearinghouse number 2010022070)and no further environmental review is required.The environmental checklist also concluded the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,as there are no project- specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the environmental checklist,and by separate resolution,recommended that the City Council approve the environmental checklist as the appropriate environmental document for the project; and WHEREAS,the Design Review Board reviewed the project at its meeting of May 17,2022,and recommended approval of the project; and, WHEREAS,on November 3,2022 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements,take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the project; and, NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 1 of 7 powered by Legistar™369 File #:22-903 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4b. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq. (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the Project applications;the Oyster Point Hotel Project Plan set,prepared by SB Architects,dated September 28,2022, the Transportation Demand Management Plan,as prepared by Fehr &Peers,dated October 19,2022,the Oyster Point Specific Plan,the Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR,including the Draft and Final EIR and all appendices thereto;the Environmental Checklist;all site plans;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A),Oyster Point Hotel Project Plan Set (Exhibit B),and the Transportation Demand Management Plan (Exhibit C ),and Development Agreement (Exhibit F)are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Tony Rozzi. By a separate resolution,the Planning Commission,exercising its independent judgment and analysis made the findings contained in that Resolution and recommended that the City Council make a determination that the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed under the 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR (EIR)pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168 and no additional environmental review is required.The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council make a determination that the environmental checklist also demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. 4.The proposed Project is consistent and compatible with all elements in the City of South San Francisco General Plan,as it will help the City implement several broad General Plan goals,including but not limited to:maintaining a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth,and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. 5.The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 2 of 7 powered by Legistar™370 File #:22-903 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4b. 5.The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The development of the Project Site would result in the construction of new 350 room hotel as anticipated in the Oyster Point Specific Plan. 6.The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed,as an existing vacant underutilized site will be developed as a 350 room hotel that meets the City’s land use and zoning standards, and the Oyster Point Specific Plan. B.Design Review 1.The project is consistent with the applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance because,as conditioned,the project meets all of the development standards of the Oyster Point Specific Plan District in the South San Francisco Municipal Code including but not limited to floor area,height, lot coverage, and land use. 2.The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan District, including the goals,policies,and implementation measures and will minimize the effects of traffic, parking,storm water run-off,and construction dust and emissions on adjacent land uses and properties in the project vicinity. o Allow parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods (4.3 -I-18, Transportation Element); o Require new development pay a fair share of the cost of street and other traffic and transportation improvements (4.2-I-7, Transportation Element); o Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines.These measures would reduce particulate emissions from construction and grading activities. (7.3-I-3, Conservation and Open Space Element); and o Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation,including bicycling,bus transit,and carpooling (7.3-G-4, Conservation and Open Space Element) 3.The Project is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council;because the proposed Hotel building includes adequate design features to create architectural interest and avoid a large- scale,bulky and “box-like”appearance.Long facades are broken up into smaller visual components through variations in form and texture.Wall planes are varied and exterior building walls vary in depth and/or direction.Building walls exhibit offsets,recesses,or projections with significant depth,or a repeated pattern of offsets,recesses,or projections of smaller depth.There is variety in height and roof forms. Building height is varied so that portions of the building have a change in height and are varied over different portions of the building through changes in the roof parapets,elevators and stairway projections. The building façade incorporates details such as window recesses and changes in material.The use of City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 3 of 7 powered by Legistar™371 File #:22-903 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4b. The building façade incorporates details such as window recesses and changes in material.The use of materials,textures,and colors enhance architectural interest and emphasize details and changes in plane. Some of the architectural features of the main façade are incorporated into the rear and side elevations. 4.The Project is consistent with Findings for Approval for the other entitlements the project requires including use permit and a transportation demand management (TDM)program as detailed in the staff report and findings. In summary: a)The hotel land use is a permitted use in the Oyster Point Specific Plan District and the hotel use supports the Oyster Point Specific Plan vision for a hotel at this site that serves airport clientele and visitor serving uses, as well as, reduced trips and parking. b)The project satisfies the Use Permit Findings for reduced parking for airport oriented hotels. c)The project is consistent with TDM Findings by offering numerous trip reduction measures to employees and guests that will reduce trips. 5.The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”)because the project has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Board on May 17,2022 because it was found to be consistent with each of the following eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. 1.The site subject to design review shall be graded and developed with due regard for the natural terrain,aesthetic quality,and landscaping so as not to impair the environmental quality,value,or stability of the site or the environmental quality or value of improved or unimproved property in the area. 2. A building, structure, or sign shall: a)Reasonably relate to its site and property in the immediate and adjacent areas; b)Not be of such poor quality of design as to adversely affect the environmental quality or desirability of the immediate areas or neighboring areas; and c)Not unreasonably interfere with the occupancy,environmental quality,or the stability and value of improved or unimproved real property or have an unreasonable detrimental effect on the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 3.New additions to existing residential dwellings shall be architecturally compatible with the primary residential unit, with respect to style, massing, roof pitch, color and materials. 4.A site shall be developed to achieve a harmonious relationship with the area in which it is located and adjacent areas,allowing a reasonable similarity of style or originality,which does not impair the environmental quality or value of improved or unimproved property or prevent appropriate development City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 4 of 7 powered by Legistar™372 File #:22-903 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4b. environmental quality or value of improved or unimproved property or prevent appropriate development and use of such areas or produce degeneration of properties in such areas with attendant deterioration of conditions affecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the City. 5.Parking areas shall be designed and developed to buffer surrounding land uses;compliment pedestrian-oriented development;enhance the environmental quality of the site,including minimizing stormwater run-off and the heat-island effect; and achieve a safe, efficient, and harmonious development. 6.Open space,pedestrian walks,signs,illumination,and landscaping (including irrigation)shall be designed and developed to enhance the environmental quality of the site,achieve a safe,efficient,and harmonious development,and accomplish the objectives set forth in the precise plan of design and design criteria. 7.Electrical and mechanical equipment or works and fixtures and trash storage areas shall be designed and constructed so as not to detract from the environmental quality of the site.Electrical and mechanical equipment or works and fixtures and trash storage areas shall be concealed by an appropriate architectural structure which uses colors and materials harmonious with the principal structure,unless a reasonable alternative is identified. 8.Components considered in design review shall include but not be limited to exterior design, materials,textures,colors,means of illumination,landscaping,irrigation,height,shadow patterns,parking, access,security,safety,and other usual on-site development elements.(Ord.1544 §2,2017;Ord.1432 §2, 2010) C.Transportation Demand Management Plan 1.The proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the project,considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project’s location,size,and hours of operation based on a detailed review of the Transportation Demand Management plan for the proposed hotel which outlines numerous trip reduction measures applicable to both guests and employees including but not limited to subsidized transit passes for employees encouraging uses of Caltrain,BART,SF Bay Ferry and SamTrans services, bicycle storage showers and lockers and repair,and strategies to reduce employee commutes such as carpool/vanpool ridematching,guaranteed ride home programs,and free parking for carpool/vanpools just to name a few.All of these and more trip reduction measures discussed in the project TDM plan are feasible and relevant to the operation of the proposed hotel land use and it’s guests and employees. 2.The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target alternative mode use established for the project by this chapter will be achieved and maintained because the project TDM program demonstrates that trip reduction is feasible with the implementation of the proposed measure outlined in the TDM program for hotel occupants,visitors,guests and employees which will be monitored on a yearly basis as part of the annual reporting requirements. D. Conditional Use Permit for Reduced Parking for Airport-Oriented Hotels and Motels City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 5 of 7 powered by Legistar™373 File #:22-903 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4b. 1.Distance the hotel or motel is located from the airport. Airport-oriented hotels and motels are usually located no further than three miles from the San Francisco International Airport.The proposed Hotel would be located within three miles of the San Francisco International (SFO) Airport’s border. 2.Availability of airport bus and/or limousine service.The location of this hotel will be served by various airport shuttle, bus and limousine services 3.Proximity of auto rental agencies to the site. Additional parking may be required for rental facilities on the site.Since San Francisco International Airport is located in close proximity to the hotel there are many rental car services nearby. There are approximately 6-8 car rental facilities all within less than 3 miles of the proposed hotel. 4.Availability of parking facilities adjoining the site which have peak use hours different from peak hours of the hotel or motel.In the project vicinity there is a combination of several large scale public and private surface parking lots which would have alternate parking peaks from the hotel. 5.Documentation of actual use of parking spaces at an existing and comparable facility for an extended period of time.Parking demand estimated using standard rates published by ITE in Parking Generation, 5th Edition is expected to be 259 parking spaces, a deficit of 27 spaces. However, with the implementation of the TDM plan measures, discussed further in the following section, the proposed parking supply is expected to be adequate. 6.Availability of on-site meeting rooms and conference facilities.The project as proposed would provide approximately 14,300 square feet of on-site meeting rooms and conference facilities. 7.Designation of additional parking spaces to allow for extended parking for guests using the airport.As proposed, the Hotel would not be providing extended parking (e.g., for long-term airport parking). As proposed, the parking stalls would be solely for overnight guests and employees. 8.In determining the required number of off-street parking spaces needed for an airport-oriented hotel or motel,the Planning Commission shall include provisions for additional off-street parking spaces to serveCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 6 of 7 powered by Legistar™374 File #:22-903 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:4b. motel,the Planning Commission shall include provisions for additional off-street parking spaces to serve employee needs at the rate of one-half space per employee and for related uses such as restaurants and conference/meeting rooms.As calculated the provided parking includes parking spaces to serve employee needs and any ancillary uses. E. Development Agreement 1.The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives,policies,general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan because the Development Agreement will permit the development of a project that furthers the General Plan’s goals,policies,and implementation measures and would facilitate the construction of a hotel at the location that the Specific Plan designates for a hotel; 2.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 Oyster Point Specific Plan designates the project site for a hotel land use; 3.The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience,general welfare and good land use practice because the Development Agreement will permit the development of a hotel that will provide high quality amenities and event space available to the public,support travel and tourism in the City,as well as provide a resource for surrounding businesses to accommodate travelers and hold meetings; 4.The Development Agreement is not detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare because the Development Agreement will permit the development of a high quality hotel on a vacant,underutilized site and will provide for ongoing maintenance and monitoring of conditions on a former landfill site; 5.The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property valued because the Development Agreement will permit the development of a hotel on a site that was identified for such development in the Specific Plan and the hotel will support surrounding uses. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of Approval,attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution,the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution,and recommends that the City Council approves the entitlements request for the Project and adopt an ordinance to enter into a Development Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 7 of 7 powered by Legistar™375 Page 1 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P22-0014: DR22-0005, DA22-0001, UP22-0001, TDM22-0006 367 Marina Boulevard (APNs 015-011-350) (As recommended by City Staff on November 3, 2022) PLANNING CONDITIONS GENERAL 1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Division’s standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects (attached to this document). 2. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared by SB Architects on September 28, 2022, and approved by the Planning Commission in association with P22-0014: DR22-0005, DA22-0001, UP22-0001 and TDM22-0006 as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner. 3. The construction drawings shall comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval, including the plans prepared by SB Architects on September 28, 2022. 4. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 5. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 6. Applicant shall comply with all permitting requirements of the Water Board and Scavenger related to the project, and provide proof of permits and/or approval prior to building permit issuance for these project elements. 7. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the Development Agreement DA22-0001). 8. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) between the City and Ensemble Investments, LLC entered into December 10, 2021 for APN 015-010-970 367 Marina Boulevard, including Exhibit F “Buyer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures” which is attached. The applicant is also 376 Page 2 responsible for complying with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board approved Post-closure Monitoring & Maintenance Plan, Phase I and II Development, dated September 8, 2017 by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services or subsequent updates, hereinafter referred to as the “PCMMP”. https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/1974087655/L1 0009323371.PDF as applicable to 367 Marina Boulevard. CONSTRUCTION 9. 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. 10. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 11. During construction, the applicant shall provide parking for construction workers. 12. Construction Equipment Standards and Construction Emissions Minimization Plan. All off-road construction equipment greater than 25 horsepower shall have engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards. If a particular piece of off-road equipment that meets these standards is technically not feasible; the equipment would not produce desired emissions reduction due to expected operating modes; installation of the equipment would create a safety hazard or impaired visibility for the operator; or, there is a compelling emergency need to use off-road equipment that does not meet these standards, the Contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment (i.e., Tier 3 Engine with Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS), Tier 3 Engine with Level 2 VDECS, Tier 3 Engine with alternative fuel), and the Contactor shall develop a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (CEMP) to describe the process used to identify the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment and the steps that will be taken to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants to the greatest extent practicable. The CEMP shall be submitted the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to using the equipment. DESIGN REVIEW / SITE PLANNING 1. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall. Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility locations, stand-pipes, 377 Page 3 equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 2. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the City’s Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with SSFMC Section 20.300.007, Landscaping. 3. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans demonstrating compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO), if applicable. a) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO. b) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the performance measures required by the MWELO. c) For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the City, upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system. 4. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall submit interim and final phasing plans and minor modifications to interim and final phasing plans for review and approval by the Chief Planner, City Engineer and Chief Building Official. 5. 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. 6. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the Design Review Board from their meeting of May 17, 2022: a. Review the landscaping plans, as some species will not survive the SSF elements due to wind and cold issues: • Holly Oak with not work well on this site • Coast Redwood will not survive the harsh wind • Arbutus unedo is more of a shrub, consider using Arbus unedo ‘Marina’, which is a successful evergreen tree in SSF. • Leyland Cypress is often a short lived tree in the area. • Myoporum laetum are attacked by thrips and many of them died or died back severely during the last big frost. • Cistus, Rockrose will need good sandy soil, and is often short lived. 378 Page 4 • Clematus armandii vine will not take wind. Take care the orientation if used. • Liriope suffers from snail infestations and requires additional maintenance. b. Consider planting clusters of trees off-site on the adjacent vacant parcel and coordinate with the City to plant beyond the south edge, if possible for a more organic look and feel rather than a strict line of trees at the perimeter of the site and parking area. c. Consider adding ground floor solar panels. d. Screen service areas on the façade including but not limited to the trash enclosure. e. Maintain the curved corners on future development and building out on site to continue the nautical look and feel. 7. Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Any removal or pruning of protected trees shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and applicant shall obtain a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees, and avoid tree roots during trenching for utilities. 8. The applicant shall install three-inch diameter, PVC conduit along the project frontage, in the right-of-way, if any trenching is to take place, for the purpose of future fiber installation. Conduit shall have a pull rope or tape. A #8 stranded trace wire will be installed in the conduit or other trace wire system approved by the City. 9. All landscaping installed within the public right-of-way shall be maintained by the property owner. 10. Prior to receiving certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install street furniture, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks along the project sidewalk frontages. The Planning Division shall review and approve all street furniture, trash receptacles and bicycle rack options during the Building Permit process. 11. Demolition of any existing structures on site will require demolition permits. 12. 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. 13. 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. TRANSPORTATION / PARKING 379 Page 5 14. 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. 15. The applicant has prepared and submitted a 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 for review and approval by the Chief Planner. a) The Final TDM Plan shall include all mandatory elements included in the Ordinance in place at the time of building permit application submittal and shall substantially reflect the Preliminary TDM Plan prepared by Fehr & Peers modified as necessary to reflect the structure of the current Ordinance. The Final TDM Plan shall be designed to ultimately achieve the requirements of a Tier 2 project, which includes all hotels. b) The Final TDM Plan shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring. This project will be required to submit an annual self-certification form, starting one (1) year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy, for the first twenty years after occupancy. c) The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM Program on an annual basis. The annual monitoring fee is $1,848 and is updated by the City Council on an annual basis. d) The Final TDM plan shall be subject to review and approval by the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments. The property owner shall ensure compliance with the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program Land Use Implementation Policy (C/CAG TDM Policy). Specifically, the property owner shall ensure that the measures identified in the approved C/CAG TDM Checklist are implemented over the life of the project, and that the property owner and tenants acknowledge the requirement to participate in the periodic monitoring and reporting requirements identified in the C/CAG TDM Policy. Accordingly, it is recommended that the property owner and/or developer clearly identify these TDM provisions and responsibilities in any sales and/or lease or sublease transactions. 16. Provide clear signage on site for commercial, and visitor parking areas to help direct vehicle traffic. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES / CEQA 1. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Environmental Checklist dated October 2022. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall prepare a 380 Page 6 checklist outlining mitigation measures and status of implementation for review and approval by the Chief Planning or designee. 2. Improvement Measure: Construction Equipment Standards and Construction Emissions Minimization Plan. All off-road construction equipment greater than 25 horsepower shall have engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards. If a particular piece of off-road equipment that meets these standards is technically not feasible; the equipment would not produce desired emissions reduction due to expected operating modes; installation of the equipment would create a safety hazard or impaired visibility for the operator; or, there is a compelling emergency need to use off-road equipment that does not meet these standards, the Contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment (i.e., Tier 3 Engine with Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS), Tier 3 Engine with Level 2 VDECS, Tier 3 Engine with alternative fuel), and the Contactor shall develop a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (CEMP) to describe the process used to identify the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment and the steps that will be taken to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants to the greatest extent practicable. The CEMP shall be submitted the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to using the equipment. 3. [Regulated project and 100% LID treatment on-site] Applicant shall provide 100% Low-Impact Development for C.3 stormwater treatment on-site. All stormwater runoff shall be treated prior to discharge to the City Right-of-Way or City storm drain system. Sizing and design shall conform to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program design templates and technical guidance and be approved by the Water Quality Control Plant. Exemptions from C.3 requirements must be demonstrated based on the exemptions and exclusions allowed by the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. Applicant shall maintain all treatment measures required by the project and enter into a Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement with the City. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 1. The project will be subject to the requirements for commercial projects of the City’s Climate Action Plan adopted October 12, 2022. IMPACT / DEVELOPMENT FEES **Fees are subject to annual adjustment, and will be calculated based on the fee in effect at the time that the payment of the fee is due. The fees included in these Conditions of Approval are estimates, based on the fees in place at the time of project approval.** 381 Page 7 1. CHILDCARE FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay any applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.310. This fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022 the childcare impact fee estimate for the project is: $.30 per square foot 2. PARK FEES: Prior to issuance of the first building permit [non-residential] the applicant shall pay the Parkland Acquisition Fee and Parkland Construction Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.67. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022 the park fee estimate for the project is: $1.44 per square foot 3. CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay applicable transportation impact fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.73. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022 the citywide transportation fee estimate for the project is: $2,929.29 per room 4. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable commercial linkage fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.69, based on the current fee for each applicable land use category. The fee shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Based on the plans recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022 the commercial linkage fee estimate for the project is: $5.80 per square foot 5. PUBLIC SAFEY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the development, the applicant shall pay applicable Public Safety Impact Fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.75. Based on the plans recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022 the Public Safety Impact Fee for the project is: $.31 per square feet 6. LIBRARY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the development, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall pay applicable Library Impact Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.74. Based on the plans recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022 the Library Impact Fee for the project is: $.04 per square foot 7. PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT: All non-residential development is subject to the Public Art Requirement, per South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76. The public art requirement for this project shall be satisfied by providing qualifying public art, as 382 Page 8 defined in South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 and reviewed and approved by the Cultural Arts Commission or designee, with a value equal to not less than 1% of construction costs for acquisition and installation of public art on the project site; or electing to make a public art contribution payment in an amount not less than 0.5% of construction costs into the public art fund. The in-lieu contribution payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. East of 101 Impact Fees These fees require specialized calculations per project. Contact the Engineering Division for information on calculating East of 101 Impact fees: (650) 829-6652, or see the Engineering Development Review webpage for more information. Oyster Point Interchange Fee East of 101 Sewer Impact Fees 383 Page 9 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MIXED USE, AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Entitlement and Permit Status 1. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two (2) years of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on that date. A one-year permit extension may be granted in accordance with provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (Common Procedures). 2. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a duly authorized representative files an affidavit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, stating that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the conditions of the permit. 3. The permit shall be subject to revocation if the project is not operated in compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. Minor changes or deviations from the conditions of approval of the permit may be approved by the Chief Planner and major changes require approval of the Planning Commission, or final approval body of the City, per SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (Common Procedures). 5. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall authorize, require or permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances specifically named therein. 6. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City’s Building Division. 7. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the affected City Departments and Planning and Building Divisions prior to occupancy of any building. Any request for temporary power for testing equipment will be issued only upon substantial completion of the development. Lighting, Signs, and Trash Areas 8. All exterior lights shall be installed in such a manner that is consistent with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards), and there shall be no illumination on adjacent properties or streets which might be considered either objectionable by adjacent property owners or hazardous to motorists. 384 Page 10 9. No additional signs, flags, pennants or banners shall be installed or erected on the site without prior approval, as required by SSFMC Chapter 20.360 (Signs). 10. Adequate trash areas shall be provided as required by SSFMC 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 11. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. If being installed in a food service facility the drain must be connected to a grease interceptor prior to the connection to the sanitary sewer. Landscaping, Construction, & Utilities 12. The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce to a minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation. 13. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 14. All sewage and waste disposal shall be only by means of an approved sanitary system. 15. Prior to any on-site grading, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. 16. All existing utility lines, underground cable conduits and structures which are not proposed to be removed shall be shown on the improvement plans and their disposition noted. 17. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be maintained in fully operable condition at all times, and which complies with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 18. Landscaped areas shall be zoned by WUCOL ratings and have individual valves for specific hydro-zones as well as trees. Irrigation timers shall be set to meet requirements of plants in established hydro-zones. 19. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained weed free. 20. Trees shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to develop. 385 Page 11 21. Trees that are retained within the construction site shall have Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) established extending to the edge of the canopy dripline. 22. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner. Parking Areas, Screening, & Drainage 23. All ducting for air conditioning, heating, blower systems, accessory mechanisms and all other forms of mechanical or electrical equipment which are placed on or adjacent to the building shall be screened from public view, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 24. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping areas shall be kept free of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site, structures, paving, landscaping, light standards, pavement markings and all other facilities shall be permanently maintained. 25. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, and turn-around areas must drain and be plumbed to the sanitary sewer. 26. The onsite stormwater catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). Public Safety 27. 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. 28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code, “Fire Code” Ordinance. The Fire Department reserves the right to make additional safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. 29. All fire sprinkler test and/or drain lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. 386 Page 12 POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS All construction must conform to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48.050 Minimum security standards for multiple-family dwellings, (Ord. 1477 § 1A, 2013; Ord. 1166 § 1, 1995) 15.48.085 Additional Security Measures May Be Required Per South San Francisco Municipal Code 15.48.085 -Additional Security Measures, the following conditions will also be required: 1. The applicant shall install and maintain a system allowing first responders to enter the building’s common areas by means of a code to be entered into a keypad or similar input device. The keypad/device should be located at the main entrance and an additional keypad/device located at an additional, but separate entrance, for a total of two different entrances for first responders. A permanent code shall be issued to the police department by email to planningsergeant@ssf.net. Physical keys or electronic access cards will not satisfy this requirement. Please note this is separate from any key control or access requirement the fire department might have. 2. The hardware design of any double doorways shall prevent any doors from being secured in a closed position to either another door or a fixed object within four feet of any door by means of a rope, cable, chain, or similar item. This is to prevent malicious prevention of egress and/or ingress by building occupants or first responders. Pay particular attention to all glass doorways. See possible samples below. Acceptable: Unacceptable: 387 Page 13 3. All exterior doorways shall be illuminated during darkness by a white light source that has full cut-off and is of pedestrian scale. 4. Interior common areas, bicycle storage area, fire escapes, etc., shall be always illuminated with a white light source that is controlled by a tamperproof switch, or a switch located in an inaccessible location to passers-by. 5. The landing at the lowest level of service staircases, such as those in the fire escapes, shall have some mechanism, such as fencing and/or a gate to prevent access and prevent people from loitering or concealing themselves in that area. The fencing shall be at least 72 inches tall, in line with the lowest step, and of a design that makes it difficult to climb. 6. Any exterior bicycle racks installed shall be of an inverted “U” design, or other design that allows two different locking points on each bicycle. 7. The mature height of all shrubbery shall be no higher than three feet, if so, it shall be maintained at a maximum height of three feet, and tree canopies shall be no lower than six feet above grade. 8. The applicant shall install and maintain a camera surveillance system that conforms to the technical specifications of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.66.050, Minimum technological standards, (Ord. 1515, 2016). The video surveillance cameras will be used as a crime deterrent and assist with the identification and apprehension of criminals if a crime is committed on the property. Enough cameras shall be installed to 388 Page 14 provide adequate coverage for the intended space. Cameras shall be placed minimally in the following locations: • All exterior entrances/exits • Bicycle storage area • Main lobby of building • Lobby of sales/leasing office • Loading docks 9. Any leasing of sales offices within the building shall be alarmed with a central station monitored silent intruder alarm system. 10. Any exterior benches accessible to the public shall have center armrests to prevent persons from lying down on them. The Police Department reserves the right to review and comment upon the submission of revised and updated plans. For questions concerning this project, please contact the Planning Sergeant at (650) 877-8927 or at planningsergeant@ssf.net. WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION CONDITIONS 1. Storm drains must be protected during construction. Discharge of any demolition/construction debris or water to the storm drain system is prohibited. 2. Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street or drive aisles. Drains in street must have inlet and throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to breakage from vehicular traffic. 3. No floatable bark shall be used in landscaping. Only fibrous mulch or pea gravel is allowed. 4. As site falls in a Moderate Trash Generation area per South San Francisco’s ATTACHED Trash Generation Map (http://www.flowstobay.org/content/municipal- trash-generation-maps), determined by the Water Quality Control Division: -Regional Water Quality Control Board-approved full trash capture devices must be installed to treat the stormwater drainage from the site. -At a minimum, a device must be installed before the onsite drainage enters the City’s public stormwater system (i.e. trash capture must take place no farther downstream than the last private stormwater drainage structure on the site). -An Operation & Maintenance Agreement will be required to be recorded with San Mateo County, ensuring the device(s) will be properly maintained. -A full trash capture system is any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area or designed to carry at least the same flow as the storm drain connected to the inlet. 389 Page 15 5. Roof leaders/gutters must NOT be plumbed directly to storm drains; they shall discharge to stormwater treatment devices or landscaping first. 6. Fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and be clearly shown on plans. 7. Trash enclosure shall be covered (roof, canopy) and contained (wall/fence). As food prep/service is to be involved, the floor shall slope to a central drain that discharges to a grease trap/interceptor and is connected to the sanitary sewer. Details of trash enclosure shall be clearly provided on plans. 8. Install a condensate drain line connected to the sanitary sewer for rooftop equipment and clearly show on plans. 9. As a food service kitchen/ prep area is to be included, it shall connect to a gravity grease interceptor at least 1500 gallons (liquid capacity) in size. Sizing of the grease removal device must be in accordance with the uniform plumbing code. 10. Grease interceptor shall be connected to all non-domestic wastewater sources in the kitchen (wash sinks, mop sinks, floor drains) and shown on plans. 11. A cut sheet of the Grease Interceptor/Trap must be shown on plans. 12. Garbage Disposals in Industrial/Commercial facilities are prohibited by City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Garbage Disposal(s) shall not be included/installed. 13. Applicant will be required to pay a Sewer Capacity Fee (connection fee) based on SSF City Council-approved EDU calculation (involving anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations and including credits for previous site use). Based on the information received, the estimated Sewer Capacity Fee will be $1,009,064.17, payable with the Building Permit. 14. Elevator sump drainage (if applicable) shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to connection to the sanitary sewer. 15. Wherever feasible, install landscaping that minimizes irrigation runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes use of pesticides and fertilizers and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping programs (such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 16. Site is subject to C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (please see SMCWPPP C.3 Regulated Projects Guide at https://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment for guidance). WC-3, the City’s consultant, will review and determine C.3 compliance and the following items will be required; 17. Applicant shall provide 100% Low-Impact Development for C.3 stormwater treatment for all of the project’s impervious areas. In-lieu of on-site treatment, applicants seeking Special Project Status exemption to Low Impact Development for C.3 treatment may install LID treatment within the Right-of-Way. If Applicant chooses to treat any of their Project’s impervious areas within the ROW, Applicant shall size the treatment measures to treat both the Project’s impervious areas and the ROW. The ROW area to be treated shall be from the property line to the street centerline or crown whichever is a greater distance along the entire project frontage. Sizing and design shall conform to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program design templates and technical guidance and be approved by the Water Quality Control Plant and the Engineering Division. Applicant shall maintain all treatment measures required by the project and enter into a Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement with the City. 18. Completed attached forms for Low Impact Development (C3-C6 Project Checklist). 390 Page 16 Forms must be on 8.5in X 11in paper and signed and wet stamped by a professional engineer. Calculations must be submitted with this package. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient Forms can also be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment A completed copy must also be emailed to andrew.wemmer @ssf.net 19. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development. 20. Submit flow calculations and related math for LID. 21. Complete attached Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreements. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient Do not sign agreement, as the city will need to review prior to signature. Prepare packet and submit including a preferred return address for owner signature. Packet should also be mailed or emailed to: Andrew Wemmer City of SSF WQCP 195 Belle Air Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net Exhibit Templates can also be found within Chapter 6 the C.3 Technical Guidance at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment. 22. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 23. 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. 391 Page 17 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. 24. A SWPPP must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in effect all year long. 25. A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Please have applicant contact Andrew Wemmer at Water Quality Control with any questions at (650) 829-3840 or Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net. PARKS DEPARTMENT The following Parks Department comments shall be addressed on the plans submitted for building permit: 1.Page 21/22: L7.00 & L7.01 - Cercis occidentalis will not survive at this location. Both species of redbuds have been tried all through out SSF and the wind and climate do not allow for them to grow well if they even survive. - Myoporum laetum are significantly impacted by thrips in this area. These trees were previously growing at this site and were all declining due to repeated thrip attacks. - Parking areas should not have Podocarpus gracilior due to their tendency to damage hardscaped areas with root intrusion. The high winds will cause roots to seek hold further away into the windward side and will damage the paving significantly. - Laurus nobilis can vector Sudden Oak Death and verified clean stock must be used when planting. - Site is incredibly windy and redwoods should only be planted between the hotel and the bay to have the building block wind. If not these trees will be repeatedly topped by the wind and will never reach potential and look terrible. 2.Page 24: L8.01 – There are notice low water use plants mixed with moderate water use plants in the shrub schedule. Plants should be hydrozoned based off water needs across species and have valves dedicated to each water requirement for those species. This conflicts with irrigation legend where low water use shrubs are shown in highlighting the bioswales on page L9.00 and yet moderate water use plants are called for in the bioswale areas on page L8.01. Please fix this or explain how this is being thought about and justified. 392 Page 18 3.Page 30: A1.00 - This plan shows an old version of the recreation parcel to the west of the hotel. This parcel plan has significantly changed and should be reflected in these plans and contemplated in designing of building. This should be coordinated with the City. Please have applicant contact Joshua Richardson at Parks Department with any questions at Joshua.Richardson@ssf.net. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS After review of application and plans provided for this project, the Fire Department has the following comments. This plan is being returned APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOTED BELOW. 1. Projects shall be designed in compliance with established regulations adopted by the City of South San Francisco affecting or related to structures, processes, premises, and safeguards regarding the following: a. The hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials, or devices. b. Conditions hazardous to life, property, or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises. c. Fire hazards in the structure(s) or on the premises from occupancy or operation. d. Matters related to the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of the fire suppression or alarm systems. e. Conditions affecting the safety of fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. 2. Fire service features for buildings, structures and premises shall comply with all City adopted building standards, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Building Standards and South San Francisco City Code. 3. Permit(s) shall be required as set forth in adopted California Building Code (CBC) Section 105, California Residential Code (CRC) Section R105 and California Fire Code (CFC) Sections 105.6 and 105.7. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional. Where special conditions exist, the code official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional. a. Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on suitable material. Electronic media documents shall be submitted. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of adopted codes and relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations, as determined by the code official. b. Shop drawings for the fire protection system(s) shall be submitted directly to the Fire Department to indicate conformance with adopted codes and the construction documents and shall be approved prior to the start of system installation. Shop 393 Page 19 drawings shall contain all information as required by the referenced installation standards in Chapter 9. c. The construction documents shall show in sufficient detail the location, construction, size, and character of all portions of the means of egress including the path of the exit discharge to the public way in compliance with the provisions of adopted codes. In other than occupancies in Groups R-2, R-3, and R-2.1, the construction documents shall designate the number of occupants to be accommodated on every floor, and in all rooms and spaces. d. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The code official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan where the application for permit is for alteration or repair or where otherwise warranted. e. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access roads and construction documents, hydraulic calculations and material specifications for fire hydrant, fire protection or detection systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. 4. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except where approved alternative methods of protection are provided. 5. For the purposes of prescribing minimum safeguards for construction, alteration, and demolition operations to provide reasonable safety to life and property from fire during such operations. building, facilities, and premises during construction, alteration, or demolition, including those in underground locations shall be in compliance with CFC Chapter 33 and NFPA 241. 6. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved illuminated or other approved means of address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabetic letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Character size and stroke shall be in accordance with CFC Section 505.1.1 through 505.1.2. Where required by the fire code official, address identification shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response in accordance with this code and CFC Section 505.1.3. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way or when determined by the fire code official, a monument, pole, or other approved illuminated sign or other approved means shall be used to identify the structure(s). Address identification shall be maintained. 7. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises on which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are 394 Page 20 hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction, in accordance with CFC Section 507, Appendices B & C. a. Fire-flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings and facilities shall be determined by adopted CFC Appendix B. b. Fire hydrant systems shall comply with adopted CFC Section 507.5.1 through 507.5.8 and Appendix C. 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with CFC Section 503 and Appendix D. a. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 200 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. i. Traffic calming measures (bollards, speed bumps, humps, undulations, etc.) are not approved as a part of this review and require specific approval from the Fire Department. ii. Should a security gate be planned to serve the facility, the gate shall be equipped with a Knox Company key operated electric gate release switch. During a power failure, gate shall release for manual operation OR be equipped with standby power or connected to the building emergency panel. In addition to sending the request to exit signal to the gate operator, the magnetic detection loop (when activated) shall prohibit the gate from closing upon fire apparatus. b. Commercial and industrial developments with buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height or 62,000 square feet shall have not fewer than two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. a. The Fire Department has worked with the project to improve onsite access and has taken into consideration the possible use of the Bay Trail as a possible limited secondary point of emergency access. Due to the Bay Trail being privately owned by multiple owners it is unreasonable to require an emergency vehicle access easement to overlay the Bay Trail, however, due to the existing public access allowed across the Bay Trail the recent improvements to the trail to withstand the imposed loads of fire apparatus, the Bay Trail is being considered in mitigation of the required remote secondary access. b. Along with improved site access the project is required to improve existing public access along Marina Blvd. to reduce emergency response delays. i. Existing speed humps between Oyster Point Blvd. and the entire project site shall be removed. c. Due to significantly reduced site access the base fire flow for this project shall not be reduced by more than 25% for the installation of required automatic fire sprinklers. c. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with CFC D105. For purposes of this requirement, the highest roof 395 Page 21 surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. One or more of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet and not greater than 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire long side of the building or as approved by the fire code official. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. There shall be no architectural features, projections or obstructions that would limit the articulation of the aerial apparatus. d. Required Fire Department access roads shall be signed “No Parking – Fire Lane” per current Fire Department standards and California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500. e. A Fire Department key box shall be provided on the front of each structure for access to fire protection equipment within the building. 9. The provisions of the adopted CFC shall specify where fire protection and life safety systems are required and shall apply to the design, installation, inspection, operation, testing, and maintenance of all fire protection systems. a. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in adopted CFC Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.20. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing buildings and structures shall be provided in locations described in adopted CFC Section 903.6. i. Structure will be required to be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 1. If required Fire Department Connection (FDC) for the sprinkler and/or standpipe systems shall be located on the street side of the structure or facing approved fire apparatus access roadway fully visible and recognizable from the street, and within 100 feet an approved fire hydrant. b. Structure will be required to install a standpipe system in the building. i. Not less than one standpipe shall be provided for use during construction. Such standpipes shall be installed prior to construction exceeding 40 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. Such standpipes shall be provided with fire department hose connections at floor-level locations adjacent to stairways as construction progresses, such standpipes shall be extended to within one floor of the highest point of construction having secured decking or flooring. 10. The following are a list, but not limited to, of deferred plan submittal items that are required by the Fire Department - additional items may be called out based on subsequent permit reviews: a. Private underground fire main & hydrants b. Standpipe system c. Fire sprinkler system d. Fire pump e. Fire alarm/ Emergency voice alarm communication system f. Emergency responder radio system (to be determined) 396 Page 22 g. Smoke control system h. Fire command center i. Energy storage system (to be determined) j. Solar photovoltaic power system (to be determined) k. Compressed gasses (to be determined) l. Gates and barricades across fire apparatus access roads For any questions, please contact Ian Hardage, Battalion Chief Fire Marshal South San Francisco Fire Department (650) 829-6645. 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 an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of on-site improvements for deposit amount calculation. b. Hauling/Grading plan check and permit processing. Provide Cubic Yards for deposit amount calculation. c. Public Improvement plan check and permit processing. Provide an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of ROW improvements for deposit amount calculation. 2. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 3. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to grading. Otherwise, hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 4. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 5. The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. To help meet this goal, a city ordinance requires completion of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects identifying how at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage. The Contractor shall submit a WMP application and fee payment prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 397 Page 23 6. 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. 7. Prior to the issuance of any permits for construction, the Applicant shall submit written evidence from the County and/or State Regulators with jurisdiction over environmental matters at the project site, indicating that the improvement plans for the development comply with all Regulatory requirements for a hotel development on a closed municipal landfill. In addition, all improvement plans shall comply with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water Board”) approved Postclosure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan, Former Oyster Point Landfill, Oyster Point Properties – Phase I and II Development, 379 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San Francisco, California, dated September 8, 2017, by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, including all updates and revisions, collectively referred to hereinafter as the “PCMMP”, as applicable to 367 Marina Boulevard. The PCCMP is available for review on the Water Board’s Geotracker website at: https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/1974087655/L1000 9323371.PDF. To the extent that the project requires the abandonment or relocation of any existing groundwater monitoring wells on the project site, the Applicant shall confirm that such wells have been properly abandoned and/or relocated with the approval of the lead regulatory agency with jurisdiction over environmental matters at the project site (“Lead Agency”). Plan Submittal 8. The Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California, along with three printed copies. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets; Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan, Horizontal Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Detail Sheet(s), Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant 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: 398 Page 24 Civil Plans, Landscape Plans, and Joint Trench Plans. 11. Along with the building permit and grading permit submittals, Applicant shall submit separate Right-of-Way (ROW) improvement plans for the Public Improvement Permit Application. An engineer’s cost estimate for the scope of work shown on the approved ROW improvement plans is required to determine the performance and payment bond amount. The submittal of the bonds is required prior to the execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 12. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 13. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 14. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit, grading permit, or public improvement permit. Mapping and Agreements 15. The Applicant shall make an Irrevocable offer of Dedication to the City for a 20-foot wide Emergency Vehicle Access Easement west of the project site to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. 16. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City an 18-foot wide Public Access Easement for the sidewalk and landscape areas that are not located within the public right-of-way on the Marina Boulevard frontage of the project site. 17. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City, an Emergency Vehicle Access Easement through the project site to the widths as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Marshall. 18. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City, a Sanitary Sewer and Utilities Easement as needed to accommodate underground utilities for the relocation of the existing Sanitary Sewer Pump Station and Marina Harbor electrical switch gear cabinet. The exact alignment and limits of said Easement shall be determined by the City as part of its design effort for the relocation of said facilities. Said Easement shall be dedicated to the City in advance of the City constructing the sewer utilities on the Hotel property 19. Unless otherwise noted, all applicable easements shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Clerk Recorder’s Office prior to approval of a TCO for the Hotel. 20. Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees required for any mapping application prior to review. 21. 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. a. The Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to ensure the faithful performance of the design, construction, installation and inspection of all public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City and shall be secured by good and sufficient payment, performance, and one (1) year warranty bonds or cash deposit adequate to cover all of the costs, 399 Page 25 inspections and administrative expenses of completing such improvements in the event of a default. The value of the bonds or cash deposit shall include 110% of the cost of construction based on prevailing wage rates. The value of the warranty bond or cash deposit shall be equivalent to 10% of the value of the performance security. b. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property, and all stormwater treatment measures and the landscaping/street trees in the Public right-of-way within the project frontage at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner. 22. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide the City with (a) an Operation and Maintenance Plan approved by the Lead Agency (the “O&M Plan”) that among other things, defines Applicant’s obligations with respect to the implementation, operation, maintenance and reporting of all existing environmental land use and engineering controls associated with the project, including inspections, maintenance and reporting for the (i) landfill cap, (ii) methane and VOC collection, monitoring and alarm systems, and (iii) groundwater, surface water and leachate monitoring systems at the project site; and (b) and a fully executed Operation and Maintenance Agreement (“O&M Agreement”) between the Applicant and City to assure full and continuous implementation of the O&M Plan. Right-of-Way 23. Prior to building permit issuance and prior to any work within the City Right-of-Way, the Applicant shall obtain a Public Improvement Permit from the Engineering Division. All new public improvements required to accommodate the development shall be installed at no cost to the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City Standards. All new public improvements shall be completed prior to Final Occupancy of the project or prior any Temporary Occupancy as approved by the City Engineer. 24. Prior to Building Permit issuance, 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 install all proposed public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property and all landscape within the project frontage at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner. 25. 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. 400 Page 26 26. At the existing street bulb on Marina Boulevard, the Applicant shall remove the existing retaining wall and guardrail, perform grading, and widen the street to match the typical street width along the project frontage. 27. The Applicant shall install curb and gutter along the widened segment of Marina Boulevard. 28. The Applicant shall install a sidewalk, and landscaping along the project frontage on Marina Boulevard and easterly of the project frontage to the existing curb ramp at the exiting north/south Bay Trail. The sidewalk width shall match the existing sidewalk on Marina Boulevard. 29. The Applicant shall reconstruct the existing curb ramp on the west side of the proposed main Hotel entry to integrate it into the new driveway entrance to meet ADA standards. 30. The Applicant shall construct three new City Standard driveway entrances with sidewalks to the project parking area. 31. The Applicant shall install a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon at the three existing uncontrolled crosswalks on Marina Boulevard. 32. Per BCDC Permit No. 2017.007.00 and any amendments thereafter, the Applicant shall be responsible for constructing any improvements and satisfying any obligations imposed by BCDC on the Project and coordinating with BCDC to amend the Permit to reflect those improvements. 33. Internal driveways shall be a minimum of 15’ wide for one-way travel and 25’ wide of for areas subject to two-way travel. One-way travel lanes within the site shall be clearly posted and marked appropriately. 34. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet current City standards current to the time of Encroachment Permit approval. 35. The Applicant shall install one streetlight on the project frontage on Marina Boulevard in the vicinity of the widened segment of the street. The new streetlight shall connect to the existing City street light system. The light pole and fixture shall match the existing streetlights on Marina Boulevard. 36. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the site, the Applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, at their expense, as required to conform to City Standards, all public improvements including driveways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street pavements along the street frontages of the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 37. The Applicant shall ensure the proposed tree planters and planting locations do not interfere with underground utilities or the joint trench. The Applicant will be required to install root barrier measures at the back of sidewalk to prevent the sidewalk from uplift. 38. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all street trees landscaped irrigation systems installed within the Public right-of-way. 401 Page 27 39. 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. 40. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. 41. 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. 42. The project shall not include any permanent structural supports (retaining walls, tiebacks, etc.) within the ROW. City Engineer approval is required for any temporary structural supports within the ROW. Any temporary structural supports shall be removed after construction. 43. Any work within the public sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian routes shall require pedestrian routing plans along with traffic control plans. Temporary lane or sidewalk closures shall be approved by the City Engineer and by the Construction Coordination Committee (if within the CCC influence area). For any work affecting the sidewalks or pedestrian routes greater than 2 days in duration, the adjacent parking lane or adjacent travel lane shall be closed and temporary vehicle barriers placed to provide a protected pedestrian corridor. Temporary ramps shall be constructed to connect the pedestrian route from the sidewalk to the street if no ramp or driveway is available to serve that purpose. 44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with Scavenger and submit all garbage related plans. Stormwater 45. Landfill settlement may have impacted the capacity of the existing City public storm drain system on Marina Boulevard in the vicinity of the Hotel site. The Applicant shall perform a topographic survey of the existing public storm drain system in the vicinity of the Hotel Site to the outfall at the Bay, to verify if the grades of the stormdrain system have settled compared to the designed grades. If settlement has occurred, the Applicant shall prepare a storm drain hydraulic study to verify the loss of capacity of the City stormdrain system. The study shall incorporate all existing flows including flows from the developed site and any flows from City infrastructure that currently discharge to the existing public storm drain. The study shall evaluate the capacity the storm drain 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. 46. The Applicant shall design and construct, all on-site storm drainage improvements connecting to the City storm drain system including on-site stormwater storage if necessary to account for any loss in capacity of the existing City storm drain system, as recommended by the Applicant’s approved storm drainage and hydraulic study at no cost to the city. 47. On-site and off-site storm drainage conveyance systems shall be designed to accommodate the 10-year, 10-minute design storm. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of 10 minutes. 402 Page 28 48. Hydraulic Grade lines shall not be less than 1 foot from the ground surface. 49. Runoff Coefficients used for hydraulic calculations shall be as follows: a. Pervious/landscape surfaces—0.35 b. Impervious surfaces —0.95 50. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across hotel property boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this purpose. 51. All on-site drainage facilities required by the City Engineer to accommodate the runoff from the hotel property shall be provided by the Applicant at no cost to the City. 52. 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. 53. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff shall not be surface drained into surrounding private property or public streets. 54. Existing on-site drains that are not adequately sized to accommodate run-off from the fully developed property and upstream drainage basin shall be improved as required by the Applicant’s civil engineering consultant’s plans and specifications as approved by the City Engineer. These on-site improvements shall be installed at no cost to the City. 55. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the hotel property shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner. Sanitary Sewer 56. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City for the design and construction of the City’s Capital Improvement Program project to relocate the existing sanitary sewer lift station from the Hotel project site to a nearby location off-site on City property. The relocation of the lift station may require underground utilities and access onto the Hotel project site and if necessary, the Applicant shall be responsible to grant an easement to the City for said purpose. 57. The Applicant shall install the new sewer lateral to City Standards including a cleanout within the project site and a new wye connection at the main. Lateral sizes of 8-inch or larger require a manhole connection at the City sewer main. The new sewer lateral shall connect to a new sewer manhole to be incorporated into the new lift station design by the City. 58. The Applicant shall install a limit of one building sanitary sewer lateral per lot unless specifically waived by an Improvement per the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code section 14.14.040 (b). 59. Sanitary Sewer plan shall show all existing and proposed utilities. Be sure to provide minimum horizontal and vertical clearances for all existing and proposed utilities. Also include all existing and proposed manhole, catch basin and pipe invert elevations. 60. All utility crossings shall be potholed, verified and shown on the plans prior to the building permit submittal. 61. The on-site sanitary sewer system/plumbing shall be designed and installed in accordance with 403 Page 29 the Uniform Plumbing Code, as amended and adopted by the City, and in accordance with the requirements of the South San Francisco Building Division. 62. 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. 63. The on-site sanitary sewer system shall not be dedicated to the City for maintenance. The sanitary sewer facilities within the hotel property shall be repaired and maintained by the property owner. Utilities 64. All electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground within the property being developed and to the nearest underground utility vault. Pull boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed within pedestrian walkway areas. 65. 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. 66. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service for all water-related issues. All water mains and private water services shall be installed to the standards of the California Water Service and the City. On-site Improvements 67. Internal driveways shall be a minimum of 15’ wide for one-way travel and 25’ wide of for areas subject to two-way travel. One-way travel lanes within the site shall be clearly posted and marked appropriately. 68. The Applicant shall install detectable warnings at driveways and pedestrian pathways per the ADA and City Standards where there is vehicular crossing along a pedestrian path of travel. 69. The Applicant shall install pedestrian pathways per ADA standards for pedestrians to access the San Francisco Bay Trail east of the project site. 70. Staging or storing of trash bins shall not be permitted on Public right-of-way or on-site within the Emergency Vehicle Access Easement. 71. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 72. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Division, the Applicant shall require their Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to provide the City a memo that confirms the site conditions conform 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. 73. All 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. 404 Page 30 74. Any monument signs to be installed for the project shall be located completely on private property and shall not encroach into the City’s right-of-way. The Developer shall ensure that placement of the monument signs do not obstruct clear lines of sight for vehicles entering or exiting the site. Grading 75. The recommendations contained within the geotechnical report shall be included in the Site Grading and Drainage Plan. The Site Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by the developer’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. 76. During grading operations, the entire project site shall be adequately sprinkled with water to prevent dust or sprayed with an effect dust palliative to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried onto adjacent private and public property. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Should any problems arise from dust, the developer shall hire an environmental inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with the grading permit. 77. 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. 78. 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. 79. Prior to placing any foundation concrete, the Applicant shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks from confirmed property lines as shown on the Plans. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. 80. 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. 81. 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. 82. 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. Additional Site Mitigations 83. A methane mitigation and monitoring system (MMS) shall be designed, installed and operated in building structures in general accordance with methane mitigation standards used by Los Angeles County Public Works' Gas Hazard Mitigation Policy and Standards (https://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/onlineservices/methane-mitigation-standards.aspx) and/or an equivalent standard. The MMS design should be shown on the improvement plans for the project and be signed by a California Professional Engineer. 405 Page 31 84. Trench dams shall be designed and installed in all utility trenches to prevent migration of methane and/or VOCs into buildings. The trench dam design should be shown on the improvement plans for the project and be signed by a California Professional Engineer. 85. Utilities should be designed to accommodate potential future ground settlement. 86. Methane/VOC monitoring wells shall be installed outside and separate from buildings and shown on project improvement plans. 87. A geotextile fabric (as a marker) should be installed on top of the erosion resistant layer so the top of the landfill cap can be identified during future construction activities. 88. Landscaping and irrigation systems should be installed at elevations above the landfill cap (i.e., the erosion resistant layer) to protect integrity of the landfill cap. 89. Site grades shall be designed (and maintained) to prevent surface water accumulation and infiltration through the landfill cap. 90. Developer shall implement an automatic dig alert notification to City Public Works for the property. 91. Developer shall prepare and implement a Soil Management Plan for construction activities that potentially disturb the landfill cap. 92. Developer shall record a land use covenant prohibiting construction/subsurface work unless City is notified in advance. If the work potentially disturbs the landfill cap, the work shall be performed pursuant to a City and regulatory agency-approved Soil Management Plan. 93. Developer shall require hotel personnel to notify City if geotextile “marker” fabric is encountered or visible. 94. Developer shall prepare and implement an Emergency Response Plan (ERP), which outlines procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency (such as fires, explosions, earthquakes, floods, vandalism, surface drainage problems, waste releases, etc.), The plan shall be prepared with input and approval from Fire, police, public works, Water Board and any other regulatory agency requesting review. The ERP shall be reviewed and updated annually. The annual updates shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Engineering Impact Fees 95. The Applicant shall pay the following Fees prior to receiving a Building Permit for the subject project: a) The Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 71-84. 406 Page 32 b) The East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 97- 2002. 5230164.1 407 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 COVER SHEET Owner AREA MAP OYSTER POINT HOTEL PRECISE PLAN REVISIONS - 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 AREA MAP VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE PROJECT ADDRESS: APN LOT SIZE: PROJECT FAR: PROJECT HEIGHT OCCUPANCY: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: ZONING: PRESENT AND / OR PREVIOUS USE: ADJACENT USES: APPLICABLE CODES: Oyster Point, South San Francisco 015-011-350 (Revised 6/22/2022) 204,742 SF (4.70 ACRES) 1.3 165 ft ASL Top of Parapet , 146 ft Top of Parapet from grade, 119 ft to last floor served R-1, S-1, A-2, A-3, B 1A (PODIUM), 1B (LIGHT GAUGE FRAMING FOR TOWER) OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN EMPTY LAND PARCEL OYSTER POINT MARINA, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FERRY TERMINAL, NEW COMMERCIAL OFFICE, DEDICATED OPEN SPACE, EXISTING COMMERCIAL & EXISTING PARKING 2019 EDITION OF TITLE 24, THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE - TITLE 24 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODES PROJECT DESCRIPTION FFiirrmm AAddddrreessss CCoonnttaacctt EEmmaaiill OOwwnneerr Ensemble 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Randy McPherson rmcpherson@ensemble.net AArrcchhiitteecctt SB Architects 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Keith Houchin khouchin@sb-architects.com CCooddee ((EEggrreessss//AADDAA)) Jensen Hughes 376 E Warm Springs Rd #210 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Hossein Davoodi hossein.davoodi@jensenhughes.com LLiigghhttiinngg DDeessiiggnn First Circle 3187 Airway Avenue, BLDG C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Matt Levesque matt@firstcircledesign.com SSttrruuccttuurraall CKC Structural Engineers 10500 NE 8th St #800 Bellevue, WA 98004 Joe Ferzli joef@ckcps.com CCiivviill//UUttiilliittiieess BKF Engineers 150 California Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Eric Girod egirod@bkf.com GGeeootteecchh Langan Engineering 135 Main Street, 15th floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Justin Ray jray@langan.com IInntteerriioorr DDeessiiggnn HBA 334 Brannan St., 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 Miguel Baeza Miguel.Baeza@HBA.com LLaannddssccaappee IMA 5281 California Ave, Ste 350 Irvine, CA 92617 Robert Moffat rmoffat@imadesign.com MMEEPP PAE 48 Golden Gate Ave San Francisco, CA 94102 Alan Shepherd alan.shepherd@pae-engineers.com PROJECT DIRECTORY 00.00 SITE COVERAGE BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 42, 617 SQFT (21%) FUTURE EXPANSION = 12, 278 SQFT (6%) OTHERS = 149, 847 SQFT (73%) TOTAL SITE AREA = 204, 742 SQFT (100%) 408 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 PROJECT SHEET INDEX SHEET NO.SHEET NAME 00.00 COVER SHEET 00.01 PROJECT SHEET INDEX 00.02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SHEET NO.SHEET NAME C0.00 COVER SHEET - CIVIL DRAWINGS C1.00 RECORD BOUNDARY C2.00 PROPOSED SITE PLAN C3.00 CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C4.00 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN C5.00 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN SHEET NO.SHEET NAME L0.00 COVER SHEET - LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS L1.00 OVERALL SITE PLAN L2.00 PROGRAM ZONES L3.01 ENTRY DRIVE, ARRIVAL COURTYARD & VALET PARKING L3.02 PRE-FUNCTION & SPA TERRACES L3.03 BAY GARDEN, FITNESS / GAME LAWN, FIRE PIT & BAR TERRACE L3.04 MULTIPURPOSE EVENT COURT & RESTAURANT TERRACE L4.01 SECTIONS A & B L4.02 SECTIONS C & D L5.00 HARDSCAPE PLAN L6.00 WALL, FENCE & GATE PLAN L7.00 TREE PLAN & SCHEDULE L7.01 TREE PLANTING PALETTE L8.00 SHRUB PLAN L8.01 SHRUB SCHEDULE L8.02 SHRUB PLANTING PALETTE L9.00 IRRIGATION PLAN & CALCULATIONS L10.00 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER INTRODUCTION ARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS LIGHTING DRAWINGS CIVIL DRAWINGS LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS 00.01 SHEET NO.SHEET NAME A0.00 COVER SHEET - ARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS A0.01 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUMMARY A0.02 AIRPORT PROXIMITY DIAGRAM A1.00 SITE PLAN A1.01 SITE PLAN - ENLARGED PLAN A1.02 SITE PLAN - CIRCULATION PLAN A1.03 SITE PLAN - BCDC CONNECTION A1.04 SITE PLAN - FIRE LANE DIAGRAM A1.05 SITE PLAN - PARKING STUDY A1.06 SITE PLAN - SITE COVERAGE PLAN A1.07 SITE PLAN - SHADOW STUDY A2.00 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 01 A2.01 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 02 A2.02 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 03 A2.03 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 04 A2.04 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 05 A2.05 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 06 A2.06 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 07 A2.07 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 08 A2.08 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 09 A2.09 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 10 A2.10 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 11 A2.11 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 12 A2.12 BUILDING PLAN - ROOF PLAN A3.00 BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 1 A3.01 BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 2 A3.02 BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 3 A3.03 BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 4 A4.00 BUILDING ELEVATION - ELEVATION 1 A4.01 BUILDING ELEVATION - ELEVATION 2 A4.02 BUILDING ELEVATION - ELEVATION 3 A4.03 BUILDING ELEVATION - ELEVATION 4 A4.04 MATERIAL BOARD & REFERENCE IMAGERY A5.00 RENDERING - AERIAL VIEW A5.01 RENDERING - BAY TRAIL VIEW A5.02 RENDERING - ARRIVAL VIEW A5.03 RENDERING - BAY TRAIL (RESTAURANT) VIEW A5.04 RENDERING - ROOFTOP BAR VIEW SHEET NO.SHEET NAME LT0.00 COVER SHEET - LIGHTING DRAWINGS LT1.01 SITE LIGHTING MASSING STUDY LT1.02 SITE LIGHTING LAYOUT LT1.03 SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN LT2.01 BUILDING ELEVATIONS LT2.02 BUILDING ELEVATIONS LT3.01 LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS LT3.02 LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS LT3.03 LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS LT4.01 LIGHTING RENDERING LT4.02 LIGHTING RENDERING 409 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Owner 1. INTRODUCTION: Ensemble Real Estate Investments (“Applicant”) proposes to develop a full-service hotel on the peninsula of Oyster Point designated within South San Francisco specific plan (formal address yet to be assigned). The applicant seeks approval of the Precise Plan (“Entitlements”) by the end of 2022 with the intent of submitting to the building department for permit approval by the end of 2023. The project intends to service the Oyster Point developments currently under construction or planned to be built by Kilroy Reality while also providing public amenities to the broader community East of the 101 area. 2. SETTING: The property is approximately 204,742 square foot parcel (4.70 acres; APN: 015-011-350) that sits on the peninsula of the Oyster Point specific plan and is dedicated for a future hotel development. The site is flanked by the existing marina to the north and the San Francisco bay to the south. The Bay Trail extends along the southern edge of the site and connects around the end of the peninsula. To the west of the site a dedicated public open space is planned while to the east are existing commercial buildings and parking lots with access to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The site is a “Brownfield site” that has been regraded and capped by Kilroy Reality, the master developer of the specific plan, and is currently sitting vacant, ready for development. 3. PROPOSED PROJECT a. Project Features The proposed project would consist of a maximum 350 hotel rooms, restaurant, lobby lounge, event ballroom, meeting rooms, fitness facilities, roof top bar and the associated back of house facilities to service the amenities. Hotel amenities, specifically the restaurant, lounge, and roof top bar, are intended to be available to the public and provide views both north and south across the San Francisco Bay. Access to the existing north-south bay trail path is considered across the site landscape as well as connections back to the primary pedestrian paths along Marina Blvd. In total the gross building area is approximately 261,000 square feet in habitable area, with the potential to expand in a future phase with an additional 14,200 square feet of function and meeting space and will provide a total of 249 parking spaces of which all of them are intended to be fully valet operated. A screened loading dock and yard with space allocated for two dedicated service trucks is provided adjacent to the back of house facilities with access through the central parking lot. The building will be classified high-rise at 12 habitable floors with the last floor served sitting at 119ft above grade. Additional height is considered at the top of the building for mechanical equipment screening and elevator overruns that will put the overall height of the building at approximately 165 feet ASL and 146 ft above finish grade. b. Requested Approvals The applicant plans to submit the Precise Plan application by April 29, 2022 and is seeking approval of the project’s Precise Plan by the end of calendar year 2022. Pending approval of the precise plan, the Applicant intends to submit the project plans for construction permit by the end of 2023. Additional review will be submitted to the FAA for confirmation of building height with respect to the airport approach corridors. c. Public Benefits The Project aims to fill the market need, providing a 4-star hotel to service the growing business developments within the Oyster Point specific plan and surrounding areas. The project will provide additional function and meeting space while being positioned at an International Audience for business travelers. The project amenities will provide an anchor for the community with its food and beverage offerings as well as gathering opportunities within the lounge and bar spaces. The hotel can further support the potential for a future ferry terminal proposed by the South San Francisco City within the marina to the north of the hotel while providing employment and career opportunities for the South San Francisco workforce. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE PHOTOS 00.02 410 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN SUBMITTAL CIVIL DRAWINGS SHEET NO.SHEET NAME C0.00 COVER SHEET - CIVIL DRAWINGS C1.00 RECORD BOUNDARY C2.00 PROPOSED SITE PLAN C3.00 CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C4.00 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN C5.00 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN INDEX OF DRAWINGS C0.00 COVER SHEET - CIVIL DRAWINGS 411 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 LEGEND: NOTES: AERIAL BENCHMARK: BASIS OF BEARINGS: BOUNDARY: ABBREVIATIONS: 1730 N. FIRST STREETSUITE 600SAN JOSE, CA 95112(408) 467-9100www.bkf.com C1.0 0 RECORD BOUNDARY 04/29/2022 412 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 1730 N. FIRST STREETSUITE 600SAN JOSE, CA 95112(408) 467-9100www.bkf.com PROPOSED SITE PLAN C2.0 0 04/29/2022 413 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 1730 N. FIRST STREETSUITE 600SAN JOSE, CA 95112(408) 467-9100www.bkf.com CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C3.0 0 04/29/2022 Civil Package 414 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 1730 N. FIRST STREETSUITE 600SAN JOSE, CA 95112(408) 467-9100www.bkf.com CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN C4.0 0 04/29/2022 415 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 T7 T1 T5 T3 T6 T8 T9 T10 T2 T4 1730 N. FIRST STREETSUITE 600SAN JOSE, CA 95112(408) 467-9100www.bkf.com C 5.0 0 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY AREASDRAINAGE DRAINAGE AREASIZE (SF)PERVIOUSSURFACE (SF) TOTALIMPERVIOUSSURFACE (SF) PROPOSED TREATMENTCONTROLS TREATMENT AREA (4% RULE)REQUIRED (SF) SURFACEAREA (SF)PONDINGDEPTH (FT) STORMWATERCONTROLMEASURE A-1 11,912 2,200 9712 BIORETENTION 388 390 0.5 T1 A-2 5,815 2,815 3000 BIORETENTION 120 120 0.5 T2 A-2.1 8,367 907 7460 BIORETENTION 298 300 0.5 T2 A-2.2 5,140 695 4445 BIORETENTION 178 179 0.5 T2 A-3 28,400 6,275 22125 BIORETENTION 885 885 0.5 T3 A-4 22,840 9,015 13825 BIORETENTION 553 555 0.5 T4 A-4.1 11,925 1,670 10255 BIORETENTION 410 410 0.5 T4 A-5 18,490 6,390 12100 BIORETENTION 484 485 0.5 T5 A-5.1 17,453 1,053 16400 BIORETENTION 656 656 0.5 T5 A-6 4,707 957 3750 BIORETENTION 150 150 0.5 T6 A-7 27,250 0 27250 BIORETENTION 1090 1090 0.5 T7 A-8 7,626 2,751 4875 BIORETENTION 195 195 0.5 T8 A-9 16,695 3,945 12750 BIORETENTION 510 510 0.5 T9 A-10 7,630 3,630 4000 BIORETENTION 160 160 0.5 T10 R-1 10,492 2,937 7,555 DEDICATION (EXISTINGOFFSITE TREATMENT)---- TOTAL 204,742 45,240 159,502 04/29/2022 416 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 INDEX OF DRAWINGS COVER SHEET - OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN SUBMITTAL LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS L0.00 LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS SHEET NO.SHEET NAME L0.00 COVER SHEET - LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS L1.00 OVERALL SITE PLAN L2.00 PROGRAM ZONES L3.01 ENTRY DRIVE, ARRIVAL COURTYARD & VALET PARKING L3.02 PRE-FUNCTION & SPA TERRACES L3.03 BAY GARDEN, FITNESS / GAME LAWN, FIRE PIT & BAR TERRACE L3.04 MULTIPURPOSE EVENT COURT & RESTAURANT TERRACE L4.01 SECTIONS A & B L4.02 SECTIONS C & D L5.00 HARDSCAPE PLAN L6.00 WALL, FENCE & GATE PLAN L7.00 TREE PLAN & SCHEDULE L7.01 TREE PLANTING PALETTE L8.00 SHRUB PLAN L8.01 SHRUB SCHEDULE L8.02 SHRUB PLANTING PALETTE L9.00 IRRIGATION PLAN & CALCULATIONS L10.00 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 417 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 418 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 419 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 420 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 421 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 422 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 423 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 424 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 425 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 426 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 427 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 428 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 429 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 430 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 431 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 432 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 433 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 434 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN SUBMITTAL ARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS INDEX OF DRAWINGS A0.00 COVER SHEET - ARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS SHEET NO.SHEET NAME A0.00 COVER SHEET - ARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS A0.01 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUMMARY A0.02 AIRPORT PROXIMITY DIAGRAM A1.00 SITE PLAN A1.01 SITE PLAN - ENLARGED PLAN A1.02 SITE PLAN - CIRCULATION PLAN A1.03 SITE PLAN - BCDC CONNECTION A1.04 SITE PLAN - FIRE LANE DIAGRAM A1.05 SITE PLAN - PARKING STUDY A1.06 SITE PLAN - SITE COVERAGE PLAN A1.07 SITE PLAN - SHADOW STUDY A2.00 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 01 A2.01 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 02 A2.02 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 03 A2.03 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 04 A2.04 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 05 A2.05 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 06 A2.06 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 07 A2.07 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 08 A2.08 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 09 A2.09 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 10 A2.10 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 11 A2.11 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 12 A2.12 BUILDING PLAN - ROOF PLAN A3.00 BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 1 A3.01 BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 2 A3.02 BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 3 A3.03 BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 4 A4.00 BUILDING ELEVATION - ELEVATION 1 A4.01 BUILDING ELEVATION - ELEVATION 2 A4.02 BUILDING ELEVATION - ELEVATION 3 A4.03 BUILDING ELEVATION - ELEVATION 4 A4.04 MATERIAL BOARD & REFERENCE IMAGERY A5.00 RENDERING - AERIAL VIEW A5.01 RENDERING - BAY TRAIL VIEW A5.02 RENDERING - ARRIVAL VIEW A5.03 RENDERING - BAY TRAIL (RESTAURANT) VIEW A5.04 RENDERING - ROOFTOP BAR VIEW 435 As Designed # Keys MODS Total MODS Gross Area (SQFT) Total Gross Area (SQFT) Typical King 108 1 108 391 42,192 King Plus, Double Queen 194 1 194 415 80,441 Suites 44 1.5 66 635 27,927 Presidential 1 2.5 2.5 1155 1,155 347 371 151,715 Suite Mix*12.97% # Category # Units Mods/Unit Total Mods Unit Size (ft²) INT Areas (ft²) EXT Areas (ft²) OYSTER POINT HOTEL South San Francisco, California SB ARCHITECTS PROGRAM 1.00 HOTEL ROOMS Areas based on Module Areas based on Module 1.10 Guest Rooms 1.11 Standard Room 302 1.0 302 0 0 1.15 Suites 44 1.5 66 0 0 1.16 Presidential Suite 1 2.5 3 0 0 Sub-Total 347 371 151,715 0 1.40 Circulation & Support ( plus Shafts ) 1.41 Circulation & Support 28,580 0 1.42 Shafts Area 530 0 Sub-Total 29,110 0 TOTAL COMBINED TOTAL TOTAL Total Accomodation Area 151,715 0 Total Circulation & Support BOH 29,110 0 Total Guestroom Tower Area 347 371 180,825 0 3.00 HOTEL FRONT OF HOUSE 3.10 Function & Meeting Space Seats 3.11 Ballroom 398 5,138 0 3.12 Ballroom Prefunction 2,002 0 3.13 Meeting Rooms 280 4,519 0 3.14 Meeting Room Prefunction 1,591 0 3.15 Function WC 715 0 3.16 Misc. FOH Space (Valet, Securitty)308 0 Sub-Total 678 14,273 0 3.30 Hotel Food & Beverage # Seats Seat Factor (m2) 3.31 All Day Dining (3-Meal)250 2.4 5,572 3,582 3.32 Rooftop Bar 50 2.2 2,703 3,421 3.34 Lobby Lounge 30 2.2 2,024 1,255 Sub-Total 10,299 8,258 3.40 Spa, Health Club & Fitness 3.41 Fitness 1,702 0 3.42 Support Space 446 0 Sub-Total 2,148 0 3.50 Hotel Lobby & Reception 3.50 Main Lobby 3,922 0 3.51 Reception 308 0 3.52 Front Office 277 0 3.53 Valet 375 0 3.54 Bag Storage 258 0 3.55 Public WC 1,162 0 Sub-Total 6,302 0 3.70 Circulation & Support ( plus Shafts ) 3.71 Circulation & Support 4,954 0 3.72 Shafts (FOH & BOH)130 0 Sub-Total 5,084 0 TOTAL COMBINED TOTAL TOTAL Total Front of House Area 33,022 8,258 Total Front of House Circulation 5,084 0 Total Front of House Area 38,106 8,258 # Category # Units Mods/Unit Total Mods Unit Size (ft²) INT Areas (ft²) EXT Areas (ft²) OYSTER POINT HOTEL South San Francisco, California SB ARCHITECTS PROGRAM 4.00 HOTEL BACK OF HOUSE 4.10 Administrive Area 4.11 Admin Offices 1903 0 4.12 Human Resources 573 0 4.13 Sales & Marketing 0 0 4.14 Accounting & IT 0 0 4.15 B&B Staff 0 0 Sub-Total 2,476 0 4.20 Hotel Services 4.21 Security 157 0 4.22 Room Division 0 0 4.23 Purchasing & Receiving 243 0 4.24 Engineering 805 0 4.25 Kitchen Staff 0 0 4.26 General Storage 5439 0 4.27 A/V Room 238 0 4.28 Employee Facilies 1956 0 4.29 House Keeping 1638 0 4.30 Laundry 0 0 4.40 Trash 309 0 4.50 Loading Dock 0 2770 Sub-Total 10,785 2,770 4.40 Hotel F&B Support # Seats Seat Factor (m2) 4.41 Main Kitchen 250 1 3,355 0 4.42 Rooftop Bar Pantry 50 0.6 917 0 4.43 Lobby Lounge Pantry 30 0.6 0 0 4.44 Food Prep 1,776 0 Sub-Total 6,048 0 4.50 Circulation & Support 4.51 Circulation & Support 17,850 0 Sub-Total 17,850 0 TOTAL COMBINED Total Back of House Area 19,309 2,770 Total Back of House Circulation 17,850 0 Total Back of House Area 37,159 2,770 5.00 MEP Plant 5.10 Hotel MEP Plant 4864 0 5.10 Exterior MEP 0 2862 Sub-Total 4,864 2,862 Total Back of House Area 4,864 2,862 # Category # Units Mods/Unit Total Mods Unit Size (ft²) INT Areas (ft²) EXT Areas (ft²) OYSTER POINT HOTEL South San Francisco, California SB ARCHITECTS PROGRAM Area Brief Total Summary INT Areas (ft²) EXT Areas (ft²) #Keys # Mods Total Area Total Area Hotel Guestroom Areas 347 371 151,715 0 Circulation & Support 28,580 0 Shafts 530 0 1.00 TOTAL ROOM AREA 347 371 180,825 0 Seats Total Area Total Area Ballroom & Conference Facilities 678 14,273 0 Hotel Front of House 18,749 8,258 Circulation & Support 4,954 0 Shafts 130 0 3.00 TOTAL FRONT OF HOUSE AREA 38,106 8,258 Total Area Total Area Hotel Back of House 19309 2770 Circulation & Support 17850 0 4.00 TOTAL BACK OF HOUSE AREA 37,159 2,770 Total Area Total Area MEP Services 4864 2862 5.00 TOTAL MEP PLANT 4,864 2,862 GRAND TOTAL 260,954 13,890 GRAND TOTAL EXCLUDING SHAFTS 260,294 13,890 # Category # Units Mods/Unit Total Mods Unit Size (ft²) INT Areas (ft²) EXT Areas (ft²) OYSTER POINT HOTEL South San Francisco, California SB ARCHITECTS PROGRAM FUTURE EXPANSION PHASE INT Areas (ft²) EXT Areas (ft²) Ballroom 8,000 0 Prefunction 2,600 0 BOH Support 2,400 0 TOTAL ROOM AREA 13,000 0 GRAND TOTAL (INCLUDING FUTURE EXPANSION) 273,954 13,890 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUMMARY A0.01 DESIGN PROGRAM SUMMARY SUITE MIX TOTAL NO. OF PARKING SPACES STANDARD SPACES = 170 VALET SPACES = 33 TANDEM SPACES = 29 TOTAL = 232 SPACES 436 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Follow Up Exhibit 06/27/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 AIRPORT PROXIMITY DIAGRAM A0.023 MILE RADIUSPROJECT SITE SFO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 437 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A1.00 SITE PLAN 0 30 60 120 FT 1”=60’ FUTURE EXPANSION HOTEL LOBBY EVENT GARDEN SERVICE YARD PARKING PRIMARY EVA ACCESS SECONDARY EVA ACCESS PROPOSED FUTURE FERRY TERMINAL RESTAURANT TERRACE LEGEND FIRE ACCESS LANE 438 18’-0”18’-0”10’-0”10’-0”10’-0”10’-0”SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAIL SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A1.01 77’-5” 284’-0” 163’-10” 364’-6” 100’-7” 62’-2” 18’-0”41’-0”115’-1”29’-6”41’-10”47’-2”118’-6”156’-1”19’-11” 402’-6” 41’-1” FUTURE EXPANSION SITE PLAN - ENLARGED PLAN HOTEL LOBBY EVENT GARDEN SERVICE YARD PARKING RESTAURANT TERRACE 439 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A1.02 LEGEND PEDESTRIAN - CIRCULATION VEHICLE - PUBLIC CIRCULATION VEHICLE - SERVICE CIRCULATION ADA PA T H O F T R A V E L SERVICE C I R C U L A T I O N PUBLIC C I R C U L A T I O N VALET CI R C U L A T I O N VALET ACCESS VALET RETURN VALET PARKING SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAIL SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SITE PLAN - CIRCULATION PLAN 440 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A1.03 SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD SITE PLAN - BCDC CONNECTION BCDC TRAIL (To be rebuilt in place by Kilroy) PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION (Ped. link within hotel site connects 1. Marina Blvd 2. Hotel Entrance 3. BCDC Trail) MARINA BLVD HOTEL ENTRANCE BCDC TRAIL No.Description Date 01 Follow Up Exhibit 09/20/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 441 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A1.04 LEGEND FIRE ACCESS LANE SITE PLAN - FIRE LANE DIAGRAM No.Description Date 01 Follow Up Exhibit 09/28/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 FIRE TRU C K S T A N D D O W N Z O N E AERIAL A C C E S S Z O N E VALET PARKING SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAIL SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D 20’-0” 26’-0”26’-0”20’-0” 20’-0”20’-0”20’-0”20’-0”175’-0” 175’-0” 442 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ LEGEND STANDARD PARKING SPACES VALET PARKING SPACES TANDEM PARKING SPACES BICYCLE PARKING A1.05 15 10 13 13 12 14 11 6 6 13 7 7 7 9 4 6 5 5 14 14 10 10 6 15 37 TOTAL S P A C E S 33 TOT A L S P A C E S 32 TOTAL SPACES 26 TOTAL S P A C E S 11 TOTAL S P A C E S 6 TOTAL SPACES 23 EMPLO Y E E S P A C E S 64 TOTAL S P A C E S NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES STANDARD SPACES = 170 VALET SPACES = 33 TANDEM SPACES = 29 TOTAL = 232 SPACES 10 BICYC L E PARKING S P A C E S (EMPLOY E E S ) 25 BICYC L E PARKING S P A C E S (PUBLIC)SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAIL SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SITE PLAN - PARKING STUDY 443 18’-0”18’-0”10’-0”10’-0”10’-0”10’-0”SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAIL SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A1.06 18’-0” SITE PLAN - SITE COVERAGE PLAN BUILDING FOOTPRINT PORTE COCHERE HOTEL PARKING SERVICE YARD SERVICE ENTRY HOTEL ENTRY GARDEN LEGEND BUILDING FOOTPRINT FUTURE EXPANSION FOOTPRINT OTHERS SITE COVERAGE BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 42, 617 SQFT (21%) FUTURE EXPANSION = 12, 278 SQFT (6%) OTHERS = 149, 847 SQFT (73%) TOTAL SITE AREA = 204, 742 SQFT (100%) FUTURE EXPANSION 444 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A1.07 8 AM 12 PM 4 PM MAR / SEP EQUINOX(SPRING / FALL)JUN SOLSTICE(SUMMER)DEC SOLSTICE(WINTER)SITE PLAN - SHADOW STUDY 445 18’-0”18’-0”10’-0”10’-0”10’-0”10’-0” OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.00 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 01 BALLROOM 5,135 SQFT ENGR. RM 805 SQFT ELEC. RM 1,070 SQFT STORE MTG RM 920 SQFTMTG RM 980 SQFT MTG RM 1,615 SQFT BOARD RM 1,000 SQFT SPA WC & SHOWERS 445 SQFT HSKP 1,635 SQFT MEP 560 SQFT FIRE WATER TANK 700 SQFT FIRE PUMP RM 610 SQFT HR 575 SQFT WC 325 SQFT WC 385 SQFT STOR. 755 SQFT STAFF FACILITIES 1,955 SQFT BOH BOH MEP ELEC. COAT CHK SEC. P&R AV FOOD PREP LOADING DOCK EMPLOYEE PARKING BIKE PARKING MEP MEP MEP +19.2 FT +19 FT +19.2 FT +19.2 FT +21 FT +21 FT +22 FT +23 FT +21 FT +21 FT TRASH STOR. & STAGING 1,005 SQFT LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAIL446 18’-0”18’-0”10’-0”10’-0”10’-0”10’-0” OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.01 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 02 MAIN LOBBY 3,920 SQFT EVENT LAWN 2,000 SQFT FIRE CMD VALET BIKE PARKING OFFICE 280 SQFT BOH 720 SQFT ADMIN OFFICES 1,900 SQFT STOR. ELEC. WC WC RECEP. PORTE COCHE VALET PARKING MAIN KITCHEN 3,355 SQFT PDR 645 SQFT RESTAURANT 4,930 SQFT BAR & LOUNGE 2,025 SQFT RESTAURANT TERRACE EXTERIOR TERRACE LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public LOADING DOCKBELOW EMPLOYEE PARKINGBELOW SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAIL447 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.02 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 03 FITNESS 1,700 SQFT JR SUITE TYPE D LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public BOH BOH ELEC. SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILJR SUITE TYPE B JR SUITE TYPE C 448 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.03 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 04 JR SUITE TYPE E JR SUITE TYPE A LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public JR SUITE TYPE D BOH BOH ELEC. SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILJR SUITE TYPE B JR SUITE TYPE C 449 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.04 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 05 LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public JR SUITE TYPE E JR SUITE TYPE A JR SUITE TYPE D BOH BOH ELEC. SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILJR SUITE TYPE B JR SUITE TYPE C 450 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.05 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 06 LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public JR SUITE TYPE E JR SUITE TYPE A JR SUITE TYPE D BOH BOH ELEC. SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILJR SUITE TYPE B JR SUITE TYPE C 451 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.06 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 07 LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public JR SUITE TYPE E JR SUITE TYPE A JR SUITE TYPE D BOH BOH ELEC. SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILJR SUITE TYPE B JR SUITE TYPE C 452 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.07 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 08 LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public JR SUITE TYPE E JR SUITE TYPE A JR SUITE TYPE D BOH BOH ELEC. SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILJR SUITE TYPE B JR SUITE TYPE C 453 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.08 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 09 LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public JR SUITE TYPE E JR SUITE TYPE A JR SUITE TYPE D BOH BOH ELEC. SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILJR SUITE TYPE B JR SUITE TYPE C 454 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.09 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 10 LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public JR SUITE TYPE E JR SUITE TYPE A JR SUITE TYPE D BOH BOH ELEC. SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAILJR SUITE TYPE B JR SUITE TYPE C 455 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.10 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 11 LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public JR SUITE TYPE E JR SUITE TYPE A JR SUITE TYPE B JR SUITE TYPE C JR SUITE TYPE D BOH BOH ELEC. SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAIL456 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.11 BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 12 PRESIDENTIAL SUITE 1,155 SQFT ROOF TERRACE WC 580 SQFT PANTRY 915 SQFT ROOFTOP BAR 2,700 SQFT LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public JR SUITE TYPE A BOH BOH ELEC. SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAIL457 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 0 15 30 60 FT 1”=30’ A2.12 BUILDING PLAN - ROOF PLAN ROOFTOP MEP 8,910 SQFT ROOFTOP MEP 5,285 SQFT LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public SF BAY T R AI L MARINA BLVD MARINA B L V D SF BAY TRAIL SF BAY TRAILSF BAY TRAIL458 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A3.00 KEY PLAN BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 1 PRESIDENTIALSUITE BALLROOMPREFUNC. FOODPREP RESTAURANT ELECRM MAIN KITCHEN 1 1OVERALL HEIGHT = 146’-0”119’-0”PODIUM HEIGHT = 30’-6”27’-0”TOP OF PARAPET LAST FLOOR SERVED LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 9 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 10 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 11 LEVEL 12 ROOF LEVEL TOP OF MEP PARAPET BALLROOM LEVEL LEVEL 01 +34’-0” +49’-6” +59’-2” +68’-10” +78’-6” +107-6” +88’-2” +117’-2” +97’-10” +126’-10” +138’-0” +150’-0” +165’-0” +19’-3” +21’-0”PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINEEXIT STAIR LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public MEP 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ SITE FILL LAND FILL CLAY CAP 7’-0”5’-3”459 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A3.01 KEY PLAN BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 2 2 2 JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE JR SUITE RESTAURANTBAR & LOUNGE WINEROOMWC LIFT CORE LIFT CORE BALLROOMMEETING RMMEETING RMMEETING RMHR JR SUITE ROOFTOP BAR JR SUITE PORTE COCHERE OVERALL HEIGHT = 146’-0”119’-0”PODIUM HEIGHT = 30’-6”27’-0”LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 9 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 10 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 11 LEVEL 12 ROOF LEVEL TOP OF MEP PARAPET BALLROOM LEVEL LEVEL 01 +34’-0” +49’-6” +59’-2” +68’-10” +78’-6” +107-6” +88’-2” +117’-2” +97’-10” +126’-10” +138’-0” +150’-0” +165’-0” +19’-3” +21’-0” MEP PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINELEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ SITE FILL LAND FILL CLAY CAP 5’-3”6’-0”1’-0”7’-0”460 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A3.02 KEY PLAN 3 3 BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 3OVERALL HEIGHT = 146’-0”119’-0”PODIUM HEIGHT = 30’-6”27’-0”TOP OF PARAPET LAST FLOOR SERVED LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 9 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 10 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 11 LEVEL 12 ROOF LEVEL TOP OF MEP PARAPET BALLROOM LEVEL LEVEL 01 +34’-0” +49’-6” +59’-2” +68’-10” +78’-6” +107-6” +88’-2” +117’-2” +97’-10” +126’-10” +138’-0” +150’-0” +165’-0” +19’-3” +21’-0”PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEMAIN LOBBY WC BOARD RMHRBOHSITE FILL LAND FILL CLAY CAP LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’7’-0”6’-6”4’-6” 461 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 A3.03 KEY PLAN 4 4 BUILDING SECTION - SECTION 4OVERALL HEIGHT = 146’-0”119’-0”PODIUM HEIGHT = 30’-6”27’-0”TOP OF PARAPET LAST FLOOR SERVED LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 9 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 10 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 11 LEVEL 12 ROOF LEVEL TOP OF MEP PARAPET BALLROOM LEVEL LEVEL 01 +34’-0” +49’-6” +59’-2” +68’-10” +78’-6” +107-6” +88’-2” +117’-2” +97’-10” +126’-10” +138’-0” +150’-0” +165’-0” +19’-3” +21’-0”PROPERTY LINELOBBY BOH BOHBOH SITE FILL LAND FILL CLAY CAP LEGEND Front of House Function Food & Beverage Spa & Fitness Restrooms Back of House Guestroom - Typical Room Guestroom - Suite Room Circulation - Public Circulation - Service Vertical Circulation - Public Vertical Circulation - Public 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ KITCHEN BOH SERVICE DOCK STAIR PUBLICLIFT SERVICELIFT No.Description Date 01 Follow Up Exhibit 06/27/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/20227’-6”5’-0”4’-0”6’-0”8’-0”2’-0” 2’-0” 462 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A4.00 KEY PLAN BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH ELEVATION LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 OVERALL HEIGHT = 146’-0”119’-0”PODIUM HEIGHT = 30’-6”27’-0”TOP OF PARAPET LAST FLOOR SERVED LEVEL 9 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 10 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 11 LEVEL 12 ROOF LEVEL TOP OF MEP PARAPET LEVEL 01 - BALLROOM LEVEL 01 +34’-0” +49’-6” +59’-2” +68’-10” +78’-6” +107-6” +88’-2” +117’-2” +97’-10” +126’-10” +138’-0” +150’-0” +165’-0” +19’-3” +21’-0” MT-1 MT-2 MT-3 GL-2 ST-1 ST-2 GL-1 Potential Project Signage (Final location TBC) RESTAURANT / BALLROOM KITCHEN / BOH ADMIN / STAFF FACILITIES PORTE COCHE LEGEND CP-1 Cement Plaster - Grey, Smooth Finish GL-1 Vision Glass, Light Blue Tinted GL-2 Vision Glass, Dark Blue Tinted GL-3 Curtain Wall, Light Blue Tinted MT-1 Metal - Light Beige Rainscreen Panel MT-2 Metal - Champagne Tone Metal Trim MT-3 Metal - Steel Blue Rainscreen Panel ST-1 Stone Cladding - Split Face Limestone ST-2 Gabion Wall 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ N 463 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A4.01 KEY PLAN BUILDING ELEVATION - MT-1 MT-2 MT-3 GL-2 ST-1 GL-3 MT-2ST-2 GL-1 Potential Project Signage (Final location TBC) Potential Project Signage (Final location TBC) Rooftop MEP Screening SOUTH ELEVATION OVERALL HEIGHT = 146’-0”119’-0”PODIUM HEIGHT = 30’-6”27’-0”TOP OF PARAPET LAST FLOOR SERVED LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 9 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 10 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 11 LEVEL 12 ROOF LEVEL TOP OF MEP PARAPET BALLROOM LEVEL LEVEL 01 +34’-0” +49’-6” +59’-2” +68’-10” +78’-6” +107-6” +88’-2” +117’-2” +97’-10” +126’-10” +138’-0” +150’-0” +165’-0” +19’-3” +21’-0” RESTAURANT / BALLROOMBAR & LOUNGE / MEETING RMSLOBBYEVENT LAWN LEGEND CP-1 Cement Plaster - Grey, Smooth Finish GL-1 Vision Glass, Light Blue Tinted GL-2 Vision Glass, Dark Blue Tinted GL-3 Curtain Wall, Light Blue Tinted MT-1 Metal - Light Beige Rainscreen Panel MT-2 Metal - Champagne Tone Metal Trim MT-3 Metal - Steel Blue Rainscreen Panel ST-1 Stone Cladding - Split Face Limestone ST-2 Gabion Wall 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ S TOP OF PHASE 2 +56’-6” PHASE 2 EXPANSION FUNCTION & EVENT VOLUME PH2 HT = 22’-6”PHASE 2 EXPANSION FUNCTION & EVENT VOLUME LEVEL 2 +34’-0” TOP OF PHASE 2 +56’-6” LEVEL 1 +21’-0”PH2 HT = 22’-6”PHASE 2 EXPANSION APPROX. MASSING VOLUME 464 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A4.02 KEY PLAN BUILDING SECTION - EAST ELEVATION LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 OVERALL HEIGHT = 146’-0”119’-0”PODIUM HEIGHT = 30’-6”27’-0”TOP OF PARAPET LAST FLOOR SERVED LEVEL 9 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 10 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 11 LEVEL 12 ROOF LEVEL TOP OF MEP PARAPET LEVEL 01 - BALLROOM LEVEL 01 +34’-0” +49’-6” +59’-2” +68’-10” +78’-6” +107-6” +88’-2” +117’-2” +97’-10” +126’-10” +138’-0” +150’-0” +165’-0” +19’-3” +21’-0” E MT-1 MT-2MT-3 GL-2 ST-1 GL-3MT-2 ST-2 GL-1 Rooftop MEP Screening RESTAURANT / BALLROOM PARKINGGARDEN LEGEND CP-1 Cement Plaster - Grey, Smooth Finish GL-1 Vision Glass, Light Blue Tinted GL-2 Vision Glass, Dark Blue Tinted GL-3 Curtain Wall, Light Blue Tinted MT-1 Metal - Light Beige Rainscreen Panel MT-2 Metal - Champagne Tone Metal Trim MT-3 Metal - Steel Blue Rainscreen Panel ST-1 Stone Cladding - Split Face Limestone ST-2 Gabion Wall A4.00 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ 465 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A4.03 KEY PLAN BUILDING SECTION - WEST ELEVATION LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 OVERALL HEIGHT = 146’-0”119’-0”27’-0”TOP OF PARAPET LAST FLOOR SERVED LEVEL 9 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 10 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 11 LEVEL 12 ROOF LEVEL TOP OF MEP PARAPET LEVEL 01 - BALLROOM LEVEL 01 +34’-0” +49’-6” +59’-2” +68’-10” +78’-6” +107-6” +88’-2” +117’-2” +97’-10” +126’-10” +138’-0” +150’-0” +165’-0” +19’-3” +21’-0” W MT-1 MT-1MT-2 GL-1 MT-3CP-1 GL-2 ST-1MT-2ST-2 GL-3 Potential Project Signage (Final location TBC) Rooftop MEP Screening LOBBY RESTAURANT / BALLROOMPORTE COCHE LEGEND CP-1 Cement Plaster - Grey, Smooth Finish GL-1 Vision Glass, Light Blue Tinted GL-2 Vision Glass, Dark Blue Tinted GL-3 Curtain Wall, Light Blue Tinted MT-1 Metal - Light Beige Rainscreen Panel MT-2 Metal - Champagne Tone Metal Trim MT-3 Metal - Steel Blue Rainscreen Panel ST-1 Stone Cladding - Split Face Limestone ST-2 Gabion Wall 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ 466 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A4.04 MT-3: METAL - STEEL BLUE RAINSCREEN PANEL GL-2: VISION GLASS, DARK BLUE TINTED MT-1: METAL - LIGHT BEIGE RAINSCREEN PANEL GL-1: VISION GLASS, LIGHT BLUE TINTED GL-3: CURTAIN WALL, LIGHT BLUE TINTED MT-2: METAL - CHAMPAGNE TONE METAL TRIM ST-1: STONE CLADDING - SPLITFACE LIMESTONE CP-1: CEMENT PLASTER - GREY, SMOOTH FINISH ST-2: GABION WALL MATERIAL BOARD & REFERENCE IMAGERY MATERIAL BOARD REFERENCE IMAGERY MT-2 MT-1 GL-1 GL-2 GL-3 ST-1 ST-2 MT-3 BUILDING ELEVATION SOUTH 467 KEY PLAN OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A5.00 RENDERING - AERIAL VIEW 468 KEY PLAN OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 RENDERING - BAY TRAIL VIEW A5.01 V 469 KEY PLAN OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A5.02 RENDERING - ARRIVAL VIEW V 470 KEY PLAN OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A5.03 RENDERING - BAY TRAIL (RESTAURANT) VIEW V 471 KEY PLAN V OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 A5.04 RENDERING - ROOFTOP BAR VIEW LATE AFTERNOON EVENING 472 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN SUBMITTAL LIGHTING DRAWINGS INDEX OF DRAWINGS LT0.00 COVER SHEET - LIGHTING DRAWINGS SHEET NO.SHEET NAME LT0.00 COVER SHEET - LIGHTING DRAWINGS LT1.01 SITE LIGHTING MASSING STUDY LT1.02 SITE LIGHTING LAYOUT LT1.03 SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN LT2.01 BUILDING ELEVATIONS LT2.02 BUILDING ELEVATIONS LT3.01 LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS LT3.02 LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS LT3.03 LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS LT4.01 LIGHTING RENDERING LT4.02 LIGHTING RENDERING 473 first circle design inc. 3187 Airway Avenue, Bldg C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Primary Entry and Pedestrian Walkway - 15' Overall Height Pole2 Event Lawn - Festoon Lighting5 Event Terrace (Event Power Only)4 Arrival and Gateway Landscape Lighting3 Garden and Event Lawn Landscape Lighting6 Art Garden & Lounge Areas8 Yoga Lawn & Fire Pit9 Spa Terrace10 Walking Trails - Tree Mounted Lighting71Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Pole OYSTER POINT HOTEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES A. Lighting fixture lamp sources used for illuminating Outdoor gathering areas and cB. Upward aimed facade lighting shall be fully shielded, fully confined from projectinC. Light Pollution shall be reduced to the greatest extent possible.D. Lighting shall be provided for safety, security, and an attractive nighttime environE. Wherever possible, the applicant shall use cover material composed of dark, nonF. Light fixtures along pedestrian walkways are to be 2'-4' in height.G. Weatherproof 120V power receptacles for Temporary Stage Lighting shall be loc THE DESIGN ADHERES TO GUIDELINES USING THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQU 1. Spill Control Optics2. Full Cut-off Optics3. Fully Shielded Fixtures 4. Fixtures located at a sufficient distance from Property Lines5. Fixtures capable of Control via Time Clock, Photocell and Motion Sensor Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Hotel Parking - Roadway - 18' O Building - VertiBuilding - Horizontal Direct View Linear Lobby/Prefunction Terrace11 Stairs & Ramp - Steplights12 Bay Garden Lounge Areas Fitness Lawn and Fire Pit Bay Garden and Event Court Landscape Lighting Event Court - Festoon Lighting Entry Drive & Arrival Landscape Lighting Entries & Pedestrian Link Walkway Restaurant & Bar Terrace 107 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Guest Arrival Lounge Lobby / Prefunction Terrace 2 3 4 14 13 1 8 7 569 10 11 12 OYSTER POINT HOTEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES A. Lighting fixture lamp sources used for illuminating Outdoor gathering areas and circulation associated with the property shall be shielded, directed downward, and not visible from off the property.B. Upward aimed facade lighting shall be fully shielded, fully confined from projecting into the sky by eaves, roofs, or overhangs, and mounted as flush to a wall as possible. C. Light Pollution shall be reduced to the greatest extent possible.D. Lighting shall be provided for safety, security, and an attractive nighttime environment. E. Wherever possible, the applicant shall use cover material composed of dark, non-reflective material demonstrated to minimize the contribution to sky glow.F. Light fixtures along pedestrian walkways are to be 2'-4' in height. G. Weatherproof 120V power receptacles for Temporary Stage Lighting shall be located at the Event Lawn to support Hotel Operations requirements. THE DESIGN ADHERES TO GUIDELINES USING THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES: 1. Spill Control Optics 2. Full Cut-off Optics3. Fully Shielded Fixtures 4. Fixtures located at a sufficient distance from Property Lines5. Fixtures capable of Control via Time Clock, Photocell and Motion Sensor Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Building - Vertical Direct View LinearBuilding - Horizontal Direct View Linear LIGHT LEVEL CRITERIA Porte Cochere (drop off area): Pool Deck: Pedestrian Walkways: Egress Walkways: Interior Roadways: Interior Roadways (Fire Lane): Property Lines: 15' Beyond Property Lines: 10FC Average (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Average (3:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 0.25FC Minimum (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Minimum 0.5FC Minimum (15:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 1FC Minimum (40:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 0.2 FC Maximum 0.01 FC Maximum OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Entitlement Package 04/28/2022 02 Entitlement Package Update 06/21/2022 03 Entitlement Package Update 09/29/2022 LT1.01 SITE LIGHTING MASSING STUDY No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 04/29/2022 474 first circle design inc. 3187 Airway Avenue, Bldg C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 XP1 XP2 XP2 XP2 (2)XN1 (2)XN1(2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (6)XN2 (2)XN2 XZ2 (11)XS1 (5)XN3 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (4)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (4)XL1 (4)XL1 (4)XL1 (8)XN1 (4)XN1 (4)XL1 (2)XN1 (4)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XN1 (30)XS1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XL1 (2)XL1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 XP2 (3)XN1 (3)XN1 (3)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (4)XN1 (2)XZ2 (15)XB1 (16)XS1 XP2 XZ2 XZ2 XZ2 XZ2 XZ2 (2)XZ2 XZ2 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (4)XL1 (4)XL1 (2)XL1 (2)XL1 (4)XL1 (3)XL1 (17)XB1 XZ4 XZ4 (2)XN1 (2)XN1(2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 XZ4 XZ3 (15)XZ4 XZ4 XZ4 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 (2)XN1 XP3 XP3 XZ4 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (4)XL1 (2)XL1 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 Tree Accent / Pathway Floodlight: Luminaire Description: In Grade Mounted Uplight | Tree Mounted Floodlight Kelvin Temp/Lumens: 2700K LED/809 Lumens | 2700K LED/819 Lumens Mounting Height: Walkway Floodlight at 10'-0" XL1XN1 Parking Areas Light Pole: Luminaire Description: 18'-0" Overall Height Parking Area Pole Kelvin Temp/Lumens: 2700K LED/6000 Lumens Overall Height: 18'-0" XP1 Entry and Pedestrian Walkway Light Pole: Luminaire Description: 15'-0" Overall Height Entry and Pedestrian Pole Kelvin Temp/Lumens: 2700K LED/4000 Lumens Overall Height: 15'-0" XP2 Linear Accent Ilummination: Luminaire Description: Linear Accent with Optics Kelvin Temp/Lumens: 2700K LED/450 Lumens per Foot XZ2 Festoon System / Integral Shade Light: Luminaire Description: Festoon System | Canopy Shade Indirect Light Kelvin Temp/Lumens: 2200K LED/173 Lumens per Foot | 2700K / 500 Lumens XZ4 Downlight Illumination: Luminaire Description: Surface Mounted Downlight Kelvin Temp/Lumens: 2700K LED/2403 Lumens XB1 (2)XN1 CANOPYLIGHTSTYP. ATTABLES CANOPYLIGHTS (2)XL1 (2)XN1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 Step Light - Stair and Rampway Illumination: Luminaire Description: Recess Mounted Step Light Kelvin Temp: 2700K LED/171 Lumens Backyard Path Illumination:XP3 Luminaire Description: Low Profile Pathway Light - Overall Height: 1'-10" Kelvin Temp/Lumens: 2700K LED/1361 Lumens XZ3 XZ3 (6)XN2XZ3 (8)XN2 XZ2 XS1 XP2 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1(2)XN1 XP2 XP2 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 XP2 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 (8)XN1 (2)XZ2 XZ2 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XZ2 XZ2 XZ2 XZ2 XZ2 XZ2 (3)XN1 (3)XL1 (15)XB1 (15)XB1 (3)XN1 (3)XN1 (3)XN1 (3)XL1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XL1 CANOPYLIGHTS (5)XN3 XP3 (4)XL1 (4)XL1 XZ3 XZ3 (2)XN1 (4)XL1 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 XP3 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 XZ3 (6)XN2 (3)XL1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 XP3 (2)XL1 (2)XL1 (4)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 XZ2 (2)XN2 XZ4 XZ4 XZ4 XZ4 (15)XZ4 CANOPYLIGHTSTYP. ATTABLES (11)XS1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 XZ3 (6)XN2 XZ2 (2)XZ2 XP1 XP1 XP1 (4)XN1(8)XN2 (2)XN1 (3)XL1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 XP1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 (2)XN1 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 XWM1 (3)XL1 (3)XL1 (16)XS1(30)XS1 OYSTER POINT HOTEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES A. Lighting fixture lamp sources used for illuminating Outdoor gathering areas and circulation associated with the property shall be shielded, directed downward, and not visible from off the property. B. Upward aimed facade lighting shall be fully shielded, fully confined from projecting into the sky by eaves, roofs, or overhangs, and mounted as flush to a wall as possible.C. Light Pollution shall be reduced to the greatest extent possible. D. Lighting shall be provided for safety, security, and an attractive nighttime environment.E. Wherever possible, the applicant shall use cover material composed of dark, non-reflective material demonstrated to minimize the contribution to sky glow. F. Light fixtures along pedestrian walkways are to be 2'-4' in height.G. Weatherproof 120V power receptacles for Temporary Stage Lighting shall be located at the Event Lawn to support Hotel Operations requirements. THE DESIGN ADHERES TO GUIDELINES USING THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES: 1. Spill Control Optics2. Full Cut-off Optics 3. Fully Shielded Fixtures4. Fixtures located at a sufficient distance from Property Lines 5. Fixtures capable of Control via Time Clock, Photocell and Motion Sensor Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Building - Vertical Direct View LinearBuilding - Horizontal Direct View Linear LIGHT LEVEL CRITERIA Porte Cochere (drop off area): Pool Deck: Pedestrian Walkways: Egress Walkways: Interior Roadways: Interior Roadways (Fire Lane): Property Lines: 15' Beyond Property Lines: 10FC Average (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Average (3:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 0.25FC Minimum (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Minimum 0.5FC Minimum (15:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 1FC Minimum (40:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 0.2 FC Maximum 0.01 FC Maximum OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Entitlement Package 04/28/2022 02 Entitlement Package Update 06/21/2022 03 Entitlement Package Update 09/29/2022 LT1.02 SITE LIGHTING LAYOUT No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 04/29/2022 475 first circle design inc. 3187 Airway Avenue, Bldg C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 OYSTER POINT HOTEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES A. Lighting fixture lamp sources used for illuminating Outdoor gathering areas and circulation associated with the property shall be shielded, directed downward, and not visible from off the property. B. Upward aimed facade lighting shall be fully shielded, fully confined from projecting into the sky by eaves, roofs, or overhangs, and mounted as flush to a wall as possible.C. Light Pollution shall be reduced to the greatest extent possible. D. Lighting shall be provided for safety, security, and an attractive nighttime environment.E. Wherever possible, the applicant shall use cover material composed of dark, non-reflective material demonstrated to minimize the contribution to sky glow. F. Light fixtures along pedestrian walkways are to be 2'-4' in height.G. Weatherproof 120V power receptacles for Temporary Stage Lighting shall be located at the Event Lawn to support Hotel Operations requirements. THE DESIGN ADHERES TO GUIDELINES USING THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES: 1. Spill Control Optics2. Full Cut-off Optics 3. Fully Shielded Fixtures4. Fixtures located at a sufficient distance from Property Lines 5. Fixtures capable of Control via Time Clock, Photocell and Motion Sensor Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Building - Vertical Direct View LinearBuilding - Horizontal Direct View Linear LIGHT LEVEL CRITERIA Porte Cochere (drop off area): Pool Deck: Pedestrian Walkways: Egress Walkways: Interior Roadways: Interior Roadways (Fire Lane): Property Lines: 15' Beyond Property Lines: 10FC Average (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Average (3:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 0.25FC Minimum (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Minimum 0.5FC Minimum (15:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 1FC Minimum (40:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 0.2 FC Maximum 0.01 FC Maximum OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Entitlement Package 04/28/2022 02 Entitlement Package Update 06/21/2022 03 Entitlement Package Update 09/29/2022 LT1.03 SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 No.Description Date 01 Follow Up Exhibit 06/21/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 476 first circle design inc. 3187 Airway Avenue, Bldg C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 OYSTER POINT HOTEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES A. Lighting fixture lamp sources used for illuminating Outdoor gathering areas and circulation associated with the property shall be shielded, directed downward, and not visible from off the property. B. Upward aimed facade lighting shall be fully shielded, fully confined from projecting into the sky by eaves, roofs, or overhangs, and mounted as flush to a wall as possible.C. Light Pollution shall be reduced to the greatest extent possible. D. Lighting shall be provided for safety, security, and an attractive nighttime environment.E. Wherever possible, the applicant shall use cover material composed of dark, non-reflective material demonstrated to minimize the contribution to sky glow. F. Light fixtures along pedestrian walkways are to be 2'-4' in height.G. Weatherproof 120V power receptacles for Temporary Stage Lighting shall be located at the Event Lawn to support Hotel Operations requirements. THE DESIGN ADHERES TO GUIDELINES USING THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES: 1. Spill Control Optics2. Full Cut-off Optics 3. Fully Shielded Fixtures4. Fixtures located at a sufficient distance from Property Lines 5. Fixtures capable of Control via Time Clock, Photocell and Motion Sensor Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Building - Vertical Direct View LinearBuilding - Horizontal Direct View Linear LIGHT LEVEL CRITERIA Porte Cochere (drop off area): Pool Deck: Pedestrian Walkways: Egress Walkways: Interior Roadways: Interior Roadways (Fire Lane): Property Lines: 15' Beyond Property Lines: 10FC Average (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Average (3:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 0.25FC Minimum (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Minimum 0.5FC Minimum (15:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 1FC Minimum (40:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 0.2 FC Maximum 0.01 FC Maximum NORTH ELEVATION2 WEST ELEVATION1 XZ1TYP. XK1TYP. XZ1 XS1TYP. XB1TYP. XK1TYP. XZ1 XK1TYP. XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XK1TYP. XZ1TYP. XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XB1TYP. Elevation Illumination Niche Lighting:XK1 Horizontal Linear Lighting:XZ1 Vertical Linear Lighting:XZ1 Downlighting:XB1 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Entitlement Package 04/28/2022 02 Entitlement Package Update 06/21/2022 03 Entitlement Package Update 09/29/2022 LT2.01 BUILDING ELEVATIONS No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 04/29/2022 477 first circle design inc. 3187 Airway Avenue, Bldg C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 OYSTER POINT HOTEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES A. Lighting fixture lamp sources used for illuminating Outdoor gathering areas and circulation associated with the property shall be shielded, directed downward, and not visible from off the property. B. Upward aimed facade lighting shall be fully shielded, fully confined from projecting into the sky by eaves, roofs, or overhangs, and mounted as flush to a wall as possible.C. Light Pollution shall be reduced to the greatest extent possible. D. Lighting shall be provided for safety, security, and an attractive nighttime environment.E. Wherever possible, the applicant shall use cover material composed of dark, non-reflective material demonstrated to minimize the contribution to sky glow. F. Light fixtures along pedestrian walkways are to be 2'-4' in height.G. Weatherproof 120V power receptacles for Temporary Stage Lighting shall be located at the Event Lawn to support Hotel Operations requirements. THE DESIGN ADHERES TO GUIDELINES USING THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES: 1. Spill Control Optics2. Full Cut-off Optics 3. Fully Shielded Fixtures4. Fixtures located at a sufficient distance from Property Lines 5. Fixtures capable of Control via Time Clock, Photocell and Motion Sensor Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Building - Vertical Direct View LinearBuilding - Horizontal Direct View Linear LIGHT LEVEL CRITERIA Porte Cochere (drop off area): Pool Deck: Pedestrian Walkways: Egress Walkways: Interior Roadways: Interior Roadways (Fire Lane): Property Lines: 15' Beyond Property Lines: 10FC Average (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Average (3:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 0.25FC Minimum (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Minimum 0.5FC Minimum (15:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 1FC Minimum (40:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 0.2 FC Maximum 0.01 FC Maximum SOUTH ELEVATION2 EAST ELEVATION1 XZ1 XK1TYP. XB1TYP. XK1TYP. XS1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XS1TYP. XK1TYP. XB1TYP. XZ1 XK1TYP. XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1TYP. XK1TYP. XK1TYP. XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 XZ1 Elevation Illumination Niche Lighting:XK1 Horizontal Linear Lighting:XZ1 Vertical Linear Lighting:XZ1 Downlighting:XB1 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Entitlement Package 04/28/2022 02 Entitlement Package Update 06/21/2022 03 Entitlement Package Update 09/29/2022 LT2.02 BUILDING ELEVATIONS No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 04/29/2022 478 first circle design inc. 3187 Airway Avenue, Bldg C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 XP1 (CONT.)XP1 XB1 XK1 XL1 XN1 XN2 XN3 18'-0" 18'-0"18'-0"18'-0" OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Entitlement Package 04/28/2022 02 Entitlement Package Update 06/21/2022 03 Entitlement Package Update 09/29/2022 LT3.01 LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 04/29/2022 479 first circle design inc. 3187 Airway Avenue, Bldg C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 XZ2 (CONT.) XP3 XS1 XWM1 XZ1 (CONT.)XZ2XZ1 XP2 ROUND TAPERED POLE (15'-0" OVERALL HEIGHT) OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Entitlement Package 04/28/2022 02 Entitlement Package Update 06/21/2022 03 Entitlement Package Update 09/29/2022 LT3.02 LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 04/29/2022 480 first circle design inc. 3187 Airway Avenue, Bldg C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 XZ4 XZ4 (CONT.)XZ3 OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Entitlement Package 04/28/2022 02 Entitlement Package Update 06/21/2022 03 Entitlement Package Update 09/29/2022 LT3.03 LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 04/29/2022 481 first circle design inc. 3187 Airway Avenue, Bldg C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 OYSTER POINT HOTEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES A. Lighting fixture lamp sources used for illuminating Outdoor gathering areas and circulation associated with the property shall be shielded, directed downward, and not visible from off the property. B. Upward aimed facade lighting shall be fully shielded, fully confined from projecting into the sky by eaves, roofs, or overhangs, and mounted as flush to a wall as possible.C. Light Pollution shall be reduced to the greatest extent possible. D. Lighting shall be provided for safety, security, and an attractive nighttime environment.E. Wherever possible, the applicant shall use cover material composed of dark, non-reflective material demonstrated to minimize the contribution to sky glow. F. Light fixtures along pedestrian walkways are to be 2'-4' in height.G. Weatherproof 120V power receptacles for Temporary Stage Lighting shall be located at the Event Lawn to support Hotel Operations requirements. THE DESIGN ADHERES TO GUIDELINES USING THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES: 1. Spill Control Optics2. Full Cut-off Optics 3. Fully Shielded Fixtures4. Fixtures located at a sufficient distance from Property Lines 5. Fixtures capable of Control via Time Clock, Photocell and Motion Sensor Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Building - Vertical Direct View LinearBuilding - Horizontal Direct View Linear LIGHT LEVEL CRITERIA Porte Cochere (drop off area): Pool Deck: Pedestrian Walkways: Egress Walkways: Interior Roadways: Interior Roadways (Fire Lane): Property Lines: 15' Beyond Property Lines: 10FC Average (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Average (3:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 0.25FC Minimum (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Minimum 0.5FC Minimum (15:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 1FC Minimum (40:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 0.2 FC Maximum 0.01 FC Maximum OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Entitlement Package 04/28/2022 02 Entitlement Package Update 06/21/2022 03 Entitlement Package Update 09/29/2022 LT4.01 LIGHTING RENDERING No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 04/29/2022 482 first circle design inc. 3187 Airway Avenue, Bldg C Costa Mesa, CA 92626 OYSTER POINT HOTEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES A. Lighting fixture lamp sources used for illuminating Outdoor gathering areas and circulation associated with the property shall be shielded, directed downward, and not visible from off the property. B. Upward aimed facade lighting shall be fully shielded, fully confined from projecting into the sky by eaves, roofs, or overhangs, and mounted as flush to a wall as possible.C. Light Pollution shall be reduced to the greatest extent possible. D. Lighting shall be provided for safety, security, and an attractive nighttime environment.E. Wherever possible, the applicant shall use cover material composed of dark, non-reflective material demonstrated to minimize the contribution to sky glow. F. Light fixtures along pedestrian walkways are to be 2'-4' in height.G. Weatherproof 120V power receptacles for Temporary Stage Lighting shall be located at the Event Lawn to support Hotel Operations requirements. THE DESIGN ADHERES TO GUIDELINES USING THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES: 1. Spill Control Optics2. Full Cut-off Optics 3. Fully Shielded Fixtures4. Fixtures located at a sufficient distance from Property Lines 5. Fixtures capable of Control via Time Clock, Photocell and Motion Sensor Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Hotel Parking - 18' Overall Height Single & Double Head Poles Roadway - 18' Overall Height Single Head Poles Building - Vertical Direct View LinearBuilding - Horizontal Direct View Linear LIGHT LEVEL CRITERIA Porte Cochere (drop off area): Pool Deck: Pedestrian Walkways: Egress Walkways: Interior Roadways: Interior Roadways (Fire Lane): Property Lines: 15' Beyond Property Lines: 10FC Average (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Average (3:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 0.25FC Minimum (2:1 ratio of Average to Minimum) 1FC Minimum 0.5FC Minimum (15:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 1FC Minimum (40:1 ratio of Maximum to Minimum) 0.2 FC Maximum 0.01 FC Maximum OYSTER POINT HOTEL | SB ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 32 FT 1/16”=1’ Owners Sheet Title Project No. 21950 ARCHITECTS 415 Jackson St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415/673-8990 F 415/274-2003 A California Corporation Oyster Point Hold Co LLC 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Ensemble Real Estate Investments 444 W. Ocean Blvd, Ste 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 No.Description Date 01 Entitlement Package 04/28/2022 02 Entitlement Package Update 06/21/2022 03 Entitlement Package Update 09/29/2022 LT4.02 LIGHTING RENDERING No.Description Date 01 Precise Plan Submittal 04/29/2022 02 Precise Plan Revisions 09/28/2022 04/29/2022 483 345 California Street | Suite 450 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Memorandum Date: October 19, 2022 To: Randy McPherson, Ensemble and Christy Usher, City of South San Francisco From: Daniel Jacobson, Fehr & Peers Subject: Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Demand Management Checklist SF22-1215 This memorandum provides a transportation demand management (TDM) checklist for the Oyster Point Hotel project (“Project”) consistent with Chapter 20.400 of the City’s Draft Zoning Amendment Ordinance. As a Tier 2 project, the Project is required to submit a TDM checklist of required and optional trip reduction measures that achieve a minimum threshold of 30 points. An annual self-certification form is required for the first 20 years after occupancy confirming the implementation of these measures. Summary of TDM Checklist The project would implement all required measures. Programmatic measures would include transit pass subsidies, participation in Commute.org programs, carpool/vanpool programs, and a dedicated TDM coordinator. Bicycle and pedestrian-oriented site access would focus on new connections to the Bay Trail and direct paths of access to Marina Boulevard and nearby transit facilities, as illustrated in the Project’s site plan. Bicycle storage, showers, and lockers would also be provided. As a hotel, employee work shifts would typically not revolve around a ‘9 to 5’ schedule, so Project commute behavior would be consistent with the City’s goals to reduce peak period travel. The project would implement two optional TDM measures. First, the project would fully subsidize transit passes for its employees, encouraging use of Caltrain, BART, SF Bay Ferry, and SamTrans services. Second, the project would utilize a shared parking approach to right-size parking supply for the hotel, restaurant, and special event uses. As described in the project’s Parking Management Plan, the shared parking approach would include strategies to manage vehicle trips associated with special events through offering trip planning assistance via the site’s TDM coordinator. 484 Oyster Point Hotel TDM Checlist October 3, 2022 Page 2 of 2 Completed TDM Checklist Tier 2 TDM Certification Checklist Type TDM Measure Eligible Points Project Points Required Measures (20 Points) 50% Transit Pass Subsidies and Pre-Tax Transit Benefits 7 7 Participation in Commute.org Programs 5 5 Carpool/Vanpool Programs and Parking 3 3 Bicycle Storage, Showers, and Lockers 2 2 Designated TDM Coordinator 1 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian-Oriented Site Access 1 1 Encourage Telecommuting & Flexible Work Schedules 1 1 Optional Measures Paid Parking or Parking Cash-Out 10 Enhanced Shuttle Commitment 10 Fully Subsidized Transit Passes 8 8 Affordable Housing Up to 6 Active Transportation Gap Closure Up to 5 Transit Capital Improvements Up to 5 On-Site Pedestrian-Oriented Amenities 3 Bikeshare Program Participation 3 Shared Parking Approach 2 2 Cash Incentives 2 On-Site Carshare 2 Active Transportation Subsidies 1 Bicycle Repair Station 1 Requirements Tier 2 Projects 30 30 1Participation in Kilroy’s commuter shuttle services as well as Commute.org’s shuttle services 485 018708.0001 4856-5538-2574.1 Oyster Point Hotel Parking Study Prepared for: Ensemble City of South San Francisco October 17, 2022 486 018708.0001 4856-5538-2574.1 2 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Parking Demand Analysis ............................................................................................................. 5 Shared Parking Method ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Peak Parking Demand Method .............................................................................................................................................. 6 ITE Data .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Local Data ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Parking Management Practices ................................................................................................... 9 Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Appendix A. Sample of Previous Parking Studies - Parking Count Results by Hotel .....................................10 Appendix B. Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Analysis ......................................................................................12 487 3 1. Introduction This report presents a Parking Management Plan as required per the City of South San Francisco Zoning Code for a proposed hotel at 367 Marina Boulevard, herein referred to as the “Project.” The City requires that hotels provide justification documenting expected demand based on project features as well as the project’s approach to management and monitoring of parking. This study analyzes potential parking demand based and proposes several practices to manage supply and demand should any imbalances occur. Based on the analysis presented in this report, the Project’s proposed parking supply is expected to adequately serve typical demand. Parking management strategies are presented to handle occasional surges in special event demand. Project Description The Project is located at 367 Marina Boulevard adjacent to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The Project consists of approximately 350 hotel rooms, 10,300 square feet of dining space, and 14,300 square feet of meeting rooms. An 8,000 square foot ballroom may be added in a future phase. The Project would provide 232 parking spaces, of which 33 would be valet spaces. The Project includes three driveways along Marina Boulevard and a public access trail along the eastern edge of the site connecting to the Bay Trail. Figure 1 depicts the proposed parking layout, while Figure 2 illustrates the site plan program. Figure 1: Parking Layout 488 4 Figure 2: Site Plan Program The Project’s parking supply takes into consideration several factors that influence market demand. The hotel would primarily be oriented toward airport- and business-travelers who are more likely to rely on Uber and Lyft than rental cars. Additionally, the hotel is located within walking distance of a number of office/R&D campuses and is served by Commute.org shuttles, planned SamTrans service, and WETA ferry service. The availability of these services coupled with the Project’s transportation demand management (TDM) program suggests lower parking demand than typical suburban hotel sites. While occasional surges in parking demand may occur during special events, the applicant anticipates that this may be addressed through management strategies tailored to each event. A parking management plan is provided in the final section of this report. 489 5 2. Parking Demand Analysis This report analyzes parking demand via two methods: the first method uses a shared parking method to analyze the Project’s proposed uses based on national data, which the second reviews national and local data focused on peak demand. Combined, these methods offer insights into how the Project’s parking demand may be affected by its mix of uses and location in South San Francisco. Shared Parking Method The ULI Shared Parking Manual provides estimates hotel parking demand based on the mix of uses specific to the Project. It estimates that hotel visitors generate a weekday demand of about 0.58 parking spaces per room, and hotel employees generate a demand of 0.15 parking spaces per room. Other features of the proposed Project can be reflected in the ULI calculations as well, including its restaurant and meeting room space. The ULI Shared Parking Manual also calculates how parking demand varies by time of day. For employees, parking demand would be at its peak between 8 AM and 3 PM; for guests, parking demand would peak at 11 PM. At other times of day, parking demand for each group would be below its respective peaks. The ULI Shared Parking method estimates the Project’s typical peak parking demand to be 234 spaces, which would fluctuate by time of day and day of the week (Figure 3). These calculations are provided in Appendix A. ULI does not take into account a project’s proximity to other land uses, use of transit or ride- hailing, or presence of a TDM program, so this estimate may be interpreted as slightly higher than what may be expected of the Project. Based on the ULI method, the Project’s proposed parking supply of 232 spaces appears roughly consistent with typical demand, although peak demand during the morning may reach 234 spaces. While the Project’s location and likelihood of higher rates of walking, biking, transit, carpooling, and ride-hailing should help reduce demand, the ULI method suggests that demand may occasionally meet or exceed the Project’s supply. If such periods occur, supply should be actively managed using practices noted in Section 3. 490 6 Figure 3. Estimated Peak Month Daily Parking Demand by Hour (Weekday) Source: ULI Shared Parking Manual 2020; Fehr & Peers, 2022. Peak Parking Demand Method National and local data sources are also available to estimate peak parking demand. While these sources lack specificity on how a mix of uses affects hotel parking demand, they provide further insights on how hotel parking demand may vary – which is especially true of recent local data that reflects changing transportation conditions in the Bay Area. ITE Data Data from the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) provides industry-accepted standards for estimating parking demand for different land uses based on nationwide research and data collection. The ITE Parking Generation Manual projects that standard hotels with meeting rooms and restaurant spaces would generate a typical peak parking demand of 0.74 spaces per hotel room, which translates to about 259 spaces for the proposed Project. The peak parking demand rate represents the maximum number of parking spaces used at a single point in time. However, there could be several (or many) hours throughout the day in which parking demand would be lower than the maximum rate. 0 50 100 150 200 250 Parking StallsHour Peak Month Daily Parking Demand by Hour (Weekday) Hotel Parking Supply 491 7 ITE’s data has several limitations: it lacks specificity in documenting the location, timeframe, and mix of uses in which its data was sampled, and many of its datapoints are from suburban locations out of state that predated Uber and Lyft, with different mixes of amenities present. For these reasons, ITE tends to be a less reliable source for estimating hotel parking demand, and is presented in this report for informational purposes. Local Data Recent data collected in the Bay Area demonstrates how hotel parking demand is changing over time. Data was available from 47 days of observation across 19 different hotels. These studies were conducted between 2014 and 2019 in the cities of South San Francisco, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino. Hotels within the sample ranged in size from 56 to 187 guest rooms. See Appendix B for a complete list of hotels studied. In each study, parking counts were conducted across multiple hours in the day. In some cases, parking counts were available for the full day of data collection; for others, only the peak observed parking count was reported. For each hotel, the peak observed parking demand and the number of hotel rooms were then used to calculate the peak parking demand rate. Like the ITE data, these local studies share the limitations of insufficient documentation of the mix of hotel uses, and are typically smaller in scale than the proposed Project. On average, the peak observed parking demand rate was 0.50 spaces per hotel room. The highest observed peak demand rate was 0.84 spaces per hotel room, and the lowest was 0.28 spaces per room. Figure 4 below displays the relationship between hotel size (by number of rooms) and peak parking demand rate - there was no correlation between hotel size and parking demand rate. Figure 4. Peak Parking Demand Rate by Hotel Size Avg = 0.50 492 8 Of the 47 observations, 29 included information about how many hotel rooms were occupied during the period of data collection; 22 of those 29 hotels were more than 90 percent occupied. At hotels that were more than 90 percent occupied, the average peak parking demand was 0.52 spaces per hotel room (approximately equivalent to the average for all hotels in the sample). These results suggest that even when a hotel is fully occupied, a large proportion of guests do not travel by car or require a parking space. The rise of ride-hailing over the past decade has changed how people travel when visiting hotels. Figure 5 illustrates peak parking demand rates observed by year, illustrating an overall downtrend in hotel parking demand. Among the sites sampled, in 2015, the peak parking demand rate observed was 0.74 spaces per hotel room (similar to ITE’s estimate); in 2019, the peak parking demand rate at that hotel was 0.40 spaces per room. While these results do not reflect a true before/after study of parking demand at the same sites, they suggest that hotel parking demand declined over time as travelers replaced rental cars with ride- hailing trips. Based on the local data presented above, peak parking demand for the proposed Project is estimated to be roughly 140 to 182 spaces. To some extent, the proposed Project’s proximity to transit and other land uses within walking distance may further reduce parking demand compared to some other sites surveyed. However, this range may be an underestimate as it may not fully take into account the effects of larger events that are more typical of a larger hotel compared to the smaller hotels sampled. For these reasons, the Project’s 232 parking spaces appears adequate to meet demand, but there is some uncertainty in how this could vary with larger events. Figure 5. Peak Parking Demand Rate by Year 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Occupied Parking SpacesPer Hotel Room493 9 3. Parking Management Practices This parking demand analysis illustrates that the Project’s parking supply of 232 spaces should generally be sufficient to accommodate demand under typical peak conditions. Local data suggests typical peak parking demand may be as low as 140 to 182 spaces, while the ULI Shared Parking model suggests parking demand may reach 234 spaces. There is uncertainty in both estimation methods associated with special events and the Project’s unique location, which may result in larger fluctuations in demand and a lower overall auto mode share than national and local data points. For these reasons, the Project should actively monitor parking conditions to prepare for typical surges in demand (occurring on a daily/weekly basis) and atypical surges demand (occurring due to large special events held at the hotel. When parking demand nears or exceeds supply, the hotel operator shall implement the following parking management practices: ▪ TDM Program: The hotel operator shall implement a TDM program as required by the City’s ordinance and documented in the Project’s TDM Checklist. ▪ Event Planning: Event sponsors shall work with the hotel operator to develop a parking management approach tailored to the scale and market of each event. ▪ Valet Parking: During typical daily/weekly peak periods and for special events, the hotel operator should expand valet parking areas or shift to an all-valet system while scaling up valet staffing as necessary. As a first step, employee parking should be fully valet at all times. ▪ Offsite Parking: For larger events, the hotel operator should establish partnerships with offsite parking facilities for valet and self-park use. Offsite parking is particularly useful for evening events and on days when adjacent lots are not full. ▪ Shuttle Charters or Ride-Hailing Promotions: If valet and offsite parking not able to fully accomodate larger events due to scheduling conflicts, the hotel operator should work with event sponsors to establish shuttle charters or ride-hailing credit promotions for event attendees. Shuttle charters may be more suitable to events oriented toward specific employers in the East of 101 Area, while ride-hailing credit promotions may be more suited toward events targeting a wider audience. ▪ Trip Planning Assistance: For all events, the hotel operator and event sponsor should provide trip planning assistance that prominently features wayfinding instructions for transit, active transportation, and ride-hailing access as well as instructions for valet or offsite parking. Non-auto modes of access should be promoted to reduce overall vehicle trips to the site, especially for events targeted to employers within the East of 101 Area. ▪ Event Monitoring: The hotel operator shall be responsible for monitoring parking demand for special events and adjust its management practices as needed. By implementing these parking management practices, the hotel operator should be able to minimize instances of parking shortages associated with special events and other typical surges in demand. 494 10 Appendix Appendix A. Sample of Previous Parking Studies - Parking Count Results by Hotel Hotel City Date Day of the Week Rooms Percent of Rooms Occupied Parking Stalls Stalls per Hotel Room Peak Parking Demand per Room Peak Parking Demand Per Occupied Room Peak Parking Occupancy AC Hotel South San Francisco 4/17/2019 Wednesday 187 99% 100 0.53 0.42 0.42 78% Hilton Garden Inn Burlingame 5/16/2017 Tuesday 132 94% 0.35 0.37 Hilton Garden Inn Burlingame 5/17/2017 Wednesday 132 96% 0.33 0.35 Hilton Garden Inn Burlingame 5/18/2017 Thursday 132 79% 0.37 0.47 Bay Landing San Mateo 5/16/2017 Tuesday 157 99% 0.41 0.41 Bay Landing San Mateo 5/17/2017 Wednesday 157 98% 0.43 0.44 Bay Landing San Mateo 5/18/2017 Thursday 157 99% 0.43 0.43 Hilton Garden Inn San Mateo 5/16/2017 Tuesday 157 99% 0.29 0.29 Hilton Garden Inn San Mateo 5/17/2017 Wednesday 157 98% 0.28 0.29 Hilton Garden Inn San Mateo 5/18/2017 Thursday 157 99% 0.31 0.32 Los Prados Hotel San Mateo 3/7/2017 Tuesday 116 92% 0.47 0.51 Los Prados Hotel San Mateo 3/8/2017 Wednesday 116 95% 0.45 0.47 Los Prados Hotel San Mateo 3/9/2017 Thursday 116 91% 0.50 0.55 Holiday Inn Belmont 3/30/2016 Wednesday 82 79% 77 0.94 0.48 0.60 51% Holiday Inn Belmont 4/2/2016 Saturday 82 83% 77 0.94 0.67 0.81 71% Fairfield Inn & Suites San Carlos 4/7/2016 Thursday 120 68% 112 0.93 0.55 0.80 59% Fairfield Inn & Suites San Carlos 4/9/2016 Saturday 120 58% 112 0.93 0.73 1.28 79% TownPlace Suites Redwood City 11/6/2019 Wednesday 94 100% 0.67 0.67 TownPlace Suites Redwood City 11/17/2019 Sunday 94 97% 0.60 0.62 Hilton Garden Inn Palo Alto 5/24/2016 Tuesday 174 92% 178 1.02 0.52 0.57 51% Hilton Garden Inn Palo Alto 7/27/2016 Wednesday 174 100% 178 1.02 0.70 0.70 68% 495 11 Hotel City Date Day of the Week Rooms Percent of Rooms Occupied Parking Stalls Stalls per Hotel Room Peak Parking Demand per Room Peak Parking Demand Per Occupied Room Peak Parking Occupancy Hilton Garden Inn Mountain View 4/30/2015 Thursday 160 97% 153 0.96 0.72 0.74 75% Hilton Garden Inn Mountain View 5/2/2015 Saturday 160 98% 153 0.96 0.78 0.80 82% Hilton Garden Inn Mountain View 10/26/2016 Wednesday 160 153 0.96 0.69 72% Hilton Garden Inn Mountain View 10/28/2016 Friday 160 153 0.96 0.39 41% Hilton Garden Inn Mountain View 10/29/2016 Saturday 160 153 0.96 0.33 35% Hilton Garden Inn Mountain View 10/30/2016 Sunday 160 153 0.96 0.33 35% Crestview Hotel Mountain View 7/2/2017 Sunday 64 0.42 Crestview Hotel Mountain View 7/3/2017 Monday 64 0.36 Crestview Hotel Mountain View 7/5/2017 Wednesday 64 0.34 Hotel Strata Mountain View 7/2/2017 Sunday 58 0.66 Hotel Strata Mountain View 7/3/2017 Monday 58 0.60 Hotel Strata Mountain View 7/5/2017 Wednesday 58 0.41 Residence Inn Mountain View 7/2/2017 Sunday 140 0.64 Residence Inn Mountain View 7/3/2017 Monday 140 0.50 Residence Inn Mountain View 7/5/2017 Wednesday 140 0.56 Hotel Vue Mountain View 1/9/2019 Wednesday 56 86% 56 1.00 0.36 0.42 36% Courtyard by Marriott Sunnyvale 4/30/2015 Thursday 145 99% 127 0.88 0.74 0.74 84% Sheraton Inn Sunnyvale 4/30/2015 Thursday 173 72% 283 1.64 0.51 0.70 31% Sheraton Inn Sunnyvale 5/2/2015 Saturday 173 95% 283 1.64 0.84 0.89 52% Courtyard by Marriott Sunnyvale 3/26/2019 Tuesday 145 127 0.88 0.53 61% Courtyard by Marriott Sunnyvale 3/30/2019 Saturday 145 127 0.88 0.28 32% Aloft Hotel Cupertino 6/11/2014 Wednesday 123 100% 0.62 0.62 Aloft Hotel Cupertino 6/14/2014 Saturday 123 98% 0.54 0.55 Source: Compiled by Fehr & Peers, 2020. 496 12 Appendix B. Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Analysis 497 345 California Street | Suite 450 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Memorandum Date: October 21, 2022 To: Rebecca Auld, Lamphier Gregory and Christy Usher, City of South San Francisco From: Daniel Jacobson and Emily Chen, Fehr & Peers Subject: Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment SF22-1215 This memorandum provides a transportation assessment for a proposed hotel located within the Oyster Point Specific Plan area in South San Francisco (“Project”). It includes an analysis of travel demand, site access and circulation, and vehicle miles traveled, as well as a comparison to the analysis provided in the Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR. Key Findings • The Project’s hotel and restaurant uses are unlikely to materially increase vehicle miles traveled due to the Project’s proximity to office/R&D uses and the San Francisco International Airport. • The Project’s size and trip generation is well within the estimated trip generation envelope of the Specific Plan Area and therefore consistent with the transportation analysis in the Specific Plan EIR. • Access and circulation illustrated in the Project’s conceptual site plan is consistent with the Oyster Point Specific Plan and would not create or exacerbate transportation safety impacts. • Based on the above findings, there are no anticipated new impacts to transportation facilities that were not identified in the Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR. 498 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 2 of 12 Project Description The Project is located on Marina Boulevard near the eastern terminus of Oyster Point Boulevard adjacent to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The Project consists of up to 350 hotel rooms, a restaurant and bar, and meeting rooms covering about 261,000 square feet. A ballroom may be added in a future phase. Approximately 232 parking spaces would be provided (33 of which would be valet) along with a loading dock that accommodates two service trucks. The Project includes three driveways along Marina Boulevard and a public access trail along the eastern edge of the site connecting to the Bay Trail. Project Setting Land Use & Transportation Context The Project is located within the Oyster Point Specific Plan area, an 81 acre redevelopment in South San Francisco approved in 2011. The Specific Plan includes the development of up to 2.3 million square feet of office/R&D space as well as new infrastructure, recreation and open space, and the proposed Project. The Specific Plan’s Phase One buildings (660,000 square feet) were completed in early 2022, while remaining phases are underway. The Project is located along Marina Boulevard near the eastern terminus of Oyster Point Boulevard, which connects to US-101 and major arterials within South San Francisco. Gull Drive, Eccles Avenue, and Gateway Boulevard are the nearest north-south streets intersecting with Oyster Point Boulevard. The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal is located adjacent to the project site, while the South San Francisco Caltrain station and South San Francisco BART Station are accessible via peak period shuttle services provided by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org). While no SamTrans bus service currently serves the site, an extension of Route 130 along the Oyster Point Boulevard corridor is planned to occur in 2023. New pedestrian and bicycle facilities have been provided along Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard adjacent to the Project site, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and Class II bike lanes. The Bay Trail covers the perimeter of the Specific Plan area and has frontage on the southern shoreline of the Project site. Figure 1 illustrates the Project location in relation to nearby land uses and transportation facilities. Figure 2 illustrates the Oyster Point Specific Plan. 499 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 3 of 12 Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Oyster Point Specific Plan 500 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 4 of 12 Specific Plan Design Guidelines The Oyster Point Specific Plan seeks to promote alternative transportation modes to, from and within the site (Design Goal 3). To accomplish this, it includes the following applicable design guidelines related to the Project’s site access and circulation: General Guidelines • Provide convenient, efficient, and safe access to Oyster Point. • Maintain and enhance access to adjacent parcels, the waterfront, and the Ferry Terminal. • Encourage alternative transportation by emphasizing pedestrian, bicycle and transit in the roadway network design. • Promote safe pedestrian and vehicular circulation by minimizing conflicts at intersections and changes in road width and direction. Service, Delivery and Emergency Access Guidelines • Service vehicles should be accommodated by the roadway network, with clearly delineated lane markings, signals, and wayfinding signage. • Service, delivery and emergency vehicles should have access to both primary as well as secondary entrances to buildings and facilities. • These secondary entrances should be limited specifically to service, delivery, and emergency access. • Service vehicle driveways and loading areas should be screened and separated from public pedestrian walkways where possible. • Secondary access for emergency vehicles will be provided when their access is restricted from using primary entrances. Parking Access Guidelines • Parking access should be clearly delineated by lane markings, signals, and wayfinding signage. • Access to and from the parking garages should be located at intersections or from a dedicated right turn lane. • Adequate queuing space should be provided at parking garage entrances. Bicycle Circulation Guidelines • Bicycle access and parking should be clearly delineated by lane markings and wayfinding signage. 501 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 5 of 12 Streetscapes and Sidewalks Guidelines • Sidewalks should support an interconnected and public development. • Width of sidewalks should be appropriate to • accommodate an active development. • Sidewalks should be inset from roadways with a landscape buffer where possible to promote pedestrian friendly circulation. Guidelines to Support the TDM Program • The site should include dedicated passenger drop- off and shuttle stop areas. • Pedestrian connections should be provided to connect the buildings and site adjacent sidewalks, Bay Trail and shuttle stops. • Bicycle lanes, routes and/or paths should be provided to allow bicycle accessibility to all buildings at the site. • The parking areas should provide preferred parking for carpool, vanpool, low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles, and electric plug-in vehicles. • Parking should be provided for motorcycle and scooters. • Long-term (Class I) and Short-Term (Class II) bicycle parking should be provided at or adjacent to all buildings. • Shower and changing facilities should be provided in or easily accessible from all buildings. • Transportation and Commute Information Kiosks should be provided at all buildings. • In addition to the physical measures described above, the TDM program will include programmatic measures such as informational resources, transit programs, and commuter amenities. Project Travel Demand Project Trip Generation Vehicle trip estimates for the Project (Table 1) were developed by applying national trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition to the proposed land uses. Due to the continued disruptions in travel behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, ITE rates were used in lieu of conducting new vehicle counts at comparable local sites. ITE Land Use 310 (Hotel) is defined as a place of lodging and supporting facilities such as a full-service restaurant, bar, meeting rooms, ballrooms, and convention facilities, which most closely matches the facilities included in the proposed Project. ITE includes a reasonably large sample size of 28 studies for AM peak hour trip generation data and 31 studies for PM peak hour trip generation data. Daily trip generation data includes a more limited sample size of seven studies and may have a higher margin of error. 502 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 6 of 12 ITE rates are typically derived from suburban settings that lack a mix of land uses within walking distance; consequently, Fehr & Peers used the trip generation methodology known as MXD+ to calibrate the trip generation estimates to local conditions and the proximity to adjacent office/research & development (R&D) uses. The MXD+ method is based on a weighted average of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s MXD Model and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s Report 684 methodology. Additional reductions associated with the proposed transportation demand management program were not included due to limited data available for comparable hotel sites As illustrated in Table 1, the project is projected to generate approximately 2,751 vehicle trips on an average weekday with about 135 occurring in the AM peak hour and about 204 in the PM peak hour. These trip generation estimates do not account for the proposed transportation demand management program, which would further reduce the number of private vehicle trips to the project. The Project considers adding a ballroom in a future phase. Since ITE rates are based upon hotels that typically include ballrooms, the trip generation estimates in Table 1 include travel demand associated with the future ballroom. Consequently, Table 1 may present an overestimate of travel demand without the ballroom. Table 1. Oyster Point Hotel Trip Generation Land Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Hotel1 350 rooms 2,797 90 71 161 106 101 207 Internal Trip Reductions2 - (46) (8) (2) (26) (1) (2) (3) Net New Project trips - 2,751 82 69 135 105 99 204 Notes: 1Based on ITE 11th Edition (Land Use #310 – Hotel, average rate) 2Based on MXD+ trip generation methodology which accounts for Internal trip reductions account for trips made between land uses within the Specific Plan area. Trip Distribution and Assignment About half of Project vehicle travel is expected to occur within South San Francisco, Brisbane, San Bruno, and the San Francisco International Airport. Figure 3 illustrates daily vehicle trip distribution between traffic analysis zones (TAZs) for nearby clusters of hotels in South San Francisco and Brisbane based on StreetLight data, which tracks anonymized movement using cell phone location-based services data. Each site shares similar characteristics as business-oriented hotels that illustrates comparable travel behavior, offering some combination of meeting rooms, ballrooms, and restaurant/bar facilities, although most of these sites are generally older and smaller hotels. Based on this analysis, the Project’s vehicle trip distribution is expected to be most 503 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 7 of 12 heavily concentrated within the East of 101 Area (15 to 20 percent of trips), to/from the San Francisco International Airport (10 to 15 percent), and elsewhere in South San Francisco, Brisbane, or San Bruno (10 to 15 percent). The remaining 50 to 60 percent of trips would mostly be distributed across San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Figure 3: Vehicle Trip Distribution for Nearby Hotels in South San Francisco and Brisbane 504 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 8 of 12 Vehicle trips would be concentrated along Oyster Point Boulevard to access US-101. Upon reaching US-101, about 50 percent of trips are likely to travel to the south, 40 percent to the north, and 10 percent continuing along Sister Cities Boulevard. Trips occurring fully within the East of 101 Area are likely to use Gull Drive, Eccles Avenue, and Gateway Boulevard. Vehicle Miles Traveled The Project is a business-oriented hotel primarily serving nearby office/R&D uses and San Francisco International Airport. Unlike nearby office/R&D land uses in the East of 101 Area that typically generate vehicle miles, the Project would exhibit characteristics of a local-serving land use rather than a regional destination. In its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the State of California’s Office of Planning and Research notes that “local- serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT.”1 Hotels in the East of 101 Area appear to exhibit similar travel behavior as local-serving retail: as illustrated in Figure 3, vehicle trip lengths for four nearby hotel clusters in South San Francisco and Brisbane tend to be short and focused around nearby office/R&D uses and the San Francisco International Airport. As shown in Table 2, the average vehicle trip length for nearby hotels is about four miles, compared with an average trip length of about 13 miles for other land uses in the East of 101 Area. Table 2. Trip Length Comparison East of 101 Area Land Use Average Trip Length Hotels 3.6-3.9 Miles Office/R&D and Other Land Uses 12.9 miles Source: StreetLight data and C/CAG Model Hotels in the vicinity primarily serve nearby office/R&D uses and the San Francisco International Airport, as opposed to generating new tourism-oriented or resort-oriented travel. Assuming a similar travel pattern for the proposed Project as those existing in the vicinity, the Project would not materially increase vehicle miles traveled and may help shorten trips for hotel guests that would otherwise stay at hotels farther away. Although the City of South San Francisco does not have a threshold of significance for VMT associated with hotel uses, the Project may be presumed to have a less than significant impact to VMT based on the City’s screening criteria for local serving land uses that do not result in a net increase in VMT. 1 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, State of California Office of Planning & Research, 2018 https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf 505 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 9 of 12 Specific Plan & City Policy Consistency Trip Generation The Specific Plan EIR document published in 2011 estimated that the Specific Plan buildout would result in 17,684 daily trips, of which 1,873 would occur during the AM peak hour and 2,127 would occur during the PM peak hour (a net change of about 12,716 daily vehicle trips, 1,402 AM peak hour trips, and 1,621 PM peak hour trips. As shown in Table 3, the Oyster Point Hotel is expected to generate in total about 2,751 daily trips, including about 135 AM peak hour trips and 204 PM peak hour trips. Although the Specific Plan EIR did not break down trip generation by land use, the Oyster Point Hotel size is consistent with the Specific Plan, is therefore expected to generate a comparable number of trips as the hotel identified in the Specific Plan EIR. Moreover, its trip generation is well within the estimated trip generation envelope of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan and Project trip generation are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Trip Generation Comparison Scenario Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Oyster Point Specific Plan (2011) 17,684 1,873 2,127 Oyster Point Hotel Project 2,751 135 204 Sources: Oyster Point Specific Plan, 2011 and Fehr & Peers, 2022 Figure 4: Annotated Project Site Plan 506 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 10 of 12 Access & Circulation Access and circulation illustrated in the Project’s conceptual site plan is consistent with the Oyster Point Specific Plan. The site plan (Figure 4) includes driveways connecting to Marina Boulevard, pedestrian connections to the street’s sidewalk, and a Bay Trail connection on its eastern edge as identified in the Specific Plan. Service, Delivery and Emergency Access The Project would provide two onsite loading spaces for commercial deliveries and service vehicles. The Project would primarily be served by small- to mid-sized box trucks, laundry trucks, and garbage trucks (all typically 16 to 32 feet). Truck activity is expected to be spread throughout the day depending on particular functions: for example, garbage trucks typically arrive early morning, while laundry trucks typically arrive mid-morning (in coordination with housekeeping services). Service and delivery vehicles would use a screened in loading dock in the middle of the site. Trucks would enter via the easternmost driveway and conduct a three-point turn within the parking lot to back into the loading dock. The site plan remains conceptual at the time of this analysis, but it can be reasonably inferred that the proposed layout can accommodate such trucks provided that truck turning templates are used to inform the design process. Larger tractor-trailer vehicles are expected for restaurant delivery. These deliveries would primarily occur overnight. Tractor-trailer trucks would back in from Marina Boulevard to access the loading dock. Since the site is located on a relatively low volume street and these deliveries would occur outside of peak hours, large truck deliveries would not pose conflicts with other modes. Truck drivers may benefit from approaching the site from the westbound direction (via looping around the Marina turnaround) to avoid reversing into their blind side when approaching the lot. The City of South San Francisco requires five loading spaces for a 261,000 square foot commercial land use. Based on the anticipated loading activity and distribution throughout the day, city requirements likely exceed anticipated demand, and comparable hotels in the East of 101 Area typically include one to two loading spaces. The proposed loading supply is expected to be sufficient provided that hotel management staggers loading activities throughout the day. Emergency vehicles would have access to all building entrances and facilities as well as the Bay Trail connection along the east side of the Project. The Project is therefore consistent with the Specific Plan’s guidelines for efficient service, delivery, and emergency vehicle access. Parking Access Access for the proposed 232 parking spaces would be provided via three driveways along Marina Boulevard. Each driveway would serve hotel, restaurant, and meeting room uses, with the 507 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 11 of 12 westernmost driveway expected to serve as the primary entrance. Since these driveways are located along the eastern edge of Marina Boulevard, they are likely to account for a majority of vehicle traffic along the street and are unlikely to pose conflicts with the limited through traffic that occurs. An analysis of the project’s parking supply is provided in the accompanying Parking Management Plan. Figure 5: Parking Layout Bicycle Access Bicyclists would access the site via the Project’s driveways. Bicycle parking would be provided per City code and delineated with signage. The Project would provide 35 bicycle parking spaces, which is consistent with City code. The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan’s guidelines to incorporate bicycle travel into projects. Pedestrian Access The Project would align with the new sidewalk and trail infrastructure in the Specific Plan Area. Pedestrians would access the Project via a pathway to the lobby. Pedestrians would access the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal, Commute.org shuttles, and planned SamTrans service by crossing Marina Boulevard and walking approximately 300 feet to the east to reach the ferry terminal entrance and bus/shuttle stop. The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan’s guidelines to support an interconnected and pedestrian-friendly development. 508 Oyster Point Hotel Transportation Assessment October 21, 2022 Page 12 of 12 TDM-Supportive Site Plan Features The Project would be subject to the City’s TDM Ordinance requirements and would incorporate site plan elements consistent with these requirements as described above, including a passenger loading area, direct pedestrian connections to sidewalks and transit facilities, access to bike lanes and trails, and bike parking. The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan’s guidelines to encourage alternative forms of transportation. A TDM Checklist is provided as an attachement. EIR Transportation Impacts The Oyster Point Specific Plan EIR identifies several significant impacts to transportation facilities, including intersection delay, freeway delay, and offramp queues. Based on the analysis above, the Project’s effects would be consistent with this analysis. Since the certification of the EIR, the State of California has adopted new CEQA guidelines that that vehicle level of service (LOS) and similar measures related to auto delay shall not be used as the sole basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts. The Project would contribute toward Transportation Impact Fees to address multimodal transportation needs around the Specific Plan Area. 509 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 ______________________________________________________________________________ (Space Above This Line Reserved For Recorder’s Use) This instrument is exempt from recording fees pursuant to Government Code section 27383. Documentary Transfer Tax is $0.00 (exempt per Revenue & Taxation Code section 11922, Transfer to Municipality). DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC. 367 Marina Boulevard SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. _______ OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL Effective Date: ___________ 510 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between Oyster Point Holdco, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Developer”), and the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (“City”), pursuant to California Government Code (“Government Code”) sections 65864 et seq. Developer and the City are sometimes collectively referred to herein as “Parties.” RECITALS A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted California Government Code sections 65864 et seq. (the “Development Agreements Statute”), which authorizes the City to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property. B. Pursuant to Government Code section 65865, City has adopted procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements (South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”) Chapter 19.60). This Agreement has been processed, considered, and executed in accordance with such procedures and requirements. C. Developer has a legal and/or equitable interest in certain real property located in the City at 367 Marina Boulevard, also known as San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-011-350, as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit A (the “Property”). D. On March 23, 2011, the City, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, and Oyster Point Ventures, LLC, executed a Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) for the master development named Oyster Point through a multi-phased project, which included development of a hotel on the Property, and required Oyster Point Ventures, LLC, to perform certain site work, grading, and installation of infrastructure to prepare the Property for development. E. On December 10, 2021, Developer and City entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (the “PSA”) for Developer’s purchase of the Property from the City, which PSA is included with this Agreement as Exhibit B. The PSA set forth Developer’s and City’s intentions to enter into this Agreement to address the details for development of the Project (as defined below). F. Developer has requested City to enter into a development agreement and proceedings have been taken in accordance with the rules and regulations of the City with regard to Developer’s proposed Project (as defined below). G. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by Developer, City, and the City of South San Francisco City Council (“City Council”) members and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable. 511 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 2 H. The City Council believes that the best interests of the citizens of the City of South San Francisco and the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement. I. This Agreement and the Project will be consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan (“General Plan”), the City’s East of 101 Area Plan, and the Specific Plan (as defined in Recital M). J. Development of the Property with the Project in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to City and will further important policies and goals of the City and San Mateo County. This Agreement will, among other things, secure the right to develop an up to 350-room full-service hotel facility which is the quality of a “AAA” (or similar rating) four diamond or higher hotel Project that will benefit the City by (1) advancing the City economic development goals of enhancing the competitiveness of the local economy and maintaining a strong and diverse revenue and job base, (2) providing much needed additional hotel rooms to visitors to the City and its preeminent biotechnology center at Oyster Point, (3) generating construction-related benefits, including employment, economic and fiscal benefits related to new construction, (4) generating fiscal benefits to the City and San Mateo County due to taxes and other revenue, (5) improving access for residents and visitors to the San Francisco Bay, the City’s marina, and to the San Francisco Bay Trail, and (6) redevelopment and implementation of monitoring protocols for the successful reuse of a former landfill site. K. In exchange of the benefits to City described in the preceding Recital, together with the other public benefits that will result from the Development of the Project, Developer will receive by this Agreement assurance that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with the “Applicable Law” (as defined in Section 1.6 of this Agreement), and therefore desires to enter into this Agreement. L. This agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly Development of the Project on the Property, facilitate progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the Development of the Project on the Property, and generally serve the purposes for which development agreements under section 65864, et seq. of the California Government are intended. M. The General Plan’s Land Use Element designates the Property as Business Commercial. The Property is also located in the East of 101 Area Plan (and therein designated as Commercial) and in the Oyster Point Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) (depicted therein as a future hotel site) and the Oyster Point Specific Plan Zoning District (Chapter 20.230 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code). On March 23, 2011, after duly noticed public hearing and review by the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”), by Resolution No. 46-2011, the City Council certified the Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase 1 Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 20100022070) (“EIR”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 2100 et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§ 15000 et seq.). The EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of developing a new full-service hotel with up to 350 rooms and approximately 40,000 square feet of retail uses on the Property. Concurrent with its 512 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 3 certification of the EIR, and by the same resolution, the City Council duly adopted CEQA findings of fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations carefully considered each of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR and determined that each such impact is acceptable in light of the Project’s economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits. The MMRP identifies all mitigation measures identified in the EIR that are applicable to the Project and sets forth a program for monitoring or reporting on the implementation of such mitigation measures. Also on March 23, 2011, after a duly noticed public hearing and review by the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 47-2011, the City Council duly approved a General Plan Amendment for the Oyster Point Specific Plan (“General Plan Amendment”). Also, after a duly noticed by public hearing and review by the Planning Commission, on March 16, 2011, the City Council introduced, and on March 23, 2011 adopted, Ordinance No. 1437-2011 adopting Chapter 20.230 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code to establish the Oyster Point Specific Plan District (“Zoning Amendment”). On _______, 2022, after a duly noticed public hearing and review, by Resolution No. _____, the Planning Commission approved a Precise Plan for the Project to allow for development of a hotel with up to 350 rooms and approximately 246 parking spaces, consistent with the Specific Plan, which Precise Plan is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit H. The entitlements described in this Recital M and listed on Exhibit C, as well as this Agreement, are collectively referred to herein as the “Project Approvals.” The Project has been designed to fulfill the Development vision of the Project Approvals consistent with the City’s land use policies and regulations, and to secure Developer’s ability to achieve the Development potential of the Property at a responsible level of growth. N. On ___________, 2022, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this Agreement. And, on _____________, 2022, the City Council, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, found that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Title 20 of the SSFMC and has conducted all necessary proceedings in accordance with the City’s rules and regulations for the approval of this Agreement and introduced Ordinance No. _______ to approve this Agreement. In accordance with SSFMC section 19.60.120, the City Council, on _________, 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing, conducted a second reading of and adopted Ordinance No. __________ approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code in effect on the Effective Date and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS TERMS UNDER SECTIONS 1.1 – 1.57 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION 513 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 4 1.1 “Administrative Agreement Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7.2 of this Agreement. 1.2 “Administrative Project Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7.1 of this Agreement. 1.3 “Affiliate” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. 1.4 “Agreement” shall mean this Development Agreement. 1.5 “Applicable City Law” means the City regulations and provisions applicable to the Property as of the Effective Date as set forth in Exhibit D and any other City ordinances, resolutions, orders, rules, policies, standards, specifications, plans, guidelines or other regulations that are applicable to the Property and the Project and in effect on the Effective Date. 1.6 “Applicable Law” means (i) City Law and (ii) all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, permits, certificates, judgments, decisions, decrees or orders of any governmental authority as such may be enacted, adopted, and amended from time to time, including regional, State and Federal laws and regulations applicable to the Property and the Project as such 1.7 “Assessments” shall have that meaning set forth in Exhibit D. 1.8 “CEQA” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital M of this Agreement. 1.9 “City” shall mean the City of South San Francisco. 1.10 “City Council” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital G of this Agreement. 1.11 “City Indemnitees” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.12 of this Agreement. 1.12 “City Law” shall mean City regulations and provisions applicable to the Property as of the Effective Date as set forth in Exhibit D and any other City ordinances, resolutions, orders, rules, policies, standards, specifications, plans, guidelines or other City regulations that are applicable to the Property and the Project and in effect on the Effective Date.. 1.13 “Claims” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.12 of this Agreement. 1.14 “Control” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. 1.15 “Controlled” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. 1.16 “Controlling” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. 1.17 “Deficiencies” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.2 of this Agreement. 514 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 5 1.18 “Developer” shall mean Oyster Point Holdco, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and any assignees pursuant to Article 8 of this Agreement. 1.19 “Developer Indemnitees” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 4.9 of this Agreement. 1.20 “Development” or “Develop” shall mean the division or subdivision of land into one or more parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, improvement, maintenance, or enlargement of any structure; any excavation, fill, grading, landfill, or land disturbance; the construction of specified road, path, trail, transportation, water, sewer, electric, communications, and wastewater infrastructure directly related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the installation of landscaping and other facilities and improvements necessary or appropriate for the Project; and any use or extension of the use of land. 1.21 “Development Agreements Statute” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital A of this Agreement. 1.22 “Development Fees” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.2 of this Agreement. 1.23 “District” shall mean any assessment or financing district(s) established by the City pursuant to the Community Facilities District Act of 1982 (Mello-Roos), Government Code Sections 53311 et seq., the Streets and Highways Code, Division 10 and 12, the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, or other similar law to finance all or part of the public improvements through the issuance of bonds and the imposition of assessments, fees, or taxes on the benefiting land, including, but not limited to, the Property. 1.24 “E101 CFD” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.7 of this Agreement. 1.25 “Effective Date” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.1 of this Agreement. 1.26 “EIR” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital M of this Agreement. 1.27 “Force Majeure Delay” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.3 of this Agreement. 1.28 “GDP” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.3 of this Agreement. 1.29 “General Plan” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital I of this Agreement. 1.30 “General Plan Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital M of this Agreement. 1.31 “Judgment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.2 of this Agreement. 515 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 6 1.32 “Maximum TOT Rebate Amount” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 4.9 of this Agreement. 1.33 "Mortgage" shall mean any lien of mortgage, deed of trust, or other security interest (e.g., lease-leaseback agreement) in the Project or the Property given in exchange for financing of any kind. 1.34 "Mortgagee" shall mean the beneficiary of any Mortgage. 1.35 “MMRP” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital M of this Agreement. 1.36 “Parties” shall mean the Developer and City, collectively. 1.37 “Periodic Review” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.5 of this Agreement. 1.38 “Prevailing Wage Laws” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.12 of this Agreement. 1.39 “Planning Commission” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital M of this Agreement. 1.40 “Pre-Existing Property Conditions” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 4.2 of Exhibit B to this Agreement. 1.41 “Project” shall mean the Development on the Property as contemplated by the Project Approvals and, as and when they are issued, the Subsequent Approvals, including, without limitation, the permitted uses, density and intensity of uses, the parking requirements, and maximum size and height of buildings specified in the Specific Plan and in Chapter 20.230 of Title 20 of the SSFMC, and as such Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals may be further defined or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 1.42 “Project Approvals” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital M of this Agreement. 1.43 “Property” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital C of this Agreement. 1.44 “PSA” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital E to this Agreement. 1.45 “Severe Economic Recession” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.3 of this Agreement. 1.46 “Specific Plan” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital M of this Agreement. 1.47 “SSFMC” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital B of this Agreement. 516 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 7 1.48 “Subsequent Approvals” shall mean those certain other land use approvals, entitlements, and permits other than the Project Approvals that are necessary or desirable for the Project. In particular, for example and without limitation, the parties contemplate that Developer may, at its election, seek approvals for the following: amendments of the Project Approvals; design review approvals, unless determined not required pursuant to the further provisions of this Agreement; improvement agreements; grading permits; demolition permits; building permits; lot line adjustments; sewer, water, and utility connection permits; certificates of occupancy; subdivision map approvals; parcel map approvals; resubdivisions; zoning and rezoning approvals; preliminary and final development plans; development agreements; conditional use permits; minor use permits; sign permits; any subsequent approvals required by other state or federal entities for Development and implementation of the Project that are sought or agreed to in writing by Developer; and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing. 1.49 “Successor Agency” shall mean the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency for the City of South San Francisco. 1.50 “Tax” and “Taxes” shall not include any generally applicable City Business License Tax or locally imposed Sales Tax. 1.51 “TDM Plan” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.7(a) of this Agreement. 1.52 “Term” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.2 of this Agreement. 1.53 “TOT Rebate” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 4.9 of this Agreement. 1.54 “Transfer” shall mean the sale, assignment, conveyance, hypothecation, in whole or in part by Developer of its right, title, obligations, and interest in and to all or any part of the Property to any person or entity at any time during the term of this Agreement. 1.55 “Transfer Agreement” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.2 of this Agreement. 1.56 “Transient Occupancy Tax” or “TOT” shall mean the tax imposed on the Project pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 4.20. 1.57 “Zoning Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital M of this Agreement. To the extent that any defined terms contained in this Agreement are not defined above, then such terms shall have that meaning otherwise ascribed to them elsewhere in this Agreement, or if not in this Agreement, then by controlling law, including the SSFMC. ARTICLE 2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM 2.1 Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date the ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective (“Effective Date”). 517 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 8 2.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and continue (unless this Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended as provided in this Agreement) until ten (10) years plus one (1) day after the Effective Date (“Term”). ARTICLE 3 OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER 3.1 Obligations of Developer Generally. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the City’s agreement to perform and abide by the covenants and obligations of City set forth in this Agreement is a material consideration for Developer’s agreement to perform and abide by its long term covenants and obligations, as set forth herein. The Parties acknowledge that many of Developer’s long term obligations set forth in this Agreement are in addition to Developer’s agreement to perform all the applicable mitigation measures identified in the MMRP. 3.2 City Fees. (a) Developer shall pay those processing, building permit, inspection and plan checking fees and charges required by the City for processing applications and requests for Subsequent Approvals under the applicable non-discriminatory regulations in effect at the time such applications and requests are submitted to the City. (b) Consistent with the terms of the Agreement, and subject to Section 5.6, City shall have the right to impose only such development fees (“Development Fees”) as have been adopted by City as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, as set forth on Exhibit D, and only at those rates of such Development Fees in effect at the time of payment of the Development Fees, provided that any increases to Development Fees after the Effective Date are imposed on a citywide (or East of 101 Area Plan-wide) basis, reserving to City the discretion to increase Development Fees for different land use zoning designations in varying amounts. The Development Fees shall be paid at the time set forth on Exhibit D except as otherwise provided in Article 3 of this Agreement. This Section 3.2(b) shall not prohibit City from imposing on Developer any fee or obligation that is imposed by a regional agency or the State of California in accordance with state or federal obligations and required to be implemented by City. 3.3 Post-Closing Mitigation Measures. TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 3.3 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION (a) Developer shall perform, at Developer’s sole expense, each of the “Developer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures” identified in Exhibit F to Exhibit B and in the manner set forth therein. (b) Prior to issuance of a building permit, Developer shall execute an Operations and Maintenance Agreement with the City in substantially the form attached to this Agreement as Exhibit E as described in Section F.3 of Exhibit F to Exhibit B. Such Operations and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded and shall include financial assurances for the ongoing maintenance and operations elements of the “Developer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures,” including routine inspections, maintenance and reporting for (i) the landfill cap, (ii) 518 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 9 methane and volatile organic compound collection, monitoring and alarm systems, (iii) groundwater, surface water and leachate monitoring systems, as required, (iv) elevation monitoring, and (v) maintenance of hardscape and softscapes. Developer shall separately enter into any Operation and Maintenance Agreement that may be required by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water Board”) or by any other regulatory agency pursuant to Applicable Laws. (c) Prior to issuance of a building permit for the Project, Developer shall prepare a methane and volatile organic compound monitoring plan approved in writing by the Water Board and as described in Section D.4 of Exhibit F to Exhibit B and proceed to implement such plan as part of the Project. (d) Prior to issuance of a building permit for the Project, Developer shall prepare an elevation monitoring plan for the Property as described in Section D.5 of Exhibit F to Exhibit B and proceed to implement such plan as part of the Project. (e) Prior to issuance of a building permit for the Project, Developer shall prepare a post-closure Emergency Response Plan as described in Section E.1 of Exhibit F to Exhibit B and proceed to implement such plan as part of the Project. (f) Developer’s failure to act in accordance with the requirements of Developer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures identified in Exhibit F to Exhibit B shall constitute a Default under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, to the extent that any modifications to Developer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures, which the Parties acknowledge were developed without input from or formal approval by the Water Board, are required in order to comply with the Water Board’s regulations or other requirements, or to the extent that there are conflicts between the Water Board’s requirements and Developer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures, the Parties agree that Developer’s compliance with the Water Board’s requirements shall not constitute an event of default under this Agreement provided that such compliance and any modifications to Developer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures are reviewed and approved in writing by the City’s Public Works Department and to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Attorney. 3.4 Pre-Construction and Construction Site Maintenance and Security. TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 3.4 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION (a) From the Effective Date through construction of the Project, Developer shall ensure that the Property is maintained and kept in good repair and condition through implementation of the following measures: (b) Within sixty days after the Effective Date, install a security fence around the perimeter of the Property, landscaping at the Property, and signage with a short description of the Project, approximate construction milestones, and contact information for Developer; (c) Maintain the fence, landscaping, and signage in a neat, clean and orderly condition; 519 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 10 (d) Ensure that the fence and signage is kept free and clear of graffiti or other evidence of vandalism; (e) Ensure the reasonably prompt removal and replacement of dead, damaged or diseased landscaping, conduct quarterly weed abatement and removal, and conduct quarterly cutting of existing grass or other landscape to prevent overgrowth; (f) Ensure the reasonably prompt removal of any solid waste, trash, or other debris deposited on the Property by third-parties; (g) Undertake any other commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that site is kept in a neat, clean and orderly condition prior to the commencement of construction; (h) In the event that Developer fails to maintain the fencing, signage, and landscaping and/or fails to remove solid waste, trash, or debris and fails to remedy such deficiency within seven (7) days of written notice from the City, then City may perform such maintenance and/or cleanup on Developer’s behalf and charge the Developer the cost associated therewith. In the event that a condition on the Property poses an immediate threat to health and safety and/or includes profanity or obscenity, then the City may abate the condition immediately and charge the cost of abatement to Developer; and (i) Implement erosion control measures. Such erosion control measures shall include grading Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to prevent substantial erosion from occurring during site development. The BMPs shall be included in all construction documents and may include, but not be limited to: (i) restricting grading to the dry season or meet City requirements for grading during the rainy season; (ii) using effective, site-specific erosion and sediment control methods approved by the City Engineer during the construction periods. Provide temporary cover of all disturbed surfaces to help control erosion during construction. Provide permanent cover as soon as is practical to stabilize the disturbed surfaces after construction has been completed; (iii) covering soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute non-visible pollution prior to rainfall events or perform monitoring of runoff with secure plastic sheeting or tarps; (iv) implementing regular maintenance activities such as sweeping driveways between the construction area and public streets. Cleaning 520 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 11 sediments from streets, driveways, and paved areas on-site using dry sweeping methods. Designating a concrete truck washdown area; (v) disposing of all wastes properly and keep site clear of trash and litter. Cleaning up leaks, drips, and other spills immediately so that they do not contact stormwater; and (vi) placing straw wattles, fiber rolls, or silt fences around the perimeter of the site. Protecting existing storm and sewer inlets in the Project area from sedimentation with filter fabric and sand or gravel bags. 3.5 New Sewer Pump Station Funding. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 3.5 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, Developer shall pay City $250,000.00 as a contribution for funding a new pump station as detailed in the DDA. Developer agrees to provide any necessary easements or licenses necessary to facilitate continued operation of the existing pump station (i.e., to the extent that City requires access to the Property in order to maintain the current sewer infrastructure on the Property), in addition to any necessary easements or licenses for construction and maintenance of the new Pump Station, subject to Developer’s approval which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 3.6 Access for Methane Monitoring. Developer shall provide access to the closed landfill on the Property to third-party consultants and/or representatives of the City and the Successor Agency for the purpose of methane monitoring, subject to applicable regulatory monitoring procedures. Developer shall ensure that the Project design and site conditions do not prevent, impede, or otherwise obstruct such methane monitoring activity. 3.7 Transportation Benefits. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 3.7 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- (a) Transportation Demand Management Plan. The Developer shall implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan (“TDM Plan”) in compliance with the requirements of the SSFMC in effect on the Effective Date . Failure by Developer to implement the TDM Plan shall constitute a default by Developer subject to the provisions of Article 10 of this Agreement. (b) Community Facilities Districts Support. (i) Developer will support City’s formation of a communities facilities district serving land within the East of 101 Area Plan boundary, provided that (i) the CFD is established within one hundred twenty (120) months of the Effective Date, and (ii) the Project’s combined maximum CFD assessment rate between the CFD contemplated in this subsection (i) and the CFD contemplated in subsection (ii) shall not exceed one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of assessable real property. (ii) Developer will support and pay for the City’s formation of a communities facilities district serving the Property and land within the vicinity of the Property to 521 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 12 fund the services authorized for CFD 2021-01, including without limitation the following services: police protection services; maintenance and lighting of parks, parkways, streets, roads, and open space including roadway maintenance, streetlight maintenance and operations, traffic signal maintenance and operations, parks, waterfront and Bay Trail maintenance, landscaping, parkway, median and open space maintenance, including erosion prevention, public surface parking maintenance, and operation and maintenance of public restroom buildings; operation and maintenance of storm drainage systems. The Project’s CFD tax rate for the CFD contemplated in this subsection (ii) shall be a maximum of $.035 per square foot of non-residential floor area increased annually by two (2.00%) per Fiscal Year. No special tax shall be levied on undeveloped property. The first assessment will be made during the year in which the Project receives its certificate of occupancy. 3.8 BCDC Permit and Public Access. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 3.8 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- (a) The Parties acknowledge that the Bay Conservation and Development Commission ("BCDC") Permit No. 2017.007.00, originally issued on April 27, 2018 and as subsequently amended (the "BCDC Permit") requires the construction of (i) a temporary north- south Bay Trail connection no later than six (6) months following the completion of Phase IC as described therein, and (ii) a permanent north-south Bay Trail connection. As to the temporary trail, Developer shall [TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON BCDC DIRECTION]. The Parties further acknowledge that Developer has evaluated various ways to implement the permanent north-south connector trail in various locations, including on the Property and in the vicinity of the Property, and that construction of a permanent north-south connector trail meeting BCDC Permit specifications is not feasible. As a consequence, Developer and City agree that as Developer cannot construct the permanent north-south connector trail as shown in the BCDC Permit on behalf of the City; Developer shall instead coordinate with BCDC to identify an alternative project to satisfy the BCDC Permit condition and complete such project, subject to the City’s review and approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Developer shall also be responsible for coordinating with BCDC to facilitate amending the BCDC Permit to omit the requirement for the permanent north-south connector trail, including but not limited demonstrating that the location of the trail as depicted in the BCDC Permit is not physically feasible given the topography of the site and the significant difference in grade elevations between the existing Bay Trail near the existing pedestrian bridge at the southern shoreline of the peninsula and the Property, and instead providing alternative on-site public access enhancements desired by BCDC as a condition of amending the BCDC Permit. 3.9 Participation in Net Transfer Proceeds. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 3.9 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- In exchange for the TOT Rebate described in Section 4.8, in the event that Developer Transfers a Majority Interest in the Project to a person or entity who is not an Affiliate, Developer shall pay to the City a one-time only “Participation in Net Transfer Proceeds” as provided in this Section 3.9. (a) For purposes of this Section 3.9, the following definitions apply: 522 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 13 (i) "Cash Consideration" means (A) cash, (B) cash equivalents, and (C) securities that are listed and traded on one or more recognized securities exchanges in or outside the United States and that are not restricted securities within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 or Rule 144 adopted thereunder. (ii) "Cash Flow" means (A) Gross Receipts, less (B) unreimbursed operating expenses, less (C) debt service payments pursuant to a Mortgage (limited to interest if debt service is interest only, or interest and straight line amortization of principal on the Mortgage, with an amortization period of not less than twenty years). Cash Flow shall be calculated on a monthly basis including and through the close of escrow under the Transfer. (iii) “Costs of Transfer” means only the following costs incurred by the Developer in connection with a Transfer: (A) verifiable, reasonable, customary brokerage commissions paid as a result of the Transfer; (B) reasonable and customary closing fees and costs including title insurance premiums, documentary stamp taxes, survey fees, escrow fees, recording charges, and transfer taxes; (C) attorneys’ fees and costs incurred, and (D) other verifiable, reasonable, and customary expenses actually incurred by Developer in connection with closing the Transfer. Costs of Transfer shall exclude adjustments to reflect prorations of rents, taxes, or other items of income or expense customarily prorated in connection with sales of real property. (iv) "Developer's Return" shall mean an amount earned through Cash Flow and Net Transfer proceeds sufficient to cause Developer to have achieved an unlevered Internal Rate of Return (IRR) equal to a rate of ____________ (___%) per annum, through and including the date of calculation. “Internal Rate of Return” shall mean, with respect to Developer and as of any date, the discount rate, at which the net present value of all Development Costs as of (and including) such date, all Cash Flow received by Developer as of (and including) such date, and all Net Transfer Proceeds received by Developer as of (and including) such date equals zero. For purposes of calculating Internal Rate of Return, Development Costs shall be an “outflow,” deemed to have occurred on the last day of the month during which such Development Costs were incurred by or provided to Developer, and Cash Flow and Net Transfer Proceeds shall be an “inflow,” deemed to have occurred on the last day of the month during which such Cash Flow and Net Transfer Proceeds were received by Developer. The Internal Rate of Return shall be calculated using the latest version of Microsoft Excel electronic spreadsheet XIRR Financial Function (or, if such electronic spreadsheet is no longer available, a similar spreadsheet used by Developer in its real estate investments to calculate internal rates of return). (v) “Development Costs" means costs incurred and paid by Developer in connection with the development and construction of the Project, or costs that are invoiced to Developer in connection with the development and construction of the Project, as reasonably documented by Developer and as set forth by Developer in a written statement or affidavit to the City. (vi) "Gross Receipts" means the following determined on a cash basis: all payments, revenues, fees, or amounts actually received by Developer or by any other party for the account of Developer from any person for the person’s use or occupancy of any portion of the Property, or from any other advertising, concessions, licensing, or programming generated from 523 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 14 the Project, including, without limitation, all minimum rent, percentage rent, license fees, advertising revenues, event or promotional fees or charges, and permit fees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City and Developer agree that for purposes of this Section 3.9, with respect to any revenue generated from parking or concessions operated at the Project, Gross Receipts shall only be deemed to include the net amounts received by Developer after paying all expenses incurred in connection with the operation of such parking or concessions services, but in no event shall such net amounts be less than zero. (vii) "Gross Transfer Proceeds" means all consideration directly or indirectly received by or for the account of the Developer in connection with a Transfer of a Majority Interest, of whatever form or nature, including, without limitation, (A) Cash Consideration, (B) the principal amount of any loan made by the Developer to a purchaser as part of the purchase price, and (C) the fair market value of any other non-cash consideration representing a portion of the purchase price. (viii) “Majority Interest” means an interest that is fifty and one-tenth percent (50.1%) or higher in the Project or in the entity that owns the Project. (ix) "Net Transfer Proceeds” means Gross Transfer Proceeds less Costs of Transfer. (b) Calculation of City's Participation in Net Transfer Proceeds. The City's Participation in the Net Transfer Proceeds shall be calculated as follows: Net Transfer Proceeds multiplied by ________ percent (___%); provided, however, that City’s Participation in the Net Transfer Proceeds shall be reduced by the amount required to ensure that Developer achieves a return equal to no less than Developer’s Return (at time of sale) after factoring in the City’s Participation in Net Transfer Proceeds. (c) Reporting of Proceeds from Transfer. No less than fifteen business days prior to a Transfer of a Majority Interest, Developer will deliver to City a written statement that includes the amount of Developer’s Development Costs, and an estimated closing statement that includes the best estimate of the following items: (i) Estimated Gross Transfer Proceeds, identifying all Cash Consideration and non-cash consideration; (ii) Estimated Costs of Transfer; (iii) Estimated Net Transfer Proceeds; and (iv) The calculation of the City's Participation in Net Transfer Proceeds in accordance with Section 3.9(b) hereof. (d) Manner of Payment. Developer shall pay City's Participation in the Net Transfer Proceeds at close of escrow of the first Transfer of a Majority Interest. The estimated closing statement shall be updated as of the date of close of escrow under the Transfer to show the 524 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 15 actual Net Transfer Proceeds and City's share thereof. City may reference in any Notice of Compliance or other representation requested from City that payment of City's Participation in Net Transfer Proceeds is a material obligation under this Agreement, due and owing at close of escrow on the first Transfer of a Majority Interest hereunder. Within forty-five days after any such Transfer, the Developer shall submit to City a report prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied, and certified, under penalty of perjury, by Developer's Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent position) as complete and correct in all material respects, confirming the actual amount of Net Transfer Proceeds received, and the amount of Net Transfer Proceeds due to the City. At City's option, any overpayments may be either refunded to Developer or applied to any other amount then due and unpaid. Developer shall accompany the statement of Net Transfer Proceeds with the amount of any underpayments. The closing statement delivered to City under this subsection (d) may be subject to audit or review by City for determination of the accuracy of Developer's reporting of the City's Participation in Net Transfer Proceeds. Failure by Developer to make the payments in the manner and at the times described in this Section 3.9 constitutes default by Developer subject to the provisions of Article 10 of this Agreement. 3.10 Compliance with Master Development Schedule; Extension Rights. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 3.10 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- (a) Subject to any extensions provided as a result of a Force Majeure Delay as set forth in Section 10.3, and so long as City complies with its obligations to cooperate and to timely process any applications submitted by Developer as set forth in Sections 4.6, 5.1, and 5.3, Developer shall comply with the Master Development Schedule attached as Exhibit G to this Agreement. (b) Notwithstanding the above, Developer shall have the right to for (4) six- month extensions to extend the milestones identified in Exhibit G, at a charge of $100,000.00 per extension, for documented good cause, and by providing thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of Developer’s desire to exercise an extension. Upon receipt of such written notice, documentation supporting good cause, and payment of the applicable fee, each remaining milestone on Exhibit G shall automatically be by six-months. For purposes of this Section 3.10, “good cause” means the following: (1) construction or pre-construction delays arise that are outside of Developer’s reasonable control arising from the unavailability of construction materials for projects similar to the Project that cause significant construction delays, significant construction delays resulting from such materials being unusually difficult or impossible to obtain, or from defects, tariffs, embargoes, or trade disputes, where, in each case, Developer is unable to obtain alternative or replacement materials, within the same or substantially similar time period at substantially the same cost (and without having to forfeit any significant deposits or advance payments), and (2) changes in economic and market conditions that affect the availability of commercially reasonable financing for comparable hotel projects within the San Francisco Bay Area. In the event that Developer fails to provide documentation of good cause as defined above, City may deny Developer’s requested extension. 525 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 16 3.11 Other Developer Obligations. (a) Mitigation Measures. Developer shall comply with the applicable Mitigation Measures identified and approved in the EIR for the Specific Plan, in accordance with CEQA as identified and as set forth in the MMRP. 3.12 Indemnification By Developer. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 3.12 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- (a) Except for the Claims released by City pursuant to Section 11.2 of Exhibit B, Developer agrees to the fullest extent allowed by law, to indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel satisfactory to City), and hold City (and its elected and appointed officers, officials, directors, legislative body members, managers, employees, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, attorneys, agents, invitees, and/or licensees acting on behalf of City; collectively "City Indemnitees") harmless from and against any and all actions, causes of action, charges, claims, compensation, costs, damages, fees (including attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees), fines, demands, judgments, losses, orders, penalties, rights, and expenses of any kind or type, and compensation whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen (collectively, “Claims”) suffered by City Indemnitees to the extent caused by: (i) Any material misrepresentation or breach of warranty or covenant made by Developer in this Agreement, provided that Developer’s obligations under this Section 3.12 shall not apply to any misrepresentation or breach of warranty or covenant actually known to and waived by City prior to the Effective Date; (ii) The acts or negligent omissions of Developer or any Developer Indemnitee, including without limitation: (i) Developer’s design, construction, operation, use, and/or maintenance of the Project; (ii) Developer’s performance or failure to perform Developer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures; (iii) Developer’s design, construction, operation, use, monitoring, and/or maintenance of any of Developer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures set forth in Exhibit F to Exhibit B; and (iv) Developer’s failure to install, operate, maintain or upgrade the improvements described in the Post-Closing Mitigation Measures, including the Vapor Intrusion Mitigation (“VIMS”)/Methane Mitigation System (“MMS”), in accordance with Best Management Practices or required by Applicable Law, including in response to changed, unexpected, or unanticipated conditions at the Property; and/or (b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Developer's obligations under this Section 3.12 shall not apply to any Claims for any alleged lost profits, lost opportunity, or alleged consequential, speculative, contingent or punitive damages. 3.13 Construction Bonds. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 3.13 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- 526 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 17 ARTICLE 4 OBLIGATIONS OF CITY 4.1 Obligations of City Generally. The Parties acknowledge and agree that Developer’s agreement to perform and abide by its covenants and obligations set forth in this Agreement, including Developer’s decision to site the Project in the City, is a material consideration for City’s agreement to perform and abide by the long term covenants and obligations of City, as set forth herein. 4.2 Post-Closing Mitigation Measures. (a) City shall perform, at City’s sole expense, each of the “City’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures” identified in Exhibit G to Exhibit B and in the manner set forth therein. (i) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project, City shall prepare and implement an Operations and Maintenance Plan approved in writing by the Water Board and as described in Section B.9 of City’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures as described in Exhibit G to Exhibit B. (ii) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project, City shall prepare and implement a methane and volatile organic compound monitoring plan approved in writing by the Water Board and as described in Section B.11 of City’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures as described in Exhibit G to Exhibit B. (iii) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project, City shall prepare and implement a post-closure Emergency Response Plan as described in Section D.1 of City’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures as described in Exhibit G to Exhibit B. 4.3 Protection of Vested Rights. City acknowledges that the vested rights provided to Developer by this Agreement might prevent some City Law from applying to the Property or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement. City further acknowledges that Developer’s vested rights to Develop the Property include the rights provided by the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals, which may not be diminished by the enactment or adoption of City Law. City shall cooperate with Developer and shall consider undertaking actions mutually agreed by the Parties as necessary to ensure that this Agreement remains in full force and effect. To the maximum extent feasible in accordance with Applicable Law, City shall not require Developer to include a secondary fire apparatus access road from a second public right of way to the Property. 4.4 Availability of Public Services. To the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with its authority, City shall assist Developer in reserving such capacity for sewer and water services as may be necessary to serve the Project. 4.5 Developer’s Right to Rebuild. City agrees that Developer may renovate or rebuild all or any part of the Project within the Term should it become necessary due to damage or destruction. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to the square footage and height 527 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 18 limitations vested by this Agreement, and shall comply with the Project Approvals, the building codes existing at the time of such rebuilding or reconstruction, and the requirements of CEQA. 4.6 Expedited Plan Check Process. The City agrees to provide an expedited plan check process for the approval of Project drawings consistent with its existing practices for expedited plan checks. Developer agrees to pay the City’s established fees for expedited plan check services. The City shall use reasonable efforts to provide such plan checks within 3 weeks of a submittal that meets the requirements of Section 5.2. The City acknowledges that the City’s timely processing of Subsequent Approvals and plan checks is essential to the successful and complete Development of the Project. 4.7 Project Coordination. The City shall perform those obligations of the City set forth in this Agreement, which the City acknowledges are essential for the Developer to perform its obligations in Article 3. The City and Developer shall use good faith and diligent efforts to communicate, cooperate and coordinate with each other during Development of the Project. 4.8 Transient Occupancy Tax Rebate. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 4.8 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- To help ensure the economic feasibility of the Project in light of site constraints and added costs associated with development on the Property, City and Developer shall enter into a separate Transient Occupancy Tax Rebate Agreement recorded in the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project granting to Developer a Transient Occupancy Tax Rebate (“TOT Rebate”) of TOT collected by City from Developer in connection with its operation of the Project as a hotel in the form attached as Exhibit F hereto. Such Agreement shall include the following terms: (a) The City’s obligation to provide the TOT Rebate amount to Developer is contingent upon Developer’s continuous operation of a 350-room full-service hotel facility which is the quality of a “AAA” (or similar rating) four diamond or higher hotel Project at the Property. City shall confirm such continued operation annually. (b) The TOT Rebate amount provided by City to Developer shall be equal to fifty (50) percent of the TOT collected from transient rentals of hotel rooms within the Project for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) years beginning from the commencement of operations of the Project as a hotel; provided, however, that the total TOT Rebate provided pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed forty-four million five hundred thirty thousand dollars ($44,530,000) (the “Maximum TOT Rebate Amount”). For purposes of this Section 4.8, “commencement of operations of the Project as a hotel” means the first day upon which the Project provides accommodations to members of the general public via paid bookings. Upon request by City, Developer shall provide documentation to verify the “commencement of operations of the Project as a hotel.” (c) Beginning from the commencement of operations of the Project as a hotel, City shall pay the TOT Rebate to Developer every six (6) months in June and December, for the preceding six (6) months based upon the actual TOT collected for that period from the Project only. 528 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 19 (d) Upon the earlier of City’s payment to Developer of the Maximum TOT Rebate Amount or 15 years since the commencement of operations of the Project as a hotel, the City shall thereafter be entitled to receive one hundred (100) percent of all TOT revenue owed by the Project to the City pursuant to SSFMC Chapter 4.20. (e) City’s obligations under this Section 4.8 shall immediately cease if the Project ceases to operate as a hotel for more than thirty (30) days. For purposes of this subsection, the Project shall not be deemed to have ceased operations in the event of temporary closures due to a Force Majeure event as described in Section 10.3. In addition, the City’s obligations shall immediately cease under this Section 4.8 if Developer fails to pay City's Participation in the Net Transfer Proceeds at close of escrow of the first Transfer of a Majority Interest as contemplated in Section 3.9. 4.9 Indemnification by City. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 4.9 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- (a) Except for the Claims released by Developer pursuant to Section 11.1 of Exhibit B, City agrees to the fullest extent allowed by law to indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel satisfactory to Developer), and hold Developer and its officers, directors, managers, members, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, invitees, or licensees acting on behalf of Developer (collectively, “Developer Indemnitees”) harmless from and against any and all Claims suffered by Developer Indemnitees, to the extent caused by: (i) Any material misrepresentation or breach of warranty or covenant made by City in this Agreement, provided that City's obligations under this Section 4.9 shall not apply to any misrepresentation or breach of warranty or covenant actually known to and waived by Developer prior to the Effective Date; (ii) Claims brought by any third party to the extent caused by the Pre- Existing Property Conditions; provided, however, City's obligations hereunder shall not apply to the extent that such third party claims are caused by the acts or negligent omissions of Developer or any Developer lndemnitee, including without limitation: (i) Developer’s design, construction, operation, use, and/or maintenance of the Project; (ii) Developer’s performance of or failure to perform Developer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures set forth in Exhibit F to Exhibit B; (iii) Developer’s design, construction, operation, use, and/or maintenance of any of Developer's Post- Closing Mitigation Measures; (iv) Developer’s failure to install, operate, maintain or upgrade the improvements described in the Post-Closing Mitigation Measures, including the VIMS/MMS, in accordance with Best Management Practices or required by Applicable Law, including in response to changed, unexpected, or unanticipated conditions at the Property; (v) Developer’s breach of this Agreement; and (vi) failure by Developer to provide any notice, disclosure or other information required by Applicable Laws in connection with the presence or potential presence of Pre-Existing Property Conditions at or otherwise relating to the Project, provided, however, that City’s obligations to Developer Indemnitees under this Section 4.9 shall not be excused by the mere discovery by a Developer Indemnitee of a Pre-Existing Property Condition; 529 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 20 (iii) Claims to the extent caused by City’s: (a) violation of Applicable Laws pertaining to the Pre-Existing Property Conditions from and after the Effective Date; and (b) performance of or failure to perform City’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures described in Exhibit G to Exhibit B from and after the Closing Date (as defined in the PSA). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, City’s obligations under this Section 4.9 shall not apply to any Claims for any alleged lost profits, lost opportunity, or alleged consequential, speculative, contingent or punitive damages. ARTICLE 5 COOPERATION - IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 Processing Application for Subsequent Approvals. By approving the Project Approvals, City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. Accordingly, City shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, not use its discretionary authority in considering any application for a Subsequent Approval to revisit, frustrate, or change the policy decisions or material terms reflected by the Project Approvals or otherwise to prevent or delay Development of the Project. Instead, the Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to be tools to implement those final policy decisions. 5.2 Timely Submittals By Developer. Developer acknowledges that City cannot expedite processing Subsequent Approvals until Developer submits complete applications on a timely basis. Developer shall use its best efforts to (i) provide to City in a timely manner any and all documents, applications, plans, and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder; and (ii) cause Developer’s planners, engineers, and all other consultants to provide to City in a timely manner all such documents, applications, plans and other necessary required materials as set forth in the Applicable Law. It is the express intent of Developer and City to cooperate and diligently work to obtain any and all Subsequent Approvals. 5.3 Timely Processing By City. Upon submission by Developer of all appropriate applications and processing fees for any Subsequent Approval, City shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, promptly and diligently commence and complete all steps necessary to act on the Subsequent Approval application including, without limitation: (i) providing at Developer’s expense and subject to Developer’s request and prior approval, reasonable overtime staff assistance and/or staff consultants for planning and processing of each Subsequent Approval application; (ii) if legally required, providing notice and holding public hearings; and (iii) acting on any such Subsequent Approval application. City shall ensure that adequate staff is available, and shall authorize overtime staff assistance as may be necessary, to timely process any such Subsequent Approval application. 5.4 Denial of Subsequent Approval Application. The City may deny an application for a Subsequent Approval only if such application does not comply with this Agreement or Applicable Law. 5.5 Other Government Permits. At Developer’s sole discretion and in accordance with Developer’s construction schedule, Developer shall apply for such other permits and 530 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 21 approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental entities in connection with the Development of, or the provision of services to, the Project. City, at Developer’s expense, shall cooperate with Developer in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals and shall, from time to time, at the request of Developer, use its reasonable efforts to assist Developer to ensure the timely availability of such permits and approvals. 5.6 Assessment Districts or Other Funding Mechanisms. (a) Existing Fees. As set forth in Section 3.2, above, the Parties understand and agree that as of the Effective Date the fees, exactions, and payments listed in Exhibit D are the only City fees and exactions that apply to the Project, subject to the credits and exemptions that may be set forth in Article 3 of this Agreement or identified on Exhibit D and subject to Section 5.6(b) below. Except for those fees and exactions listed in Exhibit D, City is unaware of any pending efforts to initiate, or consider applications for new or increased fees, exactions, or assessments covering the Property, or any portion thereof that would apply to the Project prior to the Effective Date. (b) Application of Fees Imposed by Outside Agencies. The City agrees to exempt Developer from any and all fees, including but not limited to, development impact fees, which other public agencies request the City to impose at City’s discretion on the Project or Property after the Effective Date through the expiration of the Term. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event that another public agency requests that the City impose a fee, including a development impact fee on all new development and land use projects on a citywide (or East of 101 Area Plan-wide) basis, then any such fee duly adopted by the City shall apply to the Project. This Section 5.6(b) shall not prohibit the City from imposing on Developer any fee or obligation that is imposed by a regional agency in accordance with state or federal obligations implemented by the City in cooperation with such regional agency, or that is imposed by the State of California. ARTICLE 6 STANDARDS, LAWS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROJECT 6.1 Vested Right to Develop. Developer shall have a vested right to Develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals, the Subsequent Approvals (as and when they are issued), and Applicable Law, provided, however, that this Agreement shall not supersede, diminish, or impinge upon vested rights secured pursuant to other Applicable Laws, including without limitation, vested rights secured in connection with a vesting tentative subdivision map pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act (Gov’t. Code §§ 66410 et seq.). Nothing in this section shall be deemed to eliminate or diminish the requirement of Developer to obtain any required Subsequent Approvals, or to eliminate or diminish Developer’s right to have its applications for any Subsequent Approval timely processed by City in accordance with this Agreement and Applicable Law. 6.2 Permitted Uses Vested by This Agreement. The vested permitted uses of the Property; the vested density and intensity of use of the Property; the vested maximum height, bulk, and size of proposed buildings; vested provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the location of public improvements; the general location of public utilities; and other 531 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 22 vested terms and conditions of Development applicable to the Project, shall be as set forth in the vested Project Approvals and, as and when they are issued (but not in limitation of any right to Development as set forth in the Project Approvals) the vested Subsequent Approvals. The vested permitted uses for the Project shall include those uses listed as “permitted” in the Project Approvals, as they may be amended from time to time in accordance with this Agreement. 6.3 [Intentionally Omitted] 6.4 Adoption of Reach Code. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 6.4 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- City acknowledges and understands that Developer is planning for and relying upon the ability of restaurants within the Project to be permitted to utilize natural gas for all food cooking and preparation functions. Developer is further relying on its ability to utilize natural gas for commercial laundry facilities within the hotel and for the hotel boiler system and spa heating system. Any amendments to SSFMC Title 15 or to any other provision of the City’s Code, adopted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, that would preclude Developer’s use of natural gas for the hotel operations in the manner described in this Section 6.4 shall not apply to the Project. 6.5 Uniform Codes. Subject to Section 6.4, City may apply to the Property, at any time during the Term, then current Uniform Building Code and other uniform construction codes, and City’s then current design and construction standards for road and storm drain facilities, provided any such uniform code or standard has been adopted and uniformly applied by City on a citywide basis and provided that no such code or standard is adopted for the purpose of preventing or otherwise limiting Development of all or any part of the Project. 6.6 No Conflicting Enactments. Developer’s vested right to Develop the Project shall not be diminished by City approval (whether by action of the City Council or by initiative, referendum or other means) of any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, standard, directive, condition or other measure (each individually, a “City Law”) that is in conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or that reduces the rights or assurances provided by this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any City Law shall be deemed to conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the Development rights provided hereby if it would accomplish any of the following results, either by specific reference to the Project or as part of a general enactment which applies to or affects the Project: (a) Change any land use designation or permitted use of the Property; (b) Limit or control the availability of public utilities, services, or facilities, or any privileges or rights to public utilities, services, or facilities (for example, water rights, water connections or sewage capacity rights, sewer connections, etc.) for the Project, provided that Developer has complied with all applicable requirements for receiving or using or receiving public utilities, services, or facilities; (c) Limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other improvements of the Project in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the 532 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 23 limitations included in the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals (as and when they are issued); (d) Limit or control the rate, timing, phasing, or sequencing of the Development of all or any part of the Project in any manner; (e) Result in Developer having to substantially delay Development of the Project or require the issuance of additional permits or approvals by the City other than those required by Applicable Law; (f) Establish, enact, increase, or impose against the Project or Property any fees, taxes (including without limitation general, special and excise taxes but excluding any increased local (city or county) sales tax or increases city business license tax), assessments, liens or other monetary obligations (including generating demolition permit fees, encroachment permit and grading permit fees) other than those specifically permitted by this Agreement or other connection fees imposed by third party utilities; (g) Impose against the Project any condition, dedication or other exaction not specifically authorized by Applicable Law; or (h) Limit the processing or procuring of applications and approvals of Subsequent Approvals. 6.7 Initiatives and Referenda; Other City Actions Related to Project. (a) If any City Law is enacted or imposed by initiative or referendum, or by the City Council directly or indirectly in connection with any proposed initiative or referendum, which City Law would conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the Development rights provided by this Agreement, such Law shall only apply to the Project to the extent it would not diminish Developer’s vested rights to Develop the Project. (b) Except as authorized in Section 6.10, without limiting the generality of any of the foregoing, no moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of Development) affecting subdivision maps, building permits or other entitlements to use that are approved or to be approved, issued or granted within the City, or portions of the City, shall diminish Developer’s vested rights to Develop the Project. (c) To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect. (d) Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any City Law that would reduce the Development rights provided by this Agreement. 6.8 Environmental Mitigation. The Parties understand that the EIR and MMRP were intended to be used in connection with each of the Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals needed for the Project. Consistent with the CEQA policies and requirements applicable to the EIR, 533 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 24 City agrees to use the EIR and MMRP in connection with the processing of any Subsequent Approval to the maximum extent allowed by law and not to impose on the Project any mitigation measures other than those specifically imposed by the Project Approvals, EIR, and MMRP, or specifically required by CEQA or other Applicable Law, except as provided for in this Section 6.8. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not limit or expand the operation or scope of CEQA, including Public Resources Code section 21166 and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162, with respect to City’s consideration of any Subsequent Approval. Consistent with CEQA, a future, additional CEQA document may be prepared for any Subsequent Approval only to the extent required by Public Resources Code section 21166 and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162, unless otherwise requested in writing by Developer. Developer specifically acknowledges and agrees that, under Public Resources Code section 21166 and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162, City as lead agency is responsible and retains sole discretion to determine whether an additional CEQA document must be prepared, which discretion City agrees it shall not exercise unreasonably or delay. 6.9 Future Legislative Actions. (a) In the event that, following the Effective Date, City revises, modifies, updates, or amends the land use designation(s) of the General Plan in effect on the Effective Date, the Specific Plan in effect on the Effective Date, or of the East of 101 Area Plan in effect on the Effective Date, that are applicable to the Property, or the zoning designation(s) applicable to the Property and in effect on the Effective Date, such updates or amendments shall not diminish Developer’s vested rights to Develop the Project or the Property, but no provision of this Agreement shall limit Developer’s right to apply for any land use entitlement(s) for the Property that are consistent with, or authorized by, such update(s) or amendment(s). Developer acknowledges, however, that the amended or updated policies identified in the immediately preceding sentence might include requirements for permitted development that would be in addition to any obligations of Developer under this Agreement, and that those additional requirements would apply to Developer if Developer applies for any land use entitlement(s) for the Property that are consistent with, or authorized by, any revision, modification, update, or amendment contemplated by this subsection (a) of Section 6.9 of this Agreement. No provision of this Agreement shall limit or restrain in any way Developer’s full participation in any and all public processes undertaken by the City that are in any way related to revisions, modifications, amendments, or updates to the General Plan, the Specific Plan, the East of 101 Area Plan, or the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. (b) Developer acknowledges that, if it applies for any land use entitlement(s) for the Property that are consistent with, or authorized by, any revision, modification, update, or amendment contemplated by subsection (a) of this Section 6.9 of this Agreement, and that would allow development of the subject parcel(s) in a manner that is inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the Project Approvals, then City may be required to conduct additional CEQA review with respect to such application in accordance with Section 6.8 of this Agreement, and, if such application is finally approved by the City and becomes effective, such approval shall automatically be vested under this Agreement only to the extent such approval is consistent with, or authorized by, the Project Approvals. By way of example, if (following any required CEQA 534 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 25 compliance) such effective approval were to authorize Development of a structure with a floor area ratio of 2.0, but the Project Approvals would only authorize Development of a structure with a floor area ratio of 1.0, then Developer would automatically have the vested right to Develop said structure with a floor area ratio of 1.0, and would automatically have the non-vested right to Develop that same structure with a floor area ratio of 2.0 (unless, following such approval, this Agreement is amended to vest Developer’s right to Develop such structure with a floor area ratio of 2.0). (c) City agrees that, if Developer applies for any land use entitlement(s) for the Property that are inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the Project Approvals, then: (i) such event shall not be a basis for amending or revisiting the terms of the Agreement, unless Developer also applies for an amendment of this Agreement pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 7.2 of this Agreement (i.e., a non-Administrative Agreement Amendment), and shall not be a basis for imposing new exactions, mitigation requirements, conditions of approval, or any other requirement of, or precondition to, Developer’s exercise of its Development rights vested under this Agreement; and (ii) the only exactions, mitigation requirements, or conditions of approval City may impose on such land use entitlement shall be limited to those exactions, mitigation requirements, or conditions of approval authorized under federal, state, or local laws in effect at the time such application is deemed complete, and shall only be imposed with respect to those uses, densities, intensities, and other Development standards applicable to the subject parcel(s) that are inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the Project Approvals. 6.10 Life of Development Approvals, and Permits. The term of any permit or other land use entitlement approved as a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall automatically be extended for the longer of the Term (including any extensions) or the term otherwise applicable to such Project Approval or Subsequent Approval if this Agreement is no longer in effect. The Term of this Agreement and the term of Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall not include any period of time during which a Development moratorium (including, but not limited to, a water or sewer moratorium or water and sewer moratorium) or the actions of other public agencies that regulate land use, Development or the provision of services to the land, prevents, prohibits or delays the construction of the Project or a lawsuit involving any such Development approvals or permits is pending. 6.11 State and Federal Law. As provided in Government Code section 65869.5, this Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project of changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations. Not in limitation of the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City from imposing on Developer any fee specifically mandated and required by state or federal laws and regulations. In the event of any changes required by state or federal laws or regulations, the Developer and City shall meet and confer in good faith to determine what, if any, modifications to this Agreement and/or the Project Approvals would allow the Project and City to comply with such state or federal law or regulation while preserving to the maximum extent feasible the spirit and intent of the Parties in this Agreement and the Project Approvals. 535 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 26 6.12 Prevailing Wage. Developer and its contractors and agents shall comply with California Labor Code section 1720 et seq., and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, to the extent applicable to the Project (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), and shall be responsible for carrying out the applicable requirements of such law and regulations. Developer shall submit to City a plan for monitoring payment of prevailing wages and shall implement such plan at Developer’s expense. (a) To the fullest extent permitted by law, Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel approved by City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) and hold the City, and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors (for purposes of this Section 6.12 collectively, the “Indemnitees”) harmless from and against all liability, loss, cost, expense (including without limitation attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation), claim, demand, action, suit, judicial or administrative proceeding, penalty, deficiency, fine, order, and damage (for purposes of this Section 6.12, all of the foregoing collectively “Claims”) which directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, are caused by, arise in connection with, result from, relate to, or are alleged to be caused by, arise in connection with, or relate to, the payment or requirement of payment of prevailing wages in connection with this Agreement (including without limitation, all claims that may be made by contractors, subcontractors or other third party claimants pursuant to Labor Code sections 1726 and 1781), the failure to comply with any state or federal labor laws, regulations or standards in connection with this Agreement, including but not limited to the Prevailing Wage Laws, or any act or omission of Developer related to this Agreement with respect to the payment or requirement of payment of prevailing wages, whether or not any insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any such Claims. It is further agreed that the City does not and shall not waive any rights against Developer which it may have by reason of this indemnity and hold harmless agreement because of the acceptance by the City, or Developer’s deposit with the City, of any of the insurance policies described in this Agreement. The provisions of this Section 6.12 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement and the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Project. Developer’s indemnification obligations set forth in this Section 6.12 shall not apply to Claims arising solely from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. 6.13 Timing and Review of Project Construction and Completion. Except as expressly provided in the Project Approvals and this Agreement, Developer shall have the vested right to Develop the Project in such order, at such rate and at such times as the Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its sole business judgment. In particular, and not in any limitation of any of the foregoing, since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to consider, and expressly provide for, the timing of Development resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of Development to prevail over such Parties' agreement, it is the desire of the Parties hereto to avoid that result. 536 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 27 ARTICLE 7 AMENDMENT 7.1 Project Amendments. To the extent permitted by state and federal law, any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval may, from time to time, be amended or modified in the following manner: (a) Administrative Project Amendments. Upon the written request of Developer for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, the City's Chief Planner or his/her designee shall determine: (i) whether the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light of the Project as a whole; and (ii) whether the requested amendment or modification is consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law. If the Chief Planner or his/her designee finds that the proposed amendment or modification is minor, consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law, and will result in no new significant impacts not addressed and mitigated in the EIR, the amendment shall be determined to be an “Administrative Project Amendment” and the Chief Planner or his/her designee may, except to the extent otherwise required by law, approve the Administrative Project Amendment without notice and public hearing. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, lot line adjustments, minor alterations in vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, location of parking stalls on the site, number of required parking stalls if City development standards allow, substitutions of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on any final development plan or landscape plan, substitutions of comparable building design/façade materials for any building design/façade material shown on any final development plan or Precise Plan, variations in the location of structures that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections or facilities that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, and minor adjustments to the Property diagram or Property legal description shall be treated as Administrative Project Amendments. Any requested amendment seeking modification of or deviation from the performance or development standards contained in the Municipal Code and which would otherwise require a discretionary approval by the City Council, Planning Commission, or other formal approval body shall not be treated as an Administrative Project Amendment. (b) Non-Administrative Project Amendments. Any request by Developer for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval which is determined not to be an Administrative Project Amendment as set forth above shall be subject to review, consideration and action pursuant to the Applicable Law and this Agreement. 7.2 Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, in whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the Parties hereto or their successors in interest, as follows: (a) Administrative Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement which does not substantially affect (i) the Term, (ii) permitted uses of the Property, (iii) conditions, terms, restrictions, or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, (iv) the density or intensity of use of the Property or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings, or (v) monetary contributions by Developer, shall be considered an “Administrative Agreement 537 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 28 Amendment” and shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. Administrative Agreement Amendments may be approved by the City Manager or, in the sole discretion of the City Manager, the City Manager may refer any proposed Administrative Agreement Amendment to the City Council for consideration and approval or denial. (b) Other Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement other than an Administrative Agreement Amendment shall be subject to recommendation by the Planning Commission (by advisory resolution) and approval by the City Council (by ordinance) following a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council, consistent with Government Code sections 65867 and 65867.5. (c) Amendment Exemptions. No amendment of a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, or a Subsequent Approval shall require an amendment to this Agreement. Instead, any such matter automatically shall be deemed to be incorporated into the Project and vested under this Agreement. ARTICLE 8 ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE 8.1 Assignment. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 8.1 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- (a) Absent an express signed written agreement between the Parties to the contrary, neither Developer nor City may assign its rights or delegate its duties under this Agreement without the express written consent of the other Party. No permitted assignment of any of the rights or obligations under this Agreement shall result in a novation or in any other way release the assignor from its obligations under this Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision hereof, Developer may assign this Agreement without the consent of City to one or more entities controlled by, or under common control with, or owned in whole or in part by Developer (an “Affiliate”), provided, Developer shall not be released from its obligations under this Agreement. As used in this Section 8.1, “controlled” shall mean the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management or policies, whether through the ownership of voting securities, partnership interest, contracts (other than those that purport to transfer Developer’s interest to a third party not specifically identified in this subsection) or otherwise. 8.2 Transfer Agreements. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 8.2 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- (a) In connection with the Transfer or assignment by Developer of all or any portion of the Project (other than a transfer or assignment by Developer to an Affiliate), Developer and the transferee shall enter into a written agreement regarding the respective interests, rights, and obligations of Developer and the transferee in and under the Agreement and the Project Approvals (a “Transfer Agreement”). Such Transfer Agreement shall include an executed Assignment and Assumption of Rights and Obligations, as set forth in Exhibit I, and may (i) release Developer from obligations under the Agreement or the Project Approvals that pertain to that 538 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 29 portion of the Project being transferred, as described in the Transfer Agreement, provided that the transferee expressly assumes such obligations; (ii) transfer to the transferee vested rights to improve that portion of the Project being transferred; and (iii) address any other matter deemed by Developer to be necessary or appropriate in connection with the transfer or assignment. (b) Prior to any such Transfer or assignment, Developer will seek City’s prior written consent thereof, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. At the time Developer requests City’s written consent, Developer shall submit to the City information describing transferee’s development experience and financial resources. City may refuse to give consent only if, in light of the proposed transferee’s reputation and financial resources, such transferee would not, in City’s reasonable opinion, be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by such transferee, including Buyer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures (contained in Exhibit F to Exhibit B of this Agreement). To assist the City Manager in determining whether to provide consent to a transfer or assignment, the City Manager may request from the transferee (directly or through Developer) additional reasonable documentation of transferee’s understanding of and ability and plan to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by transferee, including without limitation obligations specifically identified in this Agreement, the Order No. 00-46 issued by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board to the City on June 21, 2000, the Final Closure Plan and Postclosure Maintenance and Monitoring Plan each dated September 8, 2017, Buyer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures (contained in Exhibit F to Exhibit B of this Agreement), Project Approvals, the EIR and MMRP, the General Plan, the TDM Plan, the Specific Plan, and the East of 101 Area Plan. To assist the City Manager in determining whether to consent to a transfer or assignment, the City Manager may also require one or more representatives of the transferee to meet in person to demonstrate to the City Manager’s reasonable satisfaction that the transferee understands and intends and has the ability to perform the obligations intended to be assumed, including without limitation the obligations identified in the immediately preceding sentence. City shall have sixty(60) days to request any of the information and meetings identified above, as well as request any additional information required in order to review any request for consent to a Transfer, and shall provide a determination as to whether to provide its consent within ninety (90) days of the date the request is received. Such determination will be made by the City Manager and will be appealable by Developer to the City Council. For any Transfer of all of the Property, the Developer and assignee shall enter into an assignment and assumption agreement in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit I. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, each of following Transfers are permitted and shall not require City consent under this Section 8.2: (i) Any Transfer for financing purposes to secure the funds necessary for construction and/or permanent financing of the Project, including any financing transactions, such as sale-leaseback or grant of a mortgage or deed of trust, for purposes of financing development of the Project; or any foreclosure thereof or deed-in-lieu with respect thereto; (ii) An assignment of this Agreement to an Affiliate; (iii) Dedications and grants of easements and rights of way required in accordance with the Project Approvals; 539 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 30 (iv) any change, directly or indirectly, of the equity or ownership interests of Developer or any transferee which individually or cumulatively with prior changes does not result in a change in control of Developer or transferee; or (v) Any leases, subleases, licenses, easements, or other occupancy agreements. (c) Any Transfer Agreement shall be binding on Developer, City, and the transferee. Once approved by the Developer, the transferee, and City, and then upon recordation of any Transfer Agreement in the Official Records of San Mateo County, Developer shall automatically be released from those obligations assumed by the transferee therein. (d) Developer shall be free from any and all liabilities accruing on or after the date of any assignment or transfer with respect to those obligations assumed by a transferee pursuant to a Transfer Agreement. No breach or default hereunder occurring after the assignment or Transfer by any person succeeding to any portion of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement shall be attributed to Developer. 8.3 Notice of Compliance Generally. Within thirty (30) days following any written request which Developer may make from time to time, City shall execute and deliver to Developer (or to any party requested by Developer) a written “Notice of Compliance,” in recordable form, duly executed and acknowledged by City, that certifies: (a) This Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect, or if there have been modifications hereto, that this Agreement is in full force and effect as modified and stating the date and nature of such modifications; (b) There are no current uncured defaults under this Agreement or specifying the dates and nature of any such default; and (c) Any other information reasonably requested by Developer. The failure to deliver such a statement within such time shall constitute a conclusive presumption against City that this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification except as may be represented by the Developer and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the Developer, except as may be represented by the Developer. Developer shall have the right at Developer’s sole discretion, to record the Notice of Compliance. ARTICLE 9 COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE 9.1 Cooperation. In the event of any administrative, legal, or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any person not a party to the Agreement challenging the validity of any provision of the Agreement, or any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, the Parties will cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. City shall promptly (within five business days) notify Developer of any such action against City. If City fails promptly to notify Developer of any 540 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 31 legal action against City or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Developer will not thereafter be responsible for City’s defense. The Parties will use best efforts to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such action, and Developer will pay compensation for such legal counsel (including City Attorney time and overhead for the defense of such action), but will exclude other City staff overhead costs and normal day-to-day business expenses incurred by City. Developer’s obligation to pay for legal counsel will extend to attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal. In the event City and Developer are unable to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such action or proceeding, each party may select its own legal counsel and Developer will pay its and the City’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Developer shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding or payable to any prevailing plaintiff/petitioner. 9.2 Reapproval. (a) If, as a result of any administrative, legal, or equitable action or other proceeding, all or any portion of the Agreement or the Project approvals are set aside or otherwise made ineffective by any judgment in such action or proceeding (“Judgment”), based on procedural, substantive or other deficiencies (“Deficiencies”), the Parties will use their respective best efforts to sustain and reenact or readopt the Agreement, and/or the Project approvals, that the Deficiencies related to, as follows, unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to act otherwise: (i) If any Judgment requires reconsideration or consideration by City of the Agreement or any Project approval, then the City will consider or reconsider that matter in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement and with Applicable Law. If any such Judgment invalidates or otherwise makes ineffective all or any portion of the Agreement or Project approval, then the Parties will cooperate and will cure any Deficiencies identified in the Judgment or upon which the Judgment is based in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement and with Applicable Law. City will then consider readopting or reenacting the Agreement, or the Project approval, or any portion thereof, to which the Deficiencies related. (ii) Acting in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement includes, but is not limited to, recognizing that the Parties intend that Developer may undertake and complete Development of the Project as described in the Agreement, and adopting such ordinances, resolutions, and other enactments as are necessary to readopt or reenact all or any portion of the Agreement or Project approvals without contravening the Judgment. (b) The Parties agree that this Section 9.2 shall constitute a separate agreement entered into concurrently, and that if any other provision of this Agreement, or the Agreement as a whole, is invalidated, rendered null, or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Parties agree to be bound by the terms of this Section 9.2, which shall survive invalidation, nullification, or setting aside. 541 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 32 ARTICLE 10 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION 10.1 Defaults. Any failure by either Party to perform any term or provision of the Agreement, which failure continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days following written notice of such failure from the other Party (unless such period is extended by mutual written consent), will constitute a default under the Agreement. Any notice given will specify the nature of the alleged failure and, where appropriate, the manner in which said failure satisfactorily may be cured. If the nature of the alleged failure is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such 30-day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period, and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter, will be deemed to be a cure within such 30-day period. Upon the occurrence of a default under the Agreement, the non-defaulting party may institute legal proceedings to enforce the terms of the Agreement or, in the event of a material default, terminate the Agreement. If the default is cured, then no default will exist and the noticing party shall take no further action. 10.2 Termination. If City elects to consider terminating the Agreement due to a material default of Developer, then City will give a notice of intent to terminate the Agreement and the matter will be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council at a duly noticed and conducted public hearing. Developer will have the right to offer written and oral evidence prior to or at the time of said public hearings. If the City Council determines that a material default has occurred and is continuing, and elects to terminate the Agreement, City will give written notice of termination of the Agreement to Developer by certified mail and the Agreement will thereby be terminated sixty (60) days thereafter. 10.3 Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance. Subject to the limitations set forth below, performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default, and all performance and other dates specified in this Agreement shall be extended, where delays are due to: war; insurrection; strikes and labor disputes; lockouts; riots; floods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy; terrorism; epidemics; pandemics; quarantine restrictions; governmental restrictions or priority; litigation and arbitration, including court delays; legal challenges to this Agreement, the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, or any other approval required for the Project or any initiatives or referenda regarding the same; environmental conditions that have not been previously disclosed or discovered or that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence that delays the construction or Development of the Property or any portion thereof; unusually severe weather but only to the extent that such weather or its effects (including, without limitation, dry out time) result in delays that cumulatively exceed thirty (30) days for every winter season occurring after commencement of construction of the Project; acts or omissions of the other party; or acts or failures to act of any public or governmental agency or entity (except that acts or failures to act of City shall not excuse performance by City); moratorium; or a Severe Economic Recession (each a “Force Majeure Delay”). An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if Notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within sixty (60) days of the commencement of the cause. If Notice is sent after such sixty (60) day period, then the extension shall commence to run no sooner than 542 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 33 sixty (60) days prior to the giving of such Notice. Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the mutual agreement of City and Developer. Developer’s inability or failure to obtain financing or otherwise timely satisfy shall not be deemed to be a cause outside the reasonable control of the Developer and shall not be the basis for an excused delay, unless such inability, failure or delay is a direct result of a Force Majeure Delay or a Severe Economic Recession. “Severe Economic Recession” means a decline in the monetary value of all finished goods and services produced in the United States, as measured by initial quarterly estimates of United States Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) published by the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (and not subsequent monthly revisions), lasting more than four (4) consecutive calendar quarters. Any quarter of flat or positive GDP growth shall end the period of such Severe Economic Recession. 10.4 Legal Action. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 10.4 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- (a) Either Party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement in the Agreement, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, and enforce by specific performance or declaratory relief the obligations and rights of the Parties thereto. Except as provided in Section 10.1 and Section 10.4(b) below, the sole and exclusive remedies for any default or violation of the Agreement will be specific performance or declaratory relief. In any proceeding brought to enforce the Agreement, the prevailing Party will be entitled to recover from the unsuccessful Party all costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the prevailing party in the enforcement proceeding. (b) In the event that, following Close of Escrow (as defined in the PSA) for the Property, this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 10.2, and such termination occurs prior to commencement of construction for the Project, then the City shall have the right to reenter and take possession of the Property, and to revest in the City the estate of the Developer in the Property or portion thereof. Upon revesting in the City of title to the Property, or portion thereof, the City shall promptly use its best efforts to resell it. For purposes of this subsection, “commencement of construction” means [INSERT DEFINITION] Upon any sale or contract for development, the proceeds shall be applied as follows: (i) First, to reimburse the City for any reasonable costs it incurs in revesting the estate managing or selling the Property or portion thereof, including but not limited to amounts to discharge or prevent liens or encumbrances arising from any acts or omissions of the Developer; (ii) Second, to reimburse the City for damages to which it is entitled under this Agreement by reason of the Developer's default; (iii) Third, to the Developer up to the sum of the amount of the purchase price paid to the City by the Developer pursuant to the PSA for the Property which has reverted to the City and the reasonable cost (incurred after close of escrow) of the improvements the Developer has placed on the Property and such other reasonable costs Developer has incurred after 543 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 34 close of escrow directly in connection with development of the Project which has reverted to the City (for purposes of this subsection “reasonable costs” means [INSERT]); and (iv) Fourth, any balance to the City. 10.5 Periodic Review. (a) Conducting the Periodic Review. Throughout the Term, at least once every twelve (12) months following the Effective Date of this Agreement, City shall review the extent of good-faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement. This review (“Periodic Review”) shall be conducted by the Chief Planner or his/her designee and shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65865.1. At least ten (10) days prior to the Periodic Review, and in the manner prescribed in Section 11.9 of this Agreement, City shall deposit in the mail or transmit electronically to Developer a copy of any staff report and documents to be relied upon in conducting the Periodic Review and, to the extent practical, related exhibits concerning Developer’s performance hereunder. (b) Developer Submission of Periodic Review Report. Annually commencing one year from the Effective Date and continuing through termination of this Agreement, Developer shall submit a report to the Chief Planner stating the Developer’s good faith compliance with terms of the Agreement. (c) Good Faith Compliance Review. During the Periodic Review, the Chief Planner shall set a meeting to consider the Developer’s good-faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Developer shall be permitted an opportunity to respond to City’s evaluation of Developer’s performance, either orally at the meeting or in a supplemental written statement, at Developer’s election. Such response shall be made to the Chief Planner. At the conclusion of the Periodic Review, the Chief Planner shall make written findings and determinations, on the basis of substantial evidence, as to whether or not Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The decision of the Chief Planner shall be appealable to the City Council. If the Chief Planner finds and determines that Developer has not complied with such terms and conditions, the Chief Planner may recommend to the City Council that it terminate or modify this Agreement by giving notice of its intention to do so, in the manner set forth in Government Code sections 65867 and 65868. The costs incurred by City in connection with the Periodic Review process described herein shall be borne by Developer. (d) Failure to Properly Conduct Periodic Review. If City fails, during any calendar year, to either: (i) conduct the Periodic Review or (ii) notify Developer in writing of City’s determination, pursuant to a Periodic Review, as to Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement and such failure remains uncured as of December 31 of any year during the Term, such failure shall be conclusively deemed an approval by City of Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement for the period of time since the last Periodic Review. 10.6 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be filed and heard in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, California. 544 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 35 10.7 Resolution of Disputes. With regard to any dispute involving Development of the Project, the resolution of which is not provided for by this Agreement or Applicable Law, Developer shall, at City’s request, meet with City. The parties to any such meetings shall attempt in good faith to resolve any such disputes. Nothing in this Section 10.7 shall in any way be interpreted as requiring that Developer and City and/or City’s designee reach agreement with regard to those matters being addressed, nor shall the outcome of these meetings be binding in any way on City or Developer unless expressly agreed to by the parties to such meetings. 10.8 Attorneys’ Fees. In any legal action or other proceeding brought by either Party to enforce or interpret a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and any other costs incurred in that proceeding in addition to any other relief to which it is entitled. 10.9 Hold Harmless. Developer shall hold City and its elected and appointed officers, agents, employees, and representatives harmless from claims, costs, and liabilities for any personal injury, death, or property damage which is a result of, or alleged to be the result of, the construction of the Project, or of operations performed under this Agreement by Developer or by Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, whether such operations were performed by Developer or any of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees. Nothing in this Section 10.9 shall be construed to mean that Developer shall hold City harmless from any claims of personal injury, death or property damage arising from, or alleged to arise from, any gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of City, its elected and appointed representatives, offices, agents and employees. ARTICLE 11 MISCELLANEOUS 11.1 Incorporation of Recitals and Introductory Paragraph. The Recitals contained in this Agreement, and the introductory paragraph preceding the Recitals, are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 11.2 No Agency. It is specifically understood and agreed to by and between the Parties hereto that: (i) the subject Project is a private development; (ii) City has no interest or responsibilities for, or duty to, third parties concerning any improvements until such time, and only until such time, that City accepts the same pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or in connection with the various Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals; (iii) Developer shall have full power over and exclusive control of the Project herein described, subject only to the limitations and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, and Applicable Law; and (iv) City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of agency relationship, joint venture or partnership between City and Developer and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as creating any such relationship between City and Developer. 11.3 Enforceability. City and Developer agree that unless this Agreement is amended or terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter enacted or adopted (whether by 545 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 36 ordinance, resolution, initiative, or any other means) in any applicable general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or any other land use ordinance or building ordinance, resolution or other rule, regulation or policy adopted by City that changes, alters or amends the rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the Development of the Property at the time of the approval of this Agreement as provided by Government Code section 65866. 11.4 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material provision of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to a particular situation, is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, either City or Developer may (in their sole and absolute discretion) terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to the other party. 11.5 Other Necessary Acts and City Approvals. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals and this Agreement and to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder. Whenever a reference is made herein to an action or approval to be undertaken by City, the City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to act on behalf of City, unless specifically provided otherwise by this Agreement or applicable law. 11.6 Construction. Each reference in this Agreement or any of the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to refer to the Agreement, Project Approval, or Subsequent Approval as it may be amended from time to time, whether or not the particular reference refers to such possible amendment. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both City and Developer, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. 11.7 Other Miscellaneous Terms. The singular shall include the plural; the masculine gender shall include the feminine; “shall” is mandatory; “may” is permissive. If there is more than one signer of this Agreement, the signer obligations are joint and several. 11.8 Covenants Running with the Land. All of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring all or a portion of the Project, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to California law including, without limitation, Civil Code section 1468. Each covenant herein to act or refrain from acting is for the benefit of or a burden upon the Project, as appropriate, runs with the Property, and is binding upon the owner of all or a portion of the Property and each successive owner during its ownership of such property. 546 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 37 11.9 Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between City or Developer must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by email or telefacsimile (with original forwarded by regular U.S. Mail), by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal Express or other similar courier promising overnight delivery. If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. If given by facsimile transmission, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received upon actual physical receipt of the entire document by the receiving party’s facsimile machine. Notices transmitted by facsimile after 5:00 p.m. on a normal business day or on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday shall be deemed to have been given and received on the next normal business day. If given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of: (i) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five (5) days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If given by Federal Express or similar courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Any party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Notice by email transmission shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt if received before 5:00 p.m. on a regular business day, or else on the next business day. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below: If to City, to: City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attn: City Manager Phone: (650) 877-8500 Fax: (650) 829-6609 With a Copy to: Meyers Nave 1999 Harrison Street, 9th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Attn: Sky Woodruff Phone: (510) 808-2000 Fax: (510) 444-1108 Email:swoodruff@meyersnave.com If to Developer, to: Oyster Point Holdco, LLC 444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Attn: Conrad Garner, Senior Vice President Phone: (562) 435-4857 Email: cgarner@ensemble.net 547 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 38 With Copies to: Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Attn: Frank Petrilli Phone: (415) 268-0503 Email: fpetrilli@coblentzlaw.com 11.10 Mortgagee Protection. -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION 11.10 STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at Developer’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any Mortgage. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with Developer and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: (a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. (b) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Developer under this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City’s Notice of Breach, plus additional time not to exceed 90 days, as reasonably determined by the City Manager, to allow Mortgagee sufficient time to make the election to cure and thereafter prosecute such cure to completion. If a Mortgagee shall be required to obtain title or possession in order to cure any default or breach, then the time to cure shall be tolled so long as the Mortgagee is diligently attempting to obtain possession, including by appointment of a receiver or foreclosure, and provides City upon written request from time to time reasonable evidence of such diligent efforts; provided the tolling shall not exceed 90 days or such longer period as City may agree in its sole discretion. A delay or failure by the City to provide such notice required by this Section shall extend, for the number of days until notice is given, the time allowed to the Mortgagee for cure, but shall not extend Developer’s time to cure. (c) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any portion thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the Mortgage or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or portion thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of Developer’s obligations or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Developer is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be condition precedent to City’s performance 548 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 39 hereunder, and further provided that any sales, transfer, or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 8.1 of this Agreement. 11.11 Entire Agreement, Counterparts And Exhibits. This Agreement is executed in two (2) duplicate counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement consists of 35 pages, exclusive of signature pages, and six (6) exhibits which constitute in full, the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements of the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City and the Developer. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein for all purposes: Exhibit A: Description and Diagram of Property Exhibit B: Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions Exhibit C: List of Project Approvals Exhibit D: Applicable Laws & City Fees, Exactions, and Payments Exhibit E: Operations and Maintenance Agreement Exhibit F: TOT Rebate Agreement Exhibit G: Master Development Schedule Exhibit H: Precise Plan Exhibit I: Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement Exhibit J: Form of Easement for Existing and Future Sewer Pump Station Access and Infrastructure 11.12 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is intended for the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective permitted successors and assigns, and is not for the benefit of, nor may any express or implied provision hereof be enforced by, any other person, except as otherwise set forth in Section 11.10. 11.13 Recordation Of Development Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code section 65868.5, no later than ten (10) days after City enters into this Agreement, the City Clerk shall record an executed copy of this Agreement in the official records of the County of San Mateo. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the day and year first above written. [Signatures to follow on subsequent pages.] 549 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 40 550 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 41 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC CITY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a California municipal corporation By:________________________________ Date: ______________________________ Name: Mike Futrell Its: City Manager ATTEST: By:________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:_________________________________ City Attorney 551 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 42 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC DEVELOPER: OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By:________________________________ Date: ______________________________ Name: ________ Its: ____________ 552 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC Exhibit A Description and Diagram of Property (Starts on Next Page) 553 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC Exhibit B Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions [Need to Insert Fully Executed Version] (Starts on Next Page) (Exhibit F to Exhibit B – For Reference) BUYER’S POST-CLOSING MITIGATION MEASURES Buyer shall perform, at Buyer’s sole expense, each of Buyer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures identified in this Exhibit F. The measures identified herein are not intended as Buyer’s sole post- closing obligations with respect to the Pre-Existing Property Conditions and shall not reduce or otherwise diminish Buyer’s other obligations under the Agreement with respect to such conditions or otherwise. Capitalized terms not specifically defined herein shall have the meaning prescribed in the Agreement. A. Site Security 1. Provide site security for the Property and all building(s) at the Property. Security features should be designed to prevent unauthorized access by the general public. Building security features may include barriers and/or restricted access signage and alarm systems. B. Engineering Measures - Fill /Capping/Construction Activities 1. Install a minimum of nine (9) feet of clean fill or as otherwise engineered by a qualified civil engineer and subject to City Public Works approval and building plan check within the building footprint area above the landfill cap. Outside of the building footprint, utility trenches shall be located at least twelve (12) inches above the top of the landfill cap within clean fill, except to the extent necessary to connect to existing utility connections. Any utility connections within the cap or below the cap shall occur in trenches with a protective clay layer and clean backfill as engineered by a qualified civil engineer subject to City Public Works approval and building plan check. 2. Install a geotextile fabric (as a marker) on top of the erosion resistant layer (i.e. the landfill cap) so the top of the cap can be identified during future construction activities. 3. Install all landscaping and irrigation systems at elevations within the newly-installed fill layer above the cap to protect cap integrity. 554 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 4. Grade/maintain the Property to prevent surface water accumulation. Install and maintain survey monuments on the Property to monitor landfill settlement. Quarterly inspections are required to ensure monuments are intact and usable and any repairs or replacement are performed as necessary. Installation of at least two permanent survey monuments are required so that the location and elevation of refuse, final cover, and landfill gas system components can be determined throughout the post-closure period. Additionally, monuments will be surveyed every five years and settlement maps will be produced throughout the post-closure period or until settlement has stopped. C. Engineering Measures - MMS/Building 1. Design, install and operate a methane mitigation and monitoring system (MMS) approved in advance by the Water Board and City in building structures. The MMS shall meet the requirements of Title 27 CCR Sections 20931 and 21190, for structures on landfilled areas, and of those listed in the PCMMP. The MMS shall also be designed in general accordance with methane mitigation standards used by Los Angeles County Public Works' Gas Hazard Mitigation Policy and Standards (https://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/onlineservices/methane-mitigation-standards.aspx). At a minimum, the MMS shall include a vapor barrier membrane (VBM) combined with a horizontal collection and venting system below the VBM. The venting system vents vapors through vertical riser piping that extends from beneath the building to above the roof level. Mechanical blowers will be on standby for use as an active venting system in the event elevated methane levels are detected by electronic sensors installed at various locations within the buildings. The MMS shall also be designed to mitigate potential vapors of other contaminants, including VOCs. 2. Design and install trench dams in utility trenches to prevent migration of methane and/or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into buildings. 3. All building utilities, methane membrane and collection pipes should be connected/adhered to underside of building foundation slab or installed in a manner that prevents damage from potential future ground settlement. 4. Utilities should be designed to accommodate potential future ground settlement in areas outside of building footprint. 5. Perform all required inspections, maintenance, monitoring and reporting in connection with the approved MMS meeting the requirements of Title 27 CCR Sections 20931 and 21190, for structures on landfilled areas, the requirements listed in the PCMMP and other applicable requirements and regulations. Provide copies of all reports to the City. D. Site Maintenance, Monitoring and Reporting 1. Maintain all hardscapes and softscapes at the Property. Hardscapes are building slabs, slab on grade, roadways, sidewalks and any other hard surfaces over the final landfill cover 555 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 (“cap”); softscapes are landscaped areas over the cap. Maintain all irrigation systems associated with softscape. Inspect all final cover at the Property, including buildings, hardscape and softscape at the Property monthly during the wet season and quarterly during the dry season. In the event corrective action is warranted, promptly implement any necessary corrective action. 2. Prepare and implement an Operation and Maintenance (“O&M”) Plan for the Property, approved in writing by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water Board”) to address routine inspections, maintenance and reporting for the: a) landfill cap; b) methane and VOC collection, monitoring and alarm systems; and c) groundwater, surface water and leachate monitoring systems, as required. 3. Prepare annual maintenance and monitoring reports relating to implementation of the O&M Plan for the Property, methane and VOC monitoring plan, surface water sampling monitoring plan, and elevation monitoring plan, as required. Submit maintenance and monitoring reports to stakeholders. 4. Prepare and implement a methane and volatile organic compound (“VOC”) monitoring plan for the Property, including the installation of any necessary monitoring wells, approved in writing by the Water Board that describes the frequency and procedures for monitoring in structures and perimeter areas of the site and required corrective actions if monitoring results exceed established thresholds. Perform required reporting and provide copies of all reports to the City. Quarterly monitoring is required within subsurface vaults, utilities and any other subsurface structures where gas may potentially build up. At a minimum, a portable landfill gas meter will be used for subsurface structure monitoring. 5. Prepare and implement an elevation monitoring plan for the Property. 6. Review and properly update all maintenance and monitoring plans and ensure that corrective actions are implemented in a timely manner. E. Emergency Response Measures 1. Prepare and implement a post-closure Emergency Response Plan (ERP) for the Property outlining the procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency (such as fires, explosions, earthquakes, floods, vandalism, surface drainage problems, waste releases, etc.). Procedures for dealing with each type of emergency should be included in the ERP. Multiple agencies (fire, police, City, etc.) should be involved with preparation of the plan. 2. Require annual (at a minimum) updates and training for the ERP. 3. For planned or emergency subsurface activities, implement the ERP, assess damage and perform corrective action as necessary. F. Administrative/Legal Measures – Site Maintenance/Cap/Construction Activities 556 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 1. Have entered into a binding voluntary oversight agreement with the Water Board (i) pursuant to which the Water Board will oversee Buyer’s compliance with the requirements of Order No. 00-46, the Closure Plans, and related Applicable Laws, relating to Buyer’s acquisition, development, operation and use of the Property, and (ii) confirming that with respect to such requirements, the Buyer is the party primarily responsible for such compliance. 2. Comply with the requirements of Order No. 00-46, the Closure Plans, and related Applicable Laws, relating to Buyer’s acquisition, development, operation and use of the Property. 3. Execute and implement an O&M Agreement with the City providing the City and/or the Water Board with financial assurance for completion of the Buyer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures. 4. Establish and assure an automatic dig alert notification to City Public Works in advance of any soil disturbance at the Property. 5. All construction activities that potentially disturb landfill cap shall be performed only pursuant to a Soil Management Plan (SMP) approved in advance by the Water Board. 6. Record a land use covenant prohibiting construction/subsurface work unless City is notified in advance and the work is performed pursuant to the Water Board-approved SMP. 7. Require hotel personnel to notify City if geotextile “marker” fabric is encountered or visible. 557 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC Exhibit C: List of Project Approvals  Resolution to Adopt the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and associated CEQA Findings certified and approved by the City Council on March 23, 2011 by Resolution No. 46-2011;  Resolution to Adopt the Oyster Point Specific Plan approved by the City Council on March 23, 2011 by Resolution No. 47-2011;  Ordinance No. 1437-2011 to amend Chapter 20.230 ("Oyster Point Specific Plan Zoning District") of the South San Francisco Municipal Code introduced by the City Council on March 16, 2011 and adopted by the City Council on March 23, 2011;  Development Agreement by and between the City of South San Francisco and Developer approved by Ordinance No. ______ introduced by the City Council on __________, 2022 and adopted by the City Council on _____________.  Resolution to Approve a Precise Plan for the Project approved by the City Council on __________ by Resolution No. __________. 558 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC Exhibit D Applicable City Laws & City Fees, Exactions, and Payments CURRENT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LAWS Developer shall comply with the following City regulations and provisions applicable to the Property as of the Effective Date (except as modified by this Agreement and the Project Approvals). 1.1. South San Francisco General Plan. The Developer will develop the Project in a manner consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan, as adopted on October 13, 1999 and as amended from time to time prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. 1.2 East of 101 Area Plan. The Developer will develop the Project in a manner consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the East of 101 Area Plan, as adopted and as amended from time to time prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. 1.3 Oyster Point Specific Plan. The Developer will develop the Project in a manner consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan, as adopted and as amended from time to time prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. 1.3 Oyster Point Specific Plan Zoning District. The Developer shall construct the Project in a manner consistent with the Oyster Point Specific Plan Zoning District, City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.230, applicable to the Property as of the Effective Date and as amended from time to time prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. 1.4 South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Developer shall construct the Project in a manner consistent with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code provisions, as applicable to the Project as of the Effective Date (except as modified by this Agreement, and as may be amended from time to time consistent with this Agreement). FEES, EXACTIONS, & PAYMENTS Subject to the terms of Sections 3.2 and 5.6 of this Agreement, Developer agrees that Developer shall be responsible for the payment of the following fees, charges, exactions, taxes, and assessments (collectively, “Assessments”). From time to time, the City may update, revise, or 559 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 change its Assessments. Further, nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from common benefit assessments or district taxes levied against it and similarly situated properties by the City pursuant to and in accordance with any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services that benefit the Property. As authorized by the applicable Development Fee enabling ordinance or resolution as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the amount paid for a particular Assessment, shall be the amount owed, based on the calculation or formula in place at the time payment is due, as specified below. 2.1 Administrative/Processing Fees. The Developer shall pay the applicable application, processing, administrative, legal and inspection fees and charges, as then currently adopted pursuant to City’s Master Fee Schedule and required by the City for processing of land use entitlements, including without limitation, General Plan amendments, zoning changes, precise plans, development agreements, conditional use permits, variances, transportation demand management plans, tentative subdivision maps, parcel maps, lot line adjustments, general plan maintenance fee, demolition permits, and building permits. 2.2. Impact Fees (Existing Fees). Except as modified below and as set forth in Section 5.6(a) of this Agreement, only the following existing impact fees shall be paid for net new square footage at the earlier of (i) issuance of certificate of occupancy, or (ii) the times prescribed in the resolution(s) or ordinance(s) adopting and implementing the fees.  Park and Recreation Impact Fee (SSFMC Chapter 8.67).  Childcare Impact Fee (SSFMC Chapter 20.310).  Public Safety Impact Fee (SSFMC Chapter 8.75).  Commercial Linkage Fee (SSFMC Chapter 8.69).  Sewer Capacity Fee (Resolution 39-2010).  Transportation Impact Fee (SSFMC Chapter 8.73).  East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee.  Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee.  Library Impact Fee (SSFMC Chapter 8.74).  Public Art In-Lieu Fee (SSFMC Chapter 8.76). 560 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC Exhibit E Operations and Maintenance Agreement (Starts on Next Page) 561 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC Exhibit F TOT Rebate Agreement (Starts on Next Page) 562 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC Exhibit G Master Development Schedule Activity Milestones Closing of Escrow No later than December 31, 2022 Submit application for Building Permit No later than December 31, 2023. Delivery of Proof of an Approved Construction Loan from a Reputable Lender Within 18 months of submitting for Building Permit, but no later than June 30, 2025. Delivery of a Final Construction Contract Within 18 months of submitting for Building Permit, but no later than June 30, 2025. Construction Commences Within 18 months of submitting for building permit, but no later than July 31, 2025. Substantial Completion of Construction Within 36 months of construction commencement; targeted for September 2027 (26-month schedule), but no later than June 2028 (35-month schedule). Estimated Opening of hotel Targeted November 2027, but no later than August 2028. 563 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC Exhibit H Precise Plan (Starts on Next Page) 564 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC Exhibit I Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of South San Francisco Attn: City Clerk 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 ______________________________________________________________________________ Space Above for Recorder’s Use Exempt from Recording Fees per Cal. Gov. Code § 6103 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT This Assignment and Assumption Agreement (“Assignment Agreement”) is entered into to be effective on ______,202_, by and between Oyster Point Holdco, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignor”), and ___________________, a _______________ (“Assignee”), and the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (“City”). Assignor and Assignee are sometimes referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” RECITALS -TERMS UNDER THIS SECTION STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION- A. Assignor and City have previously entered into that certain Development Agreement between City and Assignor dated _________, 2022, approved by the City of South San Francisco City Council by Ordinance No. ________ on _________, 2022, to be effective on ________________, 2022, and recorded on ______________, 2022 as Document No. _____________, San Mateo County Official Records (“Development Agreement”) to facilitate the development and redevelopment of that certain real property consisting of approximately ____ acres with the City of South San Francisco, California, which is legally described in Exhibit A of the Development Agreement (“Property”). A true and complete copy of the Development Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 565 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 B. Assignor is the fee owner of the Property, and Assignor desires to convey its interest in the developable, approximately ___ acre portion of the Property and more particularly described on Exhibit 2 attached hereto (“Assigned Property”) to Assignee concurrently with execution of this Assignment Agreement and Assignee desires to so acquire such interest in the Assigned Property from the Assignor. C. Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the Development Agreement (“Agreement” therein) refer to Oyster Point Holdco, LLC as “Developer” and provide in part that: In connection with the transfer or assignment by Developer of all or any portion of the Project (other than a transfer or assignment by Developer to an Affiliate), Developer and the transferee shall enter into a written agreement regarding the respective interests, rights, and obligations of Developer and the transferee in and under the Agreement and the Project Approvals (a “Transfer Agreement”). Such Transfer Agreement shall include an executed Assignment and Assumption of Rights and Obligations, as set forth in Exhibit I. . . . Prior to any such Transfer or assignment, Developer will seek City’s prior written consent thereof, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. At the time Developer requests City’s written consent, Developer shall submit to the City information describing transferee’ s development experience and financial resources. City may refuse to give consent only if, in light of the proposed transferee’s reputation and financial resources, such transferee would not, in City’s reasonable opinion, be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by such transferee, including Buyer’s Post-Closing Mitigation Measures (contained in Exhibit F to Exhibit B of this Agreement). To assist the City Manager in determining whether to provide consent to a transfer or assignment, the City Manager may request from the transferee (directly or through Developer) additional reasonable documentation of transferee’s understanding of and ability and plan to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by transferee, including without limitation obligations specifically identified in this Agreement, the Order No. 00-46 issued by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board to the City on June 21, 2000, the Final Closure Plan and Postclosure Maintenance and Monitoring Plan each dated September 8, 2017, Buyer’s Post- Closing Mitigation Measures (contained in Exhibit F to Exhibit B of this Agreement), Project Approvals, the EIR and MMRP, the General Plan, the TDM Plan, the Specific Plan, and the East of 101 Area Plan. To assist the City Manager in determining whether to consent to a transfer or assignment, the City Manager may also require one or more representatives of the transferee to meet in person to demonstrate to the City Manager’s reasonable satisfaction that the transferee understands and intends and has the ability to perform the obligations intended to be assumed, including without limitation the obligations identified in the immediately preceding sentence. City shall have sixty (60) days to request any of the information and meetings identified above, as well as request any additional 566 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 information required in order to review any request for consent to a Transfer, and shall provide a determination as to whether to provide its consent within ninety (90) days of the date the request is received. Such determination will be made by the City Manager and will be appealable by Developer to the City Council. For any Transfer of all of the Property, the Developer and assignee shall enter into an assignment and assumption agreement in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit I. D. The Parties desire to enter into this Assignment Agreement in order to satisfy and fulfill their respective obligations under Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the Development Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Assignment by Assignor. Assignor hereby assigns, transfers and grants to Assignee, and its successors and assigns, all of Assignor’s rights, title and interest and obligations, duties, responsibilities, conditions and restrictions under the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Property and only to the extent accruing or arising on and after the Effective Date, defined below (collectively, the “Assigned Rights and Obligations”). 2. Acknowledgement and Assumption of Obligations by Assignee. Assignee, for itself and its successor and assigns, hereby acknowledges that it has reviewed, is aware of and intends to honor its Assigned Rights and Obligations with respect to its Development of the Assigned Property pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, and additionally expressly and unconditionally assumes all of the Assigned Rights and Obligations. Assignee agrees, expressly for the benefit of Assignor and City, to comply with, perform, and execute all of the Assigned Rights and Obligations. 3. Release of Assignor. Assignee and City hereby fully release Assignor from all Assigned Rights and Obligations. Both Assignor and Assignee acknowledge that this Assignment Agreement is intended to fully assign all of the Assigned Rights and Obligations to Assignee, and it is expressly understood that Assignor shall continue to be obligated under the Development Agreement only with respect to those portions of the Property retained by Assignor. 4. Substitution of Assignor. Assignee hereinafter shall be substituted for and replace Assignor in the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Property. Whenever the term “Developer” appears in the Development Agreement, it shall hereinafter include Assignee with respect to the Assigned Property. 5. Development Agreement in Full Force and Effect. Except as specifically provided herein with respect to the assignment and assumption, all the terms, covenants, 567 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 conditions and provisions of the Development Agreement are hereby ratified and shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Recording. Assignor shall cause this Assignment Agreement to be recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County, California, and shall promptly provide conformed copies of the recorded Assignment Agreement to Assignee and City. 7. Successors and Assigns. All of the terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Assignment Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 8. Applicable Law/Venue. This Assignment Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to choice of law provisions. Any legal actions under this Assignment Agreement shall be brought only in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, State of California. 9. Applicable Law/Venue. This Assignment Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to choice of law provisions. Any legal actions under this Assignment Agreement shall be brought only in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, State of California. 10. Interpretation. All parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this Assignment Agreement, and this Assignment Agreement shall be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Assignment Agreement. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (a) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (c) “shall,” “will,” or “agrees” are mandatory, and “may” is permissive; (d) “or” is not exclusive; and (e) “includes” and “including” are not limiting. 11. Severability. Except as otherwise provided herein, if any provision(s) of this Assignment Agreement is (are) held invalid, the remainder of this Assignment Agreement shall not be affected, except as necessarily required by the invalid provisions, and shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties. 12. Counterparts. This Assignment Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to constitute an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument, with the same effect as if all of the parties to this Assignment Agreement had executed the same counterpart. 13. City Consent. City is executing this Assignment Agreement for the limited purpose of consenting to the assignment and assumption and clarifying that there is privity of contract between City and Assignee with respect to the Development Agreement. 568 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 14. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Assignment Agreement shall be the date upon which Assignee obtains fee title to the Assigned Property by duly recorded deed (“Effective Date”). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor, Assignee and City have entered into this Assignment Agreement as of the date first written above. ASSIGNOR: OYSTER POINT HOLDCO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Signature of Person executing the Agreement on behalf of Assignor Name: Title: ASSIGNEE: [INSERT NAME OF ASSIGNEE] By: Signature of Person executing the Agreement on behalf of Assignee Name: Title: CITY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation By: Signature of Person executing the Agreement on behalf of City Name: Title: Approved as to form by: 569 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 By: Signature of Person approving form of the Agreement on behalf of City Name: Title: 570 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 Exhibit J Form of Easement for Existing and Future Pump Station and Infrastructure 571 11/3/2022 DRAFT – TERMS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION This draft does not include language related to some additional terms still under negotiation. Those additional terms do not impact nature of development. 018708.0001 4885-1412-4080.3 #82388640_v1 5214327.1 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-901 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. Discussion of Planning Commission Alternative Start Times and Return to In-Person Meetings (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the information presented and discuss for feedback. No further action required. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This item is being presented to the Planning Commission for discussion and feedback -no further action is required at this meeting.This has been discussed informally and this serves as an agenda item for proper discussion with public input. Planning Commission Meeting Start Time Section 2.56.050 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code establishes the meeting time,location,and related procedures for the Planning Commission.Currently,the Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission is required to meet on the first and third Thursdays of each month, at 7:00 P.M. The City Council has changed its regular meeting start time to 6:00 P.M.to account for larger agendas that would otherwise adjourn meetings late in the evening.Additionally,the new General Plan Update and companion zoning transfers most project entitlement to the Planning Commission rather than the City Council. This change will likely result in larger meeting agendas for the Planning Commission and later meetings. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission discuss alternative start times and Commissioner availability and provide feedback to staff. The logical options would be 6:00 P.M. or 6:30 P.M. if a change was desired. Return to In-Person / Hybrid Meetings Staff anticipates that with the wind down of the State of Emergency declaration for COVID-19 (ending February 28,2023),the teleconference meeting rules created by AB 361 will change and there will likely be interest in returning to in-person Planning Commission meetings soon.In many ways,the remote meetings have been fortunate for all -less travel for applicants and their design team,and more flexibility for Commissioners to join meetings remotely despite travel or other commitments that would typically preclude attendance. The City currently uses an outside consultant to help manage City Council hybrid meetings and this firm could be utilized for Planning Commission hearings.If the City moves to in-person meetings in early 2023,this would be an option to keep remote attendance possible for applicants,staff,and Planning Commissioners,as needed. CONCLUSION The two items are related - an inevitable return to in-person meetings could make an earlier start time City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™586 File #:22-901 Agenda Date:11/3/2022 Version:1 Item #:5. challenging for Commissioners. Alternatively, the new zoning authority of the Planning Commission is likely to result in larger and later meetings if the start time remains at 7:00 P.M. This is intended as an update item only, but staff would appreciate discussion and any feedback from the Planning Commission. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/28/2022Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™587