HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 04-18-13 (Reso 2731-2013) - Gateway MP and PP Mod
1
RESOLUTION NO.:2731-2013
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK
MASTER PLAN; GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK PHASE 1 PRECISE
PLAN AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT PLAN; AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FIRST
AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
REDEVELOPMENT OF A 22.6 ACRE SITE FOR THE GATEWAY
BUSINESS PARK IN THE GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, BioMed Realty (“Owner” or “Applicant”) submitted an application
requesting approval of a Master Plan Modification, Phase 1 Precise Plan Modification, approval
of a revised Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan, and a Development
Agreement, which would collectively authorize the phased removal and replacement of existing
buildings on the 22.6-acre project site and construction of five to six new buildings, and two to
four parking structures, in multiple phases from 2011 to 2025, to be located at the corner of
Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards (700, 750, 800, 850, 900, and 1000 Gateway Boulevard),
in the Gateway Specific Plan Area (“Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project” or “Project”);
and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on
February 10, 2010 in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the
potential environmental impacts of the Project; and,
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 Gateway Business Park
Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan, as prepared by FLAD Architects, Kenkay Associates,
BKF Engineers, Surveyors, Planners; the EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR prepared and
certified for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan and appendices thereto; all site plans, and
all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly
noticed April 18, 2013 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources
Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco
hereby finds as follows:
A. General Findings
2
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Conditions of Project
Approval (Exhibit A), the proposed First Amended and Restated Development Agreement
(Exhibit B), and the TDM plan (Exhibit C) are each incorporated by reference as part of this
Resolution, as if each were set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Gateway Master Plan Modification
1. The Master Plan, as proposed for modification, is compatible with the intent and
purpose of the Gateway specific plan because the Master Plan will promote campus-style uses,
such as biotechnology, high-technology and research and development uses.
2. The proposed development and/or construction standards of the Master Plan, as
proposed for modification, are designed to achieve compliance with the development and/or
construction standards of the Gateway specific plan because the site layout and overall
architecture will help shape the urban character of the East of 101 Area, the FAR of 1.25 is
consistent with the Gateway Specific Plan and the proposed height will be below the 250-foot
maximum allowable height limit.
3. The project proposed in the Master Plan, as proposed for modification, is
consistent with the proposed first amended and restated development agreement because it
clarifies and obligates several Project features and mitigation measures including transportation
impact fees, public improvements in the East of 101 area, Fire Department obligations, phasing,
provisions for child care, park in-lieu fees, and TDM reporting and monitoring requirements
4. The project proposed in the Master Plan, as proposed for modification, is
consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. The 1999 General Plan includes policies
and programs that are designed to encourage the development of high technology campuses in
the East of 101 Area, allow for employee-serving vendor services, preparation of a TDM plan
and traffic improvement plan to reduce congestion impacts, and provision of a framework for
requiring future circulation system improvements as they are needed to prevent deficient levels
of service from being reached.
C. Gateway Precise Plan
1. The Phase 1 Precise Plan, is compatible with the intent and purpose of the
Gateway specific plan for the reasons identified in Section B.1, above; and because the proposed
buildings will form a working campus environment and include high quality pedestrian
circulation and open spaces.
3
2. The proposed development and/or construction standards of the Phase 1 Precise
Plan, are designed to achieve compliance with the development and/or construction standards of
the Gateway Specific Plan for the reasons identified in Section B.2, above; and because the
Precise Plan includes high quality architecture with the iconic corner office/R&D building that
incorporates several sustainable design elements, as specified in the Master Plan goals and
objectives. Phase I has been designed appropriately to allow for incremental development while
maintaining a functioning working environment for those areas on the site that have not yet been
developed.
3. The project proposed in the Phase 1 Precise Plan, is consistent with the proposed
first amended and restated development agreement for the reasons identified in Section B.3,
above.
4. The project proposed in the Phase 1 Precise Plan, is consistent with the City of
South San Francisco General Plan for the reasons identified in Section B.4, above; and because
the Precise Plan is an example of the development of a high technology campus in the East of
101 Area, the Plan allows for employee-serving vendor services, and includes a TDM plan and
traffic improvement plan to reduce congestion impacts, as set forth in the 1999 General Plan
policies and programs.
D. Development Agreement
1. The Owner and City have negotiated a First Amended and Restated Development
Agreement (“Development Agreement”) pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq.
The Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B, sets for the duration, property,
project criteria, and other required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2.
Based on the findings in support of the Project, the Planning Commission finds that the
Development Agreement, vesting a project for a campus-style development of office and R&D
buildings, is consistent with the consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan, the Gateway Specific Plan, and any
applicable zoning regulations.
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. The subject
site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The General
Plan specifically contemplates the proposed type of project and the suitability of the site for
development was analyzed thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the Project.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general
welfare and good land use practice.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare.
4
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property valued.
E. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
1. The proposed trip reduction measures contained in the TDM (attached hereto as
Exhibit C) 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. Appropriate and feasible measures
have been included in the TDM plan to achieve a projected 40% alternative mode usage, as
required. The TDM provides incentives for employees to use modes of transportation other than
single-occupancy vehicle trips, such as secure bicycle storage, shower facilities, preferential
parking for carpools and vanpools, and video conferencing, among others. The TDM also uses a
lower parking ratio to increase ridership on BART, Caltrain, and other transit services. Further,
pedestrian walkways linking the Project to the adjacent shuttle stops will help encourage
alternative forms of transportation.
2. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target 40% alternative
mode use established for the Project by Chapter 20.400 will be achieved and maintained.
Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be
submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the
required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and annual reports.
F. Design Review
1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a high quality, energy
efficient, contemporary, office/life science campus which will provide open spaces and a
pedestrian-friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements
incorporated.
2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan and the
Gateway Specific Plan because the proposed research and development buildings and campus
are consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General
Plan for the Business Commercial land use designation by encouraging the development of high
technology campuses in the East of 101 Area.
3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the
Gateway Specific Plan District Standards included in Chapter 20.220.
4. The Project is consistent with the Master Plan and Precise Plan, as proposed for
modification, for the reasons stated in Sections B and C, above.
5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section
20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated against, and
5
found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design
Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of
Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of South
San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and conditionally
approves the following: 1) Modification to the Master Plan (MPM13-0001); 2) Modification to
the Phase 1 Precise Plan (PP13-0001); 3) Modified TDM Plan (TDM-0003); and 4) Design
Review for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditional approvals stated herein are
conditioned upon the approval and execution of the First Amended and Restated Development
Agreement for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the City
Council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed First Amended and Restated Development
Agreement for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project, attached as Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of April, 2013 by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairperson Martin, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Khalfin,
Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Wong and Commissioner Zemke
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT: ChairpersonOchsenhirt
Attest:__________________________________
Susy Kalkin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
6
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Gateway Business Park Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan Project Amendments and an
Update of the associated Development Agreement and Transportation Demand Management
Plan
P08-0034: MPM13-0001, PP13-0001, TDM13-0003 & DA13-0001
(As recommended by City Staff on April 18, 2013)
A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows:
The project shall be constructed substantially as indicated on the attached Gateway Business
Park Master Plan and the Phase 1 Precise Plan (Gateway Business Park, Buildings 1000 & 800),
as prepared by FLAD Architects, Kenkay Associates, BKF Engineers, Surveyors, Planners; the
EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR certified for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan and
appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part
of the Planning Commission's duly noticed April 18, 2013, meetings; and any other evidence
(within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), except as otherwise
modified by the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures identified in the
Gateway Business Park Master Plan EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP). Prior to issuance of the first building permit the applicant shall
prepare a checklist outlining mitigation measures and status of implementation.
2. The parking ratio for the Master Plan and Precise Plan project shall not exceed 2.73
spaces per 1,000 square feet at any time. The current and all future Precise Plan
applications shall include site development plans that specify the campus-wide parking
ratio does not exceed 2.73 spaces per 1,000 square feet. If the campus-wide ratio exceeds
the 2.73 spaces per 1,000 square feet ratio, the developer shall provide a site plan that
indicates how parking spaces on the entire campus will be allocated and used.
3. Prior to approval of the first building permit, the developer shall submit a Phase 1,
Precise Plan landscaping, open space, plaza, central spine plan package, and loading area
screening, consistent with the approved the Gateway Business Park Master Plan, for
approval by the City’s Chief Planner.
4. Prior to approval of the first building permit, the developer shall submit a Phase 1,
Precise Plan vehicle circulation plan, showing the location and proposed designs for
shuttle stops, for the project, consistent with the approved the Gateway Business Park
Master Plan, for approval by the City’s Chief Planner.
5. Prior to approval of the first building permit, the developer shall submit building material
and color samples for the Phase 1, Precise Plan, for approval by the City’s Chief Planner.
7
6. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide appropriate
evidence to ensure that buildings are designed so that the calculated hourly average noise
levels during the daytime does not exceed and Leq of 45dBA, and instantaneous
maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA.
7. The applicant shall cooperate with the City in the development/implementation of a
regional shuttle service if such is considered by the City.
8. TDM
a. In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.400.006, prior to
issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan for review
and approval by the Chief Planner. The Final TDM Plan shall be consistent all
requirements and standards identified in SSFMC Chapter 20.400, Transportation
Demand Management, as amended by the City Council, and shall substantially reflect
the “Gateway Business Park Transportation Demand Management Program”,
prepared by Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants, dated April 9, 2013.
b. The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs associated
with monitoring and enforcing the TDM program.
9. Prior to approval of the first building permit, the developer shall submit a Phase 1,
Precise Plan building signage and monument package, consistent with the approved
Master Sign Program for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan, for approval by the
City’s Chief Planner.
10. All roof-mounted equipment, emergency generators, garbage areas, and storage areas
shall be contained in screened enclosures. The design, materials, color, and location of all
enclosures shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner.
11. All vehicle loading areas shall be appropriately screened from view from any street, open
space area, plaza, and pedestrian walkway, consistent with the approved the Gateway
Business Park Master Plan, for approval by the City’s Chief Planner.
12. The applicant shall comply with all standard conditions as outlined in the “Standard
Conditions and Limitations for Commercial Industrial and Multi-Family Residential
Projects”, dated February 2013. Accordingly, minor changes or deviations from the
approved plans may be approved by the Chief Planner; significant changes shall require
approval of the Planning Commission.
13. All of the above entitlements shall not become effective until after the Ordinance
approving the requested modifications to the Development Agreement becomes effective.
8
14. Prior to commencement of demolition or construction, the developer shall provide the
City with a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) report, acceptable to the City, evaluating the
impact of toxic air contaminants resulting from demolition and construction of the Project
on nearby sensitive receptors, consistent with the methodologies set forth in the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) May 2012 CEQA Guidelines, or such
other BAAQMD Guidelines that may be applicable at the time of such demolition or
construction. The developer shall implement all mitigation measures determined in the
HRA to be necessary to reduce the potential impacts from demolition and construction on
such sensitive receptors to less than significant.
15. Prior to receiving a Building Permit for each Phase of the Project, the Owner shall pay
the City’s Childcare Fee, as described in South San Francisco Municipal Code chapter
20.310. For Phase 1, this fee is presently estimated to be:
$0.57 x 499,423 gsf R&D/office bldg = $ 257,346.45
$0.68 x 47,938 gsf amenity bldg = $ 32,597.84
Total = $289,944.29
(Planning Division contact: Catherine Barber (650) 877-8535)
B. Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows:
I. STANDARD CONDITIONS
A. The developer shall comply with the applicable conditions of approval for
commercial projects, as detailed in the Engineering Division’s “Standard Conditions
for Commercial and Industrial Developments”, contained in our “Standard
Development Conditions” booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at
no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division.
B. The developer shall obtain a demolition permit to demolish the existing buildings.
The demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division and the developer
shall pay all fees and deposits for the permit. The developer shall provide letters from
all public utilities stating all said utilities have been properly disconnected from the
existing buildings. The developer shall submit a spreadsheet to the City’s Engineering
Division of the existing buildings, which are slated for demolitions. The spreadsheet
will include the square footage and usage of each building for the determination of
credits of East of 101 traffic impact fees.
C. The developer shall provide the City with a soils report, preliminary grading plan and
a cash deposit of $5,000 for peer review. Any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards
shall require a grading permit. The developer shall be responsible to pay all fees, a
$30,000 cash deposit for environmental compliance/SWPPP inspections, and bonds.
9
D. The developer shall hire a licensed land surveyor to set the property lines and
determine the setback lines. The surveyor shall all stake all foundations and stamp
and submit a letter to the Engineering Division stating the property lines have been
properly established and the new structures are located away from the setback area.
E. Any work performed in the City’s right-of-way shall require an encroachment permit.
The encroachment permit can be obtained at the Engineering Division. The
developer shall be responsible to bring in 4 copies of the plans and pay all fees and
deposits.
F. The developer shall provide the City with a traffic study to evaluate onsite circulation
and identify any onsite or offsite related improvements to ensure safe ingress/egress
into, out and on the project. The traffic study should include and evaluate area for
pullouts for shuttle service along Gateway or on-site.
G. The developer shall install the approved, standard East of 101 Light Standard along
the property frontages at no cost to the City. The developer shall hire an electrical
engineer to design a lighting plan to illuminate the public right-of-way. The East of
101 Light Standard is a Holophane Pechina Light Fixture with a round aluminum
pole. The design and installation will be completed on a phase by phase basis.
II. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
a. The developer shall remove and replace all existing sidewalk or install new sidewalk
fronting the project, which will connect to the existing bus stop near 700 Gateway
Blvd. The new sidewalk shall comply with the City’s standard detail and shall
provide any required ADA handicap ramps. The work will be completed on a phase
by phase basis such that the scope of each Precise Plan will include sidewalk along
the street frontage associated with that particular Price Plan. All work shall be done
at no cost to the City.
b. Any monument signs shall be placed completely on private property. The footing of
such signs shall remain on private property, out of the City’s right-of-way. The
developer shall provide the Engineering Division with lines of sight analyses for each
monument sign in close proximity of any project driveway.
c. Project driveways shall be the City’s standard detail for a commercial driveway. The
grade of each driveway cannot exceed a 12% grade. Unless controlled by a traffic
signal, the developer shall install a R1 “STOP” sign at each exit driveway from the
project.
d. The traffic signals located at the intersection of Gateway Blvd. Oyster Point Blvd.
and the entry to the project between 700 and 800 Gateway Blvd. shall be upgraded to
video detection at no cost to the City. The developer shall contact the City’s Public
Works Department to obtain a list of approved traffic video detection systems.
10
e. Due to construction vehicle traffic, the developer shall improve the street fronting
their development with new asphalt/slurry seal. The developer will document the
condition of the street that fronts the buildings for each particular Precise Plan phase
before and after construction and make any necessary repairs to any deterioration on
the impacted streets fronting that particular phase resulting from the construction
process. An improvement plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for
review and approval
f. The developer shall coordinate work with California Water Service for all water
utility work.
g. The developer shall submit a utility plan showing all sewerlines, storm drainlines, and
waterlines. One correctly sized sewer lateral shall be installed to service each parcel.
A sanitary sewer manhole shall be installed onsite, near the property line, to serve as
a cleanout for the lateral as it connects to the City’s sanitary sewer system. All
sewerlines located on-site shall remain private and the developer shall be responsible
to maintain those lines. Proper easements shall be existing or created to run utilities
lines from one parcel through the other parcels.
h. The developer shall confirm the capacity of the sewer trunk lines located in the City’s
right-of-way to determine that the existing infrastructure will be able to accommodate
the new flows generated by the project.
i. The developer shall submit a drainage report for review and approval by the
Engineering Division. The report shall include pre- and post-development flows.
Should the post-development flows increase, the developer shall confirm the capacity
of the storm drain trunk lines downstream from the project is adequate for the
increase flow.
j. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall pay the Oyster Point
Overpass Contribution Fee, East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and Sewer System
Capacity and Improvement Fee, in accordance with all current resolutions adopted by
the City Council, for each phase of the development.
k. At each phase of the development, a lot line adjustment will be required to correctly
depict the new lots with the correct setbacks.
III. FEE CREDITS
The project includes the demolition of 2 single story R&D office buildings. The
calculation for fee credits towards the Oyster Point Overpass Contribution and East of
101 Traffic Impact Fee cannot be calculated at this time because the areas of those
buildings were not provided. Once provided, the City will be able to calculate the fee
credits for the Oyster Point Overpass Contribution Fee and the East of 101 Traffic Impact
11
Fee.
IV. OYSTER POINT OVERPASS CONTRIBUTION FEE
Prior to receiving a Building Permit for the proposed new office/R&D development for
each Phase of the Project, the applicant shall pay the Oyster Point Overpass fee, as
determined by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Council Resolutions 102-96
and 152-96. The fee will be calculated upon reviewing the information shown on the
applicant's construction plans and the latest Engineering News Record San Francisco
Construction Cost Index at the time of payment. The estimated fee for the entire subject
453,648 GSF office and R&D development with the 33,875 GSF amenity building is
calculated below. (The number in the calculation, 10373.74", is the March 2013
Engineering News Record San Francisco construction cost index, which is revised each
month to reflect local inflation changes in the construction industry.)
For Phase 1, this fee is presently estimated to be:
Trip Calculation
451,485 gsf R&D use @ 5.30 trips per 1000 gsf = 2,392 new vehicle trips
47,938 gsf amenity @ 5.30 trips per 1000 gsf = 254 new vehicle trips
Contribution Calculation
2,646 trips X $154 X (10373.74/6552.16) = $ 645,126.20
V. EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Phase of the Project for any building
within the proposed project, the applicant shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee, in
accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council at their meeting of May 23,
2007.
For Phase 1, this fee is presently estimated to be:
Fee Calculation (effective March 1, 2013)
451,485 gsf R&D use @ $5.22/sf =$2,356,751,70
47,938 gsf amenity @ $5.22/sf = $250,236.36
Traffic Impact Fee = $ 2,606,988.06
VI. EAST OF 101 SEWER IMPACT FEES (effective July 31, 2008)
The City of South San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and
12
capacity of the sewer system within the East of 101 area, downstream of the proposed
office/R&D development. The existing sewer collection system was originally designed
many years ago to accommodate warehouse and industrial use and is now proposed to
accommodate uses, such as offices and biotech facilities, with a much greater sewage
flow. These additional flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing sewers, due
to ground settlement and the age of the system, have resulted in pumping and collection
capacity constraints. A study and flow model is proposed to analyze the problem and
recommend solutions and improvements.
For each Phase of the project, the applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer
Facility Development Impact Fee, as adopted by the City Council at their meeting
of October 23, 2002. The adopted fee is $3.19 per gallon of discharge per day
(this fee is adjusted on a yearly basis). It is determined that Office/R&D generates
400 gallons per day per 1000 square feet of development.
0.4 g/sf (400 gpd/1000 sq. ft.) x $4.25 per gallon x 499,423 sq. ft. = $849,124.50
The sewer contribution shall be due and payable prior to receiving a building
permit for each phase of the development.
For Phase 1, the Total estimated Engineering Department fees are as follows:
Oyster Point Overpass Fee $ 645,126.20
East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee $ 2,606,988.06
East of 101 Sewer Improvements Fee $ 849,124.50
Total $ 4,101,238.76
(Engineering Division contact: Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer (650) 829-6652)
C. Police Department requirements shall be as follows:
I. Municipal Code Compliance
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code,
"Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police
Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if
necessary, upon receipt of detailed / revised building plans.
Police Department contact: Sergeant Scott Campbell (650) 877-8927
D. Fire Prevention Division requirements shall be as follows:
13
1. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of
75,000 pounds, provide a more detailed phase plan that describes the emergency vehicle
access as construction phasing for the project progresses.
2. PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEES
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Phase of the Project, the Owner shall
pay the City’s Public Safety Impact Fee, in accordance with the Resolution No. 97-2012,
adopted by the City Council at their meeting of December 10, 2012.
Fee Calculation (effective February 8, 2013)
Master Plan 1,230,570 gsf R&D use @ 0.44/sf = $ 541,450.80
(credit) Existing on-site 284,000 gsf @ 0.44/sf = $ 124,960.00
$ 416,490.80
Fee Calculation (effective February 8, 2013)
For Phase I 499,423 gsf R&D use @ 0.44/sf = $ 219,746.13
The above credit shall only apply to this project if the building permit for reconstruction
is obtained within one year after the building(s) was destroyed or demolished, as stated in
section 7.b. of Resolution No. 97-2012.
3. The City of South San Francisco has adopted a Public Safety Impact Fee; this fee will be
assessed to this project.
4. Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan
check and permit for overhead and underground.
5. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section
1003.3. Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San
Francisco Municipal Code. Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
6. Buildings 4 stories or more will require a modified smoke control system. A rational
analysis is required before building plans are approved.
7. Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan
check and permit.
8. All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in
compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
9. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors,
electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined.
10. Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building.
11. Exterior canopies and overhangs require fire sprinklers.
14
12. All fire sprinkler piping in the parking garage shall be corrosion resistant, either painted
or galvanized.
13. Elevator if provided shall not contain shunt-trips.
14. At least one elevator shall be sized for a gurney the minimum size shall be in accordance
with the CFC.
15. Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix III-A.
16. Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined.
17. The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure
for duration of 4 hours.
18. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code
section 15.24.100.
19. Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at
http://www.ssf.net/depts/fire/prevention/fire_permits.asp Road gradient and vehicle
turning widths shall not exceed maximum allowed by engineering department.
20. All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications.
21. The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
22. Provide HMBP including what chemicals are present and to what quantities.
23. Provide on the plan the control areas, list of hazardous material and quantities that will be
present in the laboratories, include all flammable and combustible materials.
24. Provide smoke control management system for the high-rise building in accordance with
California Fire Code (CFC).
25. These buildings will be equipped with a fire communication system. Due to the nature of
the construction in most high-rise and parking structure type buildings communications
between fire crews, incident commanders and county communication is difficult and
sometimes even non-existent. All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio
Coverage throughout in compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
26. The Fire Department reserves the right to make additional safety conditions, if necessary,
upon receipt of detailed / revised building plans.
27. The Fire Department reserves the right to make additional safety conditions, if necessary,
upon receipt of detailed and/or revised building plans.
15
(Contact: Luis DaSilva, Fire Marshal: 650 829-6645)
E. Water Quality Control Department requirements shall be as follows:
The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and/or
Pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a permit:
1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted.
2. Encourage the use of pervious pavement where possible.
3. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide
Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
4. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be installed. A combination of
landscape based controls (e.g., vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes,
and ponds) and manufactured controls (vault based separators, vault based media filters,
and other removal devices) are required. Existing catch basins are to be retrofitted with
catch basin inserts or equivalent. These devices must be shown on the plans prior to the
issuance of a permit.
If possible, incorporate the following:
• vegetated/grass swale along perimeter
• catch basin runoff directed to infiltration area
• notched curb to direct runoff from parking area into swale
• roof drainage directed to landscape
• use of planter boxes instead of tree grates for stormwater treatment
Manufactured drain inserts alone are not acceptable they must be part of a treatment train.
One of the following must be used in series with each manufactured unit: swales, detention
basins, media (sand) filters, bioretention areas, or vegetated buffer strips.
Treatment devices must be sized according to the WEF Method or the Start at the Source
Design. Please state what method is used to calculate sizing.
5. The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for
Stormwater Treatment Measures form for the stormwater pollution prevention devices
installed.
6. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater pollution
prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the inclusion of
the following exhibits:
a. A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the treatment
measures that will be subject to the agreement.
16
b. A legal description of the property.
c. A maintenance plan, including specific long-term maintenance tasks and a
schedule. It is recommended that each property owner be required to develop its
own maintenance plan, subject to the municipality’s approval. Resources that
may assist property owners in developing their maintenance plans include:
i. The operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by the
property owner.
7. The owner or his representative must file this agreement with the County of San Mateo
and documentation that the County received it must be sent to the Technical Services
Supervisor.
8. Applicant must complete the Project Applicant Checklist for NPDES Permit
Requirements prior to issuance of a permit and return to the Technical Services
Supervisor at the WQCP.
9. Roof condensate must be routed to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to
issuance of a permit.
10. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This
must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit.
11. Loading dock areas must be covered and any drain must be connected to the sanitary
sewer system. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit.
12. Install separate water meters for the process, domestic, landscape, and any food service
facility.
13. Install a separate non-pressurized process line for sample monitoring if necessary before
mixing with domestic waste in the sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior
to the issuance of a permit.
14. Install a flow meter to measure process flow.
15. Fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve should be plumbed into the sanitary sewer
system. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit.
16. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved
prior to the issuance of a permit.
17. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of entrance/outlet of
tire wash.
18. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted.
17
19. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted.
20. For each Project Phase, Applicant must pay sewer capacity fee at a later time based on
anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations, as specified in Resolution 39-2010.
21. Must file a Notice of Termination with the WQCP when the project is completed.
(Contact: Rob Lecel, Environmental Compliance Coordinator (650) 877-8555)
2073823.1
18
Exhibit B
Development Agreement
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project
This FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECT is dated _________, 2013
(“Agreement”), between GATEWAY OF PACIFIC LP, a Delaware limited partnership
(“Owner”), and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California (“City”), on the other hand. Owner and the
City are collectively referred to herein as “Parties.”
R E C I T A L S
A. WHEREAS, California Government Code (“Government Code”) Sections 65864 through
65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons
having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property
or on behalf of those persons having same; and
B. WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, the City has adopted rules and
regulations, embodied in Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code
(“Municipal Code” or “SSFMC”), establishing procedures and requirements for adoption
and execution of development agreements; and
C. WHEREAS, this Agreement concerns property consisting of a 22.6-acre site located at
the corner of Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards (700, 750, 800, 850, 900, and 1000
Gateway Boulevard), in the East of 101 Area Plan, the Gateway Redevelopment Project
Area and the Gateway Specific Plan District, as shown and more particularly described in
Exhibit A, attached (the “Property”); and
D. WHEREAS, on February 24, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1423-
2010, which approved and adopted that certain Development Agreement for the Gateway
Business Park Master Plan Project (“Original Agreement”) between the City and
Chamberlin Properties I Limited Partnership, a California limited partnership, the
previous owner of the Property; and
E. WHEREAS, the Original Agreement became effective on or about March 26, 2010
(“Original Effective Date”); and
F. WHEREAS, Owner now has a legal or equitable interest in the Property subject to this
Agreement; and
G. WHEREAS, Owner has submitted a development proposal to the City that would permit
the development of the Property as depicted in (i) the Gateway Business Park Master
Plan, dated February, 2013, prepared by Ken Kay Associates, and (ii) the Phase 1 Precise
Plan, dated February, 2013, prepared by FLAD Architects, Ken Kay Associates and BKF
19
Engineers Surveyors Planners, attached hereto as Exhibit B and Exhibit C, respectively;
and
H. WHEREAS, Owner has requested that the City enter into this Agreement to amend and
restate the rights and obligations of the Parties relating to the development of the
Property; and,
I. WHEREAS, all proceedings necessary for the valid adoption and execution of this
Agreement have taken place in accordance with Government Code Sections 65864
through 65869.5, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and Chapter
19.60 of the Municipal Code; and
J. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission have found that this
Agreement is 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; and
K. WHEREAS, on _______, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. _________
approving and adopting this Agreement and the Ordinance thereafter took effect on
________, 2013.
A G R E E M E N T
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code
Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code and in consideration
of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows:
1. Effective Date
Pursuant to Section 19.60.140 of the Municipal Code, notwithstanding the fact that the
City Council adopts an ordinance approving this Agreement, this Agreement shall be
effective and shall only create obligations for the Parties from and after the date that the
ordinance approving this Agreement takes effect (“Effective Date”).
2. Duration
This Agreement shall expire twelve (12) years from the Effective Date, but in no event
later than December 31, 2025. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if litigation against the
Owner (or any of its officers, agents, employees, contractors, representatives or
consultants) to which the City also is a party should delay implementation or construction
on the Property of the “Project” (as defined in Section 3 below), the expiration date of
this Agreement shall be extended for a period equal to the length of time from the time
the summons and complaint is served on the defendant(s) until the judgment entered by
the court is final, and not subject to appeal; provided, however, that the total amount of
time for which the expiration date shall be extended as a result of such litigation shall not
exceed five (5) years.
20
3. Project Description; Development Standards For Project
The project to be developed on the Property pursuant to this Agreement (the “Project”)
shall consist of the phased removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6-
acre project site and construction of five to six new buildings and two to four parking
structures, in multiple phases from 2014 to 2025, and exterior landscaping and
driveways, and other related improvements, to create a connected, pedestrian-friendly
campus-style development, as more particularly described in the Master Plan and the
Phase 1 Precise Plan (attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit C respectively) and as approved
by the City Council.
(a) The permitted uses, the density and intensity of uses, the maximum heights,
locations and total area of the proposed buildings, the development schedule, the
provisions for vehicular access and parking, any reservation or dedication of land,
any public improvements, facilities and services, and all environmental impact
mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions for the Project shall be
exclusively those provided in the Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan, the
Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report dated
January 2010, this Agreement, and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the
Effective Date, except as modified in this Agreement. The Project will be
redeveloped in multiple phases. Each new phase of development will adhere to
the governing Municipal Code provisions applicable to the Property as of the
Effective Date (except as modified by this Agreement), as well as the
development guidelines set forth in the Gateway Master Plan Development
Standards, including the implementation of access, service and parking needs to
support each new phase of redevelopment. During each particular redevelopment
phase, Owner will maintain existing access, service and parking needs to support
existing improvements located on portions of the Property, yet to be redeveloped
during subsequent phases. Plan details for subsequent phases will be submitted to
the City for appropriate review and approval, in the form of future Precise Plans.
(b) Subject to Owner’s fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement, upon the
Effective Date of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to Owner a vested right
to develop and construct on the Property all the improvements for the Project
authorized by, and in accordance with, the terms of this Agreement, the Master
Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan (as approved by the City Council) and the
applicable ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date.
(c) Upon such grant of right, no future amendments to the City General Plan, the City
Zoning Code, the Municipal Code, or other City ordinances, policies or
regulations in effect as of the Effective Date shall apply to the Project, except
such future modifications that are not in conflict with and do not prevent the
development proposed in the Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan; provided,
however, that nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or preclude the City from
adopting any land use regulations or amendments expressly permitted herein or
otherwise required by State or Federal Law.
21
(d) Owner shall cause the Project to be submitted for certification pursuant to the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) Green Building
Rating System of the U.S. Green Building Council or other industry equivalent
agency. Owner shall use good faith efforts to achieve a “Silver” rating, pursuant
to the LEED Green Building Rating System. Provided, however, that Owner
shall not be in default under this Agreement if, notwithstanding Owner’s good
faith efforts, the Project does not receive a “Silver” (or higher) rating.
4. Permits for Project
Owner shall submit Precise Plans for future phases of development of the Project,
consistent with Chapter 20.220 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, as may be
amended from time to time. The future Precise Plan(s) shall address, at a minimum, the
building architecture, landscaping, and common improvements required for each phase of
the Project. Evaluation of future Precise Plans shall be reviewed for consistency with the
Master Plan and this Agreement, as approved by the City Council and vested by this
Agreement, as of the Effective Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, future Precise Plans
shall comply with all applicable Uniform Codes, the Municipal Code in effect as of the
Effective Date, CEQA requirements (including any required mitigation measures) and
Federal and State Laws.
5. Vesting of Approvals
Upon the City’s approval of the Master Plan, the Phase 1 Precise Plan, this Agreement,
and future phase Precise Plans, each such approval shall be vested in Owner and its
successors and assigns for the term of this Agreement, provided that the successors and
assigns comply with the terms and conditions of all of the foregoing, including, but not
limited to, submission of insurance certificates and bonds for the grading of the Property
and construction of improvements.
6. Cooperation Between Parties in Implementation of this Agreement
It is the Parties’ express intent to cooperate with one another and diligently work to
implement all land use and building approvals for development of the Property in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Accordingly, Owner and the City shall
proceed in a reasonable and timely manner, in compliance with the deadlines mandated
by applicable agreements, statutes or ordinances, to complete all steps necessary for
implementation of this Agreement and development of the Property in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement. The City shall proceed in an expeditious manner to
complete all actions required for the development of the Project, including, but not
limited to, the following:
(a) Scheduling all required public hearings by the City Council and City Planning
Commission; and
(b) Processing and checking all maps, plans, permits, building plans and
specifications and other plans relating to development of the Property filed by
Owner or its nominee, successor or assign as necessary for development of the
22
Property, and inspecting and providing acceptance of or comments on work by
Owner that requires acceptance or approval by the City.
Owner, in a timely manner, shall provide the City with all documents, applications, plans
and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations hereunder and to
cause its planners, engineers and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all
necessary materials and documents.
7. Acquisition of Other Property; Eminent Domain
In order to facilitate and insure development of the Project in accordance with the Master
Plan and the City Council’s approval, the City may assist Owner, at Owner’s request and
at Owner’s sole cost and expense, in acquiring any easements or properties necessary for
the satisfaction and completion of any off-site components of the Project required by the
City Council to be constructed or obtained by Owner in the Council’s approval of the
Project and the Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan, in the event Owner is unable to
acquire such easements or properties or is unable to secure the necessary agreements with
the applicable property owners for such easements or properties. Owner expressly
acknowledges that the City is under no obligation to use its power of Eminent Domain.
8. Maintenance Obligations on Property
All of the Property subject to this Agreement shall be maintained by Owner or its
successors in perpetuity in accordance with City requirements to prevent accumulation of
litter and trash, to keep weeds abated, to provide erosion control, and to comply with
other requirements set forth in the Municipal Code, subject to City approval as permitted
or required by the Municipal Code.
(a) If Owner subdivides the property or otherwise transfers ownership of a parcel or
building in the Project to any person or entity such that the Owner, or Owner’s
member, partner, parent, or subsidiary, no longer owns a majority interest in a
parcel or building in the Project, Owner shall first establish an Owner’s
Association and submit Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”) to the
City for review and approval by the City Attorney not to be unreasonably
withheld, conditioned or delayed. Said CC&Rs shall satisfy the requirements of
Section 19.36.040 of the Municipal Code.
(b) Any provisions of said CC&Rs governing the Project relating to the maintenance
obligations under this section shall be enforceable by the City.
9. Reserved
23
10. New Taxes
Any subsequently enacted City-wide taxes shall apply to the Property, provided that:
(i) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (ii) the application of
such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement.
11. Assessments
Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from common benefit
assessments 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.
12. Additional Conditions
Owner shall comply with all of the following requirements:
(a) Fees. Owner shall not be responsible for any fees imposed by the City in
connection with the development and construction of the Project, except as
outlined in this Agreement and those fees in existence as of the Effective Date, all
of which are identified in Exhibit E hereto. No fee requirements (other than those
identified herein) imposed by the City on or after the Effective Date and no
changes to existing fee requirements (except those currently subject to periodic
adjustments as specified in the adopting or implementing resolutions and
ordinances) that occurred on or after the Effective Date, shall apply to the Project.
Any application, processing, administrative, legal and inspection fees that are
revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that
(i) such fees have general applicability; (ii) the application of such fees to the
Property is prospective; and (iii) the application of such fees would not prevent
development in accordance with this Agreement.
1) Impact Fees. Owner shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee, the
Oyster Point Interchange fee, the Sewer Impact fee, and the Childcare fee,
based on the application of the formulas in effect as of the time the City
issues each building permit for each phase of the Project, and shall be
payable substantially concurrently with, but not later than, the issuance of
each such building permit. All such impact fees shall be based on net new
square footage.
2) Park In-Lieu Fee. The City is evaluating a “Park In-Lieu Fee” to
support the creation of additional public open space in lieu of requiring
that applicants avail one-half an acre per 1,000 new employees, to the
public in the East of 101 area. Owner shall pay a Park In-Lieu Fee of
$4.78 per square foot of development excluding parking structures. The
fee payable may be reduced if the City adopts such a Park In Lieu Fee
applicable to developments in the East of 101 area similar to the Gateway
Business Park Master Plan Project and the amount owed per square foot
under that Park In-Lieu Fee is less than $4.78 per square foot in which
case Owner shall pay the amount set forth in the Park In-Lieu Fee.
24
Owner shall receive a credit to offset a portion of the Park In-Lieu Fee, for
development of private open space created within the Gateway Master
Plan. Owner’s credit shall be identical to the credit, if any, allowed under
the Park In-Lieu Fee program, if implemented, except that (i) in no case,
shall owner receive a credit offsetting less than 25% of Owner’s required
fee, or more than 50% of Owner’s required fee; and (ii) in no case shall
zoning or building code required open areas, including but not limited to
the ten-percent landscaping requirement (SSFMC, § 20.300.007(F)(1)(a))
and setbacks, be counted towards any offsetting credit. Owner shall pay
the Park In-Lieu Fee once per phase, upon issuance of the first tenant
improvement permit for each phase, based upon the total square footage
approved for development for that phase.
(b) Child Care. If the existing childcare facility located at 850 Gateway Boulevard
remains in place, and retains its status as a fully licensed and operational childcare
facility serving at least 100 children, no additional childcare requirement (other
than the City’s Childcare Fee described in SSFMC, Chapter 20.310) will be
imposed. However, if the 850 Gateway Boulevard facility is eliminated:
1) Owner shall construct and have ready for occupancy, a childcare facility
of approximately 8,000 square feet designed to accommodate a minimum
of 100 children within the Project or within one mile of the Project no later
than the earlier of:
i. the date when the stabilized employee population within the
Project reaches that required to sustain a facility that
accommodates a minimum of 100 children; or
ii. occupancy of the final building to be constructed under the
Gateway Master Plan; or
iii. one year prior to the expiration of this Agreement.
Accordingly, Owner shall submit design plans for the childcare facility no
later than December 31, 2021, and shall obtain all required permits,
including building permits and commence construction of the facility no
later than December 31, 2022. If the childcare facility is open to the
public, City and Owner may mutually agree to allow the City to operate
the facility.
2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if circumstances prevail that new
construction does not exceed 650,000 square feet and the existing
childcare facility at 850 Gateway Boulevard is eliminated, Owner may
alternatively meet this requirement by providing a one dollar ($1) per
square foot childcare in-lieu fee for the net new construction that has
occurred as of December 31, 2022. Each year after 2013, the one dollar
25
($1) per square foot fee shall automatically be increased at a rate equal to
the Change from Prior Year for the Consumer Price Index—All Urban
Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area. If Owner
elects to satisfy this childcare requirement through payment of this in-lieu
fee, the in-lieu fee shall be paid no later than December 31, 2022. If
building permits are issued for additional net new construction between
December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2025, such net new construction
will be subject to a childcare in-lieu fee no greater than the childcare in-
lieu fee set forth in this Section 12(b)(2).
3) If the 850 Gateway Boulevard childcare facility is eliminated or not fully
licensed and operational as described above, and Owner fails to either
construct a new childcare facility by the deadline described in paragraph
12(b)(1), or pay the in-lieu fee by the deadline described in paragraph
12(b)(2), Owner shall instead pay a fee equal to the City’s estimated
reasonable costs, including all costs associated with site acquisition
(including, if necessary, eminent domain), environmental review,
permitting, and all other expenses and fees, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees, required to construct a childcare facility of equivalent size
and quality as that described in paragraph 12(b)(1).
(c) Transportation Demand Management Plan. Owner shall prepare an annual
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) report, and submit same to City, to
document the effectiveness of the TDM plan in achieving the goal of 35%
alternative mode usage by employees within the Project when the Project is built
out to a 1.0 FAR or less, or a graduated scale between 35% and 40% alternative
mode usage (“Targeted Alternative Mode Usage”) when the Project is built out
between a 1.0 and 1.25 FAR. The Targeted Alternative Mode Usage will be
determined as follows:
FAR Alternative Mode Usage
<1.0 35%
1.01 — 1.12 38%
1.13 — 1.25 40%
The TDM report will be prepared by an independent consultant, retained by City with the
approval of Owner (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) and
paid for by Owner, which consultant will work in concert with Owner’s TDM
coordinator. The TDM report will include a determination of historical employee
commute methods, which information shall be obtained by survey of all employees
working in the redeveloped buildings on the Property. All non-responses to the employee
commute survey will be counted as a drive alone trip. TDM monitoring shall be required
and conducted pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 20.400, as that
Chapter may be revised, amended, or reorganized from time to time.
1) TDM Reports: The initial TDM report for each redeveloped building on
the Property will be submitted two (2) years after the granting of a
26
certificate of occupancy with respect to the building, and this requirement
will apply to all of the redeveloped buildings on the Property except the
parking facilities. The second and all later reports with respect to each
building shall be included in an annual comprehensive TDM report
submitted to City covering all of the redeveloped buildings on the
Property which are submitting their second or later TDM reports.
2) Report Requirements: The goal of the TDM program is to encourage
alternative mode usage, as defined in Chapter 20.400 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code. The initial TDM report shall either: (1) state
that the applicable property has achieved the Targeted Alternative Mode
Usage, based on the number of employees in the redeveloped buildings at
the time, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish
attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not
achieved the Targeted 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
Targeted Alternative Mode Usage.
3) Penalty for Non-Compliance: If after the initial TDM report, subsequent
annual reports indicate that, in spite of the changes in the TDM plan, the
Targeted Alternative Mode Usage is still not being achieved, or if Owner
fails to submit such a TDM report at the times described above, City may
assess Owner a penalty in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars
($15,000.00) per year for each percentage point that the actual alternative
mode usage is below the Targeted Alternative Mode Usage goal.
i. In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, City may
consider whether Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the
TDM goals.
ii. If City determines that Owner has made a good faith effort to meet
the TDM goals but a penalty is still imposed, and such penalty is
imposed within the first three (3) years of the TDM plan
(commencing with the first year in which a penalty could be
imposed), such penalty sums, in the City’s sole discretion, may be
used by Owner toward the implementation of the TDM plan
instead of being paid to City. If the penalty is used to implement
the TDM Plan, an Implementation Plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to expending any penalty funds.
iii. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amount of any penalty shall
bear the same relationship to the maximum penalty as the
completed construction to which the penalty applies bears to the
maximum amount of square feet of Office, Commercial, Retail and
Research and Development use permitted to be constructed on the
27
Property. For example, if there is 200,000 square feet of
completed construction on the Property included within the TDM
report with respect to which the penalty is imposed, the penalty
would be determined by multiplying Fifteen Thousand Dollars
($15,000.00) times a fraction, the numerator of which is 200,000
square feet and the denominator of which is the maximum amount
of square feet of building construction, excluding parking facilities,
permitted on the Property; this amount would then be multiplied by
the number of percentage points that the actual alternative mode
usage is below the Targeted Alternative Mode Usage goal.
iv. The provisions of this section are incorporated as Conditions of
Approval for the Project and shall be included in the approved
TDM for the Project.
(d) Transit Station or Ferry Terminal Enhancement Contribution. Owner shall
pay an in-lieu fee to be used for enhancing, enlarging, repairing, restoring,
renovating, remodeling, redecorating, maintaining, and/or refurbishing the
Caltrain Station located at 590 Dubuque Avenue, the Oyster Point Ferry terminal
and/or their associated facilities. The in-lieu fee shall be in the amount of one
dollar per square foot of building area excluding parking structures for each phase
of development and shall be payable in two (2) equal installments per phase.
One-half (1/2) of the in-lieu fee shall be payable substantially concurrently with,
but not later than, the issuance of the building permit for the shell of the building,
and one-half (1/2) of the in-lieu fee shall be payable prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the shell of the building.
(e) Public Safety Impact Fee. As provided in Exhibit E, Owner shall pay the Public
Safety Impact Fee, as set forth in Resolution No. 97-2012, adopted on December
10, 2012.
(f) EIR. The Parties will adhere to the Conditions of Approval for the Project and
the Mitigations which result from the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project
Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Entitlement review for future Project phases will be limited in scope, so long as
consistent with the EIR and Master Plan book and Design Guidelines.
13. Indemnity
Owner agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by the City subject to the
reasonable approval of Owner) and hold harmless the City, and its elected and appointed
councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any
and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury
or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or
inactions by Owner, or any actions or inactions of Owner’s contractors, subcontractors,
agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or
28
maintenance of the Project, provided that Owner shall have no indemnification obligation
with respect to gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its contractors,
subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition
of any public improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the
City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or
maintenance bond).
14. Interests of Other Owners
Owner has no knowledge of any reason why Owner, and any other persons holding legal
or equitable interests in the Property as of the Effective Date, will not be bound by this
Agreement.
15. Assignment
(a) Right to Assign. Owner may at any time or from time to time transfer its right,
title or interest in or to all or any portion of the Property. In accordance with
Government Code Section 65868.5, the burdens of this Agreement shall be
binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in
interest to Owner. As a condition precedent to any such transfer, Owner shall
require the transferee to acknowledge in writing that transferee has been
informed, understands and agrees that the burdens and benefits under this
Agreement relating to such transferred property shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the transferee.
(b) Notice of Assignment or Transfer. No transfer, sale or assignment of Owner’s
rights, interests and obligations under this Agreement shall occur without prior
written notice to the City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall
not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. The City Manager shall
consider and decide the matter within ten (10) days after Owner’s notice,
provided all necessary documents, certifications and other information evidencing
the ability of the transferee’s ability to perform under this Agreement, are
provided to the City Manager.
(c) Exception for Notice. Notwithstanding Section 15(b), Owner may at any time,
upon notice to the City but without the necessity of any approval by the City,
transfer the Property or any part thereof and all or any part of Owner’s rights,
interests and obligations under this Agreement to: (i) any subsidiary, affiliate,
parent or other entity which controls, is controlled by or is under common control
with Owner, (ii) any member or partner of Owner or any subsidiary, parent or
affiliate of any such member or partner, or (iii) any successor or successors to
Owner by merger, consolidation, non-bankruptcy reorganization or government
action. As used in this subsection, “control” 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 transfer Owner’s interest in the property to a third party not
specifically identified in this subsection) or otherwise.
29
(d) Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Owner’s
rights, interests and obligations under this Agreement pursuant to Section 15(a),
Section 15(b) or Section 15(c) of this Agreement, Owner shall be released from
the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property, or portion
thereof, transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of the City
Manager’s approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment or the effective date of
such transfer, sale or assignment, whichever occurs later; provided, however, that
if any transferee, purchaser or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly
assumes any right, interest or obligation of Owner under this Agreement, Owner
shall be released with respect to such rights, interests and assumed obligations. In
any event, the transferee, purchaser or assignee shall be subject to all the
provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and
other necessary information prior to City Manager approval, where such approval
is required as set forth in Paragraph 15(b), above.
(e) Owner’s Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding
Section 15(a) and Section 15(c), Owner may withhold from a sale, transfer or
assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and/or obligations which
Owner shall retain, provided that Owner specifies such rights, interests and/or
obligations in a written document to be appended to or maintained with this
Agreement and recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder prior to or
concurrently with the sale, transfer or assignment. Owner’s purchaser, transferee
or assignee shall then have no interest in or obligations for such retained rights,
interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Owner
with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations.
(f) Time for Notice. Within ten (10) days of the date escrow closes on any such
transfer, Owner shall notify the City in writing of the name and address of the
transferee. Said notice shall include a statement as to the obligations, including
any mitigation measures, fees, improvements or other conditions of approval,
assumed by the transferee. Any transfer which does not comply with the notice
requirements of this Section and Section 15(b) shall not release the Owner from
its obligations to the City under this Agreement until such time as the City is
provided notice in accordance with Section 15(b).
16. Insurance
(a) Commercial General Liability Insurance. At all times that Owner is constructing
any portion or phase of the Project, or any improvement related to any portion or
phase of the Project, Owner shall maintain in effect a policy of commercial
general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less
than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00). With the exception of workers’
compensation and employer’s liability, this insurance shall include City as an
additional insured to the extent liability is caused by work or operations
performed by or on behalf of Owner.
30
(b) Workers Compensation Insurance. At all times that Owner is constructing any
portion or phase of the Project, or any improvement related to any portion or
phase of the Project, Owner shall maintain Worker’s Compensation insurance for
all persons employed by Owner for work at the Project site. Owner shall require
each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker’s Compensation
insurance for its respective employees. Owner agrees to indemnify the City for
any damage resulting from Owner’s failure to maintain any such required
insurance.
(c) Evidence of Insurance. Prior to commencement of any construction of any
portion or phase of the Project, or any improvement related to any portion or
phase of the Project, Owner shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence of the
insurance required in subsections (a) and (b).
1) In the event of a reduction (below the limits required in this Agreement) or
cancellation in coverage, or an adverse material change in insurance
coverage and limits required in this Agreement, Owner shall, prior to such
reduction, cancellation or change, provide at least ten (10) days’ prior
written notice to the City, regardless of any notification by the applicable
insurer. If the City discovers that the policies have been cancelled or
reduced below the limits required in this Agreement and no notice has
been provided by either insurer or Owner, said failure shall constitute a
material breach of this Agreement.
2) In the event of a reduction (below the limits required by this Agreement)
or cancellation in coverage, Owner shall have five (5) days in which to
provide evidence of the required coverage during which time no persons
shall enter the Property to construct improvements thereon, including
construction activities related to the landscaping and common
improvements. Additionally, no persons not employed by existing tenants
shall enter the Property to perform such work until such time as the City
receives evidence of substitute coverage.
3) If Owner fails to obtain substitute coverage within ten (10) days, the City
may obtain, but is not required to obtain, substitute coverage and charge
Owner the cost of such coverage plus an administrative fee equal to ten
percent (10%) of the premium for said coverage.
(d) The insurance shall include the City, its elective and appointive boards,
commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives as additional
insureds on the policies.
31
17. Covenants Run With the Land
The terms of this Agreement are legislative in nature, and apply to the Property as
regulatory ordinances. During the term of this Agreement, all of the provisions,
agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this
Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Parties and their
respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns,
devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees and all other persons or entities
acquiring the Property, any lot, parcel or any portion thereof, and any interest therein,
whether by sale, operation of law or other manner, and they shall inure to the benefit of
the Parties and their respective successors.
18. Conflict With State or Federal Law
In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date,
prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such
provisions of this Agreement shall be modified (in accordance with Section 19 set forth
below) or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or
regulations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Owner shall have the right to challenge, at
its sole cost, in a court of competent jurisdiction, the law or regulation preventing
compliance with the terms of this Agreement and, if the challenge in a court of competent
jurisdiction is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and
effect.
19. Procedure for Modification Because of Conflict With State or Federal Laws
In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date
prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require
changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the Parties shall meet and confer
in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such State
or Federal law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall
be approved by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal
Code.
20. Periodic Review
(a) During the term of this Agreement, the City shall conduct “annual” and/or
“special” reviews of Owner’s good faith compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code. The City may recover reasonable costs
incurred in conducting said review, including staff time expended and reasonable
attorneys’ fees.
(b) At least five (5) calendar days’ prior to any hearing on any annual or special
review, the City shall mail Owner a copy of all staff reports and, to the extent
practical, related exhibits. Owner shall be permitted an opportunity to be heard
orally or in writing regarding its performance under this Agreement before the
City Council or, if the matter is referred to the Planning Commission, then before
said Commission. Following completion of any annual or special review, the City
32
shall give Owner a written Notice of Action, which Notice shall include a
determination, based upon information known or made known to the City Council
or the City’s Planning Director as of the date of such review, whether Owner is in
default under this Agreement and, if so, the alleged nature of the default, a
reasonable period to cure such default, and suggested or potential actions that the
City may take if such default is not cured by Owner.
21. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement
This Agreement may be further amended or terminated only in writing and in the manner
set forth in Government Code Sections 65865.1, 65867.5, 65868, 65868.5 and Chapter
19.60 of the Municipal Code.
22. Agreement is Entire Agreement
This Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto or incorporated herein contain the sole
and entire agreement between the Parties concerning Owner’s entitlements to develop the
Property. The Parties acknowledge and agree that neither of them has made any
representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations
inducing the execution and delivery hereof, except representations set forth herein, and
each Party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering this
Agreement. The Parties further acknowledge that all statements or representations that
heretofore may have been made by either of them to the other are void and of no effect,
and that neither of them has relied thereon in its dealings with the other.
23. Events of Default
Failure by either Party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. Owner shall also specifically be in default under this Agreement
upon the happening of one or more of the following events:
(a) If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to the City
is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; or,
(b) A finding and determination by the City made following an annual or special
review under the procedure provided for in Government Code Section 65865.1
and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code that, upon the basis of substantial
evidence, Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement; or,
(c) Owner fails to fulfill any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement and such
failure continues beyond any applicable cure period provided in this Agreement.
This provision shall not be interpreted to create a cure period for any event of
default where such cure period is not specifically provided for in this Agreement.
33
24. Procedure Upon Default
(a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, either Party may terminate or modify
this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section
65865.1 and of Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code, provided Paragraph 24(e)
has been complied with.
(b) The City shall not be deemed to have waived any claim of defect in Owner’s
performance if, on annual or special review, the City does not propose to
terminate this Agreement.
(c) No waiver or failure by the City or Owner to enforce any provision of this
Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any provision of this Agreement or
of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision.
(d) Any actions for breach of this Agreement shall be decided in accordance with
California law. The remedy for breach of this Agreement shall be limited to
specific performance and attorneys' fees as provided in Section 25 (a).
(e) The non-defaulting Party shall give the defaulting Party written notice of any
default under this Agreement, and the defaulting Party shall have thirty (30) days
after the date of the notice to cure the default or to reasonably commence the
procedures or actions needed to cure the default; provided, however, that if such
default is not capable of being cured within such thirty (30) day period, the
defaulting Party shall have such additional time to cure as is reasonably
necessary.
25. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
(a) Action by Party. If legal action by either Party is brought because of breach of
this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party is
entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs.
(b) Action by Third Party. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement
initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of
this Agreement or the Project approvals, the Parties shall cooperate in defending
such action. Owner shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in
any such action, and 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.
26. Severability
If any material term or condition of this Agreement is for any reason held by a final
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, and if the same constitutes a
material change in the consideration for this Agreement, then either Party may elect in
34
writing to invalidate this entire Agreement, and thereafter this entire Agreement shall be
deemed null and void and of no further force or effect following such election.
27. No Third Parties Benefited
No person other than the City, Owner, or their respective successors is intended to or
shall have any right or claim under this Agreement, this Agreement being for the sole
benefit and protection of the Parties and their respective successors. Similarly, no
amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall require the consent or
acknowledgment of any person not a party or successor to this Agreement.
28. Binding Effect of Agreement
The provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties
originally named herein and their respective successors and assigns.
29. Relationship of Parties
It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily
entered into by the City and Owner and that Owner is not an agent of the City. The
Parties do not intend to create a partnership, joint venture or any other joint business
relationship by this Agreement. The City and Owner hereby renounce the existence of
any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained
herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making
the City and Owner joint venturers or partners. Neither Owner nor any of Owner’s
agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of the City in connection
with the performance of Owner’s obligations under this Agreement.
30. Bankruptcy
The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
31. Mortgagee Protection: Certain Rights of Cure
(a) Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to all liens
placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date on which this
Agreement or a memorandum of this Agreement is recorded with the San Mateo
County Recorder, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage
(“Mortgage”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat,
invalidate, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for
value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be
binding upon and effective against all persons and entities, including all deed of
trust beneficiaries or mortgagees (“Mortgagees”), who acquire title to the
Property or any portion thereof by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of
foreclosure or otherwise.
(b) Mortgagee Not Obligated. No foreclosing Mortgagee shall have any obligation or
duty under this Agreement to construct or complete the construction of any
improvements required by this Agreement, or to pay for or guarantee construction
or completion thereof. The City, upon receipt of a written request therefor from a
foreclosing Mortgagee, shall permit the Mortgagee to succeed to the rights and
35
obligations of Owner under this Agreement, provided that all defaults by Owner
hereunder that are reasonably susceptible of being cured are cured by the
Mortgagee as soon as is reasonably possible. The foreclosing Mortgagee
thereafter shall comply with all of the provisions of this Agreement.
(c) Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If the City receives notice from a Mortgagee
requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner hereunder and
specifying the address for service thereof, the City shall deliver to the Mortgagee
concurrently with service thereof to Owner, all notices given to Owner describing
all claims by the City that Owner has defaulted hereunder. If the City determines
that Owner is in noncompliance with this Agreement, the City also shall serve
notice of noncompliance on the Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereof on
Owner. Until such time as the lien of the Mortgage has been extinguished, the
City shall:
1) Take no action to terminate this Agreement or exercise any other remedy
under this Agreement, unless the Mortgagee shall fail, within thirty (30)
days of receipt of the notice of default or notice of noncompliance, to cure
or remedy or commence to cure or remedy such default or noncompliance;
provided, however, that if such default or noncompliance is of a nature
that cannot be remedied by the Mortgagee or is of a nature that can only
be remedied by the Mortgagee after such Mortgagee has obtained
possession of and title to the Property, by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or by
foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings, then such default or
noncompliance shall be deemed to be remedied by the Mortgagee if,
within ninety (90) days after receiving the notice of default or notice of
noncompliance from the City, (i) the Mortgagee shall have acquired title
to and possession of the Property, by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, or shall
have commenced foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings, and (ii) the
Mortgagee diligently prosecutes any such foreclosure or other proceedings
to completion.
2) If the Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting
foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings by reason of any process or
injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action taken by any
court having jurisdiction over any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding
involving Owner, then the times specified above for commencing or
prosecuting such foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for
the period of such prohibition.
(d) Performance by Mortgagee. Each Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the
obligation, at any time prior to termination of this Agreement, to do any act or
thing required of Owner under this Agreement, and to do any act or thing not in
violation of this Agreement, that may be necessary or proper in order to prevent
termination of this Agreement. All things so done and performed by a Mortgagee
shall be as effective to prevent a termination of this Agreement as the same would
36
have been if done and performed by Owner instead of by the Mortgagee. No
action or inaction by a Mortgagee pursuant to this Agreement shall relieve Owner
of its obligations under this Agreement.
(e) Mortgagee’s Consent to Modifications. Subject to the sentence immediately
following, the City shall not consent to any amendment or modification of this
Agreement unless Owner provides the City with written evidence of each
Mortgagee’s consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, to the
amendment or modification of this Agreement being sought. Each Mortgagee
shall be deemed to have consented to such amendment or modification if it does
not object to the City by written notice given to the City within thirty (30) days
from the date written notice of such amendment or modification is given by the
City or Owner to the Mortgagee, reasonable evidence of the delivery of which
notice shall be provided to the City if given only by Owner.
32. Estoppel Certificate
Either Party from time to time may deliver written notice to the other Party requesting
written certification that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Agreement is in
full force and effect and constitutes a binding obligation of the Parties; (ii) this
Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or, if it has been
amended or modified, specifying the nature of the amendments or modifications; and (iii)
the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this
Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and monetary amount, if any, of
the default. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall endeavor to execute and return
the certificate within ten (10) days after receipt thereof, and shall in all events execute
and return the certificate within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. However, a failure
to return a certificate within ten (10) days shall not be deemed a default of the Party’s
obligations under this Agreement and no cause of action shall arise based on the failure
of a Party to execute such certificate within ten (10) days. The City Manager shall have
the right to execute the certificates requested by Owner hereunder. The City
acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by permitted transferees
and Mortgagees. At the request of Owner, the certificates provided by the City
establishing the status of this Agreement with respect to any lot or parcel shall be in
recordable form, and Owner shall have the right to record the certificate for the affected
portion of the Property at its cost.
33. Force Majeure
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, either Party shall be excused
for the period of any delay in the performance of any of its obligations hereunder, except
the payment of money, when prevented or delayed from so doing by certain causes
beyond its control, including, and limited to, major weather differences from the normal
weather conditions for the South San Francisco area, war, acts of God or of the public
enemy, fires, explosions, floods, earthquakes, invasions by non-United States armed
forces, failure of transportation due to no fault of the Parties, unavailability of equipment,
supplies, materials or labor when such unavailability occurs despite the applicable Party’s
37
good faith efforts to obtain same (good faith includes the present and actual ability to pay
market rates for said equipment, materials, supplies and labor), strikes of employees other
than Owner’s, freight embargoes, sabotage, riots, acts of terrorism and acts of the
government (other than City) and/or a material adverse change in the financial and
commercial real estate demand markets, conditions which indicate an insufficient
economic return, including resource scarcities that make construction prohibitively
expensive and/or the inability of Owner to obtain funds for the Project, due to the
financial marketplace, (other than Owner’s inability to obtain financing related to
Owner’s financial condition) and are beyond the control or without the fault of the party
claiming an extension of time. The Party claiming such extension of time to perform
shall send written notice of the claimed extension to the other Party within thirty (30)
days from the commencement of the cause entitling the Party to the extension.
34. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms
(a) The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine;
“shall” is mandatory, “may” is permissive.
(b) Time is and shall be of the essence in this Agreement.
(c) Where a Party consists of more than one person, each such person shall be jointly
and severally liable for the performance of such Party’s obligation hereunder.
(d) The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of this
Agreement and do not in any way limit or amplify the provisions thereof.
(e) This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of
the State of California in effect on the date thereof.
(f) This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed
an original, and may be signed in counterparts.
35. Exhibits
Exhibits to this Agreement, including the following, are all incorporated into this
Agreement by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
Exhibit A — Legal Description and Map of Property
Exhibit B — Gateway Business Park Master Plan
Exhibit C — Gateway Business Park Phase 1 Precise Plan
Exhibit D — Conditions of Project Approval and Gateway Business Park Master
Plan Project EIR Mitigation and Monitoring Program
38
V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency to adopt a “reporting or
monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval,
adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (Mitigation
Monitoring Program [MMP], §15097 of the CEQA Guidelines provides additional direction on
mitigation monitoring or reporting). The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency and
the project sponsor for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan project and is therefore
responsible for enforcing and monitoring most of the mitigation measures in this mitigation
monitoring program.
The Draft EIR was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project. Where appropriate, this document identified project design features or recommended
mitigation measures to avoid or to mitigate identified potential impacts to a level where no
significant impact on the environment would occur. This MMP is designed to monitor
implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the project in the DEIR.
The MMP for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan project will be in place throughout all
phases of the project. The project sponsor (Chamberlin Associates) shall be responsible for
implementing all mitigation measures unless otherwise noted. The City’s existing planning,
engineering, review and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the MMP
procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program.
39
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
AESTHETICS
Impact IV.B-4: The proposed project
would create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.B-4.1 would reduce the impact
associated with a substantial increase in
light to less than significant and
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.B-4.2 would ensure the impact
associated with daytime glare remain less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-4.1 Lighting
In order to reduce sources of light and glare created by
project site lighting, the applicant shall specify fixtures
and lighting that maintains appropriate levels of light at
building entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots and
private roads at night consistent with minimum levels
detailed in the City’s building codes. These fixtures shall
be designed to eliminate spillover, high intensity, and
unshielded lighting, thereby avoiding unnecessary light
pollution.
Prior to issuance of building permits for buildings
constructed for the Precise Plan and each phase of the
Master Plan, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Design
Plan for review and approval by the City of South San
Francisco Planning Department for each phase. The plan
shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the
following:
• The Lighting Design Plan shall disclose all potential
light sources with the types of lighting and their
locations.
• Typical lighting shall include low mounted,
downward casting and shielded lights that do not
cause spillover onto adjacent properties and the
utilization of motion detection systems where
applicable. Fixture types and heights shall conform to
the following styles, as feasible:
o Parking lots and roads—provide round fixtures
on 22’ poles on raised concrete footings not to
exceed 25’ total finished height, appropriately
finished black, or approved equal.
o Sidewalks, pathways, and plazas—provide
round hardtop on post top fixtures not to exceed
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
buildings constructed
for the Precise Plan and
each phase of the
Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
Planning
Department
40
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
15’total finished height, appropriately finished
black, or approved equal.
o Accent pedestrian lighting—provide bollard
style fixtures, not to exceed 42” total height,
appropriately finished black, or approved equal.
• No flood lights shall be utilized.
• Lighting shall not "wash out" structures or any
portions of the site.
• 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.
• All light sources shall be fully shielded from off-site
view.
• All buildings and structures shall consist of non-
reflecting material or be painted with non-reflective
paint.
• Generally, light fixtures shall not be located at the
periphery of the property and should shut off
automatically when the use is not operating. Security
lighting visible from the highway shall be motion-
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
41
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
construction.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-4.2 Daytime Glare
In order to reduce sources of daytime glare created by
reflective building materials, the applicant shall specify
exterior building materials for all proposed structures
constructed for the Precise Plan and each phase of the
Master Plan that include the use of textured or other non-
reflective exterior surfaces and non-reflective glass types,
including double glazed and non-reflective vision glass.
These materials would be chosen for their non-reflective
characteristics and their ability to reduce daytime glare.
All exterior glass must meet the specifications of all
applicable codes for non-reflective glass and would
therefore reduce daytime glare emanating from the
project site.
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
buildings constructed
for the Precise Plan and
each phase of the
Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
Planning
Department
AIR QUALITY
Impact IV.C-2: The proposed project
would violate an air quality standard. This
is considered a potentially significant
impact. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.1
would reduce impacts from
construction/demolition emissions to less
than significant. However, even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.C-2.2, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable because no
feasible mitigation measures are available to
reduce this impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.1 Construction/
Demolition Emissions
Implementation of the following measures would reduce
airborne dust by reducing and controlling loose soils in
areas subject to dust creating activity. As a condition of
the construction contracts, the project sponsors shall
require that construction contractors follow these
construction practices:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice
daily.
b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two
feet of freeboard.
c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-
toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
Applicant shall submit
a dust control plan prior
to issuance of a
building permit.
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
42
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
parking areas, and staging areas at the construction
sites.
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the
construction sites.
e. Sweep public streets adjacent to construction sites
daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto the streets.
f. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to
inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
inactive for ten days or more).
g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic
soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
h. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per
hour.
i. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to
prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
j. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as
possible.
k. Wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and
equipment leaving the construction site.
l. Install wind breaks at the windward sides of the
construction areas
m. Suspend excavation and grading activities when
wind (as instantaneous gusts) exceeds 25 miles per hour.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.2 Regional Operational
Emissions – Daily Emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10
As noted earlier, the primary sources of long-term,
indirect emissions associated with the project are motor
vehicles. The current evaluation includes implementation
of a TDM program estimated to account for a 20 percent
Prior to project
approval
City of South
San Francisco
43
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
reduction in trip generation.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact IV.D-1: The proposed project
would have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on species identified as
candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S Fish
and Wildlife Services. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.D-1.1 would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.D-1.1 Candidate, Sensitive, or
Special Status Species
In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, special-status
birds and/or raptors during Phase 1 Precise Plan and
Master Plan development, the following shall be
implemented prior to commencement of each phase of
the proposed project:
• Project development activities (disturbances to
vegetation, structures and substrates) shall take place
outside of the breeding bird season which generally
runs from March 1 – August 31 (as early as February
1 for raptors) to assist in the avoidance of take
(including disturbances which would cause
abandonment of active nests containing eggs and/or
young).
OR
• If project activities cannot feasibly avoid the
breeding bird season, weekly bird surveys shall begin 30
days prior to disturbance of suitable nesting habitat to
detect any protected native birds in the habitat to be
removed and any other such habitat within 300 feet of the
construction work area (within 500 feet for raptors) as
access to adjacent property allows. The surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in
conducting breeding bird surveys. The surveys shall
continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being
conducted no more than three days prior to the initiation
of clearance/construction work. If a protected native bird
is found, the project proponent shall delay all
clearance/construction disturbance activities in suitable
Prior to construction
activities for Phase 1
Precise Plan and the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
44
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
nesting habitat or within 300 feet of nesting habitat
(within 500 feet for raptor nests) until August 31 or
continue the surveys in order to locate any nests. If an
active nest is located, clearing and construction within
300 feet of the nest (within 500 feet for raptor nests) or as
determined by a biological monitor shall be postponed
until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and
when there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting.
Limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established
in the field with flagging and stakes or construction
fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed on the
sensitivity of the area. The results of the recommended
protective measures described above shall be recorded to
document compliance with the Federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Fish and Game Code protecting
nesting birds.
Impact IV.D-5: The proposed project
would conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.D-5.1 would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.D-5.1 Local Policies or
Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
In order to minimize impacts to protected trees, the
project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist or
arborist to conduct preconstruction surveys of trees
within the project site and provide a map to the applicant
and the City prior to initiation of future Master Plan
phases. Each protected tree identified that will be
directly impacted by removal or pruning shall require a
Tree Pruning/Removal Permit per Title 13, Chapter 13.30
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC).
This permit application shall be submitted to the City and
its approval must be a condition of issuance of any
grading or building permit. The following outlines the
procedures for obtaining a tree removal permit, and
procedures for the subsequent tree replacement pursuant
to the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code
Prior to initiation of
future Master Plan
phases for each phase
of the proposed project,
including issuance of
any grading or building
permit
City of South
San Francisco
45
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Chapter 13.30).
Owners, or their authorized representative, of
protected trees shall obtain a permit to remove or
prune a protected tree. The application shall be on a
form furnished by the department and shall state,
among other things, the number and location of the
tree(s) to be removed or pruned by type and the
reason for removal or pruning of each. The
application shall also include a photograph with
correct botanical identification of the subject tree(s).
When removal or pruning of a protected tree is
proposed as part of or in conjunction with new
development the application shall also include: (1) a
site plan showing the location of buildings,
structures and proposed site disturbances; (2) the
location of all protected trees on the site; and (3) the
protected trees on the site that would be removed or
pruned. An authorized representative of the
department shall make an inspection of any
protected tree or site subject to this section and shall
file a written report and his recommendations to the
director.
Prior to removal of trees to be conducted during Precise
Plan and Master Plan development, the required
replacement of protected trees shall be determined as set
forth in SSFMC Section 13.30.080. Any protected tree
that is removed shall be replaced as follows, and the
method of replacement shall be approved as part of the
protected tree removal permit process:
(a) Replacement shall be three 24-inch box size or two
36-inch box minimum size landscape trees for each
tree removed as determined below. However, the
director maintains the right to dictate size and species
Prior to removal of
trees for each phase of
the Precise Plan and
Master Plan
development.
City of South
San Francisco
46
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
of trees in any new developments.
(b) Any protected tree removed without a valid permit
shall be replaced by two 36-inch box minimum size
landscape trees for each tree so removed, as
determined below.
(c) The director can waive replacement of a protected
tree, if a sufficient number of trees exist on the
property to meet all other requirements of the tree
preservation ordinance.
(d) If replacement trees, as designated in subsection
(b)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, cannot be
planted on the property, payment of twice the
replacement value of the tree as determined by the
International Society of Arboriculture Standard shall be
made to the City. Such payments shall be deposited in
the tree planted fund to be drawn upon for public tree
purchase and planting. (Ord 1271 Section (part), 2000:
Ord 1060 Section 1 (part) 1989).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact IV.E-1: The proposed project
would cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.E-1.1 would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.E-1.1 Unknown Historic or
Cultural Resources
In order to avoid impacts to unknown historic or cultural
resources, if during the proposed construction of the
Precise Plan and all subsequent phases of the Master Plan
any evidence of historic or cultural resources is
uncovered or encountered, all excavations within 10
meters/30 feet of the discovery shall be halted. In order to
protect these resources from damage, a qualified
archaeologist approved by the City shall determine
whether this resource is a “unique archaeological
resource” under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5,
and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the
During construction of
the Precise Plan and all
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
47
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
archaeological resource is determined to be a “unique
archaeological resource,” the archaeologist shall
formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements
of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public
Resources Code 21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find
may resume at the completion of a mitigation plan and/or
recovery of the resource.
If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological
resource is not a unique archaeological resource, work
can resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and
submit the recordation form to the California Historic
Resources Information System Northwest Information
Center.
The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of
any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following
accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall
be submitted to the City and to the California Historic
Resources Information System Northwest Information
Center.
Impact IV.E-2: The proposed project could
cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.E-2.1 would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.E-2.1 Unknown
Archaeological Resources
If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered
during construction of the Precise Plan or any subsequent
phases of the Master Plan, a qualified archaeologist
approved by the project applicant shall conduct further
archival and field study to identify the presence of
archaeological resources in the area surrounding the
discovery. Field study may include, but is not limited to,
pedestrian survey, auguring, and monitoring construction
activities as well as other common methods used to
identify the presence of archaeological resources in a
fully developed urban area.
During construction of
the Precise Plan and all
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
48
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered
during any phases of construction, a qualified
archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall first
determine whether this resource is a “unique
archaeological resource” under 36 CFR 800, CEQA
Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section
21083.2. If the archaeological resource is determined to
be a “unique archaeological resource,” the archaeologist
shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the
requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5,
and/or Public Resources Code 21083.2. Work in the
vicinity of the find may resume at the completion of a
mitigation plan or recovery of the resource.
If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological
resource is not a unique archaeological resource, work
will resume, and the archaeologist may record the site
and submit the recordation form to the California Historic
Resources Information System Northwest Information
Center.
The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of
any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following
accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall
be submitted to the City and to the California Historic
Resources Information System Northwest Information
Center.
Impact IV.E-4: The proposed project could
disturb human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries. This
is considered a potentially significant
impact. However, implementation of
Mitigation Measure IV.E-4.1 would reduce
this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.E-4.1 Disturbance of Human
Remains
In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or
suspected human bone during construction of the Precise
Plan or any subsequent phases of the Master Plan, all
excavation or grading within 100 feet of the find shall
halt immediately, the area of the find shall be protected,
and the project applicant immediately shall notify the San
During construction of
the Precise Plan and all
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
49
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Mateo County Coroner of the find and comply with the
provisions of PRC Section 5097 with respect to Native
American involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if
necessary. Work may resume once the area is protected
or the body is removed.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
Impact IV.F-2: The proposed project
would expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving exposure to strong seismic ground
shaking. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measures
IV.F-2.1 through IV.F-2.3 would reduce
this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.F-2.1 California Building
Code Requirements
The project applicant shall ensure that the project
development during all phases of the Precise and Master
Plan meets requirements of the California Building Code
Vol. 1 and 2, 2007 Edition, including the California
Building Standards, 2007 Edition, published by the
International Conference of Building Officials, and as
modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as
adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California to
reduce impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. As
new development occurs over the project site from the
Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan,
this development would meet the current requirements
existing at each phase of the project. Incorporation of
seismic construction standards would reduce the potential
for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as
complete structural failure, but will not completely
eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground
shaking.
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits.
City of South
San Francisco
Mitigation Measure IV.F-2.2 Foundation Engineering
and Construction
The project applicant shall ensure that proper foundation
engineering and construction shall be performed during
all phases of the Precise and Master Plan in accordance
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits and during
project construction
activities.
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
50
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical
Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical
design and a Registered Structural Engineer or Civil
Engineer experienced in structural design to reduce
impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. As new
development is proposed over the project site from the
Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan,
each development would require geotechnical evaluation
and the preparation of specific recommendations for each
phase of the project based on the site specific location
and proposed building design.
The structural engineering design shall incorporate
seismic parameters as outlined in the 2007 California
Building Code. The project Geotechnical Investigation
shall establish the seismic design parameters, as
determined by the geotechnical engineer in accordance
with requirements of the 2007 California Building Code.
Mitigation Measure IV.F-2.3 Seismic Design Criteria
The project applicant shall obtain shall obtain building
permits during all phases of the Precise and Master Plan
through the City of South San Francisco Building
Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and
structures shall be completed by a licensed structural
engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for
planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101
Area of the City of South San Francisco to reduce
impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. Buildings
shall be designed in accordance with the East of 101 Area
Plan Geotechnical Safety Element polices, which state
that buildings shall be designed to resist earthquakes so
that they not be subject to catastrophic collapse under
foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of
occupants in the event of damage following a strong
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits.
City of South
San Francisco
51
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
earthquake. As new development is proposed over the
project site from the Precise Plan and subsequent phases
of the Master Plan, each development shall require Final
Design Review of planned buildings and structures
completed by a licensed structural engineer for each
phase of the project based.
Impact IV.F-4: The proposed project
would be subject to seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction and
landslides or be located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable and subject to
landslide. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.F-4.1 would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.F-4.1 Landsliding
The project applicant shall ensure all phases of the
Precise and Master Plan that proper foundation
engineering and retaining wall design shall be performed
under the direction and guidance of the geotechnical
engineer of record and in accordance with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation.
Geotechnical Investigations for each phase of the Precise
and Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer
for compliance with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation. As new development is
proposed over the project site from the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the Master Plan, each development
shall require proper foundation engineering and retaining
wall design in accordance with the recommendations of
the Geotechnical Investigation and reviewed and
approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by
the City Engineer for each phase of the project based.
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits.
City of South
San Francisco
Impact IV.F-5: The proposed project
would result in soil erosion. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measures IV.F-5.1 and IV.F-5.2 would
reduce this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.F-5.1 Soil Erosion
The project applicant shall complete an Erosion Control
Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction with the
Grading Permit Application for the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The Plan shall
include winterization, dust, erosion and pollution control
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits.
City of South
San Francisco
52
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards
for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, with
sediment basin design calculations. The Erosion Control
Plan shall describe the "best management practices"
(BMPs) to be used during and after construction to
control pollution resulting from both storm and
construction water runoff. The Plan shall include
locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable
restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes.
Recommended soil stabilization techniques include
placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel
construction entrance areas or other control to prevent
tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains.
Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site
during grading and construction to ensure compliance
with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any
violations, which shall be corrected immediately.
Mitigation Measure IV.F-5.2 Soil Erosion
In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the project
applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of construction of the
Precise Plan and all subsequent phases of the Master
Plan. The SWPPP shall include specific best management
practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain
coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of
Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity
(Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ).
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits.
City of South
San Francisco
Impact IV.F-6: The proposed project
would be located on expansive soils. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Measures as specified in the Geotechnical Report. Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits.
53
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
However, adherence to foundation,
pavement and slabs on grade design
recommendations put forth in the
Geotechnical Report would reduce this
impact to less than significant.
HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact IV.G-1: The proposed project
could create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measures
IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.4 would reduce
this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.1 Hazardous Materials
Business Plan
Businesses occupying the project site through all phases
of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master
Plan must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan
for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business
Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous
materials, a site map showing storage locations of
hazardous materials and where they may be used and
transported from, risks of using these materials, included
in material safety data sheets for each material, a spill
prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee
training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and
emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for
the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or
greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These
quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for
solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and
pressure) for compressed gases.
Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged
consumer goods; medical professionals who store
oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not
more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom
store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that
store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of
lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of
lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of
lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to
Prior to the start of
operations for each
business, at least once
every two years, or
within 30 days of any
significant change in
operations (new
emergency contact
information, major
increases or decreases
in hazardous materials
storage and/or changes
in location of hazardous
materials).
City of South
San Francisco
and San Mateo
County
Environmental
Health
Department
(SMCEHD)
54
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
apply to Class A laboratory facilities.
Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed
project site through all phases of the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the Master Plan must submit a
business plan prior to the start of operations, and must
review and update the entire Business Plan at least once
every two years, or within 30 days of any significant
change. Some of these changes are new emergency
contact information, major increases or decreases in
hazardous materials storage and/or changes in location of
hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San
Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan
Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for
more information. The San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business
at least once a year to ensure the Business Plan is
complete and accurate.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.2 South San Francisco
Municipal Code
Building space thorough all phases of the project must be
designed to handle the intended office and laboratory use,
with sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment
structures, in accordance with the guidelines laid out in
Chapter 15.24 (Fire Code) of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code. Requirements include the following:
• All occupancies and buildings shall be protected
throughout by an automatic sprinkler system installed
in accordance with UBC Standard 9-1.
• An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in
all garbage compartments, dumb waiter shafts, and
storage rooms when located in all occupancies except
Group R, Division 3, detached carports, greenhouses
and Group U occupancies less than 200 square feet.
Prior to issuance of
occupancy permits for
the Precise Plan and
each subsequent phase
of the Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
55
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
An accessible indicating shut off valve shall also be
installed.
• An approved audible and visual sprinkler flow alarm
shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an
approved location. A single approved sprinkler flow
alarm shall be provided on the interior of the building
in a normally occupied location.
• For buildings more than four stories in height, the
following additional requirements must be met:
o Products of combustion detectors shall be
provided in all mechanical equipment, electrical,
transformer, telephone equipment, elevator
machine or similar rooms. Detector(s) shall be
located in the air conditioning system.
Activation of any detector shall initiate the fire
alarm system and place into operation all
equipment necessary to prevent the recirculation
of smoke.
o A smoke control system meeting the
requirements of Chapter 9 and Section
1005.3.3.7 of the Uniform Building Code shall
be provided.
o A manual fire alarm system shall be provided
that will alarm both audibly/visually throughout
the building if activated and also alert the Fire
Department via an approved monitoring station.
The fire alarm system shall be provided with a
public address system and an outside remote
annunciator.
o Standby power shall be provided and must
conform to Section 403.8 of the California
Building Code.
These systems must pass plan review through the City of
56
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
South San Francisco Planning, Building, and Fire
Departments for the Precise Plan and each subsequent
phase of the Master Plan.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.3 Sprinkler System
During construction of the Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the Master Plan, the utilities
including sprinkler systems shall pass pressure and flush
tests to make sure they perform as designed. At the end of
construction of each building constructed under the
Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master
Plan, occupancy shall not be allowed until a final
inspection is made by the Fire Department for
conformance of all building systems with the Fire Code
and National Fire Protection Agency Requirements. The
inspection shall include testing of sprinklers systems,
alarm systems, ventilation and airflow systems, and
secondary containment systems. The inspection shall
include a review of the emergency evacuation plans.
These plans shall be modified as deemed necessary to
ensure that they ensure safety to building occupants.
Prior to issuance of
occupancy permits for
the Precise Plan and
each subsequent phase
of the Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
Mitigation Measure G-1.4 Hazardous Materials
Transportation
All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous
waste to and from the site will be in accordance with
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US
Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California,
and local laws, ordinances and procedures including
placards, signs and other identifying information. These
regulations shall be followed for the Precise Plan and
each subsequent phase of the Master Plan to ensure the
safe transport of hazardous materials and waste to and
During construction
and operation of the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
57
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
from the site.
Impact IV.G-2: The proposed project
would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.
This is considered a potentially significant
impact. However, implementation of
Mitigation Measures IV.G-2.1 through
IV.G-2.5 would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.1 Demolition Plans
Demolition plans with permit applications shall be
submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building
Department for approval prior to demolition of buildings
for the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master
Plan. The Demolition Plans for safe demolition of
existing structures shall include dust control and shall
incorporate measures for the potential release of asbestos
or lead and recommendations from the site surveys for
the presence of potentially hazardous building materials,
as well as additional surveys when required by the City.
The Demolition Plans shall address both on-site Worker
Protection and off-site resident protection from both
chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building
materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations
and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill
facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous
building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable
lead based paint and asbestos containing building
materials shall be removed in accordance with all
applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The
Demolition Plans shall include a program of air
monitoring for dust particulates and attached
contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work
during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan.
Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an
asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD
Regulation 11, Rule 2. Additionally, any soil removal
plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County
Groundwater Protection Program (SMGPP).
Prior to issuance of
demolition permits for
the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
and San Mateo
County
Groundwater
Protection
Program
(SMGPP).
58
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.2 Soil Sampling
Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the
project, the applicant shall retain a licensed Civil
Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional
surface and subsurface soil sampling to determine if
elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil,
other petroleum products, or wood preservatives are
present in site soils for the specific area that would be
redeveloped under that phase of the project. These tests
shall take place within the entirety of the project site for
that phase. Results of testing shall be submitted to
SMGPP prior to implementation of any soil removal
plans. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial
guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control
Board Environmental Screening Levels for
commercial/industrial Sites, USEPA Preliminary
Remediation Goals for commercial/industrial sites, or the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site
Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall
be prepared and implemented.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for the
Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
and San Mateo
County
Groundwater
Protection
Program
(SMGPP).
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.3 Contaminated Soils
If contamination of site soils is detected for the Precise
Plan or any subsequent phase of the Master Plan, then
results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management
Plan shall be prepared in accordance with
recommendations of the environmental consultant and
established procedures for safe removal. Specific
mitigation measures designed to protect human health
and the environment will be provided in the Plan. At a
minimum the Plan shall include, but not be limited to the
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for the
Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
and and
Department of
Toxic
Substance
Control
(DTSC).
59
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
following:
• Documentation of the extent of previous
environmental investigation and remediation at the
site.
• Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans
(HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the
project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition,
grading and excavation on the site, as well as for
future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall
include appropriate training, any required personal
protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants
to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed
and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist.
• Description of protocols for the investigation and
evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous
materials that could be encountered during project
development, including engineering controls that may
be required to reduce exposure to construction
workers and future users of the site.
• Requirements for site-specific construction techniques
that would minimize exposure to any subsurface
contamination found to occur. This shall include
treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated
groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and
dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
guidelines.
• Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to
determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for
disposal at a state licensed landfill facility.
• Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or
development of the subsurface by residents and
visitors to the proposed development.
60
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
• The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any
demolition, grading and construction permits for the
project.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.4 Compliance with Local
and State Hazardous Materials Regulations
Future businesses at the development as a result of the
Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan
shall check the state and federal lists of regulated
substances available from the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD).
Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major
threat to public health and safety or the environment
because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive.
Businesses shall determine which list to use in
consultation with the SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the program they shall
complete a CalARP registration form and submit it to the
SMCEHD. Following registration, they shall submit a
Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to
handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses
have the proper information to provide to emergency
response teams if an accidental release occurs. All
businesses on the site as a result of the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the Master Plan that store or handle
more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated
substance must develop a RMP and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health
and the environment if a regulated substance is released
near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare
facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping
employees and customers safe, handling regulated
substances, training staff, maintaining equipment,
Prior to the start of
operations for each
business.
City of South
San Francisco
and San Mateo
County
Environmental
Health
Department
(SMCEHD)
61
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
checking that substances are stored safely, and
responding to an accidental release.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.5 Compliance with
BAAQMD Regulations
Each independent R&D facility operating on the property
shall obtain necessary permits and comply with
monitoring and inspection requirements of the
BAAQMD. Future operations shall comply with all local,
state and federal requirements for emissions. Each facility
shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards
for R&D facilities. This includes plan review by the City
of South San Francisco to examine if the proposed
development plans meet the same standards as for other
similar facilities. Engineering controls, such as exhaust
hoods, filtration systems, spill kits, fire extinguishers, and
other controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory
facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA
requirements. These standards are primarily designed to
maintain worker safety, but also function to reduce the
risk of accidental upset and limit potential hazardous
emissions.
Prior to the start of
operations for each
business.
City of South
San Francisco
and Bay Area
Air Quality
Management
District
(BAAQMD)
Impact IV.G-3: The proposed project
could emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measures IV.G-1.1, IV.G-1.4, IV.G-2.1
through IV.2.5 would reduce this impact to
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.1 Hazardous Materials
Business Plan
Businesses occupying the development through all phases
of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master
Plan must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan
for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business
Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous
materials, a site map showing storage locations of
hazardous materials and where they may be used and
transported from, risks of using these materials, included
Prior to the start of
operations for each
business, at least once
every two years, or
within 30 days of any
significant change in
operations (new
emergency contact
information, major
increases or decreases
in hazardous materials
City of South
San Francisco
and San Mateo
County
Environmental
Health
Department
(SMCEHD)
62
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
in material safety data sheets for each material, a spill
prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee
training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and
emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for
the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or
greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These
quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for
solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and
pressure) for compressed gases.
Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged
consumer goods; medical professionals who store
oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not
more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom
store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that
store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of
lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of
lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of
lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to
apply to Class A laboratory facilities.
Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed
development must submit a business plan prior to the
start of operations, and must review and update the entire
Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30
days of any significant change. Some of these changes
are new emergency contact information, major increases
or decreases in hazardous materials storage and/or
changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be
submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Business Plan Program, which may be contacted
at (650) 363-4305 for more information. The San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD)
shall inspect the business at least once a year to ensure
the Business Plan is complete and accurate.
storage and/or changes
in location of hazardous
materials).
63
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.2 Hazardous Materials
Transportation
All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous
waste to and from the site will be in accordance with
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US
Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California,
and local laws, ordinances and procedures including
placards, signs and other identifying information. These
regulations shall be followed for the Precise Plan and
each subsequent phase of the Master Plan to ensure the
safe transport of hazardous materials and waste to and
from the site.
During construction
and operation of the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
Mitigation Measure G-3.3 Demolition Plans
Demolition plans with permit applications shall be
submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building
Department for approval prior to demolition of buildings
for the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master
Plan. The Demolition Plans for safe demolition of
existing structures shall include dust control and shall
incorporate measures for the potential release of asbestos
or lead and recommendations from the site surveys for
the presence of potentially hazardous building materials,
as well as additional surveys when required by the City.
The Demolition Plans shall address both on-site Worker
Protection and off-site resident protection from both
chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building
materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations
and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill
facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous
building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable
lead based paint and asbestos containing building
materials shall be removed in accordance with all
applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The
Prior to issuance of
demolition permits for
the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
and San Mateo
County
Groundwater
Protection
Program
(SMGPP).
64
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Demolition Plans shall include a program of air
monitoring for dust particulates and attached
contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work
during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan.
Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an
asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD
Regulation 11, Rule 2. Additionally, any soil removal
plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County
Groundwater Protection Program (SMGPP).
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.4 Soil Sampling
Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the Master
Plan, the applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer
or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface
and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated
levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, other
petroleum products, or wood preservatives are present in
site soils for the specific area that would be redeveloped
under that phase of the project. These tests shall take
place within the entirety of the project site for that phase.
Results of testing shall be submitted to SMGPP prior to
implementation of any soil removal plans. If
contamination exceeding commercial/industrial
guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control
Board Environmental Screening Levels for
commercial/industrial Sites, USEPA Preliminary
Remediation Goals for commercial/industrial sites, or the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site
Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall
be prepared and implemented.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for the
Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
and San Mateo
County
Groundwater
Protection
Program
(SMGPP).
65
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.5 Contaminated Soils
If contamination of site soils is detected for the Precise
Plan or any subsequent phase of the Master Plan, then
results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management
Plan shall be prepared in accordance with
recommendations of the environmental consultant and
established procedures for safe removal. Specific
mitigation measures designed to protect human health
and the environment will be provided in the Plan. At a
minimum the Plan shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
• Documentation of the extent of previous
environmental investigation and remediation at the
site.
• Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans
(HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the
project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition,
grading and excavation on the site, as well as for
future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall
include appropriate training, any required personal
protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants
to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed
and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist.
• Description of protocols for the investigation and
evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous
materials that could be encountered during project
development, including engineering controls that may
be required to reduce exposure to construction
workers and future users of the site.
• Requirements for site-specific construction techniques
that would minimize exposure to any subsurface
contamination found to occur. This shall include
treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for the
Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
and and
Department of
Toxic
Substance
Control
(DTSC).
66
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and
dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
guidelines.
• Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to
determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for
disposal at a state licensed landfill facility.
• Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or
development of the subsurface by residents and
visitors to the proposed development.
• The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any
demolition, grading and construction permits for the
project.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.6 Compliance with Local
and State Hazardous Materials Regulations
Future businesses at the development as a result of the
Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan
shall check the state and federal lists of regulated
substances available from the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD).
Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major
threat to public health and safety or the environment
because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive.
Businesses shall determine which list to use in
consultation with the SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the program they shall
complete a CalARP registration form and submit it to the
SMCEHD. Following registration, they shall submit a
Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to
handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses
have the proper information to provide to emergency
Prior to the start of
operations for each
business.
City of South
San Francisco
and San Mateo
County
Environmental
Health
Department
(SMCEHD)
67
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
response teams if an accidental release occurs. All
businesses on the site as a result of the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the Master Plan that store or handle
more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated
substance must develop a RMP and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health
and the environment if a regulated substance is released
near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare
facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping
employees and customers safe, handling regulated
substances, training staff, maintaining equipment,
checking that substances are stored safely, and
responding to an accidental release.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.7 Compliance with
BAAQMD Regulations
Each independent R&D facility operating on the property
shall obtain necessary permits and comply with
monitoring and inspection requirements of the
BAAQMD. Future operations shall comply with all local,
state and federal requirements for emissions. Each facility
shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards
for R&D facilities. This includes plan review by the City
of South San Francisco to examine if the proposed
development plans meet the same standards as for other
similar facilities. Engineering controls, such as exhaust
hoods, filtration systems, spill kits, fire extinguishers, and
other controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory
facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA
requirements. These standards are primarily designed to
maintain worker safety, but also function to reduce the
risk of accidental upset and limit potential hazardous
emissions.
Prior to the start of
operations for each
business.
City of South
San Francisco
and Bay Area
Air Quality
Management
District
(BAAQMD)
68
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Impact IV.G-4: The project would be
located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measures
IV.G-5 through 7 would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-4.1 Demolition Plans
Demolition plans with permit applications shall be
submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building
Department for approval prior to demolition of buildings
for the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master
Plan. The Demolition Plans for safe demolition of
existing structures shall include dust control and shall
incorporate measures for the potential release of asbestos
or lead and recommendations from the site surveys for
the presence of potentially hazardous building materials,
as well as additional surveys when required by the City.
The Demolition Plans shall address both on-site Worker
Protection and off-site resident protection from both
chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building
materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations
and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill
facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous
building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable
lead based paint and asbestos containing building
materials shall be removed in accordance with all
applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The
Demolition Plans shall include a program of air
monitoring for dust particulates and attached
contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work
during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan.
Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an
asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD
Regulation 11, Rule 2. Additionally, any soil removal
plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County
Groundwater Protection Program (SMGPP).
Prior to issuance of
demolition permits for
the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
and San Mateo
County
Groundwater
Protection
Program
(SMGPP).
Mitigation Measure IV.G-4.2 Soil Sampling Prior to issuance of City of South
69
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the Master
Plan, the applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer
or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface
and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated
levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, other
petroleum products, or wood preservatives are present in
site soils for the specific area that would be redeveloped
under that phase of the project. These tests shall take
place within the entirety of the project site for that phase.
Results of testing shall be submitted to SMGPP prior to
implementation of any soil removal plans. If
contamination exceeding commercial/industrial
guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control
Board Environmental Screening Levels for
commercial/industrial Sites, USEPA Preliminary
Remediation Goals for commercial/industrial sites, or the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site
Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall
be prepared and implemented.
grading permits for the
Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan.
San Francisco
and San Mateo
County
Groundwater
Protection
Program
(SMGPP).
Mitigation Measure IV.G-4.3 Contaminated Soils
If contamination of site soils is detected for the Precise
Plan or any subsequent phase of the Master Plan, then
results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management
Plan shall be prepared in accordance with
recommendations of the environmental consultant and
established procedures for safe removal. Specific
mitigation measures designed to protect human health
and the environment will be provided in the Plan. At a
minimum the Plan shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
• Documentation of the extent of previous
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for the
Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of
the Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
and and
Department of
Toxic
Substance
Control
(DTSC).
70
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
environmental investigation and remediation at the
site.
• Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans
(HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the
project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition,
grading and excavation on the site, as well as for
future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall
include appropriate training, any required personal
protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants
to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed
and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist.
• Description of protocols for the investigation and
evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous
materials that could be encountered during project
development, including engineering controls that may
be required to reduce exposure to construction
workers and future users of the site.
• Requirements for site-specific construction techniques
that would minimize exposure to any subsurface
contamination found to occur. This shall include
treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated
groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and
dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
guidelines.
• Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to
determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for
disposal at a state licensed landfill facility.
• Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or
development of the subsurface by residents and
visitors to the proposed development.
• The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any
demolition, grading and construction permits for the
71
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
project.
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Impact IV.H-1: The proposed project
would violate water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measures IV.H-1.1 and IV.H-1.2 would
reduce this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.H-1.1 SWPPP
Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the project applicant
shall develop a SWPPP for the Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the Master Plan to protect water
quality during and after construction of each phase. The
project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the
following mitigation measures for the construction
period:
• Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as
straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion
control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized,
in accordance with the regulations outlined in the
ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment
Control Measures. Silt fences shall be installed down
slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall be installed
in the flow path of graded areas receiving
concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets.
• “Best management practices” (BMPs) for preventing
the discharge of other construction-related NPDES
pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to
downstream waters.
• After construction is completed, all drainage facilities
shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these
drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and
sediment.
Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the
project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• Description of potential sources of erosion and
72
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
sediment at the project site. Industrial activities and
significant materials and chemicals that could be used
at the proposed project site should be described. This
will include a thorough assessment of existing and
potential pollutant sources.
• Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the
project site based on identified industrial activities and
potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed
on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used
as needed.
• Development of a monitoring and implementation
plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall
be carefully described including vector control,
clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet
structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance,
replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of
parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes
removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore,
maintenance costs should be budgeted to include
disposal at a proper site.
• The monitoring and maintenance program shall be
conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the
RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco.
Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and
submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall
be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies
of the BMPs.
• The applicant shall prepare informational
literature and guidance on industrial and commercial
BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the
proposed development. This information shall be
distributed to all employees at the project site. At a
minimum the information shall cover: a) proper disposal
of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of
73
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate
disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d)
prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and
chemicals into storm drains.
Mitigation Measure IV.H-1.2 Erosion Control Plans
The applicant shall complete Erosion Control Plans to be
submitted to the City of South San Francisco in
conjunction with the Grading Permit Application for the
Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master
Plan. The Erosion Control Plans shall include controls for
winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution in accordance
with the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and
Sediment Control Measures. The Plans shall also describe
the BMPs to be used during and following construction to
control pollution resulting from both storm and
construction water runoff. The Plans shall include
locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable
restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes.
Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site
during grading and construction of the Precise Plan and
all subsequent phases of the project to ensure compliance
with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any
violations, which shall be corrected immediately.
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan.
City of South
San Francisco
NOISE
Impact IV.J-1: The proposed project could
result in exposure of persons to or
generation of noise in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies. Operational noise at the site, such
as that created by HVAC equipment, would
Mitigation Measure IV.J-1.1 Operational Noise
As the proposed project moves forward an analysis of the
noise generated by the project’s mechanical equipment
should be conducted to assess the proposed equipment
with respect to the standards of 60 dBA at the property
line between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and 65 dBA
at the property line between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
74
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
exceed the noise generation standards set
forth in the City’s Municipal Code. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.J-1.1 would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
p.m. The analysis shall specify the noise control measures
required to meet these noise levels. Specific measures
can not be specified at this time because of the lack of
detailed information on the HVAC equipment design and
location. Typical measures include barriers or enclosures
around rooftop equipment. Other measures include duct
silencers and acoustical louvers at the ventilation
openings. Once the noise control measures are included
in the design a letter shall be submitted to the City
Building Division from the designer stating that the
project has been designed to meet the City’s Standards.
Impact IV.J-2: The proposed project could
result in exposure of persons to or
generation of noise in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies. The proposed project could
expose persons to traffic-related noise levels
greater than the upper limit of satisfactory
noise levels for commercial land use of
CNEL 70 dBA. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-
2.1 would reduce this impact to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.J-2.1 Future Traffic Noise
Prior to the approval of any precise plan for the project
site, an acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a
qualified acoustical consultant in order to determine the
measures required to achieve acceptable interior noise
levels for the buildings included as part of the precise
plan. The East of 101 Area Plan contains interior noise
level goal of Leq 45 dBA. This will require a noise
reduction of up to 30 dBA. This analysis can not be made
at this time because of the lack of detailed information on
the glazing type and exterior façade construction. Typical
measures include sound-rated windows and special
exterior wall construction.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Impact IV.J-4: The proposed project
would result in substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-
4.1 would reduce the construction noise
impact at the existing office buildings and
Mitigation Measure IV.J-4.1 Construction Generated
Noise
Prepare a demolition and construction noise control plan
that identifies detailed, site-specific noise attenuation
measures that will be used to minimize impacts on
adjacent land uses. The plan shall be prepared under the
supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant or person
experienced with equipment and techniques that can be
Prior to the issuance of
grading, demolition,
and building permits for
the Precise Plan and
each subsequent phase
of the Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
75
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
hotels to less than significant, but the
construction noise at the Genentech Child
Care facility is considered significant and
unavoidable because no feasible mitigation
measures are available to reduce this
impact.
used to reduce construction related noise. The plan must
include but is not limited to the following:
• Implement noise attenuation measures, which shall
include noise barriers or noise blankets. Particular
attention should be paid to providing a noise barrier
(at least 12-feet tall) to protect outdoor uses such as
the eastern play area of the Genentech Child Care
facility, if it remains during construction.
• Provide advance notification to surrounding land uses
disclosing the construction schedule, including the
various types of activities that would be occurring
throughout the duration of the construction period.
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly
muffled according to industry standards.
• Place noise-generating construction equipment and
locate construction staging areas away from sensitive
uses, where feasible.
• Schedule high noise-producing activities between
when they would be least likely to interfere with the
noise sensitive activities of the neighboring land uses.
When near the hotels this would mean restricting
construction during sleeping hours. However, near
office buildings or Genentech Child Care uses the
evening hours may be preferable because the
buildings are not occupied.
• In addition to the preparation of the construction noise
control plan, the following measures are
recommended and may be included in the plan:
• Designate an on-site construction noise complaint
manager for the duration of the project.
• Post signs around the project site to inform persons of
the construction hours and the name and phone
number of the person or persons to notify in the event
76
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
of a noise related problem.
• A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the job
inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project
manager to confirm that noise mitigation practices
(including construction hours, neighborhood
notification, posted signs, etc.) are completed.
• The project applicant shall require by contract
specifications that construction staging areas along
with operation of earthmoving equipment within the
project site be located as far away from vibration and
noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract
specifications shall be included in the construction
documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior
to issuance of a grading permit.
• The project applicant shall require by contract
specifications that heavily loaded trucks should be routed
away from noise and vibration sensitive uses, to the
extent possible. Contract specifications shall be included
on the construction documents, which shall be reviewed
by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Impact IV.J-5: The proposed project could
result in exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels. This
is considered a potentially significant
impact. However, implementation of
Mitigation Measure IV.J-5.1 would reduce
this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.J-5.1 Groundborne Vibration
Prior to the commencement of ground clearing activities,
the project applicant shall conduct a preconstruction
survey to determine whether the construction project’s
activities would impact vibration sensitive equipment
located in adjacent buildings within 100 feet of the
construction activity. If it is determined that no impact
would occur then construction activities shall begin and
no further action need be taken. If the project applicant
determines that vibration sensitive equipment has the
potential to be affected, it shall implement a construction
schedule to ensure that construction activities would
Prior to the issuance of
grading, demolition,
and building permits for
the Precise Plan and
each subsequent phase
of the Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
77
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
occur during times when vibration sensitive equipment
would not be in use.
Impact IV.J-6: The proposed project could
result in exposure of people residing or
working at the project site to excessive
noise levels from a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public or public use airport. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.J-6.1 would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.J-6.1 Aircraft Noise
Prior to approval of submittal of the first building permit,
an aircraft sound attenuation study must be prepared that
indicates what measures will be implemented to achieve
the minimum exterior-to-interior noise attenuation of 27
dBA from aircraft overflights. The study should review
the exterior window/wall and roof/ceiling construction
and specify, if necessary, measures such as sound-rated
windows and acoustical treatments to the fresh air
ventilation system.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Impact IV.M-1: The half-developed
project would generate more than 100 net
new trips during the AM and PM peak
hours (412 two-way [inbound + outbound]
trips during the AM peak hour and 357 two-
way trips during the PM peak hour). This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-1 would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-1 Transportation Demand
Management Program
The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with
the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management,
and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once
implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of
the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the
number of trips that may be credited for each TDM
measure. The project’s TDM program is included in
Appendix H and will generate trip credits to offset the
412 total AM peak hour and 357 PM peak hour net new
trips generated by the project by the year 2015.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Impact IV.M-2A: The following
discussion concerns Oyster Point Boulevard
/ Gateway Boulevard / U.S. 101
Mitigation Measure IV.M-2A 2015 Intersection Level
of Service at Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
78
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover. During the
AM peak hour, the project would increase
volumes by 5.0 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
During the PM peak hour, the project would
increase volumes by 5.2 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base
Case operation. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-2A would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Intersection (see Figure IV.M-20 and Table IV.M-24)
The project shall provide a fair share contribution as
determined by the City Engineer to the following
measures.
• Add a fourth through lane on the westbound Oyster
Point Boulevard approach. In conjunction with this
measure, provide an additional westbound
departure lane, which should extend to the
Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
intersection.
• Restripe the right turn lane on the U.S.101
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection
approach to also allow through movements. In
conjunction with this measure, provide a third
eastbound departure lane.
• Resultant Operation:
• AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will
provide additional capacity and reduce delay,
which will improve operation to LOS F-195
seconds control delay, which is better than
Base Case operation (LOS F-206 seconds
control delay)
• PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will
provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will
improve operation to LOS E-65.9 seconds control delay,
which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-104
seconds control delay).
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
Department
Impact IV.M-2B: The following discussion
concerns Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans
Boulevard / Project Entrance. During the
AM peak hour, the project would increase
volumes by 7.9 percent at a location where
Mitigation Measure IV.M-2B 2015 Intersection Level
of Service at Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans
Boulevard / Project Driveway Intersection (see Figure
IV.M-20 and Table IV.M-24)
The project shall provide a fair share contribution as
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
79
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
unacceptable LOS D Base Case operation
would be degraded to unacceptable LOS E
operation. During the PM peak hour, the
project would increase volumes by 9.9
percent at a location with unacceptable LOS
F Base Case operation. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-2B would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
determined by the City Engineer to the following
measures.
• Add one additional through lane on the westbound
Oyster Point Boulevard approach (and continue to
the Dubuque Avenue intersection).
• Restripe the northbound two-lane driveway
approach to provide a left turn lane and a combined
left/through/right turn lane.
• Add an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound
Oyster Point Boulevard approach.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS C-29.1 seconds control delay, which is
acceptable operation
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS E-67.6 seconds control delay, which is
better than Base Case operation (LOS F-104 seconds
delay).
Impact IV.M-2C: The following
discussion concerns Gateway Boulevard /
So. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue.
During the PM peak hour, the project would
increase volumes by 2.1 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base
Case operation. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-2C would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-2C 2015 Intersection Level
of Service at Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport
Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue Intersection (see Figure
IV.M-20 and Table IV.M-24)
The project shall provide a fair share contribution as
determined by the City Engineer to the following
measures.
• Provide a second right turn lane on the southbound
Gateway Boulevard approach.
Resultant Operation:
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
80
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS E-59.1 seconds control delay, which is
better than Base Case operation (LOS F-108 seconds
delay).
Impact IV.M-2D: The following
discussion concerns Oyster Point Boulevard
/ Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound
On-Ramp. During the PM peak hour, the
project would increase volumes by 4.5
percent at a location with unacceptable LOS
F Base Case operation. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-2D would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-2D 2015 Intersection Level
of Service Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
/ U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection (see
Figure IV.M-20 and Table IV.M-24)
The project shall provide a fair share contribution as
determined by the City Engineer to the following
measures.
• Add a second right turn lane on the westbound
Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approach.
Resultant Operation:
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS F-87.3 seconds control delay, which is
better than Base Case operation (LOS F-271 seconds
control delay).
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-3A: The following
discussion concerns Oyster Point Boulevard
/ Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound
On-Ramp. During the AM peak hour, the
project would increase volumes by 4.9
percent in the through lanes on the
eastbound Oyster Point intersection
approach where Base Case volumes would
already be exceeding available storage. The
project would increase volumes by 8.3
percent and 8.2 percent in the westbound
Oyster Point Boulevard approach left and
Mitigation Measure IV.M-3A 2015 Vehicle Queuing –
Synchro Evaluation at Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
Intersection-Eastbound Approach (see Figure IV.M-
20)
See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2D.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce
95th percentile vehicle queuing in the eastbound
approach through lanes to 268 feet, which would be
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
81
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
right turn lanes, where Base Case volumes
would already be exceeding available
storage during the PM peak hour. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-3A would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
better than Base Case queuing of 282 feet.
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce
95th percentile queuing in the westbound approach right
turn lane to 1,418 feet, which would be better than Base
Case queuing of 2,855 feet, and 95th percentile queuing
in the westbound approach left turn lane would be 1,192
feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of
1,250 feet.
Impact IV.M-3B: The following discussion
concerns Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp. During the AM peak hour, the
project would increase volumes by 7.1
percent in the Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound approach through lanes, where
Base Case volumes would already be
exceeding available storage. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-3B would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-3B 2015 Vehicle Queuing –
Synchro Evaluation (see Figure IV.M-20) at Oyster
Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101
Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover Intersection-Off-
Ramp Right Turn Lane
See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2A.
Resultant Operation:
• AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will
provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will
reduce 95th percentile queuing in the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound approach through lanes to 1,271
feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of
1,280 feet.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-4A: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point
Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the
project would increase off-ramp volumes by
6.9 percent, with year 2015 Base Case off-
ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the
freeway mainline. This is considered a
Mitigation Measure IV.M-4A 2015 Off-Ramp
Queuing to Freeway Mainline – SIM Traffic
Evaluation (see Figure IV.M-21) at U.S.101
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point
Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard Intersection
The proposed project shall provide a fair share
contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the
following measures.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
82
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-4A, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2A.
In addition, add an exclusive right turn lane to the flyover
off-ramp approach for a total of four lanes. Stripe as three
through lanes and one exclusive right turn lane. This
measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this
measure is not currently included in the East of 101
Traffic Impact Fee list. Further, as an improvement to a
freeway ramp, the measure is not within the City’s
jurisdiction, but rather would require approval of
Caltrans.
Adjust signal timing to provide more green time to
flyover off-ramp and Oyster Point eastbound movements.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which would
eliminate the 95th percentile southbound flyover off-
ramp queue extending to the freeway mainline.
It should be noted that because the improvement is within
Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as
lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented. While it is likely that
Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing
the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for
CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-4B: The following discussion
concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the
AM peak hour, the project would increase
off-ramp volumes by 3.3 percent, with year
2015 Base Case off-ramp traffic
Mitigation Measure IV.M-4B 2015 Off-Ramp
Queuing to Freeway Mainline – SIM Traffic
Evaluation (see Figure IV.M-21) at U.S.101
Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
Intersection
The proposed project shall provide a fair share
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
83
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
occasionally backing up to the freeway
mainline. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-4B, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the
following measures.
• Widen the off-ramp approach to provide three
exclusive left turn lanes and a combined through /
right turn lane. In addition, lengthen the off-ramp
lanes to provide an additional 600 to 700 feet of
storage. This measure will require the approval of
Caltrans. This measure is not currently included in
the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list.
• Provide an additional lane on northbound Dubuque
Avenue extending from the freeway ramps to
Oyster Point Boulevard. Stripe the five-lane
approach to Oyster Point as two lefts, one through
and two right turn lanes.
• On the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass of the
U.S.101 freeway, reconfigure the westbound lanes
on the approach to Airport Boulevard to have one
combined through / right turn lane, one through
lane and one exclusive left turn lane extending the
full length between Dubuque Avenue and Oyster
Point Boulevard. In conjunction with this measure,
have both eastbound left turn lanes on the approach
to Dubuque Avenue-Northbound On-Ramp extend
the full length between Airport Boulevard and
Dubuque Avenue.
• Adjust signal timing.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will
eliminate the 95th percentile northbound off-ramp queue
extending to the freeway mainline. These measures
would also eliminate the 95th percentile southbound off-
ramp queue on the approach to Airport Boulevard
84
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
extending to the freeway mainline.
It should be noted that because the improvement is within
Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as
lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that
Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing
the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for
CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-5A: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point
Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
Intersection. AM Peak Hour: The project
would increase off-ramp volumes by 6.9
percent (from 2,099 up to 2,243 vehicles)
with Base Case volumes already exceeding
1,500 vehicles per hour. This is considered
a potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-5A, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-5A 2015 Off-Ramp
Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point
Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard Intersection
No improvements are feasible to mitigate project-specific
impacts. The spacing of southbound off-ramp
connections to Airport Boulevard and to Oyster Point
Boulevard precludes the possibility of providing a second
off-ramp lane connection to southbound U.S.101 to serve
the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound off-ramp. A
second off-ramp lane connection would require a long
(i.e., 1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane, however,
due to existing development in the area, only 300 feet of
space is available. There is no room for provision of this
lane. Without feasible measures to mitigate this impact,
the impact would be considered significant and
unavoidable.
Not Applicable.
Impact IV.M-5B: The following discussion
concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the
AM peak hour, the project would increase
Mitigation Measure IV.M-5B 2015 Off-Ramp
Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101
Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
Intersection (see Figure IV.M-20)
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
85
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
off-ramp volumes by 3.3 percent (from
1,507 up to 1,556 vehicles) with Base Case
volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles
per hour. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-5B, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
The project shall provide a fair share contribution as
determined by the City Engineer to the following
measure.
• Provide a second off-ramp lane connection to
the U.S.101 mainline. Off-ramp diverge capacity would
be increased to at least 2,200 vehicles per hour, which
would accommodate the Base Case + project AM peak
hour volume of 1,556 vehicles per hour. This measure
will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure
is currently not included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact
Fee list. It should be noted that because the improvement
is within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot
guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented While
it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure,
thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant
level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency’s
jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan
Impact IV.M-5C: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound
Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue /
Executive Drive Intersection. During the
AM peak hour, the project would increase
off-ramp volumes by 6.2 percent (from
2,151 up to 2,284 vehicles) at a location
where the two-lane off-ramp diverge
capacity would be 2,300 vehicles per hour.
This is considered a potentially significant
impact. However, implementation of
Mitigation Measure IV.M-5C would reduce
this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-5C 2015 Off-Ramp
Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101
Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue /
Executive Drive Intersection
Planned provision of a second off-ramp lane would
increase diverge capacity to 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles per
hour. This could accommodate the projected off-ramp
volume of about 2,284 vehicles per hour. The required
improvements are contemplated in and funded by the
City's East of 101 traffic program, and by paying the
City's East of 101 traffic fee, the project proponent will
be funding its fair share of the required improvements.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
86
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Impact IV.M-6A: The following
discussion concerns U.S. 101 Northbound
On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard
/ Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the
PM peak hour, the project would increase
on-ramp volumes by 6.2 percent (from
2,366 up to 2,513 vehicles) with Base Case
volumes already exceeding 2,200 vehicles
per hour. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-6A, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-6A 2015 On-Ramp
Operation to U.S.101 Mainline at U.S.101
Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard
The project shall provide a fair share contribution as
determined by the City Engineer to the following
measure.
Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101
mainline. On-ramp capacity would be increased to at
least 3,000 vehicles per hour, which would accommodate
the Base Case + project PM peak hour volume of 2,513
vehicles per hour. This measure will require the approval
of Caltrans. Also, this measure is currently not included
on the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. It should be
noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead
agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that
Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing
the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for
CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-6B: The following discussion
concerns U.S. 101 Southbound On-Ramp
from Dubuque Avenue. During the PM
peak hour, the project would increase on-
ramp volumes by 6.9 percent (from 1,901
up to 2,032 vehicles) and increase Base
Case volumes above the 2,000 vehicle/hour
capacity limit. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-6B, this impact would remain
Mitigation Measure IV.M-6B On-Ramp Operation to
U.S.101 Mainline at U.S.101 Southbound On-Ramp
from Dubuque Avenue
The project shall provide a fair share contribution as
determined by the City Engineer to the following
measure.
Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101
mainline. On-ramp capacity would be increased to at
least 3,000 vehicles per hour, which would accommodate
the Base Case + Project PM peak hour volume of 2,032
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
87
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
significant and unavoidable. vehicles. This measure will require the approval of
Caltrans. Also, this measure is currently not included on
the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. It should be noted
that because the improvement is within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead
agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that
Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing
the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for
CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-7A: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound
(to the north of the Oyster Point
interchange). During the AM peak hour, the
project would increase volumes by 1.5
percent (from 9,331 to 9,475 vehicles per
hour) at a location where acceptable LOS E
year 2015 Base Case operation would be
degraded to unacceptable LOS F operation.
This is considered a potentially significant
impact. Even with implementation of
Mitigation Measure IV.M-7A, this impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-7A 2015 Freeway Mainline
Operation at U.S.101 Southbound (North of the
Oyster Point Boulevard interchange)
Mitigation of this impact would require widening the
current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given
the location of the mainline freeway and its close
proximity to surrounding development, such mitigation is
not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be
prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land
uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns,
mitigation of Impact 7A is not feasible as defined by
CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 (defining
“feasible” as “capable of being accomplished…taking
into account economic…and technological factors.”).)
Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to
balance public objectives, including specific economic
concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub.
Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines,
§15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a
particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency
may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code
Not Applicable.
88
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
§21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Impact IV.M-7B: The following discussion
concerns U.S.101 Northbound (to the north
of the Oyster Point interchange). During the
PM peak hour, the project would increase
volumes by 1.4 percent (from 10,025 to
10,162 vehicles per hour) at a location with
unacceptable LOS F year 2015 Base Case
operation. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-7B, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-7B 2015 Freeway Mainline
Operation at U.S.101 Northbound (North of the
Oyster Point Boulevard interchange)
Mitigation of this impact would require widening the
current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given
the location of the mainline freeway and its close
proximity to surrounding development, such mitigation is
not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be
prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land
uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns,
mitigation of Impact 7B is not feasible as defined by
CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 (defining
“feasible” as “capable of being accomplished…taking
into account economic…and technological factors.”).)
Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to
balance public objectives, including specific economic
concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub.
Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines,
§15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a
particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency
may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code
§21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Not Applicable.
Impact IV.M-8: The following discussion
concerns Project Trip Generation Exceeds
100 Trips During Peak Hours. The totally
developed project would generate more than
100 net new trips during the AM and PM
peak hours (764 two-way (inbound +
outbound) trips during the AM peak hour
and 780 two-way trips during the PM peak
hour (see Table IV.M-22)). The San Mateo
Mitigation Measure IV.M-8 Transportation Demand
Management Program
The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with
the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management,
and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once
implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
89
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
City/County Association of Governments
(C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the
implementation of the 2003 Draft
Congestion Management Program (“C/CAG
Guidelines”) specifies that local
jurisdictions must ensure that the developer
and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak
hour trips (including the first 100 trips)
projected to be generated by the
development. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-8 would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the
number of trips that may be credited for each TDM
measure. The project’s TDM program is included in
Appendix H and will generate trip credits to offset the
764 total AM peak hour and 780 PM peak hour net new
trips generated by the project by the year 2035.
Impact IV.M-9A: The following
discussion concerns Airport Boulevard /
Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point
Boulevard. During the PM peak hour, the
project would increase volumes by 3.4
percent at a location with unacceptable LOS
E Base Case operation. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-9A would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9A 2035 Intersection Level
of Service at Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities
Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard Intersection (see
Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
Add a second right turn lane on the Airport Boulevard
southbound approach to the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard intersection. The
applicant shall pay a fair share contribution, as
determined by the City Engineer, towards this measure
(please see Figure IV.M-22).
Resultant Operation:
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS D-50.0 seconds control delay, which is
acceptable operation.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-9B: The following discussion
concerns Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard / U.S. 101 Southbound Off-
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9B 2035 Intersection Level
of Service at Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
90
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Ramp Flyover. During the AM peak hour,
the project would increase volumes by 6.2
percent at a location with unacceptable LOS
F Base Case operation. During the PM peak
hour, the project would increase volumes by
7.7 percent at a location with unacceptable
LOS F Base Case operation. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-9B would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
• Same mitigations as for 2015.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS F-318 seconds control delay, which is
better than Base Case operation (LOS F-381 seconds
control delay)
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS F-138 seconds control delay, which is
better than Base Case operation (LOS F-142 seconds
control delay).
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
Department
Impact IV.M-9C: The following
discussion concerns Oyster Point Boulevard
/ Veterans Boulevard / Project Entrance.
During the AM peak hour, the project
traffic would increase volumes by 5.7
percent at a location with unacceptable LOS
F Base Case operation. During the PM peak
hour, the project would increase volumes by
7.2 percent at a location with unacceptable
LOS F Base Case operation. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-9C would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9C 2035 Intersection Level
of Service at Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans
Boulevard / Project Entrance Intersection (see Figure
IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
• Same mitigation as for 2015.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS F-130 seconds control delay, which is
better than Base Case operation (LOS F-150 seconds
control delay)
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS F-186 seconds control delay, which is
better than Base Case operation (LOS F-289 seconds
control delay).
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-9D: The following Mitigation Measure IV.M-9D 2035 Intersection Level Prior to the issuance of City of South
91
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
discussion concerns Gateway Boulevard /
So. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue.
During the PM peak hour, the project would
increase volumes by 4.5 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base
Case operation. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-9D would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
of Service at Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport
Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue Intersection (see Figure
IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
Same mitigation as for 2015 and adjust signal timing.
Resultant Operation:
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS D-39.6 seconds control delay.
Operation is improved to an acceptable level.
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-9E: The following discussion
concerns Airport Boulevard / San Mateo
Avenue / Produce Avenue. During the PM
peak hour, the project would increase
volumes by 3.2 percent at a location where
unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation
would be degraded to unacceptable LOS F
operation. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-9E would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9E 2035 Intersection Level
of Service at Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue /
Produce Avenue Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22 and
Table IV.M-25)
Restripe the Airport Boulevard right turn on the
southbound approach to the Produce Avenue/San Mateo
Avenue intersection to allow through movements. This
would be the full responsibility of the Gateway project.
Resultant Operation:
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS D-54.9 seconds control delay, which is
better than Base Case operation (LOS F-141 seconds
control delay).
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-9F: The following discussion
concerns Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque
Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp.
During the PM peak hour, the project would
increase volumes by 6.7 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base
Case operation (resultant operation would
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9F 2035 Intersection Level
of Service Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
/ U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection (see
Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
• Same mitigations as for 2015. In light of
economic, environmental, and technological
concerns, there are no other financially feasible
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
92
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
be LOS F-254 seconds control delay). This
is considered a potentially significant
impact. Even with implementation of
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9F, this impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
measures (as identified by the Public Works
Department) that would provide any increased
capacity. Provision of additional lanes on any of
the intersection approaches would require either
widening of bridge structures across the U.S.101
freeway and/or the Caltrain rail line and possibly
roadway diversion around the supports for the
Southbound Flyover off-ramp.
Resultant Operation:
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS F-223 seconds control delay, which is
not better than Base Case operation (LOS F-196 seconds
control delay).
Impact IV.M-9G: The following
discussion concerns Dubuque Avenue /
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp-
Southbound On-Ramp Intersection. During
the PM peak hour, Project traffic would
degrade acceptable LOS D Base Case
operation to unacceptable LOS E operation.
This is considered a potentially significant
impact. However, implementation of
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9G would reduce
this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9G 2035 Intersection Level
of Service at Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound
Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp Intersection (see
Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant Operation:
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS C-30.9 seconds control delay.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-10A: The following
discussion concerns Oyster Point Boulevard
/ Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound
On-Ramp Intersection. During the AM peak
hour, the project would increase volumes by
7.2 percent in the through lanes on the
eastbound Oyster Point intersection
approach where 95th percentile Base Case
Mitigation Measure IV.M-10A 2035 Vehicle Queuing
– Synchro Evaluation at Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22)
• Same mitigations as for level of service (Mitigation
Measure IV.M-9F). In light of economic,
environmental, and technological concerns, there
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
93
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
queuing would already extend beyond
available storage. In addition, the project
would increase volumes by 5.0 percent in
the Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn
lane, where Base Case 95th percentile
queues would already be exceeding
available storage. During the PM peak hour,
the project would increase volumes by 11.0
percent in the right turn lane on the
westbound Oyster Point Boulevard
intersection approach, where 95th percentile
Base Case queuing would already extend
beyond available storage; and by 11.2
percent in the left turn lane on the
westbound Oyster Point Boulevard
intersection approach, where 95th percentile
Base Case queuing would already extend
beyond available storage. This is considered
a potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-10A, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
are no other feasible measures that would provide
any increased capacity. Provision of additional
lanes on any of the intersection approaches would
require either widening of bridge structures across
the U.S.101 freeway and/or the Caltrain rail line
and possibly roadway diversion around the
supports for the Southbound Flyover off-ramp.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour:
• Eastbound Approach Through Movement = The
proposed mitigation will provide additional
capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce
95th percentile queuing to 432 feet, which would
be better than Base Case queuing of 444 feet.
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
• Northbound Right Turn = The proposed
mitigation will provide additional capacity and
reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile
queuing to 336 feet, which is longer than Base
Case 308-foot queue. Impact would not be
reduced to a less than significant level.
PM Peak Hour:
• Westbound Approach Right Turn: The proposed
mitigation will provide additional capacity and
reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile
queuing to 2,095 feet, which is longer than Base
Case queuing of 1,892 feet. Impact would not be
reduced to a less than significant level.
• Westbound Approach Left Turn: The proposed
mitigation will provide additional capacity and
reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile
queuing to 1,396 feet, which is longer than Base
Case queuing of 1,270 feet. Impact would not be
94
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-10B: The following
discussion concerns Oyster Point Boulevard
/ Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp Intersection. During the
AM peak hour, the project would increase
volumes by 5.7 percent in the eastbound
Oyster Point Boulevard approach through
lanes, where Base Case 95th percentile
queues would already be exceeding
available storage. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-10B would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-10B 2035 Vehicle Queuing
– Synchro Evaluation at Oyster Point Boulevard /
Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22)
Same mitigation as for level of service (Mitigation
Measure IV.M-9B).
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: Oyster Point Boulevard Eastbound
Through Lanes: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce
95th percentile queue to 1,633 feet, which would be
better than Base Case queuing of 1,650 feet.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-10C: The following
discussion concerns Airport Boulevard /
Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point
Boulevard Intersection. During the PM peak
hour, the project would increase volumes by
2.9 percent in the left turn lane and by 10.6
percent in the through lanes on the
westbound Oyster Point Boulevard
intersection approach where Base Case 95th
percentile queues would already be
exceeding available storage. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-10C would reduce this
impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-10C 2035 Vehicle Queuing
– Synchro Evaluation at Airport Boulevard / Sister
Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
Intersection
Same mitigation as for level of service (Mitigation
Measure IV.M-9A)
PM Peak Hour: Oyster Point Boulevard Westbound
Through Lanes: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce
95th percentile queuing to 701 feet, which would be
better than Base Case queuing of 738 feet.
Oyster Point Boulevard Westbound Left Turn: The
proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and
reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile
queuing to 411 feet, which would be better than Base
Case queuing of 486 feet.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
95
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Impact IV.M-11A: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point
Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the
project would increase off-ramp volumes by
8.7 percent, with year 2035 Base Case off-
ramp traffic backing up to the freeway
mainline. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-11A, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-11A 2035 Off-Ramp
Queuing to Freeway Mainline – SIM Traffic
Evaluation at U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
to Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
Intersection
In light of economic, environmental, and technological
concerns, there are no other feasible measures that would
provide any increased capacity beyond those
recommended for 2015 conditions that would reduce 95th
percentile queues within available off-ramp storage.
Provision of additional lanes would potentially require
acquisition of additional righty-of-way along Oyster
Point Boulevard. Also, provision of additional eastbound
lanes on the Oyster Point and Flyover off-ramp
intersection approaches would not be feasible due to the
complexity of merging the departure lanes on the
eastbound (departure leg) of the intersection.
Not Applicable.
Impact IV.M-11B: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound
Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection.
During the AM peak hour, the project
would increase off-ramp volumes by 3.0
percent, with year 2035 Base Case off-ramp
traffic occasionally backing up to the
freeway mainline. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-11B, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-11B 2035 Off-Ramp
Queuing to Freeway Mainline – SIM Traffic
Evaluation at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Dubuque Avenue Intersection
There are no other feasible signal timing or lane addition
measures as identified by the Public Works Department
beyond those recommended for 2015 conditions that
would reduce 95th percentile AM peak hour queues
within available off-ramp storage.
Not Applicable.
Impact IV.M-12A: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point
Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
Mitigation Measure IV.M-12A 2035 Off-Ramp
Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point
Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard Intersection
Not Applicable.
96
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the
project would increase off-ramp volumes by
8.7 percent (from 2,035 up to 3,161
vehicles) with Base Case volumes already
exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-12A, this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
No improvements are feasible to mitigate project-specific
impacts. The spacing of southbound off-ramp
connections to Airport Boulevard and to Oyster Point
Boulevard precludes the possibility of providing a second
off-ramp lane connection to southbound U.S.101 to serve
the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound off-ramp. A
second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline
would require a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration
lane with only 300 feet of available space. There is no
room for provision of this lane.
Impact IV.M-12B: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound
Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection.
During the AM peak hour, the project
would increase off-ramp volumes by 3.0
percent (from 1,680 to 1,730 vehicles) with
Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500
vehicles per hour. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-12B, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-12B 2035 Off-Ramp
Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101
Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22)
Same mitigation as for 2015. (Add a second off-ramp
lane connection to the U.S.101 mainline.) Off-ramp
diverge capacity would be increased to at least 2,300
vehicles per hour, which would accommodate the Base
Case + project volume of 1,730 vehicles per hour. This
measure will require the approval of Caltrans. It should
be noted that because the improvement is within
Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as
lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that
Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing
the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for
CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-12C: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound
Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue /
Mitigation Measure IV.M-12C 2035 Off-Ramp
Operation at U.S.101 Mainline Diverge at U.S.101
Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue /
Not Applicable.
97
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Executive Drive Intersection. During the
AM peak hour, the project would increase
off-ramp volumes by 9.8 percent (from
2,897 up to 3,180 vehicles) at a location
where the two-lane off-ramp diverge
capacity would be 2,300 vehicles per hour.
This is considered a potentially significant
impact. Even with implementation of
Mitigation Measure IV.M-12C, this impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Executive Drive Intersection
Planned provision of a second off-ramp lane (as called
for in the East of 101 Program and described in
Mitigation Measure IV.M-5C) would increase diverge
capacity to 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles per hour. While the
project sponsor will be required to pay the City’s East of
101 fee, which will fund the project’s fair share of this
improvement and reducing the impact, the second lane
cannot reduce this impact to a level of less than
significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation
measures that can avoid or reduce this impact to a level
of less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be
considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-13A: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound
One-Lane On-Ramp from Dubuque
Avenue. During the PM peak hour, the
project would increase on-ramp volumes by
9.5 percent at a location where Base Case
volumes would already be exceeding the
ramp capacity limit of 2,000 vehicles per
hour (up to 2,381 vehicles per hour). This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-13A, this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-13A 2035 On-Ramp
Operation to U.S. 101 Mainline at U.S. 101
Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue (see
Figure IV.M-22)
The project shall provide a fair share contribution as
determined by the City Engineer to the following
measure.
Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101
freeway. On-ramp capacity would be increased from
2,000 up to 3,000 vehicles per hour, with a Base Case +
project PM peak hour volume of about 2,381 vehicles per
hour. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans.
It should be noted that because the improvement is within
Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as
lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that
Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing
the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for
CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
98
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Impact IV.M-13B: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound
Two-Lane On-Ramp from Produce Avenue.
During the PM peak hour, the project would
increase on-ramp volumes by 4.7 percent at
a location where project traffic would
increase Base Case volumes above a two-
lane on-ramp capacity limit of 3,300
vehicles per hour (from 3,256 up to 3,409
vehicles per hour). This is considered a
potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-13B, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-13B 2035 On-Ramp
Operation to U.S. 101 Mainline at U.S. 101
Southbound On-Ramp from Produce Avenue
A second on-ramp lane is already provided at the Produce
Avenue on-ramp, providing a capacity of 3,300 vehicles
per hour. There are no other physical improvements
possible to accommodate the Base Case + project volume
of about 3,410 vehicles per hour.
Not Applicable.
Impact IV.M-13C: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound
One-Lane On-Ramp from Oyster Point
Boulevard. During the PM peak hour, the
project would increase on-ramp volumes by
8.9 percent at a location where project
traffic would increase Base Case volumes
above 2,200 vehicles per hour (from 3,234
up to 3,521 vehicles per hour). This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-13C, this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-13C 2035 On-Ramp
Operation to U.S. 101 Mainline at U.S. 101
Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard
Provision of a second on-ramp lane (as recommended for
2015) would increase capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100
vehicles per hour. This measure will require the approval
of Caltrans. There are no other physical improvements
possible acceptable to Caltrans to accommodate the Base
Case + project volume of about 3,521 vehicles per hour.
Not Applicable.
Impact IV.M-14A: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound
(to the north of the Oyster Point
interchange). During the AM peak hour, the
project would increase volumes by 2.4
percent (from 10,381 to 10,633 vehicles per
Mitigation Measure IV.M-14A 2035 Freeway
Mainline Operation at U.S.101 Southbound (North of
the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange)
Mitigation of this impact would require widening the
current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given
the location of the mainline freeway and its close
Not Applicable.
99
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F
year 2035 Base Case operation. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-14A, this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
proximity to surrounding development, such mitigation is
not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be
prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land
uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns,
mitigation of Impact 14A is not feasible as defined by
CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 (defining
“feasible” as “capable of being accomplished…taking
into account economic…and technological factors.”).)
Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to
balance public objectives, including specific economic
concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub.
Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines,
§15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a
particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency
may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code
§21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Impact IV.M-14B: The following
discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound
(to the north of the Oyster Point
interchange). During the PM peak hour, the
project would increase volumes by 2.6
percent (from 11,220 to 11,510 vehicles per
hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F
year 2035 Base Case operation. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-14B, this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-14B 2035 Freeway
Mainline Operation at U.S.101 Northbound (North of
the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange)
Mitigation of this impact would require widening the
current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given
the location of the mainline freeway and its close
proximity to surrounding development, such mitigation is
not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be
prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land
uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns,
mitigation of Impact 14B is not feasible as defined by
CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 (defining
“feasible” as “capable of being accomplished…taking
into account economic…and technological factors.”).)
under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to
balance public objectives, including specific economic
concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub.
Not Applicable.
100
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines,
§15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a
particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency
may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code
§21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Impact IV.M-16: While the proposed
walkway system will provide acceptable
pedestrian circulation within the majority of
the campus, all drivers using any of the four
large parking structures along the east edge
of the campus will be required to cross the
main internal circulation road to access any
of the project buildings. At full buildout,
from 200 to 500 vehicles per hour may be
on various segments of the internal street
providing access to the garages. While
speed table and pedestrian crossings of
materials other than asphalt are being
considered to slow traffic and highlight
locations with significant pedestrian
crossings, the proposed location of the main
internal road (on the west rather than the
east side of the garages) could lead to
significant pedestrian/auto conflicts. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-16.1 would reduce this
impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-16 Pedestrian Circulation
Relocate the internal roadway running along the west side
of the parking garages to the east side of the garages
along the project boundary. This will eliminate
thousands of pedestrian crossings of a busy internal
roadway as employees walk between the garages and the
office buildings. An emergency access roadway may still
be required between the garages and offices to meet fire
department requirements. The project sponsor may
propose alternative improvements to mitigate this
pedestrian circulation impact. Any alternative
improvements proposed to be implemented in place of
relocating the internal roadway, shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer, who shall certify that the
proposed alternative improvement(s) will adequately
mitigate this impact to a less than significant level.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
Impact IV.M-17: Overall, the proposed
project circulation system appears that it
will function acceptably for employees,
who will quickly learn which is the most
convenient driveway to use for their
Mitigation Measure IV.M-17 Access and Internal
Vehicle Circulation
Provide building addresses that can be read easily by
drivers on Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point
Boulevard.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Public Works
Department
101
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
assigned parking garage. However, given
the size of the project, its numerous
buildings and garages as well as the variety
of driveway connections to Gateway and
Olympic boulevards, unless frequent, large
and clear signing is provided, visitors may
experience confusion in regards to finding
appropriate parking closest to their final
destination. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-17 would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Provide easy-to-follow directions for visitors from the
access driveway intersections along Gateway Boulevard
or Oyster Point Boulevard and along the internal
driveways to the specific garage associated with each
office building.
UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact IV.N-1: The proposed project
would create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measures
IV.N-1.1 through IV.N-1.4 would reduce
this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.1 Operational SWPPP
The project applicant shall develop an operational
SWPPP for all drainage to the Central and South Sub-
Drainage areas prior to construction of the Precise Plan
and for the North Sub-Drainage area prior to construction
of the subsequent phases of the Master Plan to protect
water quality after construction. These project SWPPPs
shall include, but not be limited to, the following
measures for project operation:
• Description of potential sources of erosion and
sediment at the project site for each phase of the
Master Plan. Industrial activities and significant
materials and chemicals that could be used for each
phase of the Master Plan at the proposed project
site shall be described. This shall include a
thorough assessment of existing and potential
pollutant sources.
• Identification of BMPs to be implemented for the
Precise Plan and for each phase of the Master Plan
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
102
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
at the project site based on identified industrial
activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis
shall be placed on source control BMPs, with
treatment controls uses as needed.
• Development of a monitoring and implementation
plan for the Precise Plan and for each phase of the
Master Plan. Maintenance requirements and
frequency shall be carefully described including
vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed
inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape
maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular
sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc.
Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous;
therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to
include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas
shall be cleared on a daily basis of debris that may
enter the storm drain system.
• The monitoring and maintenance program shall be
conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the
RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco.
Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and
submitted annually in coordination with the
STOPPP. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as
necessary, to address any inadequacies of the
BMPs.
• The project applicant shall prepare informational
literature and guidance on industrial and
commercial BMPs for the Precise Plan and each
phase of the Master Plan to minimize pollutant
contributions from the proposed development. This
information shall be distributed to all employees at
the project site. At a minimum, the information
shall cover: (1) proper disposal of commercial
cleaning chemicals; (2) proper use of landscaping
103
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
chemicals; (3) clean-up and appropriate disposal of
hazardous materials and chemicals; and (4)
prohibition of any washing and dumping of
materials and chemicals into storm drains.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.2 Storm Drain
Interceptors
The project applicant shall install a storm drain
interceptor (also known as an oil/water or oil/grit
separator) on-site to remove oils and heavy particulates
from stormwater at appropriate storm drains for the
Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan.
Appropriate sizing of the unit relative to the impervious
surface drainage area is important and should be taken
into consideration when choosing the interceptor unit
model and size.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.3 Impervious Area
Drainage Retention Devices
The project applicant shall incorporate alternative
drainage solutions around surface parking lots and near
large areas of impervious surfaces such as public plazas
to increase pervious surfaces on the site and increase
infiltration. This shall be done for the Precise Plan and
each phase of the Master Plan. Such solutions may
include, but are not limited to, vegetated swales,
bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes, and ponds.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.4 Rooftop Retention
Devices
The project applicant shall incorporate rooftop or
downspout retention into all building plans proposed by
the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan to
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
104
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
capture all roof runoff.
Impact IV.N-2: The proposed project
would require or result in the construction
of new water treatment, distribution, or
conveyance facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measures
IV.N-5 through 7 would reduce this impact
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.1 Fire Flow Analysis
Report
In order to assure that the water system has the ability to
serve peak flow demands including for fire flow, prior to
first building permit for all buildings constructed for the
Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan, the
project applicant shall consult a NCEES certified Fire
Protection Engineer to prepare an analysis of the
proposed project and determine the required design fire
flow and fire duration. A certified report shall be
submitted to the South San Francisco Fire Department for
review and comment to ensure that all required design
fire flow and fire duration requirements are met.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.2 Fire Flow Testing
In order to assure that the water system has the ability to
serve peak flow demands including for fire flow, prior to
receiving a building permit for all buildings constructed
for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan,
the project applicant shall perform fire flow tests for all
hydrants within 500 feet of the project site pursuant to
American Water Works Association filed testing
standards to verify if adequate fire flows defined in
Mitigation Measure N-5 are achieved. Any deficiency
measured shall be corrected and retested prior occupancy.
Prior to the issuance of
building and occupancy
permits for all buildings
constructed for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.3 Fire Protection Water
Supply
In order to assure that the water system has the ability to
provide water supply for fire protection, prior to
occupancy of all buildings constructed for the Precise
Prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits for
all buildings
constructed for the
Precise Plan and each
City of South
San Francisco
105
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Time
Frame/Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Plan and each phase of the Master Plan, California Water
Service Company shall certify that reservoir storage,
beyond their operational and emergency allotments,
required for adequate protection identified in Mitigation
Measure IV.N-2.1 will be maintained at all times.
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
Impact IV.N-4: The proposed project
would have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources and no new or
expanded entitlements are needed. This is
considered a less than significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.N-4.1 would ensure this impact
remains less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-4.1 Water Conservation
In order to reduce water demands of all phases of the
project, the project applicant shall include methods of
water conservation in the proposed project’s buildings
and landscaping for the Precise Plan and each phase of
the Master Plan. These methods shall include, but not be
limited, to the following:
• Install water-conserving dishwashers and washing
machines, and water-efficient centralized cooling
systems in all new buildings (this method would not
apply to process development or research
development laboratory equipment);
• Install water-conserving irrigation systems (e.g., drip
irrigation and evaportranspiration-based irrigation
controllers);
• Design landscaping with drought-resistant and other
low-water-use plants; and
• Install water-saving devices such as water-
efficient toilets, faucets, and showerheads.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for the
Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the
Master Plan
City of South
San Francisco
Source: Gateway Business Park Master Plan EIR, 2009.
106
Exhibit E — Applicable City Fees
EXHIBIT E-1
1. FEES, TAXES, EXACTIONS, DEDICATION OBLIGATIONS, AND
ASSESSMENTS
Owner agrees that Owner 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 change its Assessments. Further, nothing herein shall be
construed to relieve the Property from common benefit assessments 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. Except as indicated below, 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.
1.1 Administrative/Processing Fees. The Owner shall pay the applicable
application, processing, administrative, legal and inspection fees and charges, as 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.
1.2 Impact Fees (Existing Fees). Except as modified below, existing impact fees
shall be paid for net new square footage at the rates and at the times prescribed in the
resolution(s) or ordinance(s) adopting and implementing the fees.
1.2.1 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee (Resolution 84-2007). East of 101 Traffic
Impact fees shall be paid for each Phase of the Project, in accordance with the resolution adopted
by the City Council at their meeting of May 23, 2007, and shall be determined based on the
application of the formula in effect at the time the City issues each building permit, and shall be
payable prior to the issuance of such building permit.
1.2.2 Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution Fee (Resolutions 102-96 &
152-96). Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution fees shall be paid for each Phase of the
Project, and shall be determined by the City Engineer, based on the application of the formula in
effect at the time the City issues each building permit, and shall be payable prior the issuance of
such building permit for each phase.
The fee will be calculated upon reviewing the information shown on the applicant's
construction plans and the latest Engineering News Record San Francisco Construction Cost
107
Index at the time of payment. The Engineering News Record San Francisco construction cost
index figure contained in the Oyster Point Grade Overpass Contribution fee calculation, is
revised each month to reflect local inflation changes in the construction industry.
1.2.3 East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee (Resolution 97-2002). The City of South
San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and capacity of the sewer
system within the East of 101 area. The existing sewer collection system was originally
designed many years ago to accommodate warehouse and industrial use and is now proposed to
accommodate uses, such as offices and biotech facilities, with a much greater sewage flow.
These additional flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing sewers, due to ground
settlement and the age of the system, have resulted in pumping and collection capacity
constraints.
The applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development
Impact Fee, as adopted by the City Council at their meeting of October 23, 2002. Sewer Impact
fees shall be paid for each Phase of the Project, and shall be determined based on the application
of the formula in effect at the time the City issues each building permit, and shall be payable
prior to the issuance of such building permit. The adopted fee is presently $3.19 per gallon of
discharge per day (this fee is adjusted on a yearly basis). It is determined that Office/R&D
generates 400 gallons per day per 1000 square feet of development.
1.2.4 Childcare Impact Fee (SSFMC, ch. 20.310; Ordinance 1301-2001).
(a) Prior to receiving a Building Permit for each Phase of the Project,
the Owner shall pay the City’s Childcare Fee, as described in South San Francisco Municipal
Code Chapter 20.310.
(b) Additionally, if the existing childcare facility located at 850
Gateway Boulevard remains in place, and retains its status as a fully licensed and operational
childcare facility serving at least 100 children, no additional childcare requirement (other than
the City’s Childcare Fee described in Section 1.2.4a of this Exhibit E-1) will be imposed.
However, if the 850 Gateway Boulevard facility is eliminated, the Owner shall also comply with
the following:
(i) Owner shall construct and have ready for occupancy, a
childcare facility of approximately 8,000 square feet designed to accommodate a minimum of
100 children within the Project or within one mile of the Project no later than the earlier of:
(1) the date when the stabilized employee population
within the Project reaches that required to sustain a
facility that accommodates a minimum of 100
children; or
(2) occupancy of the final building to be constructed
under the Gateway Master Plan; or
(3) one year prior to the expiration of this Agreement.
108
(4) Accordingly, Owner shall submit design plans for
the childcare facility no later than December 31,
2021, and shall obtain all required permits,
including building permits and commence
construction of the facility no later than December
31, 2022. If the childcare facility is open to the
public, City and Owner may mutually agree to
allow the City to operate the facility.
(ii) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if circumstances prevail
that new construction does not exceed 650,000 square feet and the existing childcare facility at
850 Gateway Boulevard is eliminated, Owner may alternatively meet this requirement by
providing a one dollar ($1) per square foot childcare in-lieu fee for the net new construction that
has occurred as of December 31, 2022. Each year after 2013, the one dollar ($1) per square foot
fee shall automatically be increased at a rate equal to the Change from Prior Year for the
Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area. If
Owner elects to satisfy this childcare requirement through payment of this in-lieu fee, the in-lieu
fee shall be paid no later than December 31, 2022. If building permits are issued for additional
net new construction between December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2025, such net new
construction will be subject to a childcare in-lieu fee no greater than the childcare in-lieu fee set
forth in this Section 12(b)(2).
(iii) If the 850 Gateway Boulevard childcare facility is
eliminated or not fully licensed and operational as described above, and Owner fails to either
construct a new childcare facility by the deadline described in paragraph 12(b)(1), or pay the in-
lieu fee by the deadline described in paragraph 12(b)(2), Owner shall instead pay a fee equal to
the City’s estimated reasonable costs, including all costs associated with site acquisition
(including, if necessary, eminent domain), environmental review, permitting, and all other
expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, required to construct a childcare facility
of equivalent size and quality as that described in paragraph 12(b)(1).
1.2.5 Public Safety Impact Fee. (Resolution 97-2012) Prior to receiving a
building permit for each Phase of the Projects, the Owner shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee,
as set forth in Resolution No. 97-2012, adopted on December 10, 2012 to assist the City’s Fire
Department and Police Department with funding the acquisition and maintenance of Police and
Fire Department vehicles, apparatus, equipment, and similar needs for the provision of public
safety services.
1.2.6 Sewer Capacity Charge. (Resolution 39-2010) Prior to receiving a
building permit for each Phase of the Projects, the Owner shall pay the Sewer Capacity Charge,
as set forth in Resolution No. 39-2010.
1.3 Other Exactions.
1.3.1 Park-in-Lieu Fee. Owner shall pay a Park In-Lieu Fee of $4.78 per
square foot of development excluding parking structures to support the creation of additional
109
public open space in lieu of requiring that applicants avail one-half an acre per 1,000 new
employees, to the public in the East of 101 area. The fee payable may be reduced if the City
adopts such a Park In Lieu Fee applicable to developments in the East of 101 area similar to the
Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project and the amount owed per square foot under that
Park In-Lieu Fee is less than $4.78 per square foot in which case Owner shall pay the amount set
forth in the Park In-Lieu Fee. Owner shall receive a credit to offset a portion of the Park In-Lieu
Fee, for development of private open space created within the Gateway Master Plan. Owner’s
credit shall be identical to the credit, if any, allowed under the Park In-Lieu Fee program, if
implemented, except that (i) in no case, shall owner receive a credit offsetting less than 25% of
Owner’s required fee, or more than 50% of Owner’s required fee; and (ii) in no case shall zoning
or building code required open areas, including but not limited to the ten-percent landscaping
requirement (SSFMC, § 20.300.007(F)(1)(a)) and setbacks, be counted towards any offsetting
credit. Owner shall pay the Park In-Lieu Fee once per phase, upon issuance of the first tenant
improvement permit for each phase, based upon the total square footage approved for
development for that phase.
1.3.2 Transit Station or Ferry Terminal Enhancement Contribution. Owner
shall pay an in-lieu fee to be used for enhancing, enlarging, repairing, restoring, renovating,
remodeling, redecorating, maintaining, and/or refurbishing the Caltrain Station located at 590
Dubuque Avenue, the Oyster Point Ferry terminal and/or their associated facilities. The in-lieu
fee shall be in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of building area excluding
parking structures for each phase of development and shall be payable in two (2) equal
installments per phase. One-half (1/2) of the in-lieu fee shall be payable substantially
concurrently with, but not later than, the issuance of the building permit for the shell of the
building, and one-half (1/2) of the in-lieu fee shall be payable prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the shell of the building.
1.4 User Fees.
1.4.1 Sewer Service Charges (assessed as part of property tax bill)
1.4.2 Stormwater Charges (assessed as part of property tax bill)
2. FEE CREDITS
The Project includes the demolition of 6 single story R&D office buildings. The calculation for
fee credits cannot be calculated at this time because the areas of those buildings were not
provided. Once provided, the City will be able to calculate the fee credits for the Oyster Point
Overpass Contribution Fee, the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, Sewer Impact Fee and Childcare
Impact Fee.
110
36. Notices
All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and
delivered in person (to include delivery by courier) or sent by certified mail, postage
prepaid, return receipt requested or by overnight delivery service. Notices to the City
shall be addressed as follow:
City Clerk
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Notices to Owner shall be addressed as follows:
Gateway of Pacific LP
17190 Bernardo Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92128
Attn: Vice President, Real Estate Legal
A party may change its address for notice by giving notice in writing to the other party
and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.
***************************************************************************
111
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the Parties on the day and year
first above written.
CITY:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
By: __________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
City Attorney
OWNER:
GATEWAY OF PACIFIC LP
By: ___________________________
Its: ___________________________
2071301.1
112
Exhibit C
Transportation Demand Management Plan