The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-16-23 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketThursday, March 16, 2023 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA Planning Commission ALEX TZANG, Chairperson NORMAN FARIA, Vice Chairperson SAM SHIHADEH, Commissioner MICHELE EVANS, Commissioner SARAH FUNES, Commissioner AYSHA PAMUKCU, Commissioner JOHN BAKER, Commissioner Regular Meeting Agenda 1 March 16, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda How to observe the Meeting (no public comment): https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/planning-commission ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED Join Zoom meeting: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/82584801637 (Enter your email and name) Webinar ID: 825 8480 1637 Join by Telephone: +1 669 900 6833 Teleconference participation is offered in the meeting via Zoom as a courtesy to the public. If no members of the Commission are attending the meeting via teleconference, and a technical error or outage occurs on the teleconference feed, the Commission will continue the meeting in public in the Council Chambers. How to Submit written Public Comment before the meeting: Email: PCcomments@ssf.net Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The email will be monitored during the meeting.The City encourages the submission of comments by 6:00pm on the date of the Public Hearing to facilitate inclusion in the meeting record. How to provide Public Comment during the meeting: LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER 1. By Zoom: When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. 2. By Phone: Enter the conference ID fund on the agenda. When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to unmute when called. 3. In Person: Complete a Digital Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s. Be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. American Disability Act: The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at all-cc@ssf.net. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 72-hours before the meeting. Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the City Clerk by email at all-cc@ssf.net, 72-hours before the meeting. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/22/2023 2 March 16, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PUBLIC COMMENT Under the Public Comment section of the agenda, members of the public may speak on any item not listed on the Agenda and on items listed under the Consent Calendar. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The Planning Commission may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Commission meeting. Written comments on agenda items received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be included as part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, the Clerk may reduce speaking time to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3(b)(1).). Speakers that are not in compliance with the Planning Commission's rules of decorum will be muted. 03-16-23 PC - 2023-03-15 CAA Letter of Support 03-16-23 PC - BAC Support Letter March 03-16-23 PC - Memo to PC 3-13-23 Attachments: DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for Planning Commissioners to disclose any communications, including site visits, they have had on current agenda items, or any conflict of interest regarding current agenda items. CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration of draft minutes from the February 16, 2023 Planning Commission1. 02-16-23 PC Final MinutesAttachments: Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/22/2023 3 March 16, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Master Sign Program and Design Review for two previously approved life science buildings located at 480/490 Forbes Boulevard (aka 440 Forbes Boulevard) in the Business and Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. (Christy Usher, Senior Planner) 2. Attachment 1 - DRB Comment Letter Attachment 2 - Project Plans Attachment 3 - Draft Findings and Conditions of Approval Attachments: PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding applications for Design Review and Transportation Demand Management to construct a new 7-story, 85 foot tall, residential housing development consisting of 543 housing units located at 7 South Linden Avenue in the T5 Corridor zone district, and determination that the project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15162 and related CEQA requirements. (Christy Usher, Senior Planner) 3. Resolution making findings and determining that the environmental effects of the proposed 543 residential housing units located at 7 South Linden Avenue is consistent with the adopted 2040 General Plan EIR and would not necessitate the need for preparing a subsequent environmental document pursuant to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168, and is eligible for streamlining per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. 3a. Exhibit A - Environmental Checklist Exhibit B General Plan EIR and MMRP Attachments: Resolution making findings and approving entitlements for the proposed Project (P22-0024) including Design Review (DR22-0007) and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0002) to construct a new 7-story, 85 foot tall, residential housing development consisting of 543 housing units located at 7 South Linden Avenue in the T5 Corridor zone district. 3b. Exhibit A - Final Draft COAs 7 So Linden Exhibit B _ Project Plans Exhibit C - Transporation Demand Management Exhibit D - DRB Comment Letter Exhibit E - Parking Management Plan Exhibit F - Transportation Study Attachments: Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/22/2023 4 March 16, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding the 2022 Housing Element and General Plan Annual Progress Report. (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner and Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) 4. Attachment 1 - Annual Housing Element Progress Report for 2022 in PDF Format Attachment 2 - Annual Housing Element Progress Report for 2022 in Excel - tabbed sheets Attachment 3 - Analysis of South San Francisco General Plan with Adopted Office of Planning and Research Guidelines Attachments: Report regarding an informational update on a proposed ordinance to adopt an all-electric Reach Code for new nonresidential construction and Electric Vehicle Charging infrastructure reach code for new residential and nonresidential construction. (Christina Fernandez, Chief Sustainability Officer; Leila Silver, City Consultant-ID 360; and Philip Perry, Chief Building Official) 5. Attachment 1- Draft Reach Code Ordinance Attachment 2- Council Study Session Staff Report 22-718 Attachment 3- Council Study Session Staff Report 21-791 Attachments: The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes on any agenda item. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT **Any interested party will have 15 calendar days from the date of an action or decision taken by the Planning Commission to appeal that action or decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk as provided under Chapter 20.570 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. In the event an appeal period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or any other day the City is closed, the appeal period shall end at the close of business on the next consecutive business day. The cost to appeal for applicants, residents, and all others is $1725. The cost for appeals filed by adjacent property owners is $862. Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/22/2023 5 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-729 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #: City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/22/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™6 March 15, 2023 Chair Tzang and Members of the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Chair Tzang and Honorable Members of the Commission: The California Apartment Association (CAA) is the largest statewide trade organization representing rental housing providers, operators, and suppliers of rental homes and apartment communities. We provide services to our members to ensure that they have the tools, resources, and favorable environment to provide safe, quality housing, and work with a broad-based coalition to advocate for the production of housing as that is the only true solution to addressing our housing crisis. CAA has worked closely with Essex Property Trust, Inc., and we urge the Planning Commission to approve the 7 South Linden Avenue project at your meeting on March 16, 2023. We are reaching out to the City of South San Francisco because we first recognize the leadership role that the City has taken to produce high quality housing, especially multi-family rental housing for many years. From the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan to your recently completed Shape SSF General Plan and Housing Element – South San Francisco sets the example for every city and county in the greater Bay Area to follow in balancing the need for housing along with addressing resident concerns in an evolving housing landscape that seeks to accommodate community members of all demographics. CAA is pleased that Essex is proposing a high-quality residential development that aligns and respects the vision of the City of South San Francisco’s community, Planning Commission, and City Council through its conformance with the general plan and location in the Lindenville area, which the City has identified as a priority area for housing. We expect nothing less from our members. This is a superior project proposal due to its proximity to downtown and transit, inclusion of 15% below-market rate units, allocation of 42% of total units as 2-bedroom plans, quality architectural elements, commitment to sustainability, and plans to reduce car trips and encourage walking and biking as much as possible. CAA encourages the Planning Commission to approve these 543 important new housing units for South City. This is a project that will enable the City to make a dent in its Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals for the latest Housing Element cycle. Best, Rhovy Lyn Antonio Senior Vice President of Local Public Affairs California Apartment Association 7 P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council www.bayareacouncil.org The Historic Klamath PO Box 5135 1215 K Street, Suite 2220 Pier 9, The Embarcadero Berkeley, CA 94705 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94111 March 14, 2023 Michele Evans, Chair And Members of the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Chair Evans, Vice Chair Faria, and Members of the Commission: On behalf of the Bay Area Council (BAC) I would like to urge the Planning Commission to approve the 7 South Linden Avenue project on March 16, 2023. Our organization has long appreciated the consistent vision and leadership in the City of South San Francisco on striking a responsible balance between quality of life for residents, supporting a strong local economy, and planning for the future. This project furthers those goals in commendable harmony. South City’s leadership on regional economic issues is well known, as it is a life science cluster and the birthplace of biotechnology in the State of California, and bringing more housing to the City can enhance that image and the local economic benefits it brings. Approving this project highlights your focus on achieving the housing and policy goals in your 2015-2023 Housing Element, including the goals to advance deed-restricted affordable housing. It helps justify funding and completing an improved South San Francisco Caltrain Station and encourages transit-oriented development through the DSASP. And despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, this project has maintained momentum through a robust community engagement effort, helping keep the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan update process moving forward to adoption last year. BAC has evaluated this project we support it for the following reasons: • 543 units in a single project, walking distance to downtown and transit • 15 percent of the units will be affordable rents and deed-restricted for 55-years • A large percentage of the units are 2-bedroom and can accommodate families • The project fully aligns with your new General Plan, Housing Element, and the goals for the Lindenville Area Specific Plan; • Sustainable, as it is 100% electric and water efficient, with ample EV and bike parking • Paying important impact fees totaling over $19,000,000 to benefit the entire community. BAC is proud to support this Project and recognize the ongoing leadership role that the City of South San Francisco plays in demonstrating to all Bay Area cities that it is possible to provide new housing. Thank you for your consideration, and we hope you approve this project. Best, Louis Mirante Vice President of Public Policy, Housing Phone: (510) 908-0537 | Email: lmirante@bayareacouncil.org 8 9 10 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-186 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:1. Consideration of draft minutes from the February 16, 2023 Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™11 February 16, 2023 Minutes Page 1 of 3 MINUTES February 16, 2023 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:00 PM AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda • Cynthia Marcopolis – Residents have raised awareness to save MSB as a multiuse historical building for the seniors of South San Francisco. • Tom Carney – Save MSB from the wrecking ball, 26% of South San Francisco’s population are senior citizens. The city needs to save this center, there is no other senior center in this city. Downtown is high in crime and there needs to be safer walkways and social locations. • Fionnola Villamejor – Save MSB building for the seniors in South San Francisco. Seniors have needs and the city needs to provide for them. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consideration of draft minutes from the February 2, 2023 Planning Commission Motion to approve Consent Calendar – Commissioner Shihadeh, Second – Vice Chair Faria, approved by roll call (4-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-02-16 7:00 PM (granicus.com) ADMINISTRATIVE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Chair Tzang, Vice Chair Faria Commissioners: Fernandez, Funes-Ozturk, Shihadeh ABSENT: Evans (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi - Chief Planner – Adena Friedman – Principal Planner – Kelsey Evans - Clerk 12 February 16, 2023 Minutes Page 2 of 3 2. Report regarding consideration of Design Review Board applications for a four-year term, in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) • Commissioner Shihadeh – The DRB has all done a great job in the past years, agreed to reappoint all members • Vice Chair Faria – The DRB have done a great job over the years, in support to reassign all members Motion to vote: Vice Chair Faria, Second – Commissioner Funes-Ozturk, approved by roll call (5-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-02-16 7:00 PM (granicus.com) 3. Report regarding modification of Planning Commission meeting start time from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner and Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) • Vice Chair Faria – Long agendas would be better if the start time was earlier, flexible but in support of an earlier start time. • Commissioner Fernandez – 6:00pm works; although March is his last month in Planning Commission. • Commissioner Shihadeh – In support of 6:00pm start time, other committees already start at 6:00pm. • Commissioner Funes-Ozturk – Prefers 7:00pm start time but will support whatever the committee decides, also would prefer remote meetings • Chair Tzang – Either start time works, but stressed that a 6:00pm start time should schedule any high-profile items later in the agenda so the public would be able to participate if running late to a Planning Commission meeting. No Action taken as this will be a City Council action only. Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-02-16 7:00 PM (granicus.com) ITEMS FROM STAFF • None. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION • Chair Tzang – wanted to address the public comments on the MSB building, could not since it wasn’t on the Agenda as an item. • Commissioner Funes, Shihadeh & Vice Chair Faria – Congratulated Commissioner Fernandez on his second child. Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-02-16 7:00 PM (granicus.com) 13 February 16, 2023 Minutes Page 3 of 3 ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC • Tom Carney – Noted MSB was an item on a past Agenda but the commission would not respond to the public comments. The item went to City Council and again, they did not get a response then either. o Chief Planner Rozzi – Responded to Tom Carney, noted City Council would handle all public property discussions. Concerns for MSB building will be best addressed at a future City Council hearing, when appropriate. • Fionnola Villamejor - Thanked Chief Planner Rozzi for this guidance. Noted the public doesn’t feel as though their concerns are being addressed. Questioned the rezoning of this building, the public was not aware of this change nor the MSB building being on the chopping block. Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-02-16 7:00 PM (granicus.com) ADJOURNMENT Chair Tzang adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:50PM. Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner, AICP Alex Tzang, Chairperson or Norm Faria, Vice Chairperson Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco TR/tr 14 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-178 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Master Sign Program and Design Review for two previously approved life science buildings located at 480/490 Forbes Boulevard (aka 440 Forbes Boulevard)in the Business and Technology Park (BTP)Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.(Christy Usher, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the Master Sign Program (SIGNS22-0019)for two life science buildings located at 480/490 Forbes Boulevard is categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15311,Class 11 and approve the project based on the proposed findings and subject to the proposed conditions of approval. MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1)Move to determine the project is exempt from CEQA and approve the Master Sign Program subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission and City Council previously approved the entitlements for two new life science buildings at the Vantage Healthpeak life sciences campus located 480/490 Forbes Boulevard.The buildings are currently under construction..Conditions of Approval for the project required that any future signage for these projects was subject to separate review and approval. DISCUSSION/ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)Section 20.360.010 (Master Sign Program)states that the purpose of a Master Sign Program is to provide a method for an applicant to integrate the design and placement of signs within a project with the overall development design to achieve a more unified appearance. The proposed Master Sign Program is consistent with the high-quality materials,design,and character of the building.The signs will be constructed of architectural grade glass and metals such as stainless steel,aluminum and blackened steel.Wood and stone are also proposed.The proposed signage will be well-integrated into the project components and will provide clear wayfinding to and within the site for multiple modes of transportation.The proposed signage in the Master Sign Program will be of an appropriate scale and location, and will be consistent with the character and quality of the campus and wayfinding signage. In summary,the applicant is proposing the following sign program for 480/490 Forbes Boulevard (aka Vantage City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™15 File #:23-178 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. In summary,the applicant is proposing the following sign program for 480/490 Forbes Boulevard (aka Vantage Healthpeak life science campus).The Mater Sign Program Project Plans are included as Attachment 2 to this staff report. In summary, the proposed signage includes: Monument Signage The applicant is proposing one monument sign located at the building entrances along primary roads to direct visitors to building entrances.Dimensions of the monument sign are 12 feet long by 45 inches tall and will not exceed 55 square feet in area. High Rise Signage High rise identification signage is also proposed at the building roofline to identify the major building occupants from a greater viewing distance.Fabricated stainless steel individual internally illuminated channel letters are proposed.The proposed high rise identification signage is 39 feet long by 8 feet tall and will not exceed 327 square feet in area. Various directional, identification and regulatory signage is also proposed such as: ·Vehicular Directional Signage to direct visitors to major campus destinations and visitor parking. ·Plaza Identification Signage located at the entry plaza outside of the building. ·Regulatory Signage to direct visitors to major campus designations and visitor parking. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board (DRB)considered the master sign program on October 18,2022 and on January 17, 2023.The DRB recommended the application for approval by the Planning Commission at the January DRB meeting after the applicant addressed their questions and concerns regarding the proposed signage from the October 2022 DRB meeting. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The Project site is part of the East of 101 Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan. The site’s General Plan designation is Business Technology Park/Coastal Commercial. The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan as it has been designed to promote campus-style uses,such as biotechnology,high-technology and research and development uses.The signage material,color,style,and placement will be functional,informational and compatible with the urban character of the East of 101 Area.The Master Sign Program will not result in any substantive changes,and the overall project will remain consistent with the intent and purpose of the East of 101 Area Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project proposes signage for an existing approved and CEQA cleared project.A categorical exemption for onsite signage per CEQA Section 15311, Class 11 applies to this Master Sign Program. City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™16 File #:23-178 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. CONCLUSION The applicant has worked with staff and the DRB to create a thoughtful,balanced and high-quality Master Sign Program for the Business and Technology Park at 480/490 Forbes Boulevard that is in scale with the building, compatible with the urban setting and functional for those visiting and utilizing the campus.Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Master Sign Program application,per the draft Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments 1.Design Review Board Comment Letter 2.Submitted Plan Set 3.Draft Findings and Conditions of Approval City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™17 18 APN : 015-050-580 Address : 480 + 490 Forbes BoulevardVantage Master Sign Program Vantage / Master Sign Program01.0 107/14/2022 REVISED : 11/23/2022Flad Architecs 19 Table of Contents Vantage / Master Sign Program01.0 207/14/2022 Vantage Location Campus and Tenant Signage Guidelines Table of Contents Overview Materials Site Plan EG / Project Identification Signage EH / High-Rise Identification Signage EM / Monument Identification Signage EV / Vehicular Directional Signage ED / Pedestrian Directional Signage EF / Building Directory 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 N FORBES BOULEVARD AL LERT ON A VENUE 20 Overview Vantage / Master Sign Program01.0 3 Design Considerations Regulatory ConsiderationsMaster Sign Program This 2022 Master Sign Program for the Vantage campus, which is comprised of the Exterior Site Sign System and the Tenant Signage Guidelines, has been developed to: • Provide a consistent framework and design vocabulary to the overall signage system to assist day to day users and visitors to navigate safely and efﬁciently within the campus and provide a consistent, high quality visual thread of Campus Brand Identity. • Provide general design intent of all signage system components and speciﬁc design direction and location intent for certain portions of the system. • Allow for simpliﬁed review and approval of future signage applications for sign elements consistent with these guidelines. • Standard Department of Transportation and California Building Code requirements will be met in the development of control and informational signage throughout the campus. • Fire safety and emergency codes are taken into account within the program. This will ensure a controlled, accessible and safe campus environment for all visitors, day-to-day users and emergency personnel. • The SSF Planning Regulations, Municipal Code and MSP shall regulate a building tenant’s implementation of building mounted signage. There are a wide variety of signs required within the Vantage Campus. The following Site Plan dia- gram illustrates the proposed locations of the sign program and is to be viewed in tandem with the text and graphics in this document. The following pages outline the entire Program Sign Hierarchy and provide information regarding each sign type’s function, general location size, and description. • Incorporate the character of the campus and observe consistency with the vision of the Vantage Master Plan. • Create a unique identity for the entire Vantage Campus and provide a uniﬁed appearance throughout the site. • Utilize a cohesive materials palette, color palette and typography. Materials chosen will be inspired from those provided within the landscape plan and surrounding project architecture. Color palette and typography will be selected based upon the project’s Brand Identity. • Optimize sign placement and design for legibility during the day and night. Lighting will play a roll in ensuring nighttime visibility for some of the major project identiﬁcation sign types within the hierarchy. • Design so massing will be appropriate in scale to the surroundings and will integrate with other elements of the landscape design when applicable. 07/14/2022 21 Materials Vantage / Master Sign Program01.0 4 Color + Material Palette Vantage / Corporate Brand Colors The Master Signage Program and Guidelines are intended to outline and illustrate acceptable signage standards for the campus and future tenants. Moreover, the guidelines are intended to provide dimensional and aesthetic guidance prior to formal signage application. Conformance with the guidelines does not replace the review process and does not guarantee approval. Tenant identity signs should be integrated into the design of each building and compliment the overall campus wayfinding and identity signage. Sign designs shall incorporate high-quality materials – architectural grade metals, glass, metal leaf, porcelain and hardwoods. Potential materials include: 1. Wood-painted or natural. 2. Metal-natural finishes, polished , brushed, patterned, galvanized steel, raw steel, brushed aluminum. 3. Natural stone / Cast concrete. 4. Painted or engraved - directly on facade glazing. There are no color requirements or restrictions. The colors and materials shown here are used for campus identity and wayfinding signage. They are not required colors or materials for future signage. Grey Black Blue Architectural Glass Painted Aluminum Blackened Steel Vantage / Materials Vantage / Fonts Red Brushed Stainless Steel ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 12345 TUNGSTEN NARROW REGULAR ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 12345 GOTHAM LIGHT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 12345 TUNGSTEN NARROW SEMI BOLD ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 12345 GOTHAM BOLD 07/14/2022 22 480 BUILDING B 490 BUILDING A A L L E R T O N A V E N U E F O R B E S B O U L E V A R D Note: Building Footprints are conceptual and sign locations are approximate and illustrative. N ED EV Pedestrian Directional Signage Vehicular Directional Signage EF Building Directory EM Monument Identification Signage EH Alternate High-Rise Locations EH High-Rise Identification Signage EG Project Identification Signage LEGEND Vantage / Site Plan 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 509/20/2022 23 CROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADS 460 | 480 | 490 CROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADS Sign Type EG: 50" tall x 12'-6" wide x 9" thick stainless steel monument. Sign frame to have a brushed face with brushed returns. Finish: #4 brushed finish with vertical grain. Metal finish to match architects sample. 1.5" thick x 9" tall logo / graphic with painted face and satin edges and halo-lit illumination. Color: Black. Sheen: Matte. 1/8" thick x 134" wide x 13.25" tall stainless steel panel with perforated pattern, brushed face and satin edges. Finish: #4 brushed finish. 1" thick x 5.5" tall (varies) metal letters / logo with painted finish. Color: Black. Sheen: Matte. 1/8" thick x 134" wide x 13.25" tall stainless steel panel with perforated pattern, brushed face and satin edges. Finish: #4 brushed finish. 1/8" thick x 134" wide x 13.25" tall metal panel with painted finish. Color: Grey. Sheen: Matte. 1/2" thick x 3.5" tall (varies) metal letters with painted finish. Color: White. Sheen: Matte. Concrete base with board formed texture. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOTESEG / Site Monument This sign type is located at building entrances along primary roads. The purpose of this sign is to direct visitors to building entrances. Exact locations on campus to be determined. Sign Info: Maximum Sign Area not to exceed 55 Square Feet. Note: All text is shown for design intent only. Illumination: Dimmable Internally Illuminated Sign. Color: Warm White 4000K. Max. Allowable Square Footage: 55 sq. ft. Mow Strip: Fabricator to provide 4 inch wide mow strip around entire sign. ELEVATION PLAN ( REDUCED ) SIDEN.T.S. 12' - 8"9"5"45"1 3 6 7 4 5 2 8 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 607/14/2022 24 CROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADS 460 | 480 | 490 CROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADS EG / Site Monument / Night View 6.107/14/2022 CROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADS 460 | 480 | 490 CROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADSCROSSROADS 25 Signage 312 square feet 318' - 6" 39' - 0"8' - 0"108' - 0"This sign type is located at the building roofline but not above the roofline. The purpose of this sign is to identify the major building occupants from a greater viewing distance. Tenant logo use is acceptable. Illustrative example of signage locations below. Sign Info: Maximum Sign Area not to exceed 318 Square Feet. Quantity : 2 Per building with at least four stories, 1 on any facade. Fabricated Stainless Steel individual channel letters/logos with face lit or halo lit warm white illumination. Letters/logos are mounted to building facade without exposed raceway or visible fasteners or attachments. Color to be determined by tenant. Note: All text is shown for design intent only. Illumination: Dimmable Internally Illuminated Sign. Color: Warm White 4000K. EH / High-Rise Identification Sign EAST ELEVATION / BUILDING B BA N 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 707/14/2022 REVISED : 11/23/2022 26 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 7.107/14/2022 REVISED : 11/23/2022 EH / High-Rise Identification Sign / Rendering 27 BA N EH / High-Rise Identification Sign / Night View Signage 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 7.207/14/2022 REVISED : 11/23/2022 28 Signage EH / High-Rise Identification Sign ELEVATION / HIGH-RISE IDENTIFICATION SIGN SECTION / HIGH-RISE IDENTIFICATION SIGN PRECEDENT IMAGE / HIGH-RISE IDENTIFICATION SIGN AXONOMETRIC / HIGH-RISE IDENTIFICATION SIGN Sign a g eSpandrel GlassClear GlassPortion of sign that hangs below the spandrel glassBack of letters to have finish and color similar to face of letters. Visible back side of letter to be manunufatured to match color, finishand quality of theletter face and returns. 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 7.307/14/2022 REVISED : 11/23/2022 29 Signage 312 square feet 327' - 6" 39' - 0"8' - 0"123' - 0"This sign type is located at the building roofline but not above the roofline. The purpose of this sign is to identify the major building occupants from a greater viewing distance. Tenant logo use is acceptable. Illustrative example of signage locations below. Sign Info: Maximum Sign Area not to exceed 327 Square Feet. Quantity : 2 Per building with at least four stories, 1 on any facade. Fabricated Stainless Steel individual channel letters/logos with face lit or halo lit warm white illumination. Letters/logos are mounted to building facade without exposed raceway or visible fasteners or attachments. Color to be determined by tenant. Note: All text is shown for design intent only. Illumination: Dimmable Internally Illuminated Sign. Color: Warm White 4000K. EH / High-Rise Identification Sign WEST ELEVATION / BUILDING B BA N 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 7.407/14/2022 REVISED : 11/23/2022 30 Signage 312 square feet 313' - 6" 39' - 0"8' - 0"91' - 0"This sign type is located at the building roofline but not above the roofline. The purpose of this sign is to identify the major building occupants from a greater viewing distance. Tenant logo use is acceptable. Illustrative example of signage locations below. Sign Info: Maximum Sign Area not to exceed 313 Square Feet. Quantity : 2 Per building with at least four stories, 1 on any facade. Fabricated Stainless Steel individual channel letters/logos with face lit or halo lit warm white illumination. Letters/logos are mounted to building facade without exposed raceway or visible fasteners or attachments. Color to be determined by tenant. Note: All text is shown for design intent only. Illumination: Dimmable Internally Illuminated Sign. Color: Warm White 4000K. EH / High-Rise Identification Sign EAST ELEVATION / BUILDING A BA N 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 7.507/14/2022 REVISED : 11/23/2022 31 Signage 312 square feet 313' - 6" 39' - 0"8' - 0"91' - 0"This sign type is located at the building roofline but not above the roofline. The purpose of this sign is to identify the major building occupants from a greater viewing distance. Tenant logo use is acceptable. Illustrative example of signage locations below. Sign Info: Maximum Sign Area not to exceed 313 Square Feet. Quantity : 2 Per building with at least four stories, 1 on any facade. Fabricated Stainless Steel individual channel letters/logos with face lit or halo lit warm white illumination. Letters/logos are mounted to building facade without exposed raceway or visible fasteners or attachments. Color to be determined by tenant. Note: All text is shown for design intent only. Illumination: Dimmable Internally Illuminated Sign. Color: Warm White 4000K. EH / High-Rise Identification Sign WEST ELEVATION / BUILDING A BA N 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 7.607/14/2022 REVISED : 11/23/2022 32 Sign Type EM: 8'-0" tall x 1'-1" wide x 5" thick painted metal monument. Sign to have painted enamel face with painted returns. Finish: Matte. Metal color and finish to match architects sample. Each location to have unique color. Returns painted a unique color (not face color). Concrete base with integral colored finish. Color: Black. Note: All text is shown for design intent only. Illumination: None. Max. Allowable Square Footage: 11 sq. ft. Mow Strip: Fabricator to provide 9 inch tall mow strip at base of sign. 1 2 3 NOTESEM / Monument Identification Sign This sign type is located at primary decision points on the campus. The purpose of this sign is to direct visitors to campus buildings. Exact locations on campus to be determined. Sign Info: Maximum Sign Area not to exceed 11 Square Feet. PLAN 1' - 1" +/- ( Varies ) 13"8' - 0" 12" +/- ( Varies )13"1 3 2 ELEVATION @ SIGN TYPE EM N.T.S 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 807/14/2022 REVISED : 11/23/2022 33 480 |490Forbes Vi s i t o rParking Parking Sign Type EV: 6'-0" tall x 2'-4" wide x 5" thick stainless steel and glass monument. Sign frame to have a brushed face with brushed returns. Finish: #4 brushed finish with vertical grain. Metal finish to match architects sample. 1/4" thick x 26.875" wide x 66.75" tall Frosted Glass with satin etched face and polished edges. Color: Translucent White. Supplier: Schott Glass. Panel is back-lit. 1/8" thick x 3" tall Stainless Steel letters / arrow with brushed face and satin edges. Finish: #4 brushed finish with vertical grain. 1/2" thick x 3.5" tall (varies) metal letters / symbols with painted face and satin edges. Color: Grey + Light Grey. Sheen: Matte. 1/2" thick x 3.5" tall (varies) metal symbol with painted face and satin edges. Color: Blue + White. Sheen: Matte. Step down transformer located in sign base with access panel. Note: All text is shown for design intent only. Illumination: Dimmable Internally Illuminated Sign. Color: Warm White 4000K. Max. Allowable Square Footage: 14 sq. ft. Number of Sides: Two Sided Sign. Mow Strip: Fabricator to provide 4 inch wide mow strip around entire sign. 1 2 3 4 5 6 NOTESEV / Vehicular Directional Sign This sign type is located at primary decision points and campus intersections. The purpose of this sign is to direct visitors to major campus destinations and visitor parking. Exact locations on campus to be determined. Sign Info: Maximum Sign Area not to exceed 14 Square Feet. ELEVATION SIDENTS 2' - 4"5"4"4' - 8"5' - 0"1 3 5 6 4 2 03.0 Nexus on Grand / Master Sign Program 907/14/2022 34 480 |490Forbes Vi s i t o rParking Parking 480 |490Forbes Vi s i t o rParking Parking EV / Vehicular Directional Sign / Night View 9.107/14/2022 35 490 Forbes 460 Forbes Sign Type ED: 4'-0" tall x 1'-6" wide x 3" thick brushed stainless steel monument. Sign to have brushed metal face with applied letters. Finish: Matte. Metal color and finish to match architects sample. .25" thick x 2" tall (varies) metal letters with painted finish. Color: Red. Sheen: Matte. .25" thick x 3" tall (varies) metal letters / logo with painted finish. Color: Black. Sheen: Matte. Surface applied vinyl graphics. Color: Dark Grey. Sheen: Matte. Note: All text is shown for design intent only. Illumination: None. Max. Allowable Square Footage: 6 sq. ft. Mow Strip: Fabricator to provide 4 inch wide mow strip around entire sign. 1 2 3 4 NOTESED / Pedestrian Directional Signage This sign type is located at decision points on the campus. The purpose of this sign is to direct visitors to the correct building or destination. Exact locations on campus to be determined. Sign Info: Maximum Sign Area not to exceed 6 Square Feet. ELEVATION SIDENTS 1' - 6"3"4' - 0"1 2 3 4 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 1007/14/2022 36 Building A 490 Forbes Tenant A Tenant B Sign Type EF: 5'-5" tall x 1'-6" wide x 3" thick brushed stainless steel monument. Sign to have brushed metal face with applied letters. Finish: Matte. Metal color and finish to match architects sample. .5" thick x 2" tall (varies) metal letters with painted finish. Color: Grey. Sheen: Matte. .5" thick x 3" tall (varies) metal letters / logo with painted finish. Color: Black. Sheen: Matte. Etched graphics with enamel fill. Color: Black, Red + White. Sheen: Matte. Note: All text is shown for design intent only. Illumination: None. Max. Allowable Square Footage: 9 sq. ft. Mow Strip: Fabricator to provide 4 inch wide mow strip around entire sign. 1 2 3 4 NOTESEF / Building Directory This sign type is located at building lobby entrances on the campus. The purpose of this sign is to direct visitors to the correct building. Exact locations on campus to be determined. Sign Info: Maximum Sign Area not to exceed 9 Square Feet. ELEVATION SIDENTS 1' - 6"3"5' - 5"1 2 3 4 03.0 Vantage / Master Sign Program 1107/14/2022 37 DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL P22-0100: DR22-0032, SIGNS22-0019 MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR Buildings A and B Vantage Healthpeak Life Science Campus 480/490 FORBES BLVD (aka 440 FORBES BLVD) (As recommended by City Staff on March 16, 2023) As required by the Master Sign Permit Application Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.360.010) and the Design Review Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.480), the following findings are made in support of a Master Sign Program at 480/490 Forbes Boulevard (aka Forbes Boulevard) in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), based on public testimony and materials submitted to the South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: project plans prepared by Flad Architects dated November 23, 2022; and Planning Commission hearing of March 16, 2023. Master Sign Program 1. The proposed signs are compatible in style and character with the buildings to which the signs are to be attached, any surrounding structures and any adjoining signage on the site because the proposed signs were designed to be in keeping with the architectural design of the buildings, using similar materials and colors; 2. The Master Sign Program contains standards for all wayfinding and identification signage for the site. Any future tenants will be provided with adequate opportunities to construct, erect or maintain a sign for identification; and 3. The Master Sign Program includes the installation of wayfinding and identification signage that will improve both pedestrian and vehicular circulation and emergency vehicle access. Design Review 1. The Master Sign Program complies with the applicable standards and requirements of this Ordinance because as submitted and modified through the Design Review Process, this sign program meets or complies with the applicable standards included in Chapter 20.110 (Employment Districts); 2. The Master Sign Program complies with the General Plan the City Council has adopted because the proposed sign program is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Business Commercial land use designation; 38 3. The Master Sign Program complies with any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed sign program is consistent with the Design Principles in Section 20.360.003; and 4. The Master Sign Program complies with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated against, and found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P22-0100: DR22-0032, SIGNS22-0019 MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR Buildings A and B Vantage Healthpeak Life Science Campus 480/490 FORBES BLVD (aka 440 FORBES BLVD) (As recommended by City Staff on March 16, 2023) A) Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as otherwise amended by the following conditions of approval. 2. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the approved plans prepared by Flad Architects, dated November 23, 2022, as approved by the Planning Commission in association with SIGNS22-0019, and as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Chief Planner. 3. The total sign area for all signs included in the Master Sign Program shall not exceed the square footage as indicated in the Planning Commission approved plans. Sign area shall be calculated by blocking or boxing around the outside edge of the proposed signage, including the logo. 4. Any modification to the approved use, plans or conditions of approval shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012 (“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. (Planning Division contact: Christy Usher, 650-877-8535) 39 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-210 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. Report regarding applications for Design Review and Transportation Demand Management to construct a new 7-story,85 foot tall,residential housing development consisting of 543 housing units located at 7 South Linden Avenue in the T5 Corridor zone district,and determination that the project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR),pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15162 and related CEQA requirements.(Christy Usher, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt two resolutions to respectively determine that the proposed project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR),pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines section 15162 and related CEQA requirements,and approve the entitlements request for Design Review (DR22-0007),and Transportation Demand Management (TDM22-0002) subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval. Motions to adopt staff recommendation: 1. Adopt resolution making CEQA determinations 2. Adopt resolution approving entitlements subject to attached conditions of approval. BACKGROUND The project site is located in a sub area of the City called Lindenville.A planning effort is currently underway to draft a new specific plan for Lindenville.The Lindenville sub-area is located in the central southern portion of the city,adjacent to the Downtown sub-area.It is in between Highway 101 and South Spruce Ave.The sub- area stretches over 400 acres and is largely comprised of manufacturing,food processing,warehousing,and other industrial uses,including some of the City’s historic “legacy”businesses,such as Produce Terminal and Bimbo Bakeries.The Southline Specific Plan area,adjacent to the San Bruno BART station,is also included in the Lindenville sub-area. The Lindenville Specific Plan will be the guiding document to help realize the General Plan's vision for the area as a mixed-use neighborhood,employment hub,and cultural center of South San Francisco.Walkable, connected districts,including the South Spruce corridor,are envisioned as lively destinations where people have easy access to retail,parks,and other community resources.The Plan will preserve the city's industrial heritage but will also provide new opportunities for people to live in the district.A revitalized Colma Creek has the potential to become a community-serving linear park with restored ecology that benefits the health and wellbeing of people and wildlife. The Lindenville Specific Plan is intended to: ·Center the voices of people who will live, work, own property, and recreate in Lindenville. ·Prepare a shared plan for achieving a successful, equitable, and resilient district through design City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 1 of 6 powered by Legistar™40 File #:23-210 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. standards, community benefits, and provision of public amenities and services. ·Retain existing industrial uses, while ensuring new neighborhoods are livable, healthy, quiet, and green. Adoption of the Final Specific Plan is scheduled for summer 2023.In the meantime,the land use and development standards of the proposed project are anticipated to be consistent with the draft Lindenville Specific Plan document and its vision. PROJECT OVERVIEW Project and Site Description The proposed project includes construction of a new 7-story,85-foot tall,residential housing development consisting of 543 housing units located at 7 South Linden Avenue.The proposed structure is approximately 910,736 gross square feet.The project would include approximately 563 parking spaces that are above grade and enclosed on levels one and two of building.The project site is approximately 4.22 acres and currently developed with industrial warehouse uses. The project site is bordered by South Linden Avenue to the west.Directly adjacent to the south is the City’s storm water pump station which is adjacent to Colma Creek.To the north and east is Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and property.The Lindenville sub-area is located in the central southern portion of the city,adjacent to the Downtown sub-area. It is in between Highway 101 and South Spruce Avenue. Vehicle access to the site would be provided via two separate driveway entrances off South Linden Avenue that are both two-way.There are two parking garage entrances on the site which can be accessed off either of the South Linden Avenue driveway access points. Land uses in the project vicinity are predominately a mixture of industrial,commercial,office and warehousing.The project site is currently improved with two single-story industrial warehouses.The Cal Train station is approximately a 0.5 mile walk to the project site. The proposed unit count and type includes the following:62 studio units,252 one-bedroom units,and 229 two- bedroom units.The units range in size from approximately 575 square feet to 1,500 square feet.In compliance with the City’s inclusionary housing codes and requirements 15%of the units will be affordable which is a total of 82 units spread proportionately across the various unit bedroom types. The existing lot is triangular in nature and the architecture and footprint of the proposed building takes into account the triangular shape of the existing site.Ground floor units face Linden Ave,flanked by a resident lobby to the north and tenant amenities to the south.The main facade of the residential building is along South Linden Avenue with stepped down corners with resident roof decks,which serve to break up the massing,while providing pleasant resident amenity spaces.The proposed building is composed of modern high-quality materials and breaks up the facade with cast in place concrete,metal and glass railings and awnings, cementitious horizontal siding,wood-like siding,and painted stucco.The building mass is broken up at one main location,with a 40’setback,creating 2 main building masses that span between 220’to 245’.Each segment includes different materiality,color,and window design to meet the intent of the current zoning code while still delivering the maximum amount of units and allowing the building systems to remain efficient.Open space areas a pocket park, greenway, balconies, patios and interior courtyard areas. City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 2 of 6 powered by Legistar™41 File #:23-210 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. Neighborhood Meeting The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 24,2023.The meeting was held at the South San Francisco Municipal Services Building from 6:00-7:00 p.m.Notices were sent to all neighbors within 300 feet of the proposed project.Deanna Chalfant (Essex Property Trust)and Heather Snow and Jon Ennis (BDE Architecture),as well as Christy Usher (South San Francisco City Planner)were present at the meeting.At 6:15 p.m.two neighbors arrived to the meeting,who own and occupy the building across the street from the 7 S Linden project. They learned more about the project from the applicant, architect, and project planner. Public Comments No public comments have been received for the file. ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The site is zoned T5 Corridor District (T5C)and the development is a “Flex High-Rise”Building Type.A flex high-rise building is a large-scale development designed to accommodate a range of uses and configurations with multiple primary building frontages.Retail,restaurant,service,office,and residential uses may be accommodated on all floors.Parking may be at ground level (placed behind other street-facing uses).The T5C zoning district supports a comfortable and walkable high-intensity urban core.Located west of Highway 101 as well as at major nodes along El Camino Real,the district supports walkable sites and high-intensity forms.The project complies with standards for the site and buildings within the transect zoning districts.The project does not require any use permits or variances. Private Storage Space 50% Reduction The applicant has requested that the City consider an exception provided in the Zoning Code which allows a 50%reduction in the storage requirement for individual residential units.The Zoning Code (SSFMC 20.310.004 (F)(5))requires that for every 10 units a minimum of 200 cubic feet of enclosed,weather-proofed, and lockable private storage space must be provided;however,the total number of private storage spaces may be reduced up to 50 percent by the Chief Planner if the storage is located proximate to the residential unit. Specifically,for the proposed project the Code requires private storage for fifty-five (55)units;a 50%reduction would be twenty-eight (28)units;however,the proposed project includes the required storage in forty (40)of the units.As indicated on sheet AP4.04 a storage closet of 200 cubic feet is proposed in the entry way of the 2 bedroom (corner) floor plan. The applicant has requested this reduction and is proposing dedicated in-unit storage as shown and labeled on the floor plans.Staff has reviewed the private storage space proposal,and finds that the project provides a sufficient amount of dedicated in-unit storage spaces,with the intent of preventing residents from storing large objects on balconies, within parking spaces, or other common areas. A draft Condition of Approval is included to prevent storage on balconies or within on-site parking spaces.If the proposed reduction to the Private Storage requirement results in unfavorable conditions related to storage on balconies,or within parking spaces,the applicant shall provide off-site storage options to residents at the developer’s expense. Staff recommends approval of the requested reduction in private storage spaces. As conditioned,the proposed project would be compliant with all development standards and regulations and City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 3 of 6 powered by Legistar™42 File #:23-210 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. As conditioned,the proposed project would be compliant with all development standards and regulations and provisions for entitlements in the City’s Municipal Code. Table 1. Development Standard Compliance Proposed Project Development Standard Density 129 du/acre 140 du/acre max Floor Area 910,736 sf 919,116 sf Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)4.95 5 Height 85 ft 85 ft Setbacks Front (East - Linden Ave) Side (South) Rear (West -South Pacific Railway) 0 ft. 31’-7” ft 22 ft. 0 ft min, 10 max 0 ft min 0 ft. min, 10 max Maximum Lot Coverage 75%80% GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The project site is designated as “High Density Mixed Use”in the General Plan.The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan land use vision,goals,policies,and implementation measures for the Lindenville sub area of the General Plan including but not limited to: Citywide Land Use Vision Create new,vibrant residential neighborhoods in East of 101 and Lindenville,ensuring appropriate City services, amenities, and retail to support new residential growth. Produce a range of housing types for different income levels and household types across the city to balance job and housing growth and distribute the potential impacts of future growth. Goal SA-22: A new residential neighborhood centered along Colma Creek within a short walk of Downtown amenities and services that provides a range of housing types for different income levels and housing types. Policy SA-22.1: Introduce a mix of affordable and market rate housing in Lindenville. ·Goal LU-1:Create complete neighborhoods,where residents can access most of their everyday needs within a short walk, bike, or transit trip. ·Policy LU-1.7: Create new Lindenville and East of 101 mixed use neighborhoods. Goal SA-23: Living, working, and shopping options are expanded in new mixed use neighborhoods in Lindenville. REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS As required by the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC),the proposed project requires the following entitlements: City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 4 of 6 powered by Legistar™43 File #:23-210 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. ·Design Review for the proposed housing development; and ·Transportation Demand Management for a residential land use with 20 or more units. All signage for the proposed housing development will be applied for under separate permits. Design Review (SSFMC 20.480) The project was reviewed by the City’s Design Review Board (DRB)on January 17,2023.The DRB liked the design concept and recommended approval with conditions due to the project’s well thought out architecture and landscape design as evident in the building elevations and landscape materials.The DRB recommended approval with some minor revisions related to landscaping that have been incorporated into the project.The DRB comment letter is Exhibit D to the Entitlement Resolution. Transportation Demand Management (20.400.00) Transportation Demand Management is required for residential land uses with 20 or more units.The Transportation Demand Management proposed for the residential development outlines numerous trip reduction measures applicable to both guests and employees including but not limited to unbundled parking, free transit passes to residents for first year of tenant’s residency,and bicycle storage.All of these and more trip reduction measures proposed in the project TDM checklist are feasible and relevant to the operation of the proposed residential development and it’s residents. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project site is within the Lindenville sub area as a part of the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 202102006) which was certified on October 12, 2022. Consistent with the City’s General Plan EIR, a multifamily development is proposed in compliance with the City’s development standards. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168 provide that when an EIR has been prepared and certified, later activities (such as the current project) determined by the lead agency as being within the scope of the that EIR do not require subsequent environmental review. The environmental checklist prepared for the project dated January 24, 2023 serves as substantial evidence that the current project is within the scope of the previous environmental analysis including General Plan EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and that subsequent CEQA analysis is not required for the proposed project. Further, under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, projects consistent with a general plan and meeting certain criteria are subject to streamlined review where the City only analyzes whether there are project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site. To qualify, the project must be consistent with the General Plan and zoning, for which the City certified an EIR. In this case, the environmental checklist further demonstrates that there are no negative impacts that are project-specific or peculiar to the project site, or were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 5 of 6 powered by Legistar™44 File #:23-210 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. CONCLUSION The project,as conditioned,is compliant with the City’s Municipal Code,Development Standards and Design Criteria, General Plan including but not limited to the Lindenville sub planning area. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1.Adopt a resolution making findings and a determination that the proposed 543-unit multifamily housing development proposed at 7 South Linden Avenue is consistent with the adopted 2040 General Plan EIR and determination that the project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR),pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines section 15162 and related CEQA requirements. 2.Adopt a resolution making findings and approving the entitlements request for Project P22-0024 Design Review (DR22-0007),Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0002),subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. Associated Resolutions and Exhibits to CEQA Resolution I.CEQA Resolution (File ID #23-194) A.Environmental Checklist, dated January 24, 2023 B.2040 General Plan EIR and MMP (available online) II.Entitlements Resolution (File ID #23-195) A.Conditions of Approval, dated March 16, 2023 B.Project Plans, dated January 13, 2023 C.Transportation Demand Management Checklist, dated October 12, 2022 D.DRB Comment letter, dated January 17, 2023 E.Parking Management Plan, dated February 16, 2023 F.Transportation Study, dated March 1, 2023 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 6 of 6 powered by Legistar™45 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-194 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. Resolution making findings and determining that the environmental effects of the proposed 543 residential housing units located at 7 South Linden Avenue is consistent with the adopted 2040 General Plan EIR and would not necessitate the need for preparing a subsequent environmental document pursuant to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168,and is eligible for streamlining per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. WHEREAS,Essex Property Trust,Inc.(“Applicant”)has proposed to construct 543 rental housing units on an existing developed 4.22 acre site located at 7 South Linden Avenue (APN 014-074-010)collectively referred to as (“Project Site”); and, WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the T5 Corridor zoning district; and WHEREAS,the applicant seeks approval of a Design Review (DR22-0007)and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0002) for the Project (P22-0024); and WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, the City Council certified the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse #2021020064) on October 12, 2022 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development; and WHEREAS,the City and applicant prepared an environmental checklist for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4).Such environmental checklist concluded that per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and CEQA Guidelines 15162,the Project is within the scope of the General Plan EIR and development of the Project does not require the preparation of an additional environmental document; and WHEREAS,CEQA Guidelines section 15183 provides that projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning policies or community plan for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review,except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site.The environmental checklist also demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 as there are no project- specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site; and WHEREAS,on March 16,2023,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™46 File #:23-194 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. WHEREAS,on March 16,2023,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all reports, recommendations, and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.) (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000,et seq.);the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the 7 South Linden Environmental Checklist,all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed March 16,2023 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code Sections 21080(e) and 21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.Exhibit A attached to this Resolution,The Project Environmental Checklist for 7 South Linden Avenue, is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner, Tony Rozzi. B.CEQA Findings 1.For the reasons stated in this Resolution,there is not substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that approval of the Project will result,as contemplated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162,in significant environmental effects beyond those adequately evaluated and addressed by the General Plan EIR nor are there new or alternative mitigation measures that the applicant declines to impose.Therefore,the Project is within the scope of the General Plan EIR and may be used for this later activity pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because the Project is a subsequent project within the scope of the Project Description as analyzed in the Program EIR for the 2040 General Plan.All applicable regulations and mitigation measures (Exhibit B)identified in the General Plan EIR will be applied to the Project or otherwise made conditions of approval of the Project. 2.For the reasons stated in this Resolution,the proposed Project is consistent with the development City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™47 File #:23-194 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. 2.For the reasons stated in this Resolution,the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning,community plan,or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified and therefore,the Project does not require additional environmental review,except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.The environmental checklist demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and determines that the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed under the General Plan EIR (EIR)pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168 and no additional environmental review is required.Additionally,the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ******* City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™48 January 24, 2023 7 Linden Project Information –Environmental Consistency Analysis I. Purpose On October 12, 2022, a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City Council (Final Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, State Clearinghouse #2021020064). The program EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, which established new land use, development, and includes amendments to the Zoning Code necessary to implement the General Plan Update over a 20-year planning period. The Zoning Code Amendments also incorporate a number of major policies from documents that were previously adopted. The updated 2022 Climate Action Plan (CAP) includes a community-wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for limited environmental review of subsequent projects under a program EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168.) Components of a subsequent project must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether any additional environmental analysis must be conducted. The CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this evaluation. This Environmental Consistency Analysis (ECA) has been prepared to evaluate the 543 apartment units (Project) that is a subsequent project within the General Plan Update (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4)). This ECA also examines consistency of the Project with the General Plan Update for the purposes of CEQA Guidelines 15183, which allows streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, as well as CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3, which allows streamlined environmental review for eligible infill projects. The City concludes that, based on the substantial evidence discussed herein, all the Project’s environmental effects were previously analyzed in the General Plan Update program EIR and no event pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 has occurred since preparation and certification of the General Plan Update program EIR. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required. Other Available CEQA Exemptions The City has chosen to analyze the Project under CEQA Guidelines 15168, 15183 and 15183.3, but based on the nature and location of the Project, and the analysis provided herein, the proposed Project also qualifies for several other CEQA exemptions. • The Project is exempt under Government Code Section 65457, as a residential development project being undertaken pursuant to the General Plan for which an EIR was prepared and certified and no event specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 has occurred. • The Project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a qualified in-fill development project, as it meets the following conditions: o As described in Section X (Land Use and Planning), the Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation, applicable general plan policies and applicable zoning designations and regulations, o As described in Section 9 (Description of the Project) and Section 10 (Existing Setting), the project occurs within the City limits on a site less than five acres, and 49 January 24, 2023 surrounded by urban uses, o As described in Section IV (Biological Resources) below, the Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, o As described in Sections XIV (Traffic/Transportation), XI (Noise), III (Air Quality), and IX (Hydrology), approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and o As described in Section XIII (Public Services), the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. • The Project is exempt under Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 (SB 743 (2013)), as a residential project, located in a transit priority area, consistent with the General Plan Update, for which an EIR was certified. II. Project Description 1. Project Title 7 South Linden Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 3. Contact Person and Phone Number Deanna Chalfant, Vice President, Development 650.655.7897 Dchalfant@essex.com 4. Preparer and Phone Number Margaret Netto, Netto Planning Services LLC (650) 796-5828 5. Project Location 7 South Linden, South San Francisco, CA 94080 APN: 014-074-010 6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address Owner: Essex Property Trust, Inc 1100 Park Place, Suite 200, San Mateo, California 94403 (650) 655-7800 7. General Plan Designation High Density Mixed Use 50 January 24, 2023 8. Zoning High Density Mixed Use 9. Description of Project The Project site consists of 4.23 acres, bordered by South Linden Avenue to the west, Colma Creek Canal to the south and the Southern Pacific Railroad spur to the north and east. The Project site is an infill, redevelopment site that is currently developed with two single-story industrial warehouse buildings with a surface parking lot surrounded by urban uses, and located entirely in the High-Density Mixed-Use Zoning District in the Lindenville sub-area. The Project includes the full demolition of the existing buildings and surface parking lot located at 7 South Linden Avenue. The site would be redeveloped into a seven-story; 543-unit apartment complex in one building over parking; project amenities include fitness room, lounge area, courtyards, leasing office, and roof decks. The project would have a residential density of 139 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), which meets the base density of 140 du/acre. The Project would provide 10% low-income units and 5% very low-income units, for a total of 15% (82 units) Below Market Rate (BMR) units. The building would consist of five levels of “Type III A” wood construction over two levels of “Type I” concrete construction. The complex would be a maximum height of 82’-7 1/2’ consistent with the high-density mixed-use maximum height limit of 85-feet. The five upper floors would consist of studios, and one- and two-bedroom apartments. These floors surround four common landscape courtyards totaling 24,777 square feet on Level 3. The courtyards would be furnished with barbeques, dining areas, lounge furniture, and a swimming pool in one of the courtyards on the east side of the Project. Two roof decks would be located on Level 7. The lower levels would contain mechanical lift parking for the residents, as well as guest parking for visitors, resident storage units, and long-term bicycle storage. The ground floor parking level would be lined with mail room, lobbies, leasing area, utilities, and residential units so the parking is shielded from public view to those walking adjacent to the Project on South Linden Avenue. These uses provide interest and activation along South Linden Avenue. The Level 7 roof decks are located on the corners of the building, creating a step-back defining the top of the corner elevation. This corner element keeps consistent architectural language which breaks up the massing, while providing a residential amenity space. Residents would have access to the units from the lobby and the entrance on South Linden Avenue. The main lobby on South Linden Avenue provides easy access to the downtown shops and the Caltrain station. The residential portion of the building would also be directly accessed from the internal parking spaces. The building would also be elevator served. Vehicular access to the parking garage would be provided via two driveways on South Linden Avenue, which are located at the north and south ends of the Project at approximately 600-feet apart. The north elevation would be located 70 feet south of the South Linden Avenue/Railroad Avenue intersection and would be restricted to right turn only movements due to its proximity to the traffic signal at South Linden Avenue and Railroad Avenue. The northern and the southern project driveways would be interconnected via an internal perimeter access road that runs along the east and south property lines at the back of the proposed building. 51 January 24, 2023 Project Site Plan 52 January 24, 2023 Parking and Circulation. The parking garage would contain 565 parking spaces as well as 136 long-term and 18 short-term bicycle parking spaces shown on the site plan above. Table 1 below shows the number of units, vehicle parking stalls, and bicycle parking that would be included in the Project. Mechanical stacker vehicular parking would be provided on Level 1. Access to the floor would be provided by two elevators and several staircases. The site plan shows two access gates from South Linden Avenue. The south gate would provide access to 110 parking spaces. The following requirements apply to the Project: Multi-family Residential • One covered parking space shall be designated per unit. Based on this requirement, the Project would be required to provide 543 parking spaces. The Project meets and exceeds the parking requirements for multifamily residential. Because the Project is also within close proximity to the Caltrain station, it is expected that many residents would also use public transportation, and therefore, would not need a car. Also, the Project would implement a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, in accordance with South San Francisco requirements to reduce the Project’s parking demand and off-set the reduced parking on-site. Table 1. 7 Linden Project Summary Number of Units 543 Lot Area 4.22 ac Building Gross Floor Area 468,162 Parking Spaces 565 Amenities 11,065 As a new high-density development within a one-half mile radius of the Caltrain Station, the Project would promote ridership and reduce emissions, provide high-quality residential opportunities for younger employees and older retirees who desire a convenient location within proximity to the downtown, and increase the population close to Grand Avenue to support nearby businesses, per the General Plan Update goals. In addition, as required, the Project would include a robust TDM plan for the purpose of reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, thus reducing vehicle trips as well as the need for on-site parking. The TDM Program is proposed to include the following (or similar/equivalent) features: Site Location and Design-Related Measures  The project site is located within walking distance of the new South San Francisco Caltrain station and the North County Samtrans Route 130 bus stop at Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue. Residents can access the new South San Francisco Caltrain station platform via the pedestrian/bike plaza located on the southeast quadrant of the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection, which is less than a 10-minute walk from the project site.  The Project would provide entrances along Linden Avenue with a direct path from the sidewalk to the front door. The proximity to bus and transit stops encourages the use of Caltrain and SamTrans/Shuttle buses for residents of the proposed project.  The Project would include pedestrian scale lighting along the project frontages. This measure would encourage residents to walk to nearby destinations and ensure well-lit paths to nearby transit stops.  As part of the Project, new sidewalks, curbs and gutters would be installed along the project frontage on Linden Avenue. The Project would remove two existing driveways (curb-cuts) along Linden Avenue and provide a continuous sidewalk along its frontage on the east side of Linden Avenue  The residential units would include high-bandwidth internet connections to facilitate telecommunicating. Access to high-bandwidth internet connection would allow residents to work from home and therefore reduce the number of commute trips to and from project site. 53 January 24, 2023  A community room with breakout rooms would be provided to serve the residents of the project. The rooms would have typical office amenities. Having these available within the residential development permits employees to work away from their employer’s primary location, decreasing the need for parking and office space at the work site, and saving time and resources spent on commuting. The resident lobby also would have spaces for residents to facilitate working from home.  The Project would provide bicycle storage per City requirements and repair station.  The Project provides unbundled parking.  The Project would provide a gym and swimming pool on site so that residents can conduct their fitness activities without leaving the project site, thus reducing overall vehicular trips. TDM Programmatic Measures  Transportation Coordinator. Identify a Transportation Coordinator (could be an existing on-site staff person) for the community who would be responsible for developing, marketing, implementing, and evaluating TDM programs. Providing dedicated personnel to help make the TDM program more robust, consistent, and reliable. Include internal communication tools such as the “on-line kiosk” with all the specific information about the transportation resources available to the residents.  Real-Time Transit Information. The Project would install flat-screen computer monitors in the resident lobby and in the mail room that would display real-time information of all local transportation options, customized to the project’s location, which would enable residents to select the best way to commute.  The Transportation Coordinator would distribute a carpool matching application to all residents. The application would match residents who work in the same area who may be able to carpool or vanpool together. Some residents who may be reluctant to reach out to find carpool partners via Merge or Waze Carpool may be more likely to fill out a form that would be administered by their Transportation Coordinator.  The Project would offer transit subsidies to all residents. The Project would free transit passes to residents for first year od tenant’s residency.  Carpool and Vanpool Incentive Programs. The 511 Regional Rideshare Program and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (511.org and commute.org) offer a number of incentive programs to encourage people to try carpooling and vanpooling. Most of these programs are designed to reward someone for forming or trying a carpool or vanpool and provide an award or subsidy after the first three or six months of use.  Car Share. Work with car sharing companies to assess the feasibility of providing car share on-site. The decision to install a car share is ultimately up to the car sharing service providers. A car share provider located on-site would allow residents to use a car share vehicle for errands which helps to reduce concerns and inconveniences of not owning a vehicle. The Project is consistent with the City’s goal of increasing the quantity and density of residential units in the City, to promote increased Caltrain ridership and to promote a healthy ecosystem that supports downtown businesses. In the public realm around the site, the Project would provide streetscape improvements such as undergrounding overhead utility lines along all frontages of the property, widening and installing new sidewalks along the Project frontage on South Linden Avenue. Improved public utilities, such as storm drains, and new sanitary sewer cleanouts would be completed within South Linden Avenue. The Project would include the provision of electric charging stations, and a mechanical stacking parking system to achieve maximin efficiency. The Project would also be in compliance with the City’s Reach Codes. 10. Existing Setting The Project site is located six blocks south of Grand Avenue on the east side of downtown South 54 January 24, 2023 San Francisco. The Project site is an infill, redevelopment site that is currently developed with two single-story industrial warehouses with surface parking. 11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The subject site is located on the south side of South Linden Avenue between Railroad Avenue to the north and South Canal Street to the south. To the north across the railroad tracks is access to a multi-tenant commercial building and two-story, single-family homes. To the south is the Lindenville Storm Water Pump Station and Colma Creek. To the east are railroad tracks and a multi-tenant commercial building. To the south across South Linden Avenue are two-story, multi-tenant commercial buildings. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Development would be subject to: • Entitlements from the City of South San Francisco. III. Determination The Project is within the scope of the General Plan Update program EIR and no new environmental document is required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)). All of the following statements are found to be true: 1. This subsequent Project is within the scope of the project covered by the Final EIR for the City’s General Plan Update. 2. This subsequent Project would have no additional significant environmental effects not discussed or identified in the General Plan Update program EIR; 3. No substantial changes to the General Plan Update are proposed as part of this Project. Further, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the General Plan Update program EIR was certified, and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the General Plan Update program EIR was certified as complete has become available. 4. No new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required. 5. All applicable policies, regulations, and mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Update program EIR would be applied to this subsequent Project or otherwise made conditions of approval of this subsequent Project. Thresholds of Significance: The Thresholds of Significance are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G with additional thresholds for consistency with the General Plan Update program EIR. However, Agriculture and Mineral Resources have not been analyzed as part of the ECA. Given the location of the City of South San Francisco in the urbanized context of the San Francisco Bay Area and the lack of mineral or agricultural resources in the area, these resources are anticipated to not be major considerations for the Project. Issue Areas/Documentation: 55 January 24, 2023 I. AESTHETICS, LIGHT, AND GLARE -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Documentation: a. As described in the General Plan Update program EIR (p. 3.1-12) because South San Francisco is a fully built city, new development would primarily occur on parcels that already contain some existing homes or businesses. with the majority of potential growth occurring within the East of 101, Lindenville, Downtown, and El Camino planning sub-areas, which are not located in the vicinity of I-280 and SR-35. Furthermore, as discussed under Impact AES-1 of the General Plan Update program EIR, all development under the General Plan Update area would be subject to development and design standards for each zoning district as well as any other sections of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) and Zoning Ordinance that protect scenic resources, thereby minimizing potential impacts to existing views that can be seen from I-280 or SR-35. The height of the Project would be 82’-71/2” to the top of the parapet which is allowable under the High-Density Mixed-Use Zoning District development standards. Nonetheless, the Project would be subject to the City’s design review process which would ensure the proposed building design and construction materials would not adversely affect the area’s visual quality. Since the land use designations are approved by the City Council General Plan, views from new development would be consistent with the City’s regulations. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR. b. There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways that traverse the Project site, it does not contain historic buildings that could be considered scenic resources. As discussed under Impact AES-1, all development under the Project would be subject to development and design standards for each zoning district as well as any other sections of the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance that protect scenic resources, thereby minimizing potential impacts to existing views that can be seen from I-280 or SR-35 objectives. The six “protected trees” as defined by SSFMC 13.30.030 would be removed; however, as a condition of approval the applicant is subject to the City’s Replacement Ordinance SSFMC 13.30.080 which requires three fifteen-gallon-size or two twenty-four-inch-box-minimum-size trees for each tree removed. The Project would plant 120 trees meeting the minimum requirement, which would help preserve the scenic beauty of the City. The Project would also provide new landscaping along the perimeter of the site. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic highway, consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR. c. The City of South San Francisco is located in an urbanized area The existing area is currently comprised of inconsistent building heights and aesthetic quality and lacks a cohesive grid street network. There is little to no streetscaping, and the area is deteriorated in certain locations and generally not designed for optimal pedestrian and commercial activity. Implementation of the Zoning Code Amendments that are part of the General Plan Update contains architectural guidelines, design review criteria, lot and development standards, landscaping requirements, and other regulations for various land uses in order to promote aesthetic quality within the City and protect scenic views. The architecture of the proposed building was designed to consider the shape of the 56 January 24, 2023 site with the main façade along South Linden Avenue broken up with bays of contrasting materials. The façade steps down at the corners with resident roof decks which breaks up the massing while providing an amenity space. The proposed building is contemporary with high-quality materials proposed and breaks up the façade with cast in place concrete, metal and glass railings and awning. cementitious horizontal siding, wood like siding and painted stucco. The Project provides landscaping and street trees along the South Linden Avenue which softens the appearance of the new building. Implementation of the Project would be beneficial to the area, as it would eliminate an existing warehouse building, and parking lot and replace it with 543 new residential units within a seven story, high- quality, modern building. In the public realm around the site, the Project would include streetscape improvements, such as undergrounding overhead utility lines, widening and installing new sidewalks, and landscaping and street trees along the Project frontage on South Linden Avenue. The overall Project would enhance the visual quality of the site and its surroundings consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in a negative aesthetic impact to the surrounding area. d. The land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update have the potential to include sources of light and glare, such as security lighting or new glass panel buildings. However, the area is currently developed. Redevelopment would not result in a substantial net increase in nighttime lighting or daytime glare sources. The SSFMC includes multiple building and construction regulations and zoning requirements that are intended to minimize localized light and glare impacts. Additionally, newly revised zoning regulations, Section 20.300.008 (C) (revised) establishes general standards for outdoor lighting, including maximum heights for lighting fixtures, locations and shielding for lighting fixtures, and submittal of photometric data from lighting manufacturers to the City by the project applicant to demonstrate that the lighting requirements have been satisfied. The Project has been designed to adhere to these requirements as all lighting would be shielded and downlight (see Project Design Plan Sheet L1-3), and, therefore, no new sources of substantial light or glare not evaluated by the General Plan Update program EIR would result from implementation of the Project. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project., other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. 57 January 24, 2023 II. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative threshold for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including, but not limited to, substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Documentation: a. In June 2010, Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA and these significance thresholds were contained in the District’s 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The thresholds were challenged through a series of court challenges and were mostly upheld. BAAQMD updated its thresholds in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in 2017 and again in 2022 (GHG thresholds only). The latest BAAQMD significance thresholds, which were used in this analysis and are summarized below in Table 2. Impacts above the threshold are considered potentially significant. The 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted by BAAQMD in April 2017, includes control measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or indirectly. Plans must show consistency with the control measures listed within the Clean Air Plan. General Plan consistency was evaluated in the General Plan Update program EIR. A significant and unavoidable impact was identified because VMT would increase at a greater rate than population. Mitigation measures would ensure that certain Clean Air Plan measures are properly implemented so that some projects developed under the General Plan would not have significant air quality impacts. MM AIR-1a would reduce construction period impacts by requiring individual projects facilitated by the General Plan to incorporate Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD. Because the General Plan does not contain a land use diagram that identifies special overlay zones around existing and planned sources of TACs, MM AIR-1b would be required to ensure that future development would result in less than significant impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. To reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), MM TRANS-1 requires the City to implement its TDM Ordinance as part of the Zoning Code Amendments and parking requirements. The City shall also update its TDM Ordinance and parking requirements every five to ten years and establish an East of 101 Area Trip Cap, to achieve the maximum feasible reductions in vehicle travel. The City shall achieve the performance standards outlined in the TDM Ordinance. The Project is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR. At the project-level, there are no consistency measures or thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the latest Clean Air planning efforts. Additionally, 1) the Project would have construction and operational emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds (see Impact 2 below), 2) the Project would be considered urban infill, 3) the Project would be located near transit with regional connections and 4) the Project includes a TDM program in accordance with the City’s TDM Ordinance (attached to the ECA). Therefore, no new impacts would occur as a result of the Project. b. The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment for PM10 under 58 January 24, 2023 the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both State and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM10, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. Table 2 . BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutant Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions (lbs./day) Average Daily Emissions (lbs./day) Annual Average Emissions (tons/year) ROG 54 54 10 NOx 54 54 10 PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15 PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10 CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Fugitive Dust Construction Dust Ordinance or other Best Management Practices Not Applicable Health Risks and Hazards Single Sources Within 1,000-foot Zone of Influence Combined Sources (Cumulative from all sources within 1000-foot zone of influence) Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 100 per one million Hazard Index 1.0 10.0 Incremental annual PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.8 µg/m3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use Projects – (Must Include A or B) A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements: 1. Buildings a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development). b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. Transportation a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA: i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases. 59 January 24, 2023 An Air Quality Assessment and Greenhouse Gas prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated November 14, 2022 (attached to this ECA) determined the Project is consistent with the development planned to occur under the General Plan Update program EIR. Construction period emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod). These emissions include both on-site construction activity and off-site truck and worker travel. Construction activity is anticipated to include demolition, grading and site preparation, trenching, and building construction. The Project land uses, and construction information inputted into the CalEEMod (Table 3 Summary of Project Land Inputs) were as follows: Table 3. Summary of Project Land Use Inputs Project Land Uses Size Units Square Feet (sf) Acreage Apartments Mid Rise 542 Dwelling Unit 439,653 4.22 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 560 Parking Spaces 224,000* *CalEEMod default square footage used For all projects, MM AIR-1a (see below) would require implementation of BAAQMD-recommended best management practices. BAAQMD recommends implementation of eight Basic Construction Measures to reduce construction fugitive dust emissions. The BAAQMD determines a less than significant impact with respect to construction fugitive dust emissions if the following Basic Construction Measures listed on Page 17-18. Operational air emissions from the Project would be generated primarily from autos driven by future residents. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products) are typical emissions from these types of uses. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from operation of the proposed project assuming full build-out. Annual emissions were predicted using CalEEMod. The daily emissions were calculated assuming 365 days of operation. Table 4 shows average daily emissions, reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10, PM2.5), and Lead (Pb) are “criteria air pollutants”. The operational period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Table 4 . Operational Period Emissions Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 2025 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 3.49 0.90 2.09 0.55 BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Thresholds? No No No No Total (lbs./day) 19.13 4.92 11.44 2.99 BAAQMD Thresholds (lbs./day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs. Exceed Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Assumes 365-day operation. Accordingly, the Project is consistent with the analysis in the General Plan Update program EIR. No new impacts would occur as a result of the Project. c-d. Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new source of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity or by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. This project would introduce new sources of TACs during construction (i.e., on-site construction and truck hauling emissions) and operation (i.e., mobile sources). 60 January 24, 2023 MM AIR-1b contained in the General Plan Update program EIR addresses exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs and air pollution. Under this mitigation measure, projects that may result in TAC emissions that are located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor are required to prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA). Based on the results of the HRA, the Project may be required to identify and implement measures (such as air filtration systems) to reduce potential exposure to particulate matter, carbon monoxide, diesel fumes, and other potential health hazards. Measures identified in the HRA are to be included into the site development plan as a component of the Project. There are both existing and planned sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family homes to the north and northwest of the project site. There are two residential projects east of the site, at 40 Airport Boulevard and 124 Airport Boulevard, that were recently entitled but not yet constructed. The analysis assumes these projects would be constructed and occupied prior to the start of construction of this project. Project construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The Project would not include stationary sources of air pollutants or TACs. Traffic generated by the project would consist of mostly light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles, which would produce low levels of TAC and air pollutant emissions in the local area. Project impacts to existing sensitive receptors were addressed for temporary construction activities and long-term operational conditions. There are also several sources of existing TACs and localized air pollutants in the vicinity of the Project. The impact of the existing sources of TAC was also assessed in terms of describing the cumulative risk which includes the Project contribution. For this Project, these sources include only on- and near-site construction activity. The project impact is computed by adding the construction cancer risk for an infant to the increased cancer risk for the project operational conditions for the generator at the maximum exposed individuals (MEI) over a 30-year period. The Project MEI is identified as the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’s construction and operation. There are two scenarios evaluated in this HRA: (1) impacts to existing sensitive receptors and (2) impacts to planned sensitive receptors. For this project, the sensitive receptors identified in Figure 1 are the construction MEIs. Project HRA impacts are shown in Table 5. The unmitigated maximum cancer risks, annual PM2.5 concentration, and Hazard Index from construction activities at the residential project MEI location would exceed the single-source significance thresholds for planned sensitive receptors at 124 Airport Boulevard (east of the Project site). In this case, additional measures are required under MM AIR-1b to reduce impacts below the thresholds. If these residential areas are not occupied at the time of Project construction, then the maximum HRA impacts for existing sensitive receptors would not exceed the thresholds and no additional measures are required under MM AIR-1b. 61 January 24, 2023 Table 5. Construction Risk Impacts at the Off-site MEI Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hazard Index Project Construction - Existing Receptors Unmitigated 3.46 0.03 <0.01 Project Construction - Planned Receptors Unmitigated Mitigated 12.43 2.18 0.09 0.02 0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 6.01 0.3 1.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated Yes No No No No No Most Impacted School – Da Hao Preschool Project Construction Unmitigated 0.18 (child) <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 6.01 0.3 1.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated No No No 1 Figure 1. Location of Project Construction Site, Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, and Maximum TAC Impact Health Risks from Project Operation Operation of the project would have long-term emissions from mobile sources (i.e., traffic). While these emissions would not be as intensive at or near the site as construction activity, they would contribute to long-term effects to sensitive receptors. 1 Project site and receptors are located in an overburden community as defines by BAAQMD. 62 January 24, 2023 Project Traffic Diesel powered vehicles are the primary concern with local traffic-generated TAC impacts. This Project would generate 2,788 daily trips2 with a majority of the trips being from light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles (i.e., passenger cars). The project is not anticipated to generate large amounts of truck trips that would involve diesel vehicles. Per BAAQMD recommended risks and methodology, a road with less than 10,000 total vehicle per day is considered a low-impact source of TACs and does not need to be considered in the CEQA analysis.3 In addition, projects with the potential to cause or contribute to increased cancer risk from traffic include those that attract high numbers of diesel-powered on road trucks or use off-road diesel equipment on site such as a distribution center, a quarry, or a manufacturing facility. Accordingly, This is not a project of concern for non-BAAQMD permitted mobile sources. Emissions from project traffic are considered negligible and not included within this analysis. Cumulative Community Risks of all TAC Sources at the Offsite Project MEI Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of a project site (i.e., influence area). These sources include rail lines, highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. A review of the Project area based on provided traffic information indicated that traffic on U.S. Highway 101, Airport Boulevard, Baden Avenue, and Linden Avenue would exceed 10,000 vehicles per day. Other nearby streets would have less than 10,000 vehicles per day. A review of BAAQMD’s highway and railway raster data identified one railway with the potential to affect the project MEI. In addition, there are several development projects whose construction would contribute to the cumulative risk. The risk impacts from these developments are included within the analysis. A review of BAAQMD’s stationary source map website identified eleven stationary sources with the potential to affect the project MEI. Figure 2 shows the location of the sources affecting the MEI. Community risk impacts from these sources upon the MEI are reported in Table 6. 2 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. July 1, 2022. 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, California 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 63 January 24, 2023 Figure 2. Project Site and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources Highways & Railways – U.S. Highway 101, CalTrain Zone 1 The Project MEI is approximately 1,000 feet west of U.S. Highway 101 and approximately 580 feet northwest of CalTrain Zone 1. A refined analysis of the impacts of TACs and PM2.5 to the MEI receptor is necessary to evaluate potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from Highway 101. A review of the traffic information reported by Caltrans indicates that Highway 101 traffic includes 178,000 vehicles per day (based on an annual average)4 that are about 5.1 percent trucks, of which 1.5 percent are considered diesel heavy duty trucks and 3.7 percent are medium duty trucks.5 Summary of Cumulative Health Risk Impact at Construction MEI Table 7 reports both the Project and cumulative community risk impacts at the sensitive receptors most affected by construction (i.e. the MEI). The Project would not have an exceedance with respect to community risk caused by Project construction activities since the cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentration, and hazard index do not exceed the BAAQMD single-source and cumulative-source thresholds. 4 Caltrans. 2022. 2020 Traffic Volumes California State Highways. 5 Caltrans. 2022. 2020 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System. 64 January 24, 2023 Table 6. Impacts from Combined Sources at Project MEI Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hazard Index Project Impacts Project Construction - Planned Receptors Unmitigated Mitigated 12.43 2.18 0.09 0.02 0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 6.0 0.3 1.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated6 Yes No No No No No Cumulative Impacts Highway 101 0.98 0.05 <0.01 CalTrain Zone 1 22.10 0.05 0.01 Airport Boulevard 1.84 0.18 <0.01 Baden Avenue 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 Linden Avenue 0.41 0.03 <0.01 NOD Auto Body Shop Inc (Facility ID #15132, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 650 feet - - <0.01 City of SSF Water Quality Plant (Facility ID #13866, Generator), MEI at 1000 feet 5.19 <0.01 0.01 South San Francisco Water Quality (Facility ID #13866, Generator), MEI at 830 feet 0.77 <0.01 <0.01 E & S Auto Collision Inc (Facility ID #16753, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 200 feet - - <0.01 Transform Auto Body (Facility ID #23757, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 200 feet - - <0.01 Bayside Collision Center (Facility ID #201564, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 170 feet - - <0.01 Lindenville Auto Body Center Inc. (Facility ID #201912, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 1000+ feet - - <0.01 Penske Truck Leasing - ATTN: Allan Wells (Facility ID #109444_1, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.01 - <0.01 South City Shell (Facility ID #110695_1, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 490 feet 0.35 - 0.01 Store #58304 (Facility ID #110777_1, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 970 feet 0.58 - <0.01 Cumulative Total – Planned Receptors Unmitigated Mitigated 44.69 34.44 <0.43 <0.36 <0.16 <0.16 BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated No No No No No No Implement General Plan MM AIR-1a and AIR-1b MM AIR-1a This mitigation requires that individual developments facilitated by the City’s General Plan shall incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 6 Mitigation Measures MM AIR- 1a and 1b 65 January 24, 2023 • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM AIR-1b The Project is located within 1,000 feet of existing and proposed sensitive receptors, therefore, a health risk assessment of project emissions was conducted. Cancer risk thresholds would be exceeded at planned land uses that are not currently developed or occupied by sensitive receptors (i.e., residents). If residential uses exist at 124 Airport Boulevard at the time that construction begins for the proposed Project, then additional measures to reduce construction period TAC emissions are required under MM AIR-1b. The Project would be required to implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by 55 percent such that increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction would be reduced below TAC significance levels as follows: 1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise: a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve a 55 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination). b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment. 2. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 55 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of some of the following measures: • Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled equipment, • Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators and compressors, • Use of electrically powered equipment, • Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered, • Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and • Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage. Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure MM AIR-1b CalEEMod was used to compute emissions associated with this mitigation measure assuming that all equipment met U.S. 66 January 24, 2023 EPA Tier 4 Interim engine standards and most portable equipment would be electric. With these implemented, the Project’s construction cancer risk levels (assuming infant exposure) would be reduced by 82 percent to 2.18 chances per million. Assuming a lesser level of mitigation that achieves a 55-percent reduction in the project’s cancer risk, increased cancer risks would be reduced to below 6 chances per million. As a result, the Project’s construction risks would be reduced below the BAAQMD single-source thresholds. Furthermore, mitigation of this Project is not required if the nearby development projects at 40 Airport Boulevard and 124 Airport Boulevard are not occupied at the start of construction of this Project. All existing modeled sensitive receptors were below a cancer risk level of 6.0 per million without additional measures required under MM AIR-1b. On-site Community Risk Assessment for TAC Sources - New Project Residences South San Francisco’s General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan addresses the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial levels of air pollutants or TACs: Policy CHEJ-3.5 Discourage development of sensitive uses near sources of pollution. Discourage the development of sensitive land uses (schools, healthcare facilities, and elder and childcare centers) within 500 feet of highways and stationary sources of pollution. For sensitive land uses that cannot be sited at least 500 feet away, potential design mitigation actions include: • Locate air intake systems for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems as far away from existing air pollution sources as possible. • Using high-efficiency particulate matter (HEPA) filters in the HVAC system and develop a maintenance plan to ensure the filtering system is properly maintained. • For nonresidential buildings, consider utilizing o0nly fixed windows next to any existing sources of pollution. • Plant landscape barriers between highways and residential areas to reduce noise and air pollution from residents. The General Plan Update program EIR identified MM AIR-1b to address potential exposure of new sensitive place sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of uses generating TACs, such as roadways with volumes of 10,000 average annual daily trips or greater. This mitigation measure requires General Plan projects to prepare a health risk assessment that identifies potential impacts, and if necessary, identify and implement measures (such as air filtration systems) to reduce potential exposure to particulate matter, carbon monoxide, diesel fumes, and other potential health hazards. A health risk assessment was completed to determine the impact that existing air pollutant and TAC sources would have on the new proposed sensitive receptors (residents) that the project would introduce. The same TAC sources identified above were used in this health risk assessment.7 Nearby Highways and Roadways – Highway 101, Airport Boulevard, Baden Avenue, and Linden Avenue The highway and roadway analysis for the new project residents was conducted in the same manner as described above for the off-site MEI. However, year 2025 (operational year) emission factors were conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions, instead of 2023 (construction year). An analysis based on 2025 resulted in the following increased ADTs: - Highway 101 – 186,900 vehicles - Airport Boulevard – 29,584 vehicles - Baden Avenue – 16,039 vehicles 7 We note that to the extent this analysis considers existing air quality issues in relation to the impact on future residents of the Project, it does so for informational purposes only pursuant to the judicial decisions in CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 and Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473, which confirm that the impacts of the environment on a project are excluded from CEQA unless the project itself “exacerbates” such impacts. 67 January 24, 2023 - Linden Avenue – 15,955 vehicles The Project set of receptors were placed throughout the project area and were spaced every 23 feet (7 meters). Highway and roadway impacts were modeled at receptor heights of 5 feet (1.5 meters), 20 feet (6.1 meters), and 30 feet (9.1 meters) representing sensitive receptors on the first, second, and third floors of the building. The portions of Highway 101 and each local roadway included in the modeling are shown in Figure 3 along with the project site and receptor locations where impacts were modeled. Maximum increased cancer risks were calculated for the residents at the Project site using the maximum modeled TAC concentrations. A 30-year exposure period was used in calculating cancer risks assuming the residents would include third trimester pregnancy and infants/children and were assumed to be in the new housing area for 24 hours per day for 350 days per year. Cancer risks associated with each roadway are greatest closest to each respective roadway and decrease with distance from the road. The highway and roadway community risk impacts at the project site are shown in Table 8. Risk values were computed using modeled DPM and PM2.5 concentrations and BAAQMD recommended methods and exposure parameters. Railroad: Diesel Trains The railroad analysis for the on-site project residents was conducted in a similar manner as described above for the off-site construction MEI. Emissions for the 2025-2054 period were conservatively used for this evaluation. Impacts to future project residents on the first through third floor building levels of the proposed project were evaluated. Stationary Sources The stationary source screening analysis for the new project sensitive receptors was conducted in the same manner as described above for evaluating the off-site MEI for construction. Table 8 shows the health risk screening assessment results from the stationary sources. Summary of Cumulative Health Risks at the Project Site Health risk impacts from the existing and TAC sources upon the project site are reported in Table 7. The risks from the singular TAC sources are compared against the BAAQMD single-source threshold. The risks from all the sources are then combined and compared against the BAAQMD cumulative-source threshold. As shown, none of the sources exceed the single-source or cumulative-source thresholds. Additional measures to reduce exposure to TACs and air pollutants under MM AIR-1b are not required and therefore, there were no significant health impacts on future residents locating within the Project. Therefore, consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR, this Project would not result in any substantial adverse impacts to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants or cumulatively considerable impacts. 68 January 24, 2023 Table 7. Impacts from Combined Sources at Project MEI Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hazard Index Project Impacts Project Construction - Planned Receptors Unmitigated Mitigated 12.43 2.18 0.09 0.02 0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 6.0 0.3 1.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated 8Mitigated Yes No No No No No Cumulative Impacts Highway 101 0.98 0.05 <0.01 CalTrain Zone 1 22.10 0.05 0.01 Airport Boulevard 1.84 0.18 <0.01 Baden Avenue 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 Linden Avenue 0.41 0.03 <0.01 NOD Auto Body Shop Inc (Facility ID #15132, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 650 feet - - <0.01 City of SSF Water Quality Plant (Facility ID #13866, Generator), MEI at 1000 feet 5.19 <0.01 0.01 South San Francisco Water Quality (Facility ID #13866, Generator), MEI at 830 feet 0.77 <0.01 <0.01 E & S Auto Collision Inc (Facility ID #16753, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 200 feet - - <0.01 Transform Auto Body (Facility ID #23757, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 200 feet - - <0.01 Bayside Collision Center (Facility ID #201564, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 170 feet - - <0.01 Lindenville Auto Body Center Inc. (Facility ID #201912, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 1000+ feet - - <0.01 Penske Truck Leasing - ATTN: Allan Wells (Facility ID #109444_1, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.01 - <0.01 South City Shell (Facility ID #110695_1, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 490 feet 0.35 - 0.01 Store #58304 (Facility ID #110777_1, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 970 feet 0.58 - <0.01 Cumulative Total – Planned Receptors Unmitigated Mitigated 44.69 34.44 <0.43 <0.36 <0.16 <0.16 BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated No No No No No No 8 Mitigation Measure AIR-1b 69 January 24, 2023 Figure 3- Project Site, Nearby Cumulative Sources, and Onsite MEIs 70 January 24, 2023 Table 8. Impacts from Nearby Sources to Project Site Receptors Source Maximum Cancer Risk (per million) Maximum Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Maximum Hazard Index Highway 101 0.54 0.03 <0.01 CalTrain Zone 1 1.76 <0.01 <0.01 Airport Boulevard 0.52 0.05 <0.01 Baden Avenue 0.11 0.01 <0.01 Linden Avenue 2.71 0.27 <0.01 NOD Auto Body Shop Inc (Facility ID #15132, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 840 feet - - <0.01 City of SSF Water Quality Plant (Facility ID #13866, Generator), MEI at 300 feet 5.19 0.01 <0.01 South San Francisco Water Quality (Facility ID #13866, Generator), MEI at 45 feet 8.53 0.01 <0.01 E & S Auto Collision Inc (Facility ID #16753, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 270 feet - - <0.01 Transfrom Auto Body (Facility ID #23757, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 260 feet - - <0.01 Bayside Collision Center (Facility ID #201564, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 1000+ feet - - <0.01 Lindenville Auto Body Center Inc. (Facility ID #201912, Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance), MEI at 300 feet - - <0.01 Penske Truck Leasing - ATTN: Allan Wells (Facility ID #109444_1, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 830 feet 0.01 - <0.01 South City Shell (Facility ID #110695_1, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 650 feet 0.70 - <0.01 Store #58304 (Facility ID #110777_1, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 190 feet 5.66 - <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10.0 0.3 1.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No Cumulative Total 25.73 <0.39 <0.15 BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No 71 January 24, 2023 d The Project would not contain any food service uses, or other uses that generate objectionable odors. As part of standard project review the outdoor fireplace (courtyard) would be subject to City approval for safety and odor control. Furthermore, the Project would accommodate refuse and recycling in enclosed trash rooms on each residential floor and the lower/street level of the garage. Refuse and recycling pick-up would be provided by a local waste service provider (South San Francisco Scavenger) and would occur on a regular basis. Consequently, no odor impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Documentation: a-c. The Project area is currently developed with industrial, commercial and office uses. There are no large open spaces in the Project area. Open space within the area consists of the Southern Pacific Railroad, the Lindenville Storm Water Pump Station and Colma Creek Canal. The General Plan identifies the areas of the City that support biological resources, which generally consist of San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill, and wetland areas along Colma Creek (South San Francisco 1999, Open Space and Conservation Element). The City requires assessment and protection of biological resources for development in these areas. The Project site is currently developed and not located in an area that supports biological resources. Colma Creek Canal is located south of the site next to the Lindenville Storm Water Pump Station. Riparian habitat in South San Francisco is limited to Colma Creek and the Bay fringe. However, the Project is not directly adjacent to the canal. Directly adjacent to the canal is currently in use for utility infrastructure and right-of-way. The Project is not proximate to this location. Therefore, consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR, this Project would not result in any substantial adverse impacts to sensitive plant or animal species. d-e. Construction and development associated with implementation of the Project would not occur within an 72 January 24, 2023 area containing habitat that supports biological resources as shown in Exhibit 3.3-1 Existing Habitat and Protected Areas and Exhibit 3.3.2 Ecologically Sensitive Areas of the General Plan Update program EIR. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on wildlife movement corridors. Landscaping vegetation within the area could provide potential nesting habitat for migrating birds. If vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period, construction would be required to comply with applicable regulations in the California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3513, or 3800), which would protect nesting birds from construction disturbances and would be required as a standard condition of approval. Landscaped areas in the Project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance contained in Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the SSFMC. Development activities could involve removal or pruning of protected trees. The Project proposes removal of five “protected trees” as defined by the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Policy ES-4.2 requires the avoidance of tree removal whenever possible, and when removals are warranted, that each removed tree be replaced with three new trees. The “protected trees” to be removed are in poor condition as described in the Arborist Report prepared by Arborwell dated January 24, 2022 (attached to the ECA). One hundred twenty trees are proposed to be planted which is consistent with tree removal requirements. All development facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to these mandatory requirements to preserve trees and other sensitive habitat. Such activities would be required to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance as part of the Project approval process, including obtaining a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees, and avoiding tree roots during trenching for utilities. This would be required as a condition of approval. The Conditions of Approval impose specific conditions on the Project to ensure that the Project complies with applicable regulations and City requirements. General Plan Update Policy ES-4.1 requires the City to expand the tree canopy cover to increase environmental benefits, prioritizing disadvantaged communities and connected wildlife corridors. Action ES-4.1.1 requires the City to implement the City’s Urban Forest Plan.. Therefore, development facilitated by the Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project remains consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR. f. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the Project. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. 73 January 24, 2023 IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resources defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Documentation: a. As discussed in Archeological Assessment report prepared by Basin Research dated November 22, 2022, (attached to the ECA), the site was used as a compressed gas manufacturing plant from the early 1900s through 2001; subsequently leased as a bottled water distribution facility (2002 to 2014), along with various other month-to-month tenants that utilized warehouse and yard spaces. The existing two buildings, paved parking lots and minor landscaping would be demolished for the Project. The property does not meet the minimum age threshold (of 50 years)for potential eligibility, and it does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register because it does not meet any of the criteria required for a finding of individual historic significance. The Historic Resource Evaluation concluded that the existing buildings on the Project site are not listed, or eligible to be listed, on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Therefore, the Project remains consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR and is not historically significant. b. The Project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known archaeological resources in the project vicinity. Based on the Archeological Assessment, the archival and literature record and a review of focused subsurface archaeological testing within and adjacent to the Colma Creek alignment (Busby 2015) as well as within the Caltrans right-of-way (see AECOM 2017) suggests a low potential for exposing significant subsurface archaeological resources. In addition, the project location historically bordered a tidal marsh, which is unlikely to have had surfaces stable enough to support and preserve a prehistoric or contact-era shell midden associated with either prehistoric or historic period occupation by local Native American groups. Furthermore, a review of Nels C. Nelson’s 1909 and/or ca. 1912 18 annotated Map of San Francisco Bay Region showing Distribution of Shell Heaps, indicates a lack of “shell heaps” within the general project area. The Project would be subject to mitigation measures contained in the General Plan Update program EIR. Construction operations could result in the inadvertent exposure of buried prehistoric or historic archaeological materials or tribal cultural resources that could be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC 74 January 24, 2023 Section 5024.1) and/or meet the definition of a unique archeological resource (PRC Section 21083.2) or a tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21074). This significant impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measure CM-1 which requires the review, identification, evaluation and treatment of any significant archaeological finds by a Professional Archaeologist at the time of discovery in consultation with the City and local Native American tribes and/or individuals. This measure would be implemented in accordance with state law and the requirements of the City. Therefore, the Project remains consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR. And those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Measure CM-1 (a) The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources including prehistoric Native American burials. (b) The project proponent shall retain a Professional Archaeologist to provide preconstruction briefing(s) to supervisory personnel of any excavation contractor to alert them to the possibility of exposing significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the project area. The briefing shall discuss any archaeological objects that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the discovery, and the procedures to follow regarding discovery protection and notification of the project proponent and archaeological team. An "Alert Sheet" shall be posted in conspicuous locations at the project location to alert personnel to the procedures and protocols to follow for the discovery of potentially significant prehistoric archaeological resources. (c) The project proponent shall retain a Professional Archaeologist on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction for the project to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Professional Archaeologist may consult with members of the local Native American community to assist with the identification of tribal cultural resources. (d) If the Professional Archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource or tribal cultural resource, he/she shall notify the project proponent and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommended mitigation measures to mitigate to a less-than significant impact in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5. Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among other options. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) may be recommended by the Project Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction. Development and implementation of the AMP would be determined by the City of South San Francisco. Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the project proponent and the City of South San Francisco (e) A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City of South San Francisco at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavation was undertaken In addition, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions specifically designed to address potential impacts to archaeological resources. Policy ES-10.1 requires the City to maintain formal procedures for minimizing and mitigating impacts to archaeological resources and Policy ES-10.2 requires the City to support educational efforts that increase community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco’s archaeological resources. Policy ES-10.3 requires that development proposals be referred to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Archaeological Inventory, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and local Native American tribes, for review and recommendations regarding supplemental field investigation. Policy ES-10.4 requires a records review for any development proposed in areas of known archaeological resources. Lastly, as required by Policy ES-10.5, if construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts, then all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Economic and Community Development Department shall be 75 January 24, 2023 notified, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation measures. As stipulated by Policy ES-10.5, work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and the protections have been approved by the Economic and Community Development Department. Compliance with this standard state regulation and City policies would protect archeological resources, and impacts related to archeological resources would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required, consistent with the evaluation of the General Plan Update program EIR. c. The Project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known cemeteries or human remains in the project vicinity (General Plan Update program EIR p. 3.4-35-36). However, should any human remains be found during on- or off-site improvements associated with the Project, the General Plan Update program EIR identifies California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Coroner (MM CM-2) has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to state law. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 outlines the Native American Heritage Commission notification process and the required procedures if the County Coroner determines the human remains to be Native American. As discussed in the General Plan Update program EIR (pp. 3.4-39-42) as the City receives development applications for subsequent development under the General Plan planning area, those applications would be reviewed by the City for compliance with the policies and actions of the General Plan Update, the provisions of SB 18 and AB 52, the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and other relevant federal, State, and local regulations that protect cultural and Tribal Cultural Resource (TCRs), including Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Sections 5024.1 and 5097 of the PRC. Mitigation Measure CM-2 The treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soil-disturbing activity within the project shall comply with applicable State laws. This shall include immediate notification of the San Mateo County Medical Examiner and the City of South San Francisco. In the event of the coroner's determination that the human remains are Native American, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, is required who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98). The project sponsor, archaeological consultant, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)). The agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. The California Public Resources Code allows 48 hours to reach agreement on these matters. If the MLD and the other parties do not agree on the reburial method, the Project would follow Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) which states that ". . . the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains, and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." Compliance with MM-CM-2, standard state regulations and City policies, would protect unknown and previously unidentified human remains, and impacts related to unknown human remains would be less than significant and no additional mitigation would be required, consistent with the evaluation and mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Update program EIR. d. The General Plan Update includes policies and actions intended to conserve and reduce impacts to Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR). Policy ES-11.1 requires the City to identify, preserve, and protect TCRs, traditional cultural landscapes, sacred sites, places, features, and objects, including historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, cemeteries, and ceremonial sites in consultation or coordination with the appropriate Native America tribe(s). Policy ES-11.3 requires the City to Consult with local Native American tribes to identify, evaluate, and appropriately address TCRs and tribal sacred sites through the development review process. The General Plan Update also includes policies and actions intended to conserve and reduce impacts to archaeological resources, which can include TCRs. Policy ES-10.3 requires that development proposals be referred to the NWIC of the California Archaeological Inventory, NAHC, and local Native American tribes, for review and 76 January 24, 2023 recommendations regarding supplemental field investigation. Policy ES-10.4 requires a records review for any development proposed in areas of known archaeological resources. As required by Policy ES-10.5, if construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts, then all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Economic and Community Development Department shall be notified, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation measures. As stipulated by Policy ES-10.5, work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and the protections have been approved by the Economic and Community Development Department. By adhering to the policies and actions in the General Plan Update, as well as the provisions under SB 18 and AB 52, potential impacts to existing or undiscovered eligible TCRs within the Planning Area. e. As discussed in the Archeological Assessment, three cultural resources are within or adjacent to the project site. One prehistoric resource has been recorded as within and immediately adjacent to the project site (P-41- 000050/CA-SMA-46) by the CHRIS/NWIC. P-41-00497 (CA-SMA-357H). Short segment of the former rail line that connected the old Southern Pacific Railroad alignment constructed in 1864 to a newer line that services the eastern edge of the San Mateo peninsula, is adjacent. The majority of the alignment has been removed over the last 15 years and no longer has integrity. A spur from this line formerly entered the project site but is no longer present. P-41-002147 (CA-SMA-353H) is a historic trash deposit that was evaluated as not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It is listed as destroyed. The single prehistoric resource, identified as Nelson Shellmound #385 (P-41-000050/CA-SMA46), has been mis-located (the site location was not mapped correctly; actual location is 2 miles north of project site at Visitation Point, Brisbane Railroad alignment was formerly along north and western boundary of parcel – appears to have been removed over last 15 years) by the CHRIS/NWIC based on BASIN’s review of the original location map completed in 1909/1912 by Nelson (1909 and/or ca. 1912 annotated Nels C. Nelson Map of San Francisco Bay Region showing Distribution of Shell Heaps). Eight additional cultural resources are recorded within 0.25 mile of the project parcel including an additional three prehistoric sites mis plotted by the CHRIS/NWIC; three historic structures; one historic building, and one historic district. As discussed above, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to conserve and reduce impacts to TCRs, such as Policy ES-11.1, Policy ES-11.3, Policy ES-10.3, and Policy ES-10.5. By adhering to the policies and actions in the General Plan Update, as well as the provisions under SB 18 and AB 52, potential impacts to existing or undiscovered eligible TCRs within the Project Area would be reduced to less than significant. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. V. ENERGY – Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? a. As described in General Plan Update program EIR (pp. 3.5-21-3.5-23) all new development in the City would be required to meet State energy efficiency regulations including Title 24 Part 6 building energy efficiency standards that require new residential uses to meet a net zero energy use standard, which is met through installation of rooftop solar PV systems, enhanced insulation, and energy efficient appliances. Additionally, the SSFMC 15.26.020 requires new residential development to only include all-electric design features and prohibits the use of natural gas utilities. Other State energy efficiency regulations include SB 100 that requires 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to be generated from zero-carbon emission sources by 2045 and Executive Order N-79-20 that requires 100 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in California to be zero emissions by 2035. 77 January 24, 2023 Compliance with the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan policies and actions, adherence to the development standards in the South San Francisco Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, and compliance with State regulations would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. These policies and actions would minimize demands for energy resources and ensure their efficient use. Furthermore, the Project minimizes petroleum fuel use for transportation by locating new housing and jobs in the East of 101, Lindenville, Downtown, and El Camino planning sub-areas, which are well served by Caltrain, BART, or SamTrans service and have good access to opportunity (such as jobs, neighborhood amenities, and health care facilities). Finally, the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) TRANS-1 in Section 3.14 Transportation, which requires the City to implement its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance as part of the Zoning Code Amendments and parking requirements, would reduce VMT. Therefore, the Project would be designed and built to minimize energy consumption and would ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. In addition, implementation of the Project would minimize petroleum fuel use for transportation. The Project would incorporate TDM Program Measures and is located within proximity to the Caltrans station. Thus, transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant. b. As noted above all new development in the City would be required to meet State energy efficiency regulations including Title 24 Part 6 building energy efficiency standards that require new residential uses to meet a net zero energy use standard, which is met through installation of rooftop solar PV systems, enhanced insulation, and energy efficient appliances. Additionally, the SSFMC Section 15.26.020 requires new residential development to only include all-electric design features and prohibits the use of natural gas utilities. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan update EIR. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known fault (Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Documentation: 78 January 24, 2023 a. (i.-iv.) The General Plan Update area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1994, and no known active or potentially active faults traverse the Project area. As shown in Exhibit 2-5 of the General Plan EIR Update program EIR, the majority of potential growth under the General Plan would occur within the East of 101, Lindenville, Downtown, and El Camino planning sub-areas, all of which are outside the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Because ground rupture generally only occurs at the location of a fault, and no active faults are known to traverse the area, the Project would not be subject to a substantial risk of surface fault ruptures. The City and the larger San Francisco Bay Area are in a seismically active region. A rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault could result in intensities registering 7.2 on the modified Mercalli intensity scale in the South San Francisco area. Most of the City would experience an intensity level of VII (Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate) from a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.2 magnitude. According to the General Plan Update EIR, the estimated ground shaking intensities in the City, assuming a magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the Peninsula segment of the San Andreas Fault, are shown in Exhibit 3.6-2 of the General Plan Update program EIR. The southwestern corner and most of the City east of El Camino Real is located within Zone VIII (Very Strong) and is estimated to experience moderate structural damage. The remainder of the City, including the portions fronting the San Francisco Bay, are located within Zone IX (Violent) and are estimated to experience heavy structural damage. However, the intensity of ground shaking would ultimately depend on the characteristics of the fault, distance from the fault, magnitude and duration of the earthquake, and site-specific geologic conditions. The structural design of the proposed building must adhere to State and City building code standards, such as the California Building Code, which define minimum acceptable levels of risk and safety. Additionally, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to minimize structural damage and minimize the exposure of people to risk of injury or death from structural failure in the event of surface fault rupture during an earthquake. Action CR-1.3.3 requires the City to require real estate disclosures of all hazards identified in the Hazard Mitigation Plan, including hazards associated with geologic hazards, for commercial and residential properties, including ownership and rental. Compliance with existing state and City regulations would be consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR, which identified that existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the area is located in a seismically active region, the potential for seismic-related ground failure exists, including liquefaction. A Preliminary Geotechnical Report dated February 4, 2022, was prepared for the Project by Cornerstone Earth Group (attached to this ECA). As described, the Project site is located on the northeastern side of the San Francisco Peninsula on the flatlands transitioning between hills and former mudflats. Locally, the northern part of the site is mapped as Colma Formation (Qc) with the southern portion mapped as artificial fill (Qaf), and artificial fill overlaying tidal flat alluvial material (Qaf/tf) (Bonilla, 1998). The Colma Creek channel, adjacent to the southern property line, previously ran through the middle portion of the site. Tidal flat alluvial material is mapped and described as Bay Mud (Qhbm) by Helly and LaJoie (1979). Bay Mud (Qhbm) deposits are generally unconsolidated, saturated, dark plastic clays and silts rich in organic material. As noted in the report, the site is within a State-designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone (CGS, South San Francisco Quadrangle, 2021). However, the Project development must adhere to the California Building Code and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which include requirements for geotechnical investigations in areas with high risks for liquefaction, including mitigation to minimize risks. SFFMC Section 15.56.140 (Grading Permit Requirements) also requires a soils engineering report and an engineering geology report that would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make recommendations to minimize hazards. The parts of the San Francisco Bay region having the greatest susceptibility to landslides are hilly areas underlain by weak bedrock units with slopes greater than 15 percent. In South San Francisco, this hazard is primarily located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain in the Terra Bay development and near Skyline Boulevard. Because the Project area is located in an area with slopes less than 15 percent, natural slope instability is not a concern. Excavation wall stability would be regulated by California Building Code Chapter 33 and consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR analysis. This report concluded that, although portions of the site contain soil conditions susceptible to liquefaction, the site 79 January 24, 2023 can be developed as planned provided the recommendations presented in the report are incorporated into the Project plans and specifications and are implemented to address soil conditions specific to this site. To reduce the risk of damage to the buildings during an earthquake due to liquefaction, ground improvements would be implemented per the geotechnical report (included as a Project Condition of Approval). Compliance with existing state and City regulations would be consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR, which identified that existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. b-e. Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction would be temporary and erosion effects would depend largely on the areas excavated, the quantity of excavation, and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes. In addition, all construction activities would be required to comply with California Building Code Chapter 18, which regulates excavation activities and the construction of foundations and retaining walls, and California Building Code Chapter 33, which regulates safeguarding activities, including drainage and erosion control. Additionally, development would continue to be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for construction activities. Pursuant to this permit, as part of an erosion control plan, construction site erosion and sedimentation control best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and would include such measures as silt fences, watering for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding, and other measures. Furthermore, the General Plan Update includes a number of policies and actions specifically designed to protect residents from injuries and minimize property damage resulting from geologic hazards, such as expansive soils. Action CR-1.3.3 calls for the City to enact an ordinance to require real estate disclosures of all hazards identified in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Policy CR-4.1, which requires the City to protect existing and new buildings, infrastructure, and other assets from seismic hazards, would also be protective of development on expansive soils. Policy CR-1.4 requires the City to periodically adjust infrastructure design standards to address asset-specific vulnerabilities associated with the hazards. Compliance with the rules and regulations of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, including compliance with the CBC, and implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan Update, would ensure that potential impacts related to expansive soils remain less than significant. Further, development under the General Plan Update program EIR would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), https://www.smcgov.org/planning/stormwater-treatment-requirements and requires runoff management programs that would include BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation. Following construction, future development would consist almost entirely of impervious surfaces and would not be subject to substantial erosion or topsoil loss. As discussed in the General Plan Update program EIR analysis, the soil in South San Francisco is generally characterized as having a low expansion potential, with the exception of areas at the base of the San Bruno Mountains or adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Development in the Project area would not be located in an area at high risk for expansive soils. Additionally, future development must comply with the California Building Code and SSFMC Section 15.56.140 (Grading Permit Requirements), which require a soil engineering report and an engineering geology report that would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make recommendations to minimize hazards. The Project would not produce wastewater that requires support of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The City would continue to provide wastewater service to the entire Lindenville area including the Project site. Therefore, this Project is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR analysis and would have a less than significant impact on geology and soils. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan update EIR. . 80 January 24, 2023 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Documentation: a-b. As demonstrated in the Air Quality Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, dated November 14, 2022, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with development of the Project would occur during short-term construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust and worker vendor trips. There would also be long-term operational emissions associated with vehicular traffic within the project vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal. On April 20, 2022, BAAQMD adopted new thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects for projects beginning the CEQA process. The following framework is how BAAQMD would determine GHG significance moving forward.9 Note BAAQMD intends that the thresholds apply to projects that begin the CEQA process after adoption of the thresholds, unless otherwise directed by the lead agency. The new thresholds of significance are: 1) Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements: a). Buildings i) The project would not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and non-residential development). ii) The project would not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. b) Transportation i) Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA: (1) Residential Projects: 15 percent (16.8 percent in Petaluma) below the existing VMT per capita (2) Office Projects: 15 percent (16.8 percent in Petaluma) below the existing VMT per employee (3) Retail Projects: no net increase in existing VMT ii) Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. 2) Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Any new land use project would have to include either section A or B from the above list, not both, to be considered in compliance with BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds of significance. CalEEMod Modeling CalEEMod was used to predict GHG emissions from operation of the site assuming full build-out of the project. 9 Justification Report: BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Project and Plans. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-thresholds-2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en 81 January 24, 2023 The project land use types and size and other project-specific information were input to the model, as described above within the construction period emissions. CalEEMod output. Construction GHG Emissions GHG emissions associated with construction were computed at 1,136 MT of CO2e for the total construction period. These are the emissions from on-site operation of construction equipment, vendor and hauling truck trips, and worker trips. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions, though BAAQMD recommends quantifying emissions and disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction. BAAQMD also encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable. Operational GHG Emissions The CalEEMod model, along with the project vehicle trip generation rates, was used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the fully-developed site under the proposed project. As shown in Table 9 for informational purposes, annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are predicted to be 2,195 MT of CO2e in 2025. Table 9. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons Source Category Proposed Project in 2025 Area 6.74 Energy Consumption 0.00 Mobile 2,041.38 Solid Waste Generation 125.38 Water Usage 21.67 Total (MT CO2e/year) 2,195.17 For the Project to be considered less than significant, it must be consistent with a local qualified GHG reduction strategy or meet the minimum project design elements recommended by BAAQMD. The City’s CAP was developed alongside the October 2022 update to the City’s General Plan. The General Plan Update program EIR provided the environmental review and subsequent public review process that would qualify the updated 2022 CAP under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). As such, the City’s CAP is considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1). Furthermore, the Project meets the project-level thresholds recommended by BAAQMD. The Project would be all electric powered (no natural gas usage), energy efficient, include EV charging stations and have a low rate of VMT per capita, since it is in close proximity to transit with regional connections, employment centers and services. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. 82 January 24, 2023 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Documentation: a. The Project would include 543 residential units and associated parking, amenities, and infrastructure. It would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it result in hazardous emissions. The Land Use Map for the General Plan Update (Exhibit 2-4) identifies the following land use designations that have the potential to generate hazardous materials: Business Technology Park, Business Technology Park High, Mixed Industrial, Mixed Industrial High, and Industrial Transition Zone. During construction activities, for example, commercially available hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, solvents, paints, and some consumer electronics) would be used and may generate small amounts of hazardous waste. Likewise, demolition of existing structures could potentially result in the release of hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos, lead paint, etc.). However, all new development (construction and operations) would be required to comply with mandatory regulations for hazardous materials adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), United State Department of Transportation (USDOT), Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), Caltrans, California Highway Patrol (CHP), local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and BAAQMD as described in the Regulatory Framework section (p 3.8.11). Mandatory compliance with regulations would ensure that all impacts would be less than significant. This Project is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentified impacts. b, c. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project site does contain contaminants of concern (COCs) (most notably arsenic, lead, mercury, benzo (A) pyrene, and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHo)) and other environmental constituents which would be removed, as part of construction activities, or remain on the subject site. No manufacturing or industrial processes that utilize or produce dangerous substances, other than those typical of construction activities (e.g., use of fuels, welding equipment), are proposed with this Project. The General Plan program EIR (p. 3-8-28) concluded that, with mandatory local, State, and federal regulations in place, the risk to the 83 January 24, 2023 public or the environment from upset and accident conditions would represent a less-than-significant impact. The Project is further than a mile from the nearest school, Spruce Elementary School. As such, this Project is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentified impacts. d. As discussed in the General Plan Update (p. 3-29) according to a GeoTracker search performed on March 3, 2022, a total of 46 open sites are located within the Planning Area. Of the 46 open sites, seven are LUST Cleanup Sites: Arco #6073 (2300 Westborough Boulevard), California Golf Club of San Francisco (844 West Orange Avenue), Grand Avenue Gas (1086 Grand Avenue), Monfredini Property (477 Forbes), Tony's Services (209 El Camino Real), Union Carbide Corporation (7 South Linden Avenue), and Unocal #6980 (192 El Camino Real). As discussed in Impact HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, and the Regulatory Framework (p.3.8.11), any development on a contaminated site would be required to comply with mandatory regulations, which would ensure it does not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Based on a letter San Mateo County Environmental Health Services dated June 10, 2022, the Project site is eligible for closure under the Lot Threat Closure Policy. As part of the closure process, all remaining wells that were installed as part of investigation and remediation for this case must be properly destroyed in accordance with California Well Standards and the San Mateo County Well Ordinance. Currently, the closure process is underway. A Phase I Environmental Assessment (Phase I) has been prepared for the Project site by Cornerstone Earth Group dated September 13, 2021 and a Soil, Soil Vapor, and Ground Water Quality Evaluation dated February 20, 2019. (attached to the ECA). Consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR, the Phase I identifies constituents that are above commonly used environmental screening levels at locations within the Project site’s boundary. These constituents are frequently associated with infill locations. The Project site would be required to comply with all applicable regulations for remediation of hazards, such as those addressing underground storage tanks, disposal of environmentally impacted soil, and the discharge of water generated during construction. Compliance with existing regulations and necessary environmental actions that protect future site users from exposure to elevated concentrations of constituents would reduce impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites to a less-than-significant impact and would be consistent with the analysis in the General Plan Update program EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project vicinity or the environment, consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR. e,f. The Project area is located approximately one mile north of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The Planning Area is located within the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 SOI and within the boundaries of Airport Influence Areas A and B of the SFO ALUCP, which was adopted in 2012. The SFO ALUCP requires all residential development within Area A, which is the entirety of San Mateo County, to provide real estate disclosures (see SFO ALUCP Appendix G-7). Additionally, within Area B, the ALUC C/CAG is responsible for reviewing proposed land use policy actions, including new general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, plan amendments and rezoning, and land development proposals. The maximum building height allowed in the mixed-use residential zoning district is 85 feet, which is required to be consistent with the FAA regulations (below 163.2 feet Mean Sea Level). The Project proposes a building height of 85 feet or 110 feet above Mean Sea Level measured to the top of parapet, consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR and the Airport Land Use Plan. Consistent with CFR Part 77, developers proposing structures taller than the notification elevations identified in Exhibit IV-10 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan would be required to file a notification with the FAA at least 30 days before the proposed start of construction. The notice helps the FAA evaluate the effect of the proposed construction or alteration on safety in air commerce and the efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public use airports. Pursuant to Exhibit IV 14, notification is required for buildings over 110- 120 feet Mean Sea Level. This requirement would not be required for the Project. However, most of the City is located in an area that requires notification for buildings taller than 100 feet. Coordination with the FAA would ensure that a significant safety would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a safety 84 January 24, 2023 hazard for people residing or working in the Project vicinity, consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR. There are no private airstrips within two miles of the Project area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project vicinity, consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR. g. Construction activities associated with development under the General Plan Update could potentially affect emergency response or evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency access on site. However, SSFMC Section 11.16.170 prohibits road closures or obstructions without approval by the SSF Chief of Police. Coordination with the Chief of Police would ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained during construction. Additionally, a 27’ Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) is proposed along the perimeter of the property to improve emergency access. As a result, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and not impair or interfere with emergency plans, and the Project is consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR. h. The Project site is located in an urban environment not adjacent to wildlands and, therefore, would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. This is consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. 85 January 24, 2023 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proposed project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Documentation: a. The Project would be required to comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and regulations enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, the Project would comply with requirements of the SSFMC, and the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan policies and actions related to water quality. Therefore, the Project, at operation, would not violate any water quality standards or Water District Regulations (WDR) or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. SSFMC 14.04.133 (Site design and stormwater treatment requirements for regulated projects) requires that regulated projects implement design strategies on-site, including minimizing impervious surfaces, conserving natural areas, and minimizing stormwater runoff. The City has reviewed the Project’s Storm Water Quality Control Plan (See Plan Sheet C4). As such, implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Construction activities would continue to be required to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for construction activities, pursuant to which Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented to control stormwater during construction, including silt fences, watering for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding, and other measures. With implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of the NPDES permit program, Project construction would result in no degradation of existing water quality. Furthermore, operation of the Project would not generate any foreseeable uses that would substantially degrade water quality. The Project is in compliance with all applicable regulations, as evaluated by the General Plan Update program EIR and, as a result, no additional water quality impacts are anticipated with implementation of this Project b. The General Plan Update includes policies and actions to maximize infiltration and rainwater retention and minimize impacts to groundwater recharge. Policy ES-7.3 requires new development and redevelopment projects to meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements, including site design, stormwater treatment, and stormwater infiltration. Policies ES-2.2 and ES-3.3 require the City to maintain standards for new construction adjacent to the San Francisco Bay and Colma Creek, such as requiring no net new impervious areas. The City has reviewed the Project’s Storm Water Quality Control Plan (See Plan Sheet C4). The existing storm drainage system in the Project area is designed to accommodate flows from urbanized 86 January 24, 2023 development and takes into account the high ratio of impervious surfaces in the area. The Project would remove the existing buildings and surface parking lot on the site and redevelop the area with similar uses. The ratio of impervious surface area would be similar to existing conditions, thereby not increasing runoff or stormwater flows over existing conditions. During construction, erosion and run-off would be controlled through required compliance with the NPDES general permit for construction activities, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the Project is consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR and would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. c. Redevelopment under this Project would require new drainage structures and localized on-site storm drain systems. This Project proposes a new storm drain system to accommodate anticipated runoff and sizing would be required to comply with City Engineering Division requirements, as appropriate during the Building Permit process. The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. This Project would be required to conform to those provisions, and the development would be required to comply with all applicable regulations pertaining to water quality. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the Project is consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR and would not alter drainage patterns. The Project area is not located in a potential dam failure inundation area (Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2003). A 1.5-million-gallon storage reservoir located on the top of San Bruno Hill poses the greatest risk of seiche hazards in the General Plan Update area. However, because the reservoir holds a relatively small volume of water, water released during seiching would be largely absorbed in the vegetated hillsides. Because the hillsides are not very steep, the flow of water would not be rapid. Also, water would drain away from the hill instead of ponding and resulting in high water levels. Thus, seiche inundation impacts are considered to be less than significant in the Project area. d. The Project area is not located in an area at risk for tsunami inundation; therefore, a significant impact related to tsunamis would not occur (California Emergency Management Agency (EMA) et al. 2009). The potential for inundation by mudflow is considered low because the project area does not contain steep slopes. Hillsides surrounding the project area are covered by development and/or landscaping. Rainfall onto these areas would encounter vegetation or impervious surfaces and would not pose a risk of causing saturated soil to loosen and flow downhill. Thus, there would be no mudflow inundation impact on the project area, as evaluated in the General Plan Update program EIR. e. As discussed under Impact HYD-2, while development under the Project could lead to an increased demand for water, which could lead to an increase in groundwater pumping, groundwater supply is expected to be 100 percent reliable in all year types through 2045.20 Additionally, the General Plan Update contains several policies and actions that would facilitate groundwater recharge by encouraging pervious surfaces in new developments and requiring projects to meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements, including stormwater infiltration. The Project would adhere to all stormwater requirements. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. 87 January 24, 2023 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Documentation: a. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, interstate highway, or railroad tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas (General Plan Update program EIR p. 3.10-17). The Project does not contemplate or authorize any such physical changes to the community. Rather, the Project includes a new 26-foot-wide EVA around the perimeter of the property to improve emergency access. The General Plan Update contains a multitude of policies and actions to require and ensure community connectivity as buildout occurs. Policy LU-8.3 requires the improvement of pedestrian connections and sidewalk infrastructure. The Project proposes new pedestrian path improvements along with a new bike path within the EVA. The Project would result in construction of a residential building on a parcel that is already developed. The Project would therefore not divide an established community. The Project is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR standards and zoning regulations and, as a result, no further analysis is required. b. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use policy plan, policy, or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the Project (General Plan Update program EIR p 3.10-18). The Project complies with the zoning and general plan designation of high-density mixed-use. The Project would have a residential density of 139 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), which is consistent with the maximum density of 140 du/acre allowed by the General Plan Update program EIR. The Project would provide 10% low-income units and 5% very low-income units, for a total of 15% (82 units) Below Market Rate (BMR) units as required by code. The General Plan Update EIR analysis accounted for anticipated growth including increase in density. The Project is consistent with the adopted residential land use and does not conflict with the policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effect. Furthermore, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions related to land use compatibility. Action SA-12.5.1 requires the General Plan to be in conformance with land use compatibility standards in the ALUCP. Policy SA-21.3 allows building heights within maximum limits permitted under FAA regulations. The complex would be a maximum height of 82’-7 ½” consistent with the high-density mixed-use maximum height limit of 85-feet. These actions, along with the requirements of the ALUCP and South San Francisco Municipal Code ensure that future development would be consistent with the ALUCP. Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with ALUCP for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant. As a result, no potentially significant land use or planning impacts are anticipated and no further analysis beyond the General Plan Update program EIR is necessary. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project. 88 January 24, 2023 XI. NOISE AND VIBRATION – Would the project: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Documentation: a-b The noise environment is predominantly controlled by vehicular traffic on Linden Avenue and railroad noise. The General Plan Update includes policies that require preparation of acoustical studies for residential development where the existing noise levels exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL. Additionally, General Plan Update policies require that new office, residential and commercial development be designed to reduce interior noise levels. Individual development projects would be required to demonstrate compliance with these standards during the design review process. Noise in South San Francisco is regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code). In addition, the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan enumerates noise policies. More specifically, excessive, and unreasonable noise levels are defined as noise levels generated by construction activities, including demolition, alteration, and repair or remodeling of existing structures, and construction of new structures, on property within the City, at more than 90 decibels (dB) measured at any point within a residential district of the City and outside of the plane of the property. Therefore, construction noise is required to be less than 90 dB within residential districts and no construction noise is permitted between the hours of 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM at night. The General Plan Update requires all exterior noise sources (construction operations, air compressors, pumps, fans, and leaf blowers) to use available noise suppression devices and techniques to bring exterior noise down to acceptable levels compatible with adjacent land uses. An Environmental Noise Study was prepared by Salter dated January 20, 2022 (attached to this ECA). The primary sources of noise from the Project would be temporary construction noise and operational noise. Construction noise is largely a function of the construction equipment used, the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Construction noise levels would vary depending on construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between noise source and receptor, and presence or absence of barriers between noise source and receptor. All noise-generating construction activities are anticipated to be conducted on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM in accordance with City requirements, which require noise suppression devices to reduce noise levels below 90 dB. Therefore, compliance with mandatory requirements of the Municipal Code and General Plan Update would ensure that construction noise occurs only at appropriate times of day and is minimized to acceptable levels. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. The General Plan Update (p.3.11-30) concluded that future development would be required to comply with requirements of the General Plan Update and SSFMC protecting against noise impacts. Specifically, Policy 1-1 requires that all new development within the City complies with the Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines, along with associated actions that require projects must be assessed through the subdivision, site plan, conditional use permit, and other development review processes, and that such projects must incorporate conditions of approval and General Plan update program EIR mitigation measures that ensure noise compatibility where appropriate. In addition, Section 20.300.009 (Performance Standards) (revised) of the Zoning Ordinance also establishes land use development requirements and limitations, as well as 89 January 24, 2023 acoustic design requirements for development in noise impacted areas. The Environmental Noise Study recommends sound transmission class (STC) ratings for full window and door assembles (glass and frame). With the windows closed, standard residential construction provides approximately 20 to 25 dBA of noise levels in interior spaces. Thus, where exterior day-night average noise levels are 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL or less, the interior noise level can typically be maintained at a 45 dBA Ldn standard, assuming standard construction methods and the incorporation of forced air mechanical ventilation systems in residential units. The common outdoor use spaces include four enclosed courtyards and two roof decks. At Level 3 courtyard spaces, noise levels are expected to be below DNL 65db. At Level 7 roof decks, the noise levels are expected to be below DNL 65db. Outdoor-use spaces noise levels at the interior courtyard are expected to be below DNL 65 dB. Therefore, the Project would comply with generation of excessive groundborne vibration and groundborone noise level, thus no mitigation necessary. The General Plan Update indicates that several modeled roadway segments (Table 3.11.8: Year 2040 Traffic Noise Without and With the Proposed Project) would experience a reduction in traffic noise levels with implementation of the General Plan Update, compared to conditions that would exist without the General Plan Update, due to lower anticipated average daily trips generated by the proposed land uses compared to the total development that could occur under the existing General Plan. The General Plan Update (p. 3.11- 30) concluded the highest increase that would occur along these modeled roadway segments would occur along Grand Avenue from Linden Avenue to Airport Boulevard. The Proposed Plus Project conditions would result in calculated traffic noise levels of 61.9 dBA CNEL as measured at 50-feet from the centerline of the nearest travel lane. This would result in a 1.7 dBA increase in traffic noise levels compared to noise levels that are calculated under buildout conditions without the Project. These resulting noise levels are considered “normally acceptable” for all land use types. Therefore, according to the significance impact criteria identified above, a 5 dBA increase would be considered significant for these conditions. Because the increase would only be 1.7 dBA, this impact would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, Project-related impacts associated with increases in traffic noise would not have an impact and have been adequately addressed by the General Plan Update program EIR. The General Plan Update program EIR (p. 3.11.32) states the effects of groundborne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Construction activities and the operation of heavy trucks, buses, and trains can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. New development under the General Plan Update would result in additional residential and nonresidential development, as well as other private and public improvements, throughout the Planning Area. Construction of land uses accommodated by the General Plan Update area would not take place all at once and would be spread throughout the area so that limited receptors would be exposed to construction noise at any given time. As noted above, under SSFMC Section 8.32.050(d), construction activities are limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays, or as authorized by the construction permit. Construction noise that occurs during these hours is exempt from the noise level limits established in the City’s Noise Ordinance because these hours are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside of evening and early morning hours and time periods where residents are most sensitive to exterior noise. Consequently, the City considers impacts resulting from construction noise during these hours to be less than significant. The Project entails no idling of construction trucks along streets, temporary generators shall be located far from sensitive receptors, and a written notice would go out to the neighborhood within 115 feet informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibration generating construction activities and therefore would be considered less than significant. Project construction would be required to comply with all applicable City ordinances, including limits on construction hours. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant, and no further mitigation is required, as analyzed in the General Plan Update program EIR. 90 January 24, 2023 The Project area is located approximately 0.75 miles from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The latest published operational (2014) and future projected (2019) noise contours for SFO indicate that the Project site is well outside of the 65 dBA CNEL contour. Due to distance and the orientation of the airport runways, the Project area is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of SFO (C/CAG 2012). Noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and below are considered compatible with residential land uses in the City’s General Plan (South San Francisco 1999, Noise Element). Therefore, it may be concluded that, under foreseeable future conditions, the site would be exposed to a CNEL of less than 65 dBA due to airport operations. Impacts would be less than significant. As a result, the Project would not expose people to excessive noise and no further analysis beyond the General Plan Update program EIR is necessary. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Documentation: a. The Project would have a residential density of 139 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), which meets the base density of 140 du/acre. The Project would provide 10% low-income units and 5% very low-income units, for a total of 15% (82 units) Below Market Rate (BMR) units. The General Plan Update program EIR analysis accounted for anticipated growth including increase in density. The Project is consistent with the adopted residential land use and does not conflict with the policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effect. With the adopted General Plan Update, construction of 543 new residential units and up to 1,629 new residents (3.10 persons per household) would be consistent with the General Plan Update, where additional population growth due to the higher-density areas within the planning area has been accounted for in future population growth projections for the City. Additionally, a higher employment rate has also been accounted for in the General Plan Update. Therefore, the Project is consistent with all governing documents and policies regulating the City and would not exceed the build-out estimated population of the amended General Plan. Thus, the impacts from direct population growth as a result of new housing units with this Project would be consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR and no further analysis is required. The Project provides for infill development that makes maximum use of existing infrastructure. The Project area is located in the center of an urban area, and implementation of the General Plan Update would not include extension of the existing infrastructure, only site-specific infrastructure upgrades, as needed. The Project is consistent with this evaluation from the General Plan Update program EIR and no further analysis is required. b. The General Plan Update includes policies and actions to ensure that existing housing is appropriately protected, and additional housing is added to support future growth within the City by 2040. The Project site is a commercial site with a surface parking lot. The Project would not displace any existing residents but would add 543 residential units. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 14,312 net new housing units and approximately 42,297 net new employment opportunities by 2040. This new growth would increase the City’s population by approximately 40,068, construction of replacement housing elsewhere would not be necessary The Project is consistent with this evaluation from the General Plan Update program EIR and no further analysis is required 91 January 24, 2023 No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. . 92 January 24, 2023 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION -- Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Would the project b) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? c) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Documentation: a. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains rules and regulations related to fire protection services. Chapter 8.75 of the Municipal Code requires that all residential and nonresidential development projects pay public safety impact fees to provide funding for adequate fire equipment, vehicles, and facilities to meet the broad range of needs of South San Francisco residents and employees. All development pursuant to the General Plan Update would be required to pay this fee. However, construction of new fire facilities is not expected as a result of this Project as the General Plan Update program EIR has evaluated that current provision is adequate. Further reducing impacts to fire services, all development pursuant to the General Plan Update would be required to comply with provisions of the California Building Code and Fire Code pertaining to fire protection systems and equipment, general safety precautions, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings and premises, including emergency access provisions (see SSFMC Sections 15.08.010 and 15.24.010, adopting the California Building Code and California Fire Code). The existing water, wastewater, electric, gas, and solid waste infrastructure is adequate to support the Project, as the residential development would not exceed what was previously analyzed, which the current site was developed to support. Implementation of the Project would not contribute to an incremental increase in demand for public facilities and paying impact fees would ensure that adequate funding for additional staffing and/or equipment would be provided to maintain acceptable levels of service throughout the community. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requirements, payment of Public Safety Impact Fees, Parkland Acquisition and Construction fees, and school district fees to the South San Francisco Unified School District would ensure that this Project is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR analysis, and no further action is required. In addition, all projects within the police service area would be required to comply with City ordinances and General Plan Update policies and actions that address police protection services, including payment of public safety impact fees to provide funding for adequate police equipment, vehicles, and facilities to meet the broad range of needs of South San Francisco residents and employees. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project on police protection services are not cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. 93 January 24, 2023 b. It is expected that existing facilities serving the General Plan Update area would satisfy most, if not all, of the park and open space needs generated by the General Plan Update buildout, including this Project. The General Plan Update area is expected to accommodate 40,068 new residents, 14,312 new housing units, 42,297 new jobs, and 14,100,523 new square feet of nonresidential building space at buildout. More specifically, Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way, along with 316 total acres of parks and open space, 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents provides a wide range of regional facilities available for the residents of the City. In addition to Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way, there are a wide variety of City, County, educational, and private recreational facilities within the City. Additionally, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description of the General Plan EIR, the planning area could yield new parks, improved open space adjacent to State Route 35, and pedestrian and bicycle connections primarily east of US101 and along the transit corridors (Exhibit 2-4). The General Plan EIR also identifies planned and proposed parks and open spaces throughout the City, primarily within the Westborough, Orange Park, Lindenville, and East of 101 planning sub-areas (Exhibit 3.13-4). a network of new open space opportunities is anticipated that would further serve the entire General Plan Update area, and the Project would pay Parkland Acquisition and Construction fees as required by SSFMC Section 8.67. The Project would be in compliance with all applicable General Plan Update regulations, and, as a result, is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR’s analysis. c. The Project would not result in a substantial increase in the use of existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. However, the Project does provide common useable open space areas, centrally located furnished with barbeques, dining areas, lounge furniture, and swimming pool with access to a 2,528 square foot fitness center for the residents. As a result, the Project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment related to recreational facilities and is covered by the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR. Also, all projects would be required to comply with City ordinances and other policies that address library facilities and services, including library impact fees. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. 94 January 24, 2023 XVI. TRANSPORTATION -- Would the project: a) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Documentation: a-b. Pursuant to SB 743, the CEQA 2019 Update Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the metric in analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects for CEQA purposes. The City has adopted thresholds of significance to guide in determining when a project will have a significant transportation impact. The City provides screening criteria for development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and /or location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in less-than-significant impacts, and a detailed CEQA VMT analysis is not required. The City’s VMT policy states that projects within half mile of an existing or planned high quality transit corridor or major transit station should be presumed to have less-than-significant impact on VMT. The Project site is located within half mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and the high-quality transit service provided by SamTrans route 130 and 141. The Project is proposing an FAR of 4.9, is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation and would provide 15% below market rate (BMR) units. Therefore, the Project is expected to result in a less-than- significant VMT impact. The potential impacts of the project were also evaluated in the context of the General Plan Update program EIR. The Project would not trigger any of the mitigations that were identified in the General Plan Update program EIR because it meets the zoning and General Plan designation. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR, and no further analysis is required. The City’s Zoning Ordinance, including the Zoning Code Amendments that are part of the proposed General Plan Update, includes rules and regulations that would enhance transit facilities. One specific purpose of Chapter 20.400 (Transportation Demand Management) (revised) is to promote more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments maximize transit, active transportation, carpooling, and vanpooling usage. Section 20.400.005 (Submittal Requirements and Approvals) (revised) requires that a project subject to the TDM Ordinance submit TDM documentation with the development application, which includes a completed TDM checklist of the trip reduction measures chosen by the applicant and a description of how the applicable performance requirements would be achieved and maintained over the life of the project. Hexagon Transportation Consultant. prepared a TDM Certification Checklist for the Project (attached to the ECA). The Project consists of 543 dwellings units that would be built in a seven-story podium building. Based on the draft TDM Ordinance update, the Project falls under Tier 1 land use projects and is subject to implementing a list of TDM measures. Since the Project is located within a ½ mile of the Caltrain station, the total required points are 20. (See Residential TDM Table10 below) However, the Project commits to implementing TDM measures that would add up to a total of 46 points well beyond the required 20 points. This implementation of a TDM Plan therefore, would be consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR update implementing MM TRANS-1 and no further analysis is required. Even with the implementation of General Plan Update policies and actions and implementation of MMs TRANS-4 and TRANS-1, given the uncertainty around specific operational conditions and ability to mitigate such conditions in a constrained right-of-way, this impact remains significant and 95 January 24, 2023 unavoidable as discussed in the General Plan EIR. However, due to the programmatic nature of the Project, no additional mitigation measures are available, and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. However, City Council adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations stating, “If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a). CEQA requires that a Lead Agency support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate”.10 Table 10- Residential TDM for 7 S. Linden Avenue The Project does not conflict with program, plan ordinance or policy but provides bicycle and pedestrian facilities including bike storage, sidewalk and bike facility improvements and free transit passes and is in compliance with all applicable General Plan policy regulations including Congestion Management Programs and, as a result, would not create any conflicts with the transportation network. No new impacts would occur therefore no further analysis is required. d. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns at SFO or any other airport, including either an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The Project is consistent with this evaluation from the General Plan Update program EIR and no further analysis is required. The Project, as proposed, would operate within the existing roadway system and proposes pedestrian safety enhancements, including new sidewalks along the Project frontage on South Linden Avenue, new crosswalks, and ADA-compliant wheelchair ramps at the adjacent intersections that would improve pedestrian access and enhance pedestrian connectivity in the area. Additionally, the Transportation Study prepared by Hexagon evaluated on-site circulation to determine safety concerns and was peer-reviewed by the Engineering Division. The analysis summarized the following recommendations, which are included in the project design and shall be required as Conditions of Approval for the Project: 1. Due to the proximity of the Project’s north driveway to the signalized intersection of South Linden and Railroad Avenue, the Project’s north driveway need to be restricted to right-turn movements only. Left turns into and out of the Project would occur at the project’s south driveway. 2. Provide adequate site distance at the parking garage by installing all-way stop control at the garage entrances, widening the garage access, and/or installing an audible and visual warning system. 10 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations South San Francisco General Plan Update Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, page 139. 96 January 24, 2023 e. The Project would utilize the existing roadways in the vicinity. The Project design would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency access, as well as fire protection and security. In addition, all buildings would (1) include a sprinkler system;(2) Knox key box for emergency access to the building with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined; and (3) maps mounted at entry gates for rapid orientation while responding to emergencies. Additionally, the City has implemented a Public Safety Impact Fee (Resolution 97-2012) for all new development. This fee is intended to fund improvements to infrastructure or public services necessitated by new development to ensure adequate emergency access. Implementation of the Project would not require on- or off-site improvements that would conflict with existing policies, plans, or programs that support alternative transportation. The Project site is located less than one-quarter mile from a regional rail station (Caltrain) and bus stop (SamTrans). In addition, the Project would support both bike and pedestrian usage consistent with the General Plan Update, including secure bike parking and sidewalk improvements and landscaping, and public bike racks. Moreover, the Project would construct a 10-foot sidewalk along South Linden Avenue, thereby improving pedestrian access to shopping, transit and amenities, and to the downtown area. As a result, the Project would not have an impact on alternative transportation modes, consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. . 97 January 24, 2023 XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Documentation: a. The General Plan Update program EIR (p. 3.15-28) concluded that both California South San Francisco District and the Westborough Water District (WWD) project sufficient water supply availability under normal water years and require conservation measures under dry year conditions per the Cal Water Shortage Contingency Plan and WWD Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Both water providers have accounted for the City’s growth projections in their respective 2020 Urban Waste Management Plans (UWMPs) in accordance with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections. However, it should be noted that ABAG’s growth projections are inconsistent with the General Plan Update projections, as discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing of the General Plan Update program EIR. Nonetheless, as indicated in Impact UTIL-2, sufficient water supplies are available. In addition, most new development accommodated under the Project is expected to be infill and would rely on the existing distribution network that has sufficient capacity to convey available water supplies. Furthermore, will-serve letters have been received that demonstrate the availability of water to serve the development. As such, implementation of the Project would not result in the need to construct or expand water supply and treatment facilities that have not already been described and accounted for the in the 2020 UWMPs. The General Plan Update area is expected to accommodate 40,068 new residents, 14,312 new housing units, 42,297 new jobs, and 14,100,523 new square feet of nonresidential building space at buildout. Development and growth in the City would increase City of South San Francisco–General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Utilities and Service Systems Draft Program EIR. As the demand for wastewater treatment capacity increases, there may be a need to increase wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause environmental impacts. The General Plan Update includes policies and actions to ensure that wastewater treatment capacity keeps pace with new development. South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, located in South San Francisco, would ensure that the wastewater facility is able to continue to meet or exceed the wastewater treatment requirements established for it by the RWQCB, even with the additional wastewater generated by development permitted under the General Plan Update area. The Project would contribute approximately 132,980 gallons per day (gpd), which is equivalent to 0.13 million gallons per day (mgd), which remains under the 3,037,076 gpd or 3.03 MGD addition estimated as a result of the General Plan Update program EIR. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with RWQCB. No new impacts would occur. 98 January 24, 2023 b. The General Plan Update program EIR (pp. 3.15-28- 3.15-39) concluded that development occurring under the General Plan Update area would not necessitate the construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities. The demand generated by the Project would fall within the development estimates analyzed by the General Plan Update program EIR. The Project would not result in a significant new demand for water or wastewater facilities beyond existing City capacity. See items (c) and (d) below for further explanation. The General Plan Update program EIR (pp. 3.15-42 - 3.15-43) concluded that no significant increase in storm water runoff was anticipated to be created by the General Plan Update facilitated development. Furthermore, each project is required to submit documentation consistent with the State and County Water Pollution Prevention Program requirements, which are peer reviewed by the Water Quality Division of the City’s Department of Public Works. The Project as proposed is expected to qualify for a 100 percent LID storm drainage treatment reduction credits under Special Project Category “C” (Transit-Oriented Development [TOD] Project) of the San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program, which means that the Project would be 100 percent exempt (design approach to reducing stormwater runoff) from County low impact development (LID) requirements because the Project: (1) is within one- half mile of a transit hub; (2) has a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre (Project density would be approximately 139 units per acre); and (3) would contain no surface parking. The result would be that up to 100 percent of the Project site’s impervious surface runoff could be treated with media filter devices (non-LID treatment) approved by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). The Special Project may use either one or a combination of the two types of allowed non-LID treatment systems (high flow-rate media filters and high flow-rate tree well filters) to treat the total percentage of the C.3.d amount of stormwater runoff that results from adding together the Location, Density and Minimized Surface Parking credits that the project is eligible for. This proposed exemption is subject to City review and approval. The Project would be required to treat the total percentage of stormwater runoff that results from the credits therefore no impact would occur in this regard. The City of South San Francisco is served by the Cal Water’s South San Francisco District. Cal Water obtains water from a purchasing agreement with San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which is supplied by local surface water sources within its Regional Water System, and from its own groundwater sources. Future area water supplies would be delivered through existing City supply facilities and new water infrastructure constructed for delivery into specific project sites. Adequate delivery was identified within the General Plan Update program EIR (p. 3.15-28) for all anticipated new development within the General Plan Update area; therefore, this Project is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR analysis. c. Sewage and wastewater generated within the City is collected through the City’s sewer system and is disposed of and treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant. The sanitary sewer system has an interconnecting network of approximately 12 miles of 6-inch to 30-inch- diameter gravity sewer mains, force mains, and twelve pump stations, which function together to bring wastewater from individual homes and businesses to the Water Quality Control Plant. Some pump stations act as tributaries to a few stations that handle most of the wastewater from large portions of the Project. Title 14 of the SSFMC ensures the future health, safety, and general welfare of the City and provides regulations for the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. Wastewater generation is correlated with water usage and continued water conservation practices would reduce the volume of wastewater generated. New developments, such as this Project, would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as well as all applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the San Francisco Bay Area RWQCB. 99 January 24, 2023 As described under Impact UTIL-3, the General Plan Update (p. 3-15-28) includes policies and actions that would reduce the need for wastewater treatment. The CAP also includes actions that would reduce the need for wastewater treatment. In accordance with City requirements, new development that occurs pursuant to the General Plan Update would be subject to the latest adopted edition of the California Plumbing Code and CALGreen Code, including the provisions for water-efficient fixtures and toilets, which would reduce the amount of effluent entering the wastewater system. The Project would provide water-efficient fixtures and toilets. Further, as discussed under Impact UTIL-3, there is sufficient capacity at the South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP and Daly City’s North San Mateo WQCP to accommodate wastewater collection and treatment generated by Project. The City would maintain local sewer lines and perform upgrades on an as-needed basis. It is anticipated that the increased flows from development under the General Plan Update program EIR, including this Project, would not result in required upgrades to the reclamation plants and, therefore, the Project is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR analysis. d. The General Plan Update includes policies and actions to reduce and divert solid waste. Policy CP-5.4 requires 5 percent waste diversion for municipal construction and demolition projects. Policy CP6.1 requires maintenance and regular updates of the City’s waste reduction plans and programs to ensure consistency with California’s waste reduction goals. Policy CP-6.2 develops education and technical assistance programs to help all residents and businesses to compost and recycle. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, therefore, is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR analysis. f. Project construction would comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and land fill capacity exists for future General Plan Update area buildout. Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City is regulated by the City’s SSFMC, particularly Chapter 8.16 (Solid Waste—Scavenger Services) and Chapter 8.28 (Recyclable Materials). Under the SSFMC, future development would be required to have its solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, and recyclable materials collected by the Scavenger Company. Additional health and sanitation requirements set forth in the SSFMC would be met by the Scavenger Company. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and, therefore, is consistent with the General Plan Update program EIR analysis. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. 100 January 24, 2023 XVI. WILDFIRE -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? b) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? d) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? f) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?? a. The Project site is not located in a fire hazard zone (General Plan Update EIR Exhibit 3.16.1 p 3.16.12). The Project area is already located in a developed area of the City; however, development, could result in an incremental increase in exposure of people and structures to wildland fires and associated hazards within the Project area. Accordingly, the Project would be required to comply with fire protection measures in the policies and actions within the General Plan Update and the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Further, continued implementation of the San Mateo – Santa Cruz County CWPP, San Mateo County LHMP, San Mateo County EOP, and review of architectural and development plans by the SSFFD, Division of Fire Prevention, would assist in protecting life and property in the event of a wildfire. Additionally, implementation of the General Plan Update policies reduces potential impacts related to exposure to wildland fires and associated hazards to below a level of significance. No additional mitigation is required. Therefore, impacts related to exposure of people and structures to wildland fires and associated hazards, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant. b. Evacuation routes in the City are designed to accommodate development at buildout of the General Plan Update. In addition, the policies and actions in the General Plan Update are designed to facilitate and support the City’s emergency response and do not have any direct or indirect impact on the environment. Additionally, all development in the City would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable codes and regulations. Further, the California Fire Code establishes requirements for emergency access for fire apparatus. Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code requires development to demonstrate compliance with applicable fire safety measures prior to the issuance of building permits. As such, new development projects that occur pursuant to the Project would be assessed for compliance with applicable Fire Code requirements that pertain to emergency access as well as compliance with proposed policies and actions of the General Plan Update which would further enhance emergency response. As shown on Plan Sheet AP0.05 the Project would be constructed to comply with the Fire Code requirements including automatic sprinklers, knox box key for each building with access keys to entry doors and install emergency power systems. Accordingly, compliance with the CBC and General Plan Update policies and actions, as well as review of all new structures by the Police and Fire Departments to ensure adequate emergency access, would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. c-f. The Project site is not located in a high fire hazard area, therefore, the risk of the Project exacerbating post-fire slope instability and drainage changes resulting in landslides or flooding is low. However, the Project would be subject to General Plan Update policies and actions as well as other local regulations that reduce flood and landslide risks. As such, impacts would be less than significant. 101 January 24, 2023 No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. 102 January 24, 2023 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Documentation: a. Based on the preceding discussion and the program EIR prepared for the General Plan Update, including its mitigation measures, it has been determined that the Project is consistent with the analysis of the General Plan Update program EIR and would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, “’Cumulative impacts’ refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The potential cumulative impacts of the Project have been considered for each environmental topic evaluated above. Given the relatively short-term nature of the Project’s construction schedule, and the fact that it would serve an existing community within an urbanized area consistent with the adopted General Plan Update, the Project is not anticipated to have any cumulatively considerable impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the General Plan Update program EIR. c. The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, beyond those previously identified and analyzed in the General Plan Update program EIR. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project, other than those identified in the General Plan EIR. CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis and supporting documentation, this ECA confirms that: 1. the Project does not exceed the environmental impacts analyzed in the General Plan Update program EIR, 2. that no new impacts have been identified, and 3. no new mitigation measures are required. As detailed in the analysis presented above, the Project would not result in greater impacts than were identified for the General Plan Update program EIR. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. References XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 103 January 24, 2023 1. Arborist Report by Arborwell dated January 24, 2022. 2. Archeological Assessment Report prepared by Basin Research Associates dated November 22, 2022. 3. Construction Air Quality and Green House Gas Assessment prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin dated November 14, 2022. 4. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group dated February 4, 2022. 5. Environmental Noise Study prepared by Salter dated January 20, 2022 6. Shadow Study prepared by BDE dated October 12, 2022. 7. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group dated September 12, 2021. 8. Project Plans prepared by BDE dated October 12, 2022 9. Soil, Soil Vapor, and Ground Water Quality Evaluation prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group dated February 120, 2019. 10. TDM Certification Checklist for 7 S. Linden Avenue prepared by Hexagon Transportation dated October 12, 2022. 11. Transportation Study prepared by Hexagon Transportation dated May 18, 2022. 104 Exhibit B. 2020 General Plan Final EIR htps://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=529879&dbid=0 General Plan Update MMRP htps://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=529880&dbid=0 105 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-195 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3b. Resolution making findings and approving entitlements for the proposed Project (P22-0024)including Design Review (DR22-0007)and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0002)to construct a new 7- story,85 foot tall,residential housing development consisting of 543 housing units located at 7 South Linden Avenue in the T5 Corridor zone district. WHEREAS,Essex Property Trust,Inc.(“Applicant”)has proposed to construct 543 rental housing units on an existing developed 4.22 acre site located at 7 South Linden Avenue (APN 014-074-010)collectively referred to as (“Project Site”); and, WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the T5 Corridor zoning district; and, WHEREAS,the Applicant seeks approval of the following entitlements for the project:Design Review and Transportation Demand Management Plan; and, WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and, WHEREAS,determination that the project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR),pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines section 15162 and related CEQA requirements. WHEREAS,an environmental checklist was prepared for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168,which concluded that per CEQA Guidelines sections 15168 and 15162,the project is within the scope of the certified 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)and no further environmental review is required.The environmental checklist also concluded the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the environmental checklist,and by separate resolution,determined that the proposed project is within the scope of the General Plan EIR and no further environmental review is required,and also determined that the project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183; and WHEREAS,the Design Review Board reviewed the project at its meeting of January 17,2023,and recommended approval of the project; and, WHEREAS,on March 16,2023 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements,take public testimony, City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™106 File #:23-195 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3b. and make a recommendation to the City Council on the project; and, NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes 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 7 South Linden Project Plan set,prepared by BDE Architects,dated January 13,2023,the Transportation Demand Management Plan,as prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc.,dated October 12,2022,and the 2040 General Plan EIR,including the Draft and Final EIR and all appendices thereto;the Environmental Checklist;all site plans;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A),7 South Linden Project Plan Set (Exhibit B),and the Transportation Demand Management Plan (Exhibit C), are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Tony Rozzi. By a separate resolution,the Planning Commission,exercising its independent judgment and analysis made the findings contained in that Resolution and recommended that the City Council make a determination that the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed under the 2040 General Plan EIR (EIR)pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168 and no additional environmental review is required.The Planning Commission make a determination that the environmental checklist also demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. 4.The proposed Project is consistent and compatible with all elements in the City of South San Francisco General Plan,as it will help the City implement several broad General Plan goals for the Lindenville sub area,including but not limited to creating new,vibrant residential neighborhoods in East of 101 and Lindenville,while ensuring appropriate City services,amenities,and retail to support new residential growth.And producing a range of housing types for different income levels and household types across the city to balance job and housing growth and distribute the potential impacts of future growth. City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™107 File #:23-195 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3b. Goal SA-22: A new residential neighborhood centered along Colma Creek within a short walk of Downtown amenities and services that provides a range of housing types for different income levels and housing types. Policy SA-22.1: Introduce a mix of affordable and market rate housing in Lindenville. ·Goal LU-1:Create complete neighborhoods,where residents can access most of their everyday needs within a short walk, bike, or transit trip. ·Policy LU-1.7: Create new Lindenville and East of 101 mixed use neighborhoods. Goal SA-23: Living, working, and shopping options are expanded in new mixed use neighborhoods in Lindenville. 5.The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The development of the Project Site would result in the construction of 543 residential housing units in the T5 Corridor zone district at 7 South Linden. 6.The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed,as an existing vacant underutilized site will be developed as 543 housing units that meets the City’s land use and zoning standards. B.Design Review 1.The project is consistent with the applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance because,as conditioned,the project meets all of the development standards of in the South San Francisco Municipal Code including but not limited to floor area, height, lot coverage, and land use. 2.The project is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council;in that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines for residential development. 3.The project is consistent with Findings for Approval for the other entitlements the project requires including use permit and a transportation demand management (TDM)checklist that the project requires for the reasons stated above. 4.The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”)because the project has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Board on January 17,2023 because it was found to be consistent with each of the following eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. C.Transportation Demand Management Checklist 1.The proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the project,considering the proposed use and the project’s location,size,and hours of operation.Appropriate and feasible measures have been included in the TDM checklist to achieve the 20-point minimum in tripCity of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™108 File #:23-195 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:3b. measures have been included in the TDM checklist to achieve the 20-point minimum in trip reduction measures for Tier 1 development.The TDM checklist provides measures such as a Transportation Coordinator,subsidized transit passes for each residential unit,access to ridesharing and car share programs,and bicycle support facilities on-site to encourage alternative forms of transportation. 2.The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target alternative mode use established for the project by this chapter will be achieved and maintained.Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Checklist,which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit,shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and triennial reports. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of Approval,attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution,the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution,and approves the entitlements request for Project (P22-0024)including Design Review (DR22-0007),and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0002)to construct a new 7-story,85 foot tall,residential housing development consisting of 543 housing units located at 7 South Linden Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™109 Page 1 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P22-0024, DR22-0007, TDM22-0002 7 South Linden Avenue (As recommended by City Staff on March 16, 2023) Introduction The term “applicant”, “developer”, “project owner” or “project sponsor” used hereinafter shall have the same meaning- the applicant for the 7 South Linden project or the property/project owner if different from applicant. PLANNING DIVISION GENERAL 1. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared by BDE Architecture dated January 13, 2023 and approved by the Planning Commission in association with P22-0024 as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner. 2. The construction drawings shall comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval, including the plans prepared by BDE Architecture dated January 13, 2023. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall execute and record an Affordable Housing Agreement consistent with SSFMC Chapter 20.380, Inclusionary Housing Regulations. 4. Applicant shall submit a checklist showing compliance with Conditions of Approval with building permit plans. 5. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Fire Marshal and Chief Planner. 6. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 7. Any modification to the approved plans shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012 (“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. All exterior 110 Page 2 design modifications, including any and all utilities, shall be presented to the Chief Planner for a determination. 8. The Final Parcel Map shall comply with all applicable requirements of SSFMC Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (Zoning Ordinance), to be reviewed and filed by the Engineering Division. 9. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two (2) years of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on that date, subject to any extensions provided under the Subdivision Map Act or other applicable law. A one-year permit extension may be granted in accordance with provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (Common Procedures) 10. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a duly authorized representative files a signed acceptance form, prior to the issuance of a building permit, stating that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the conditions of the permit. 11. The permit shall be subject to revocation if the project is not operated in compliance with the conditions of approval. 12. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall authorize, require or permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances specifically named therein. 13. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City’s Building Division. 14. Demolition of any existing structures on site will require demolition permits. 15. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the affected City Departments and Planning and Building Divisions prior to occupancy of any building. Any request for temporary power for testing equipment will be issued only upon substantial completion of the development. CONSTRUCTION 16. The applicant is responsible for maintaining site security prior to, and throughout the construction process. This includes installation of appropriate fencing, lighting, remote monitors, or on-site security personnel as needed. 17. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 111 Page 3 18. During construction, the applicant shall provide parking for construction workers within the project parking structure when the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal provide written approval. 19. Prior to proceeding with exterior construction, the applicant shall provide a full-scale mockup of a section of exterior wall that shows the cladding materials and finishes, windows, trim, and any other architectural features of the building to fully illustrate building fenestration, subject to site inspection and approval by Planning Division staff. 20. After the building permits are approved, but before beginning construction, the owner/applicant shall hold a preconstruction conference with City Planning, Building, Fire and Engineering staff and other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the construction manager, contractor, and all relevant subcontractors. DESIGN REVIEW / SITE PLANNING 1. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall. Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility locations, stand-pipes, equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 2. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the City’s Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with SSFMC Section 20.300.007, Landscaping. 3. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner. 4. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be maintained in fully operable condition at all times, and which complies with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 5. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained weed free. 6. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to develop. 112 Page 4 7. All landscaping installed within the public right-of-way by the property owner shall be maintained by the property owner. 8. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans demonstrating compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO), if applicable. a) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO. b) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the performance measures required by the MWELO. c) For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the City, upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system. 9. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall submit interim and final phasing plans and minor modifications to interim and final phasing plans for review and approval by the Chief Planner, City Engineer and Chief Building Official. 10. The applicant shall contact the South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash enclosures and work with staff to locate and design the trash enclosure in accordance with the SSFMC Section 20.300.014, Trash and Refuse Collection Areas. Applicant shall submit an approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger to the Chief Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the Design Review Board from their meeting of January 17, 2023 these recommendations include: 1. Consider adding a nice landscaping pattern for the open patios facing Linden Avenue as pedestrians will not have sidewalk access from their units. 2. Review the landscaping plans as certain species called out on the plans will not survive the SSF elements and the plants will be high water use. 3. Consider adding additional landscaping along the corner towards Canal Street to help breakup the blank open area. 4. The proposed pots along Linden Avenue will have root issues, consider a larger rectangle style pots for larger root mass and cluster and group the pots to 4-5 planters in a row. The pots will need a lot of soil volume to grow. 5. Confirm that the proper drainage rock is used for the interior paved courtyard. 12. Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Any removal or 113 Page 5 pruning of protected trees shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and applicant shall obtain a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees, and avoid tree roots during trenching for utilities. 13. The applicant shall install three-inch diameter, PVC conduit along the project frontage, in the right-of-way, if any trenching is to take place, for the purpose of future fiber installation. Conduit shall have a pull rope or tape. A #8 stranded trace wire will be installed in the conduit or other trace wire system approved by the City. 14. Prior to receiving certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install street furniture, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks along the project sidewalk frontages. The Planning Division shall review and approve all street furniture, trash receptacles and bicycle rack options during the Building Permit process. 15. Permanent project signage is not included in project entitlements. Prior to installation of any project signage, the applicant shall submit an appropriate sign application per Chapter 20.360 of the Zoning Ordinance for review and approval. 16. If the proposed reduction to the Private Storage requirement results in unfavorable conditions related to storage on balconies, or within approved on-site parking spaces, the applicant shall provide off-site storage options to residents, with prior approval by the Chief Planner. TRANSPORTATION / PARKING 17. A Parking and Traffic Control Plan for the construction of the project shall be submitted with the application for Building Permit, for review and approval by the Chief Planner and City Engineer. 18. The applicant has prepared and submitted a draft Preliminary TDM Plan. In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan for review and approval by the Chief Planner. a) The Final TDM Plan shall include all mandatory elements included in the Ordinance in place at the time of building permit application submittal and shall substantially reflect the Preliminary TDM Plan prepared by Hexagon dated October 12, 2022 modified as necessary to reflect the structure of the current Ordinance. The Final TDM Plan shall be designed to ultimately achieve the requirements of a Tier 1 project. 114 Page 6 b) The Final TDM Plan shall outline the required process for on-going annual monitoring for the first five years beginning one (1) year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy. c) The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM Program on an annual basis. The annual monitoring fee is $1,848, and is updated by the City Council on an annual basis. The monitoring fee for the Project’s first year of operation is due to the City prior to the project receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. 19. Residential parking spaces shall be assigned to units, to minimize conflict within the parking area. 20. Any tandem parking spaces shall be assigned to the same unit. 21. Residential parking areas shall be secure, with access provided via key card or fob. 22. Provide clear signage on site for residential, and visitor parking areas to help direct vehicle traffic. 23. Per SSFMC 20.330.005 (B) (Unbundling Parking from Residential Uses), parking may be sold or rented separate from the residential unit as follows: a) Rental Apartment Developments. All of the provided parking for units that are not deed-restricted affordable units may be unbundled, subject to approval of a parking management and monitoring plan by the Planning Commission. b) Deed-Restricted Affordable Units. Parking for deed-restricted units may be unbundled at the same prorated cost as the units (i.e., a 50 percent unbundling discount for a unit at 50 percent AMI). 24. Once construction of an associated parking structure is complete, construction-related parking should be prioritized within the structure. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES / CEQA 25. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. IMPACT / DEVELOPMENT FEES **Fees are subject to annual adjustment, and will be calculated based on the fee in effect at the time that the payment of the fee is due. The fees included in these Conditions of Approval are estimates, based on the fees in place at the time of project approval.** 26. CHILDCARE FEE: Prior final inspection, the applicant shall pay any applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.310. This fee is 115 Page 7 subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2023 the childcare impact fee estimate for the project is: 543 units x $3,086.51 cost/unit = $1,675,974.93 27. PARK FEES: Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall pay the Parkland Acquisition Fee and Parkland Construction Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.67. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2023, the park fee estimate for the project is: 543 units x $17,737.58 cost/unit = 9,631.505.94 28. PUBLIC SAFEY IMPACT FEE: Prior to final inspection for the development, the applicant shall pay applicable Public Safety Impact Fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.75. Based on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2023, the Public Safety Impact Fee for the project is: 543 units x $1,234.75 cost/unit = $670,469.25 29. LIBRARY IMPACT FEE: Prior to final inspection for the development, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall pay applicable Library Impact Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.74. Based on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2023, the Library Impact Fee for the project is: 543 units x $617.30 cost/unit = $335,193.90 30. School District Fee. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City shall require proof of payment of this fee to SSFUSD. Based on plans approved by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2023, the school district fee estimate for this project is: $3.79/SF x 910,736 square feet = $3,451,689.44 For questions regarding Planning COAs please contact Christy Usher at Christy.Usher@ssf.net or (650) 877-8535. 1. CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION FEE: Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall pay applicable transportation impact fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.73. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission March 16, 2023, the citywide transportation fee estimate for the project is: 543 units x $4,631.01 cost/unit = $2,514,638.43 116 Page 8 ENGINEERING DIVISION Permits 1. At the time of each permit submittal, the Applicant shall submit a deposit for each of the following permit reviews and processing: a. Building Permit plan check and civil review. Provide an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of on-site improvements for deposit amount calculation. b. Hauling/Grading plan check and permit processing. Provide Cubic Yards for deposit amount calculation. c. Public Improvement plan check and permit processing. Provide an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of ROW improvements for deposit amount calculation. 2. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 3. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to grading. Otherwise, hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 4. The Applicant shall obtain a Demolition Permit to demolish the existing buildings. The demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division and the Applicant shall pay all fees and deposits for the permit. The Applicant shall provide letters from all public utilities stating all said utilities have been properly disconnected from the existing buildings. 5. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 6. The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. To help meet this goal, a city ordinance requires completion of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects identifying how at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage. The Contractor shall submit a WMP application and fee payment prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 7. A Public Improvement Permit is required for any work proposed within the public right-of- way. The Applicant shall pay all permit, plan check, and inspection fees, as well as, any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. 117 Page 9 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written evidence from the County or State Regulators in charge, indicating that the site is cleared of hazardous materials and hazardous groundwater to a level that poses no impacts to human health. The Applicant shall also confirm that any existing groundwater monitoring wells on the project site have been properly closed and/or relocated as necessary as approved by the County or State Regulators in charge. Plan Submittal 9. The Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California, along with three printed copies. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets; Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan, Horizontal Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Detail Sheet(s), Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that clearly states the amount of cut and fill required to grade the project. The Grading Plans shall include the following plans: Cover, Notes, Existing Conditions, Grading Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Stormwater Control Plan, and Erosion Control Plan. 11. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a Public Improvement Permit for all proposed work within the City ROW and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the Public Improvement Permit. The Public Improvement Plans shall include only the scope of work within the City ROW (with reference to the on-site plans) consisting of the following plans: Civil Plans, Landscape Plans, and Joint Trench Plans. 12. Along with the building permit and grading permit submittals, Applicant shall submit separate Right-of-Way (ROW) improvement plans for the Public Improvement Permit Application. An engineer’s cost estimate for the scope of work shown on the approved ROW improvement plans is required to determine the performance and payment bond amount. The submittal of the bonds is required prior to the execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 13. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 14. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 118 Page 10 15. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit, grading permit, or public improvement permit. Mapping and Agreements 16. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City, a Sanitary Sewer Easement for that portion of the existing public sanitary sewer main located outside the existing Sanitary Sewer Easement or less than 5 feet from the from boundary of the existing sanitary sewer easement. The new easement shall be at least 5 feet on each side of the centerline of the existing public sanitary sewer main. 17. The Applicant shall make an Irrevocable offer of Dedication to the City for a 26 foot wide Emergency Vehicle Access Easement on the Ingress Egress Parcel and on the East of the project site to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. 18. Prior to Building Permit issuance, all applicable mapping shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Clerk Recorder’s Office. 19. All required public easement dedications to the City, easement abandonments on the project site, and the creation of private easements shall be established via the Parcel Map for the property. The Parcel Map shall be approved by City Council prior to execution. 20. Prior to the approval of any Permits, the Applicant shall enter into an Improvement Agreement and Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These agreements shall accompany the Parcel Map and be approved by City Council prior to execution. a. The Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to ensure the faithful performance of the design, construction, installation and inspection of all public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City and shall be secured by good and sufficient payment, performance, and one (1) year warranty bonds or cash deposit adequate to cover all of the costs, inspections and administrative expenses of completing such improvements in the event of a default. The value of the bonds or cash deposit shall include 110% of the cost of construction based on prevailing wage rates. The value of the warranty bond or cash deposit shall be equivalent to 10% of the value of the performance security. b. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property, the channelizers required for the northern driveway, and all stormwater treatment measures and the landscaping/street trees in the Public right-of-way within the project frontage at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner. 21. Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees required for any mapping application prior to review. Right-of-Way 22. Prior to building permit issuance and prior to any work within the City Right-of-Way, the Applicant shall obtain a Public Improvement Permit from the Engineering Division. All new public improvements required to accommodate the development shall be installed at no cost to 119 Page 11 the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City Standards. All new public improvements shall be completed prior to Final Occupancy of the project or prior any Temporary Occupancy as approved by the City Engineer. 23. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a video survey of the adjacent streets (perimeter of proposed property location) to determine the pre-construction condition of the streets at no cost to the City. The Applicant will be responsible to ensure that the condition of the streets and striping is in at least existing condition or better after construction is completed. 24. The applicant shall rehabilitate the AC pavement on South Linden Avenue from the intersection of Railroad Avenue to the South Linden Avenue bridge crossing Colma Creek. Pavement rehabilitation shall include the repair of any failed pavement areas as determined in the field by the City Inspector and a 2-inch grind and overlay of the street from the lip of gutter to the lip of gutter on the opposite side of the street and restriping the lane lines and crosswalks. Restriping shall be installed to current City standards current to the time of Encroachment Permit approval which includes green-backed bike sharrows for the Class III bike route and new northbound and southbound left turn lanes on South Linden Avenue at the intersection of North Canal/South Site Driveway. 25. The Applicant shall reconstruct the existing, curb, gutter and sidewalk along the South Linden Avenue frontage of the subject property. All sidewalks shall be constructed to current City Standards and specifications to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. The Applicant shall construct new curb, gutter, and sidewalk on South Linden Avenue from the northern limits of the project frontage to the intersection at Railroad Avenue. The sidewalk shall include a new ADA accessible pedestrian curb ramp at the intersection of the existing private driveway entrance at #1-#5 South Linden Avenue. 27. The Applicant shall construct new curb, gutter, and sidewalk on South Linden Avenue from the southern limits of the project frontage to the existing sidewalk on the South Linden Avenue bridge crossing Colma Creek. The new sidewalk shall include a driveway apron to serve the City stormwater pump station facility. 28. The Applicant shall install a new pedestrian crosswalk on South Linden Avenue at the southern leg of the intersection with Railroad Avenue. 29. The Applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal at Railroad Avenue and South Linden to remove the existing split phasing, add new left turn pockets on South Linden Avenue for concurrent left turn phasing, add a crosswalk for the south leg of the intersection on South Linden Avenue aligned with the south side of Railroad Avenue, to perform an ADA upgrade by installing pedestrian count down signals and APS pedestrian push buttons for all pedestrian crossings, and to install channelizer markers to prohibit inbound and outbound left turns for the project site’s northern driveway per the recommendation in the approved Transportation Study. Red curb shall be installed to accommodate the revised north and south legs of the intersection. 30. The Applicant shall relocate the existing crosswalk crossing South Linden Avenue at North Canal Street to a location just north of the proposed private driveway entrance/exit to the 120 Page 12 development site. The relocated crosswalk shall include ADA accessible pedestrian curb ramps on each end of the crosswalk. 31. The Applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of South Linden Avenue and North Canal Street to accommodate the relocated crosswalk on South Linden Avenue and the addition of the new driveway into the development site. Said traffic signal modification shall include exclusive left turn phases for new northbound and southbound left turn lanes on South Linden Avenue and the separate phases for the pump station driveway and the project driveway per the recommendation in the approved Transportation Study. 32. The Applicant shall install streetlights along the project street frontage on South Linden Avenue. The light poles and fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to installation. 33. The Applicant shall install pedestrian lighting along the project sidewalk frontages on South Linden Avenue. 34. The Applicant shall install detectable warnings at frontage driveways per the City Standards. 35. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet current City standards current to the time of Encroachment Permit approval. 36. Existing driveway approaches or portions of approaches along the property frontages that will not serve the new development or do not serve any other access shall be removed and replaced with new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Where new work is required, monolithic curbs, gutter, curb ramps, commercial driveway approaches and 4’ wide (minimum) sidewalks are to be constructed to current City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 37. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the site, the Applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, at their expense, as required to conform to City Standards, all public improvements including driveways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street pavements along the street frontages of the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 38. The Applicant shall ensure the proposed above ground street tree planters and planting locations do not interfere with underground utilities or the joint trench. The Applicant will be required to install root barrier measures at the back of sidewalk to prevent the sidewalk from uplift. 39. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all street trees landscaped irrigation systems installed within the Public right-of-way. 40. Prior to Public Improvement Permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide an engineer’s estimate for all work performed with in the public right-of-way and submit a bond equal to 110% of the estimate. 41. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for any proposed work or area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. 121 Page 13 42. No foundation or retaining wall support shall extend into the City Right-of-Way without express approval from the Engineering Department. Applicant shall design any bioretention area or flow-through planters adjacent to the property line such that the facility and all foundations do not encroach within the City Right-of-Way or into an adjacent parcel. 43. The project shall not include any permanent structural supports (retaining walls, tiebacks, etc.) within the ROW. City Engineer approval is required for any temporary structural supports within the ROW. Any temporary structural supports shall be removed after construction. 44. Any work within the public sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian routes shall require pedestrian routing plans along with traffic control plans. Temporary lane or sidewalk closures shall be approved by the City Engineer and by the Construction Coordination Committee (if within the CCC influence area). For any work affecting the sidewalks or pedestrian routes greater than 2 days in duration, the adjacent parking lane or adjacent travel lane shall be closed and temporary vehicle barriers placed to provide a protected pedestrian corridor. Temporary ramps shall be constructed to connect the pedestrian route from the sidewalk to the street if no ramp or driveway is available to serve that purpose. 45. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with Scavenger and submit all garbage related plans. Stormwater 46. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a storm drainage and hydraulic study for the fully improved development analyzing existing conditions and post-development conditions. The study shall confirm that the proposed development will meet the goal of reducing peak runoff by 15% based on a 25-year, 5-minute design storm for each drainage basin. Methods for reducing stormwater flow shall include stormwater storage on-site if necessary. The study shall also evaluate the capacity of each new storm drain installed as part of the development. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the site. The study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 47. Post-development stormwater runoff peak flow and volume shall not exceed that of the pre-development condition for each discharge point from the site. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be a 10-year design storm based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of 10 minutes. 48. On-site and off-site storm drainage conveyance systems shall be designed to accommodate the 10-year design storm. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of 10 minutes. 49. Hydraulic Grade lines shall not be less than 1 foot from the ground surface. 50. Runoff Coefficients used for hydraulic calculations shall be as follows: a. Pervious areas—0.35 b. Impervious areas—0.95 122 Page 14 51. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across subdivision boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this purpose. 52. All off-site drainage facilities required by the City Engineer to accommodate the runoff from the subdivision shall be provided by the Applicant at no cost to the City. 53. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge into an approved drainage device or facility that meets the C3 stormwater treatment requirements of Municipal Regional Permit. 54. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff shall not be surface drained into surrounding private property or public streets. 55. Existing on-site drains that are not adequately sized to accommodate run-off from the fully developed property and upstream drainage basin shall be improved as required by the Applicant’s civil engineering consultant’s plans and specifications as approved by the City Engineer. These on-site improvements shall be installed at no cost to the City. 56. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Sanitary Sewer 57. The Applicant shall video inspect the Public Sanitary sewer main on the eastern side of the property and along the South Linden Avenue frontage of the property. Videos must be submitted to City Engineering for review. The video will be used to confirm the number of existing sanitary sewer laterals serving the development site that must be abandoned as part of the development. 58. The Applicant shall abandon all existing private sewer laterals from the project site connected to the public sanitary sewer system. The number of sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be shown on the plans and shall be confirmed by the review of the video inspection of the Public sanitary sewer main. 59. Sanitary Sewer plan shall show all existing and proposed utilities. Be sure to provide minimum horizontal and vertical clearances for all existing and proposed utilities. Also include all existing and proposed manhole, catch basin and pipe invert elevations. 60. All utility crossings shall be potholed, verified and shown on the plans prior to the building permit submittal. 61. The on-site sanitary sewer system/plumbing shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, as amended and adopted by the City, and in accordance with the requirements of the South San Francisco Building Division. 62. Each on-site sanitary sewer manhole and cleanout shall be accessible to maintenance personnel and equipment via pathway or driveways as appropriate. Each maintenance structure shall be surrounded by a level pad of sufficient size to provide a safe work area. 123 Page 15 63. The on-site sanitary sewer system shall not be dedicated to the City for maintenance. The sanitary sewer facilities within the subdivision shall be repaired and maintained by the property owner Homeowner’s Association. Dry Utilities 64. The Applicant shall underground the existing overhead utilities on South Linden Avenue from the northern limits of the development site frontage to the south side of Colma Creek. The joint trench for said undergrounding shall include one- 3-inch spare conduit with pull boxes and pull rope for future City fiber optics facilities. 65. All electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground within the property being developed and to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility vault. Pull boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed within pedestrian walkway areas. Each dwelling unit shall be pre-wired for Cable T.V. and broadband communication services. Domestic Water 66. The Applicant shall install fire hydrants at the locations specified by the Fire Marshal. Installation shall be in accordance with City Standards as administered by the Fire Marshall. 67. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service for all water-related issues. All water mains and private water services shall be installed to the standards of the California Water Service and the City. On-site Improvements 68. Internal driveways shall be a minimum of 15’ wide for one-way travel and 25’ wide of for areas subject to two-way travel. One-way travel lanes within the site shall be clearly posted and marked appropriately. 69. Staging or storing of trash bins shall not be permitted on Public right-of-way or on-site within any Public easements (emergency vehicle access easement or ingress egress easement). 70. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 71. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy form the Building Division, the Applicant shall require its Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to certify that it conforms to the approved site plan and that there is positive drainage away from the exterior of the building. The Applicant shall make any modifications to the grading, drainage, or other improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans. 72. The Applicant shall submit a proposed workplan and intended methodologies to ensure any existing structures on or along the development’s property line are protected during proposed activities. 73. All common areas are to be landscaped and irrigated and shall meet the requirements of the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Submit landscape, drainage and grading plans for review and approval by the Engineering Division. 124 Page 16 74. Any monument signs to be installed for the project shall be located completely on private property and shall not encroach into the City’s right-of-way. The Developer shall ensure that placement of the monument signs do not obstruct clear lines of sight for vehicles entering or exiting the site. Grading 75. The recommendations contained within the geotechnical report shall be included in the Site Grading and Drainage Plan. The Site Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by the developer’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. 76. During grading operations, the entire project site shall be adequately sprinkled with water to prevent dust or sprayed with an effect dust palliative to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried onto adjacent private and public property. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Should any problems arise from dust, the developer shall hire an environmental inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with the grading permit. 77. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco shall be cleaned daily, or more often, as required by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets or private driveways. 78. The Applicant shall submit a winterization plan for all undeveloped areas within the site to control silt and stormwater runoff from entering adjacent public or private property. This plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to September 1 of each year. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to November 1 of each year. 79. Prior to placing any foundation concrete, the Applicant shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks from confirmed property lines as shown on the Plans. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. 80. The applicant is required by ordinance to provide for public safety and the protection of public and private property in the vicinity of the land to be graded from the impacts of the proposed grading work. 81. All hauling and grading operations are restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for residential areas and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for industrial/commercial areas, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 82. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no grading in excess of 200 cubic yards shall be accomplished between November 1 and May 1 of each year. Engineering Impact Fees 83. The Applicant shall pay the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (per Res 120-2020) prior to Building Permit Issuance. For any questions concerning Engineering COAs, please contact Jason Hallare at jason.hallare@ssf.net or (650) 829-6652. FIRE DEPARTMENT 125 Page 17 1. Projects shall be designed in compliance with established regulations adopted by the City of South San Francisco affecting or related to structures, processes, premises, and safeguards regarding the following: a. The hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials, or devices. b. Conditions hazardous to life, property, or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises. c. Fire hazards in the structure(s) or on the premises from occupancy or operation. d. Matters related to the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of the fire suppression or alarm systems. e. Conditions affecting the safety of fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. 2. Fire service features for buildings, structures and premises shall comply with all City adopted building standards, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Building Standards and South San Francisco City Code. 3. Permit(s) shall be required as set forth in adopted California Building Code (CBC) Section 105, California Residential Code (CRC) Section R105 and California Fire Code (CFC) Sections 105.6 and 105.7. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional. Where special conditions exist, the code official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional. a. Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on suitable material. Electronic media documents shall be submitted. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of adopted codes and relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations, as determined by the code official. b. Shop drawings for the fire protection system(s) shall be submitted directly to the Fire Department to indicate conformance with adopted codes and the construction documents and shall be approved prior to the start of system installation. Shop drawings shall contain all information as required by the referenced installation standards in Chapter 9. c. The construction documents shall show in sufficient detail the location, construction, size, and character of all portions of the means of egress including the path of the exit discharge to the public way in compliance with the provisions of adopted codes. In other than occupancies in Groups R-2, R-3, and R-2.1, the construction documents shall designate the number of occupants to be accommodated on every floor, and in all rooms and spaces. d. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing 126 Page 18 structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The code official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan where the application for permit is for alteration or repair or where otherwise warranted. e. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access roads and construction documents, hydraulic calculations and material specifications for fire hydrant, fire protection or detection systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. 4. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except where approved alternative methods of protection are provided. 5. For the purposes of prescribing minimum safeguards for construction, alteration, and demolition operations to provide reasonable safety to life and property from fire during such operations. building, facilities, and premises in the course of construction, alteration or demolition, including those in underground locations shall be in compliance with CFC Chapter 33 and NFPA 241. 6. New buildings shall be provided with approved illuminated or other approved means of address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabetic letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Character size and stroke shall be in accordance with CFC Section 505.1.1 through 505.1.2. Where required by the fire code official, address identification shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response in accordance with this code and CFC Section 505.1.3. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way or when determined by the fire code official, a monument, pole, or other approved illuminated sign or other approved means shall be used to identify the structure(s). Address identification shall be maintained. 7. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises on which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction, in accordance with CFC Section 507, Appendices B & C. a. Fire-flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings and facilities shall be determined by adopted CFC Appendix B. b. Fire hydrant systems shall comply with adopted CFC Section 507.5.1 through 507.5.8 and Appendix C. c. On site private fire hydrants shall be a minimum of 40 feet or the height of the building away from buildings or as approved by the fire code official. 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with CFC Section 503 and Appendix D. a. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 200 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 127 Page 19 i. Traffic calming measures (bollards, speed bumps, humps, undulations, etc.) are not approved as a part of this review and require specific approval from the Fire Department. ii. Security gates shall be equipped with a Knox Company key operated electric gate release switch. During a power failure, gate shall release for manual operation OR be equipped with standby power or connected to the building emergency panel. In addition to sending the request to exit signal to the gate operator, the magnetic detection loop (when activated) shall prohibit the gate from closing upon fire apparatus. b. Commercial and industrial developments with buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height or 62,000 square feet shall have not fewer than two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. c. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with CFC D105. For purposes of this requirement, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. One or more of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet and not greater than 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire long-side of the building or as approved by the fire code official. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. There shall be no architectural features, projections, landscaping, or obstructions that would limit the articulation of the aerial apparatus. a. S Linden appears meet aerial access requirements, this will restrict all trees between the building and S Linden from exceeding a mature height of 15 feet maximum height d. Multiple-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. e. Required Fire Department access roads shall be signed “No Stopping – Fire Lane” per current Fire Department standards and California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500. f. A minimum of one (1) Fire Department key box shall be provided on the front of each structure for access to fire protection equipment within the building as approved 128 Page 20 by the fire code official. A second Knox key box shall be located at the Fire Command Center. 9. The provisions of the adopted CFC shall specify where fire protection and life safety systems are required and shall apply to the design, installation, inspection, operation, testing, and maintenance of all fire protection systems. a. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in adopted CFC Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.20. i. Structure will be required to be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 1. Fire Department Connection (FDC) locations for the sprinkler and/or standpipe systems shall be approved by the fire code official and shall be located on the street side of the structure or facing approved fire apparatus access roadway fully visible and recognizable from the street, and within 100 feet an approved fire hydrant. 2. The parking structure with proposed electric vehicle (EV) parking shall require a specially designed automatic sprinkler system to appropriately protect lithium, lithium-ion and other combustible electrolyte batteries in vehicles. b. Structure will be required to install a standpipe system in the building. i. Not less than one standpipe shall be provided for use during construction. Such standpipes shall be installed prior to construction exceeding 40 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. Such standpipes shall be provided with fire department hose connections at floor-level locations adjacent to stairways as construction progresses, such standpipes shall be extended to within one floor of the highest point of construction having secured decking or flooring. ii. Standpipe outlets shall be required to be within 100 feet of designated EV parking within the building. 10. Enclosed parking structures with EV parking shall be provided with a smoke removal system in accordance with CFC 910.4. 11. In accordance with South San Francisco City Municipal Code Section amends California Fire Code (CFC) section 508.1 requiring Fire Command Centers in buildings four or more stories in height with a direct exterior door directly accessible to the fire lane or public right of way. a. Proposed location shall be swapped with the proposed Fire Pump room. 12. A change of occupancy shall not be made unless the use or occupancy is made to comply with the requirements of the City adopted California Fire Code and the California Existing Building Code. Where approved by the fire code official, a change of occupancy shall be permitted without complying with the all requirements of this code and the California Existing Building Code, provided that the new or proposed use or occupancy is determined to be less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use or occupancy. 13. The following are a list of deferred plan submittal items that are required by the Fire Department - additional items may be called out based on subsequent permit reviews: a. Private Underground Fire Main b. Standpipe System c. Fire Sprinkler System d. Fire Alarm/Fire Sprinkler Monitoring System 129 Page 21 e. Fire Pump (to be determined) f. Emergency Responder Radio System (to be determined) g. Gates and barricades across fire apparatus access roads (to be determined) 14. EVA are required to be unobstructed at all time, a revocable exception is being made for the monitored use of portable net for use, subject to acceptable maintenance, as determined by the Fire code official. For questions concerning Fire Department COAs, please contact Ian Hardage at ian.hardage@ssf.net or (650) 829-6645. POLICE DEPARTMENT All construction must conform to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48.050 Minimum security standards for multiple-family dwellings, (Ord. 1477 § 1A, 2013; Ord. 1166 § 1, 1995) 15.48.085 Additional Security Measures May Be Required Per South San Francisco Municipal Code 15.48.085 -Additional Security Measures, the following conditions will also be required: 1. The applicant shall install and maintain a system allowing first responders to enter the building’s common areas by means of a code to be entered into a keypad or similar input device. The keypad/device should be located at the main entrance and an additional keypad/device located at an additional, but separate entrance, for a total of two different entrances for first responders. A permanent code shall be issued to the police department by email to planningsergeant@ssf.net. Physical keys or electronic access cards will not satisfy this requirement. Please note this is separate from any key control or access requirement the fire department might have. 2. Any exterior double door entrances shall only have one exterior handle, which should be on the right door (from a person’s perspective looking at the doors). This is to prevent the malicious locking/chaining of the doors from the outside. This requirement shall also apply to interior double doors to shared common areas. The interior opening mechanism for the doors shall be of a design that prevents the same malicious locking/chaining. 3. All exterior doorways shall be illuminated during darkness by a white light source that has full cut-off and is of pedestrian scale. 4. Interior common areas, such as the parking garage, bicycle storage area, fire escapes, etc., shall be illuminated at all times with a white light source that is controlled by a tamperproof switch, or a switch located in an inaccessible location to passers-by. 130 Page 22 5. The landing at the lowest level of service staircases, such as those in the garage area or fire escapes, shall have some mechanism, such as fencing and/or a gate to prevent access and prevent people from loitering or concealing themselves in that area. The fencing shall be at least 72 inches tall, in line with the lowest step, and of a design that makes it difficult to climb. 6. Any exterior bicycle racks installed shall be of an inverted “U” design, or other design that allows two different locking points on each bicycle. 7. The mature height of all shrubbery shall be no higher than three feet, if so, it shall be maintained at a maximum height of three feet, and tree canopies shall be no lower than six feet above grade. 8. The applicant shall install and maintain a camera surveillance system that conforms to the technical specifications of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.66.050, Minimum technological standards, (Ord. 1515, 2016). The video surveillance cameras will be used as a crime deterrent and assist with the identification and apprehension of criminals if a crime is committed on the property. Enough cameras shall be installed to provide adequate coverage for the intended space. Cameras shall be placed minimally in the following locations: • All exterior entrances/exits • Garage area (to provide coverage for the entire parking area) • Bicycle storage area • Main lobby of building • Lobby of sales/leasing office • Loading docks 9. Any leasing of sales offices within the building shall be alarmed with a central station monitored silent intruder alarm system. 10. Any exterior benches accessible to the public shall have center armrests to prevent persons from lying down on them. The Police Department reserves the right to review and comment upon the submission of revised and updated plans. 131 Page 23 For questions concerning Police COAs please contact Mike Toscano at mike.toscano@ssf.net or (650) 877-8927. WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Water Quality Control Stormwater and/or Pretreatment Programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. Storm drains must be protected during construction. Discharge of any demolition/construction debris or water to the storm drain system is prohibited. 2. Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street or drive aisles. Drains in street must have inlet and throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to breakage from vehicular traffic. 3. No floatable bark shall be used in landscaping. Only fibrous mulch or pea gravel is allowed. 4. After 7/1/19, Demolition Projects must complete a PCBs Screening Assessment Form (attached and available in Building Division). If screening determines the building is an applicable structure, the Protocol for Evaluating PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition shall be followed. 5. As site falls in a Moderate Trash Generation area per South San Francisco’s ATTACHED Trash Generation Map (http://www.flowstobay.org/content/municipal- trash-generation-maps), determined by the Water Quality Control Division: -Regional Water Quality Control Board-approved full trash capture devices must be installed to treat the stormwater drainage from the site. -At a minimum, a device must be installed before the onsite drainage enters the City’s public stormwater system (i.e. trash capture must take place no farther downstream than the last private stormwater drainage structure on the site). -An Operation & Maintenance Agreement will be required to be recorded with San Mateo County, ensuring the device(s) will be properly maintained. -A full trash capture system is any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area or designed to carry at least the same flow as the storm drain connected to the inlet. 6. Roof leaders/gutters must NOT be plumbed directly to storm drains; they shall discharge to stormwater treatment devices or landscaping first. 132 Page 24 7. Fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and be clearly shown on plans. 8. Trash enclosure shall be covered (roof, canopy) and contained (wall/fence). If food prep to be involved, the floor shall slope to a central drain that discharges to a grease trap/interceptor and is connected to the sanitary sewer. Details of trash enclosure shall be clearly provided on plans. 9. Install a condensate drain line connected to the sanitary sewer for rooftop equipment and clearly show on plans. 10. Applicant will be required to pay a Sewer Capacity Fee (connection fee) based on SSF City Council-approved EDU calculation (involving anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations and including credits for previous site use). Based on the information received, the estimated Sewer Capacity Fee will be $2,033,927.95, payable with the Building Permit. 11. Elevator sump drainage (if applicable) shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to connection to the sanitary sewer. 12. Drains in parking garage (if applicable) must be plumbed through an oil/water separator and then into the sanitary sewer system and clearly shown on plans. 13. Wherever feasible, install landscaping that minimizes irrigation runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes use of pesticides and fertilizers and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping programs (such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 14. Site is subject to C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (please see SMCWPPP C.3 Regulated Projects Guide at https://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment for guidance). C.3 requirements will be reviewed by the City’s consultant, WC-3 and the following items will be required; 15. Applicant shall provide 100% Low-Impact Development for C.3 stormwater treatment for all of the project’s impervious areas. In-lieu of on-site treatment, applicants seeking Special Project Status exemption to Low Impact Development for C.3 treatment may install LID treatment within the Right-of-Way. If Applicant chooses to treat any of their Project’s impervious areas within the ROW, Applicant shall size the treatment measures to treat both the Project’s impervious areas and the ROW. The ROW area to be treated 133 Page 25 shall be from the property line to the street centerline or crown whichever is a greater distance along the entire project frontage. Sizing and design shall conform to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program design templates and technical guidance and be approved by the Water Quality Control Plant and the Engineering Division. Applicant shall maintain all treatment measures required by the project and enter into a Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement with the City. 16. Completed attached forms for Low Impact Development (C3-C6 Project Checklist). Forms must be on 8.5in X 11in paper and signed and wet stamped by a professional engineer. Calculations must be submitted with this package. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient Forms can also be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment A completed copy must also be emailed to andrew.wemmer @ssf.net 17. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development. 18. Submit flow calculations and related math for LID. 19. Complete attached Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreements. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient Do not sign agreement, as the city will need to review prior to signature. Prepare packet and submit including a preferred return address for owner signature. Packet should also be mailed or emailed to: Andrew Wemmer City of SSF WQCP 195 Belle Air Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net Exhibit Templates can also be found within Chapter 6 the C.3 Technical Guidance at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment. 20. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 21. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. 134 Page 26 b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable. d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include: i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site. ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes. iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants. iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants. v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan. vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects. 22. A SWPPP must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in effect all year long. 23. A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted (if > 1 acre). For questions concerning Water Quality Control Division COAs, please contact Andrew Wemmer with any questions at Andrew.Wemmer@ssf.net or (650) 829-3840. 135 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 01/13/2023 7 SOUTH LINDEN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 136 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONVICINITY MAP PERSPECTIVE 7 S LINDEN AVE IS APPROXIMATELY 4.22 ACRES, CURRENTLY IMPROVED WITH TWO SINGLE-STORY INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSES. THE SITE IS BORDERED BY SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE TO THE WEST, COLMA CREEK TO THE SOUTH AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD SPUR TO THE NORTH AND EAST. DOWNTOWN AND THE NEW CALTRAIN STATION IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY A 1/2 MILE WALK FROM THE SITE. CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY HAS A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AS MIXED INDUSTRIAL AND IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS 7-STORIES, AND WILL CONSIST OF 5-STORIES TYPE IIIA CONSTRUCTION OVER 2 STORIES OF AT GRADE TYPE IA PODIUM CONSTRUCTION. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE 543 DWELLING UNITS WITH A MIX OF STUDIOS, ONE- AND TWO-BEDROOMS AND PROPOSES TO PROVIDE 565 PARKING STALLS FOR A PARKING RATIO OF 1.04. THE PROJECT WILL ALIGN WITH THE CITY’S AFFORDABLE ORDINANCE BY OFFERING 15% AFFORDABLE – 10% LOW-INCOME AND 5% VERY-LOW INCOME – FOR A TOTAL OF 82 BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS DEED-RESTRICTED FOR 55 YEARS, SPREAD PROPORTIONALLY ACROSS THE VARIOUS UNIT BEDROOM TYPES. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 014074010 SHEET INDEX AP0.00 PROJECT INFORMATION AP0.01 SITE CONTEXT AP0.02 UNIT MATRIX AP0.03 PARKING STATISTICS AP0.04 BUILDING STATISTICS AP0.05 CODE REQUIREMENTS AP0.06 EXISTING SITE AP0.07 EXISTING SITE AP0.08 PARKING STACKER INFO AP2.00 FLOOR 1 AP2.01 FLOOR 2 AP2.02 FLOOR 3 AP2.03 FLOOR 4 AP2.04 FLOORS 5-6 AP2.05 FLOOR 7 AP2.06 ROOF AP3.00 ELEVATIONS AP3.01 ELEVATIONS AP3.02 ELEVATIONS AP3.03 ELEVATIONS AP3.10 MATERIAL BOARD AP3.20 SECTIONS AP3.30 SE RENDERING AP3.31 SW RENDERING AP3.32 SOUTH RENDERING AP3.33 NW RENDERING AP3.34 NE RENDERING AP3.35 SHADOW STUDIES AP4.00 UNIT PLANS AP4.01 UNIT PLANS AP4.02 UNIT PLANS AP4.03 UNIT PLANS AP4.04 UNIT PLANS AP4.05 GROUND FLOOR STREET FACING UNIT AP5.00 WINDOW DETAILS AP5.01 WINDOW DETAILS AP5.02 WINDOW DETAILS AP5.03 WINDOW EXHIBIT AP5.04 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN DIAGRAM L-1.1 OVERALL ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN L-1.2 LANDSCAPE IMAGERY L-1.3 LIGHTING IMAGERY L-1.4 PLANTING IMAGERY L-2.1 SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2.2 PODIUM LANDSCAPE PLAN L-3.1 OVERALL HYDROZONE PLAN C1 EXISTING SITE PLAN C2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C4 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN C5 EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP0.00PROJECT INFORMATION 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/13/2023 137 01/13/2023 138 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. AP0.02UNIT MATRIX SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO7 SOUTH LINDEN Total Gross 137,264 134,720 104,915 103,991 109,033 109,033 107,890 103,890 910,736 Garage (Including Utility)95,292 95,567 0 0 0 0 0 0 190,859 Utility/MEP 6,268 4,003 661 890 685 685 685 0 13,877 Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leasing Office 3,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,040 Bike Storage 1,320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,320 Residential Amenities 1,803 0 7,336 1,916 0 11,055 Gross area by floor (footprint minus net rentable, excl decks)11,976 10,648 21,881 22,967 23,638 23,638 23,836 0 138,584 Net rentable Residential by floor (excl decks)17,565 24,502 75,037 80,134 84,710 84,710 81,453 0 448,111 * Indicates unit includes storage closets Net rentable residential area is measured center of demising wall, ext face of stud of ext wall, ext face of stud of corridor wall, excl decks TOTAL UNITS Avg SqFt 855 21 28 95 100 105 105 89 0 543 99%464,435 2 BDRM SUB-TOTAL 15 20 31 36 39 39 49 0 229 42%253,812 B7.0* 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 1,166 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 3%16,324 B6.0 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH + DEN 1,430 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 2%18,590 B5.0 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH + DEN 1,073 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1%7,511 B4.0 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 1,133 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 2%13,596 B3.1a 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 1,139 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 1%5,695 B3.0 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 1,110 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 1%5,550 B2.3a* 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 1,126 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 1%4,504 B2.2a* 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 1,119 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 1%4,476 B2.1a* 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 1,142 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 11 2%12,562 B2.0* 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 1,123 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1%7,861 2 BEDROOM B1.0 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 1,069 11 12 19 24 27 27 27 147 27%157,143 1 BDRM SUB-TOTAL 2 4 54 53 55 55 29 0 252 45%174,467 A6.0 1 BDRM 752 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 1%3,760 A5.0 1 BDRM + DEN 1,005 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 10 2%10,050 A4.0 1 BDRM 706 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 10 2%7,060 A3.0 1 BDRM 659 2 4 13 14 15 15 15 78 14%51,402 A2.1a 1 BEDROOM (elevator)656 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 1%3,280 A2 INSIDE CORNER 1 BDRM 710 0 0 26 28 29 29 3 115 21%81,650 1 BEDROOM A1 1 BDRM 725 0 0 9 5 5 5 5 29 5%21,025 STUDIO SUB-TOTAL 4 4 10 11 11 11 11 0 62 12%36,156 S2 STUDIO 636 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 10 2%6,360 STUDIO S1 STUDIO 573 4 4 8 9 9 9 9 52 10%29,796 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH 6TH 7TH ROOF Total by Type UNIT TYPE NAME DESCRIB Unit Net Rentable Unit Rentable Area FLOORS:5 WOOD OVER 2 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE III-A O/ TYPE I-A BUILDING 1 Date: 01/13/2023 1825 UNIT AND AREA SUMMARY JOB: ESSEX - 7 LINDEN, SSF 01/13/2023 139 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. AP0.03PARKING STATISTICS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO7 SOUTH LINDEN 1STALL/ 98DU PROVIDED TOTAL 18 REQUIRED TOTAL 17 309 5% PROJECT REQUIRED TOTAL 15.45 SHORT TERM PARKING: PROVIDED TOTAL 136 PROVIDED TOTAL 40 REQUIRED TOTAL 136 REQUIRED TOTAL 28 543 DU X .25 STALL =135.75 THE UNITS 55 UNITS / 2 (FOR 50% REDUCTION) = 28 UNITS WITH 200 CUBIC FEET STORAGE CLOSETS WITHIN LONG TERM PARKING:.25 SPACE/DU 543 TOTAL UNITS / 10 = 55 UNITS BICYCLE PARKING PRIVATE STORAGE ACCESSIBLE UNASSIGNED = 5% OF UNASSIGNED ACCESSIBLE ASSIGNED = 2% OF ASSIGNED * = NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSED STALL TOTAL PROPOSED STALL TOTAL:563 RATIO:1.04 VAN ADA 2 * LEVEL 2 EV 141 * LEVEL 1 EV 402 * ACCESSIBLE UNASSIGNED 1 ACCESSIBLE ASSIGNED 12 DOUBLE STACKER (NO PIT) ALT 110 COMPACT 68 TANDEM 14 PROPOSED:STANDARD 358 STALL TOTAL BEFORE REDUCTION 309 RATIO:0.57 ALL PARKING ASSIGNED - 2% ADA PROVIDED DENSITY 128.7 DU/ACRE (128.7/4.22) = 31 3 BD OR > 1,100SF 1 SPACE/DU 1 75 FAR 4.950889896 2 BD < 1,100SF 0.5 SPACE/DU 0.5 77 PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 137,264 SF 74.62% STUDIO & 1 BD < 1,100SF 0.5 SPACE/DU 0.5 157 REQUIRED:LOT AREA 183,954 SF 4.22 ACRE VEHICLE PARKING 01/13/2023 140 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP0.04 01/13/2023 BUILDING STATISTICS 7 SOUTH LINDEN TOTAL 67,031 21,528 B7.0 14 58 812 B6.0 13 90 1170 B5.0 7 0 0 B4.0 12 140 1680 B3.0 5 0 0 B2.0 7 0 0 B1.0 137 58 7,946 A5.0 10 45 450 A4.0 10 0 0 A3.0 76 58 4,408 A2.0 88 45 3,960 (BY UNIT TYPE)A1.0 19 58 1,102 S2.0 10 0 0 (BY UNIT TYPE)S1.0 52 0 0 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE** DU TYPE DU # OS SF 45,503 EVA (COMMON)13,000 POCKET PARK (COMMON)1,718 LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACES (COMMON)3,186 ROOF DECKS (COMMON)1,916 TERRACE 906 COURTYARD D (COMMON)2,876 COURTYARD C (COMMON)2,876 COURTYARD B (COMMON)9,326 PROVIDED:COURTYARD A (COMMON)9,699 120 SF OS * 543 DU TOTAL 65,160 SF POCKET PARK - WITH ALL STANDARDS PER 20.135.050.G: POCKET PARK EVA - COMPLIES WITH ALL STANDARDS PER 20.135.050.H: GREENWAY PRIVATE: 6 FEET MIN. WIDTH COMMON: 15 FEET MIN. WIDTH 2 TYPES PROVIDED REQUIRED:120SF PER DU OF OPENSPACE: COMMON, PRIVATE OR COMBINATION PUBLIC OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE COMPLIES 141 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. AP0.05 10/12/2022 CODE REQUIREMENTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO7 SOUTH LINDEN FIRE REQUIREMENTS: PROJECT SHALL PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, TO BE PROVIDED DURING PERMIT PROCESS: A. INSTALL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER NFPA 13/SSFFD REQUIREMENTS UNDER SEPARATE FIRE PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT FOR OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND. B. INSTALL A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM PER NFPA 72 AND SSFFD REQUIREMENTS UNDER A SEPARATE FIRE PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT. INSTALL EXTERIOR LISTED HORN/STROBE ALARM DEVICE, NOT A BELL. C. INSTALL UNDERGROUND PIPING FOR WATER BASED FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS PER NFPA 24 AND SSFFD REQUIREMENTS UNDER SEPARATE FIRE PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT. D. INSTALL A STANDPIPE SYSTEM PER NFPA 14/SSFFD REQUIREMENTS UNDER SEPARATE FIRE PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT. E. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NFPA STANDARD APPLICABLE TO THE SYSTEM DESIGN AND SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTIONS 912.2 THROUGH 912.7. F. PRIVATE FIRE SERVICE MAINS AND APPURTENANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 24 AS AMENDED IN CHAPTER 80 UNDER A SEPARATE FIRE PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT. G. ELEVATORS SHALL NOT CONTAIN SHUNT-TRIPS. H. AT LEAST ONE ELEVATOR SHALL BE SIZED FOR A GURNEY THE MINIMUM SIZE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CFC. I. EMERGENCY POWER SYSTEMS AND STANDBY POWER SYSTEMS REQUIRED BY THIS CODE OR THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTIONS 604.1.1 THROUGH 604.1.8. J. PROVIDE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC SECTION 906 K. ALL NON PARKING SPACE CURBS TO BE PAINTED RED TO LOCAL FIRE CODE SPECIFICATIONS L. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES OR MARKINGS THAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING—FIRE LANE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCH ROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE MEANS BY WHICH FIRE LANES ARE DESIGNATED SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN AND LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AND BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY. M. ANY ACCESS ROADS SHALL EXTEND TO WITHIN 150 FEET OF ANY PART OF THE EXTERIOR WALL OF THE FIRST STORY AND AT LEAST ON EXTERIOR DOOR WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE ACCESS ROAD THAT CAN BE OPENED FROM THE OUTSIDE THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. IF THE PROJECT CANNOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS NOTED ABOVE AND IF ACCESS ROADS CANNOT BE INSTALLED DUE TO LOCATION ON PROPERTY, TOPOGRAPHY, WATERWAYS, NONNEGOTIABLE GRADES, OR SIMILAR CONDITIONS, THE AHJ (SSF FIRE DEPARTMENT) SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FIRE PROTECTION FEATURES TO BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE. N. PROVIDE FIRE FLOW IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE APPENDIX BB. O. FIRE HYDRANTS LOCATED ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET, OR ONSITE, SHALL HAVE AN UNOBSTRUCTED CLEARANCE OF NOT LESS THAN 30 FEET (15 FEET EITHER SIDE OF HYDRANT), IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE 22514. MARKING SHALL BE PER CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE 22500.1 P. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL PROVIDE PREMISE IDENTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC SECTION 505.1 Q. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE TOP OF RUBBISH AND LINEN CHUTES AND IN THEIR TERMINAL ROOMS. CHUTES SHALL HAVE ADDITIONAL SPRINKLER HEADS INSTALLED AT ALTERNATE FLOORS AND AT THE LOWEST INTAKE. WHERE A RUBBISH CHUTE EXTENDS THROUGH A BUILDING MORE THAN ONE FLOOR BELOW THE LOWEST INTAKE, THE EXTENSION SHALL HAVE SPRINKLERS INSTALLED THAT ARE RECESSED FROM THE DROP AREA OF THE CHUTE AND PROTECTED FROM FREEZING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.1. SUCH SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALTERNATE FLOORS BEGINNING WITH THE SECOND LEVEL BELOW THE LAST INTAKE AND ENDING WITH THE FLOOR ABOVE THE DISCHARGE. CHUTE SPRINKLERS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE FOR SERVICING. PLANNING INFORMATION PROJECT LOCATION:7 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:PRIVATELY FUNDED MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 543 RESIDENTIAL UNITS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 85'-0" GARAGE: 100% ASSIGNED PRIVATE PARKING (2% REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE STALLS) BUILDING CODE INFORMATION OCCUPANCY GROUP:R-2 AROUND S-2 R-2 ACCESSORY (COMMUNITY & FITNESS ROOM, LANDSCAPE ROOF) B (LEASING OFFICE, ASSEMBLY LESS THAN 50 OCCUPANTS) CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE IA, SPRINKLERED PER NFPA 13 NUMBER OF STORIES: (5) STORIES (5 WOOD STORIES OVER 2 CONCRETE/METAL) ACCESSIBILITY:100% OF UNITS SHALL BE ADAPTABLE, PER CBC 2019 CHAPTER 11A ALL COMMON USE AREAS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE PER CBC 2019 CHAPTER 11A ALL PUBLIC AREAS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE PER CBC 2019 CHAPTER 11B ENERGY CODE: 2019 ENERGY CODE APPLICABLE CODES: 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC) 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING OCDE (CPC) 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) SAFE HARBOR PER FHA DESIGN MANUAL R. PROVIDE KNOX KEY BOX FOR EACH BUILDING WITH ACCESS KEYS TO ENTRY DOORS, ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL ROOMS, ELEVATORS, AND OTHERS TO BE DETERMINED. PROVIDE KNOX KEY SWITCH FOR ANY ELECTRONIC GATES. S. PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT STUDY OR PROOF THAT THE EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE IN THE BUILDING IS ADEQUATE OR INSTALL AN EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 510 OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE UNDER SEPARATE FIRE PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT. T. THIS NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE ASSESSED A RECENTLY ADOPTED PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEE. THE AMOUNTS FOR HIGH DENSITY ARE $168.90 PER UNIT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND $394.10 PER UNIT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. FULL SIGNAGE PACKAGE TO BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL, NOTED MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL HEARINGS 01/14/202301/13/2023 142 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. AP0.06 10/12/2022 EXISTING SITE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 143 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 3 2 1 SITE 1 2 3 4 4 2 EXISTING SITE AP0.07 10/12/202201/14/202301/13/2023 144 TRUE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. AP0.08 10/12/2022 PARKING STACKER INFORMATION 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 145 RRGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBU TUTTUT UT UTT T DN Tm hpts615 T TPSEbox5S T5C2C2 C2 T5UP GARAGE 303 STALLS ELEC ROOM 3 ELEC ROOM 5 FIRE PUMP BIKE ROOM 2 WATER ROOM B2.0 ELEC ROOM 4 TRASH TERMINATION 2 MOVE IN LOBBY TYP.24' - 0"8'-6" x 18'-0" TYP. 0507 61 60 59 58 57 53 52 51 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 84838281807978777675747371706968676665646362 116 115 114 104 103 101102 100 99 98 97 9596 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 117 118 119 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 141140 142 143 144 145 146 186 185 184 181 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 151 150 36 35 32 34 33 31 29 30 28 27 2620 21 22 23 24 251814101208 06 04 52 515253 183 182 37 0102 147 AP3.00 1 AP3.01 1 AP3.02 1 AP3.03 1 LOADING ZONEGARAGE ACCESSGARAGE ACCESSSOUTH LINDEN AVENUE B1.0 105106107109 108111 110 123 125124 127126 128120 122121 113 112 15 B1.0 B1.0PUZZLE STACKER - NO PIT15 STALLS, DOUBLE HT.50515253 72 188 187 189 190 192 191 162 16120.0%10.0%PUZZLE STACKER - NO PIT5 STALLS, DOUBLE HT.85 86 LEASING CENTER 85' - 8" 54' - 10"40' - 10"640' - 6" LOT WIDTH 360' - 2" LOT DEPTH499' - 9" BLDG WIDTH MAIL ROOM LOBBY ELEC ROOM 1 24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"25' - 5"24' - 0" B1.0BIKE ROOM 1 TRASH TERMINATION 1 BIKE ROOM ELEC ROOM 2 FIRE COMMAND CENTER MPOE ROOM 40' - 0"300' - 8" BLDG DEPTH24' - 0"PET SPA 0913 1117 1619 148176 175177178179180 193 TYPICAL PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS: STANDARD: 8'-6" x 18'-0" TANDEM: 10'-0" x 20'-0" COMPACT: 8'-0" x 16'-0" 149 B1.0 B1.0B1.0B1.0B1.0 26' - 0" A3.0B1.0S1.0S1.0S1.0B7.0B7.0S1.0B5.0B1.0A3.0 PUZZLE STACKER - NO PIT 15 STALLS, DOUBLE HT.PUZZLE STACKER - NO PIT10 STALLS, DOUBLE HT.0'0'25'50'TRUE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1" = 50' - 0" SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP2.00 01/13/2023 FLOOR 1 7 SOUTH LINDEN 146 S1.0 GARAGE 262 STALLS OPEN TO BELOW POOL VAULT POOL EQUIP GARAGE EXHAUST TRASH ROOM 2 GARAGE EXHAUST TRASH ROOM 1 B1.0 45' - 11"36' - 3"TYP. 24' - 0" TYP. 24' - 0"24' - 2" MAINTENANCE 565 558557 552 551 308 309 310 311 312 313 319 318 317 314 315 316 320 321 322 323 324 325 330 331 329 326 327 328 332 333 334 335 336 337 342 341 339 340 338 533 532 531 534 528 527 526 525 524 523 522 521 520 519 518 517 516 515 514 513 512 511 395394388 389 390 391 392 393 510 509 508 507 506 504 503505 502 501 500 499 497 496 495 494 487 486 491 490 489 488 479 478 485 484 482 483 481 480 441440 442 445 446 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434437438439 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 385 387386 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 372 343371 370 369 368 344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363365366367 529 492 476 493 AP3.00 1 AP3.01 1 AP3.02 1 AP3.03 1 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE B2.0 B1.0 S1.0 550 549 443 436 536 535 B1.0 B1.0 20.0%10.0%364 384 477 498 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 B1.0 B1.0B1.0B1.0B1.0B1.0B4.0 A3.0 B5.0 S1.0 B7.0 B7.0 A3.0 B2.1a B2.1a A3.0 S1.0 530 444 435 307 306 305 304 563 564561 556554 555 562560559 553 548 547 537 373 447 449448 A3.0 B1.0 B1.0 B4.0 475 407 406 546 TYPICAL PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS: STANDARD: 8'-6" x 18'-0" TANDEM: 10'-0" x 20'-0" COMPACT: 8'-0" x 16'-0" 0'0'25'50'TRUE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1" = 50' - 0" SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP2.01 10/12/2022 FLOOR 2 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 147 B2.0B3.0 2,314 SF FITNESS 547 SF ACTIVITY 2,434 SF LOUNGE 10,470 SF COURTYARD A 10,218 SF COURTYARD B 3,395 SF COURTYARD C 3,433 SF COURTYARD D B1.0 B1.0 B1.0B1.0 B1.0 TERRACE AP3.00 1 AP3.01 1 AP3.02 1 AP3.03 1 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE33' - 10"B1.0 B3.1a 118' - 11" A1.0 A1.0 A1.0 A1.0 A1.044' - 8"A1.0 44' - 8"A2.0 57' - 5" A2.0 A2.0 B1.0 B1.0 A3.0 S1.0 A4.0 S2.0 A4.0 S2.0 A3.0 A2.0 S1.0 A2.0 A3.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A1.0 S1.0 A2.0 S1.0 A3.0 A2.0 B1.0 A2.0 A2.0 A3.0 B1.0 A2.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0A1.0 S1.0 A1.0 A2.0 A2.0B1.0 766 SF ACTIVITY B4.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A5.0 B4.0a B1.0 B1.0A5.0 B1.0 B1.0 B1.0 B2.2a A2.1a B2.3a B5.0 S1.0 B7.0 A6.0 B2.1a A3.0 B2.1aA3.0B7.0A3.0 S1.0S1.0A3.0 B1.0 B1.0B1.0 0'0'25'50'TRUE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1" = 50' - 0" SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP2.02 10/12/2022 FLOOR 3 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 148 AP3.00 1 AP3.01 1 AP3.02 1 AP3.03 1 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE A1.0A2.0 57' - 5"157' - 11"B2.0B3.0 B1.0 B1.0 B1.0B1.0 B1.0 A1.0 A1.0 B1.0 B1.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 B1.0 B1.0 A3.0 A4.0 S2.0 S2.0 A3.0 S1.0 A2.0 A3.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 S1.0 A2.0 S1.0 A3.0 A2.0 B1.0 A2.0 A2.0 A3.0 B1.0 A2.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0B1.0 S1.0 A1.0 A2.0 A2.0B1.0 B4.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0 B1.0 S1.0 A3.0 120' - 1"A2.0 B3.0 A4.0 B1.0 B1.0 B4.0a B1.0 B1.0 B1.0 A5.0 A5.044' - 8"A2.1a B2.3a MAINTENANCE OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW B2.1a B2.1a A3.0S1.0S1.0S1.0B7.0B7.0S1.0B5.0A3.0B1.0B2.2a A6.0A1.0 B1.0 A3.0 A3.0 B1.0 B1.0 B1.0 0'0'25'50'TRUE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1" = 50' - 0" SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP2.03 10/12/2022 FLOOR 4 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 149 AP3.00 1 AP3.01 1 AP3.02 1 AP3.03 1 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE 57' - 5" B1.0 A1.0A2.0 B3.0 B1.0 B1.0 B1.0B1.0 B1.0 A1.0 A1.0 B1.0 B1.0 B1.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 B1.0 B1.0 A3.0 A4.0 S2.0 A4.0 S2.0 A3.0 S1.0 A2.0 A3.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 S1.0 A2.0 S1.0 A3.0 A2.0 B1.0 A2.0 A2.0 A3.0 B1.0 A2.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0B1.0 S1.0 A1.0 A2.0 A2.0B1.0 B4.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0 B1.0 B1.0 A3.0 S1.0 A3.0 A2.0 A2.0 A2.0 B1.0 B3.0 B4.0a B1.0 B1.0 B1.0 A5.0 A5.0 B1.0 B1.0 A2.0 B2.0 B2.3a B2.2a B1.0 A3.0 B5.0 S1.0 B7.0 B7.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0 A3.0 A1.0 A6.0 B2.1a A3.0 B2.1a A2.1a B1.0A3.0 B1.0B1.0 0'0'25'50'TRUE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1" = 50' - 0" SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP2.04 10/12/2022 FLOORS 5-6 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 150 1,052 SF ROOF DECK 948 SF CLUB 864 SF ROOF DECK AP3.00 1 AP3.01 1 AP3.02 1 AP3.03 1 32' - 3"36' - 4"32' - 6" SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE 57' - 5" B1.0 A1.0A2.0 B2.0 B1.0 B1.0 B1.0B1.0 B1.0 A1.0 B1.0 B1.0 B1.0 B1.0 B1.0 A3.0 A4.0 S2.0 A4.0 S2.0 A3.0 S1.0 A3.0 A3.0 S1.0 S1.0 A3.0 B1.0 A3.0 B1.0 A3.0 A2.0 A3.0 B1.0 S1.0 A1.0 B1.0 B4.0 A3.0 B1.0 B1.0 A3.0 S1.0 A3.0 B1.0 A1.0 B1.0 B3.0 B1.0 A2.0 B6.0 B6.0 B6.0 B4.0a B1.0 B1.0 B1.0 B6.0 B6.0 B6.0 B6.0B6.0B6.0 B6.0 B6.0B6.0 B3.0 B6.0 A5.0 A5.0 A6.0A1.0 B2.1a A3.0 B1.0 A3.0 B5.0 S1.0 B7.0 B7.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0 A3.0 A2.1a 25' - 7"B1.0A3.0 B1.0 B1.0 0'0'25'50'TRUE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1" = 50' - 0" SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP2.05 10/12/2022 FLOOR 7 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 151 ROOF SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE 57' - 6"157' - 11"54' - 5" 57' - 5" 43' - 1" 118' - 11"120' - 1"ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE 68 SF ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE 0'0'25'50'TRUE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1" = 50' - 0" SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP2.06 10/12/2022 ROOF 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 152 1 CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE; SEALED 2 RAIL W/ AMETCO "GROTTO" METAL INFILL PANEL 3 CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING/PANEL 4 CEMENT PLASTER; SMOOTH SAND 5 PHENOLIC WOOD SIDING; VERTICAL 6 AWNING 7 RECESSED STOREFRONT; 'ARCH BRONZE' 8 VPI VINYL WINDOW; 'ARCH BRONZE' 9 GARAGE ACCESS 10 ELEVATOR/STAIR PENTHOUSE A ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE B BM HUSHED HUE 1520 C BM EMBASSY GREEN 1523 D BM GIBRALTAR CLIFFS 1587 E BM KITTY GRAY 1589 0'-0" FLOOR 1 15'-0" FLOOR 2 25'-0" FLOOR 3 35'-3 1/2" FLOOR 4 45'-7" FLOOR 5 55'-10 1/2" FLOOR 6 66'-2" FLOOR 7 77'-0" PARAPET 5 6 4B 4E 8 7 3D 3E 4C 6 5 3E 1 8 10 1 64C82 5 2 85'-0" HIGH PARAPET All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.00 10/12/2022 ELEVATIONS 7 SOUTH LINDEN 1NORTH ELEVATION 01/14/202301/13/2023 153 0'-0" FLOOR 1 15'-0" FLOOR 2 25'-0" FLOOR 3 35'-3 1/2" FLOOR 4 45'-7" FLOOR 5 55'-10 1/2" FLOOR 6 66'-2" FLOOR 7 77'-0" PARAPET 4B 5 8 3D 1 6 2 2 13E 4C 4B 68 85'-0" HIGH PARAPET 1 CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE; SEALED 2 RAIL W/ AMETCO "GROTTO" METAL INFILL PANEL 3 CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING/PANEL 4 CEMENT PLASTER; SMOOTH SAND 5 PHENOLIC WOOD SIDING; VERTICAL 6 AWNING 7 RECESSED STOREFRONT; 'ARCH BRONZE' 8 VPI VINYL WINDOW; 'ARCH BRONZE' 9 GARAGE ACCESS 10 ELEVATOR/STAIR PENTHOUSE A ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE B BM HUSHED HUE 1520 C BM EMBASSY GREEN 1523 D BM GIBRALTAR CLIFFS 1587 E BM KITTY GRAY 1589 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.01 10/12/2022 ELEVATIONS 7 SOUTH LINDEN 1SOUTH ELEVATION 01/14/202301/13/2023 154 0'-0" FLOOR 1 15'-0" FLOOR 2 25'-0" FLOOR 3 35'-3 1/2" FLOOR 4 45'-7" FLOOR 5 55-10 1/2" FLOOR 6 66-2" FLOOR 7 77'-0" PARAPET 5 4B 6 1 9 2 3E 3D 4C 6 4B 5 8 85'-0" HIGH PARAPET 1 CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE; SEALED 2 RAIL W/ AMETCO "GROTTO" METAL INFILL PANEL 3 CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING/PANEL 4 CEMENT PLASTER; SMOOTH SAND 5 PHENOLIC WOOD SIDING; VERTICAL 6 AWNING 7 RECESSED STOREFRONT; 'ARCH BRONZE' 8 VPI VINYL WINDOW; 'ARCH BRONZE' 9 GARAGE ACCESS 10 ELEVATOR/STAIR PENTHOUSE A ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE B BM HUSHED HUE 1520 C BM EMBASSY GREEN 1523 D BM GIBRALTAR CLIFFS 1587 E BM KITTY GRAY 1589 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.02 10/12/2022 ELEVATIONS 7 SOUTH LINDEN 1WEST ELEVATION 01/14/202301/13/2023 155 5 6 3D 4A 6 7 12 0'-0" FLOOR 1 15'-0" FLOOR 2 25'-0" FLOOR 3 35'-3 1/2" FLOOR 4 45'-7" FLOOR 5 55-10 1/2" FLOOR 6 66-2" FLOOR 7 77'-0" PARAPET 85'-0" HIGH PARAPET 1 CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE; SEALED 2 RAIL W/ AMETCO "GROTTO" METAL INFILL PANEL 3 CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING/PANEL 4 CEMENT PLASTER; SMOOTH SAND 5 PHENOLIC WOOD SIDING; VERTICAL 6 AWNING 7 RECESSED STOREFRONT; 'ARCH BRONZE' 8 VPI VINYL WINDOW; 'ARCH BRONZE' 9 GARAGE ACCESS 10 ELEVATOR/STAIR PENTHOUSE A ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE B BM HUSHED HUE 1520 C BM EMBASSY GREEN 1523 D BM GIBRALTAR CLIFFS 1587 E BM KITTY GRAY 1589 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.03 10/12/2022 ELEVATIONS 7 SOUTH LINDEN 1EAST ELEVATION 01/14/202301/13/2023 156 1CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE; SEALED 2AWNING AND RAIL INFILL PANELS: AMETCO "GROTTO" COLOR MATCH WINDOWS 3CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING, SHIPLAP 4PAINTED STUCCO5PHENOLIC WOOD SIDING, VERTICAL TONGUE AND GROOVE LONGBOARD OR PRODEMA 6PAINT - BENJAMIN MOORE KITTY GRAY 1589 7PAINT - BENJAMIN MOORE GIBRALTAR CLIFFS 1587 8PAINT - BENJAMIN MOORE EMBASSY GREEN 1523 9PAINT - BENJAMIN MOORE HUSHED HUE 1520 10VPI VINYL WINDOWS - 'ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE' STOREFRONT & METALWORK TO MATCH PHENOLIC WOOD SIDING WITH VINYL WINDOWS PHENOLIC WOOD SIDING W/ RECESSED STOREFRONT AWNING WITH TENSIONS ROD SUPPORTS AWNING WITH AMETCO INFILL PANEL VPI VINYL 'ARCH BRONZE' IN CEMENTITIOUS SIDING NON-RECESSED VPI ' ARCH BRONZE' VINYL WINDOWS IN PLASTER PRECEDENTS All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.10 10/12/2022 MATERIAL BOARD 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 157 FLOOR 1 0" FLOOR 2 15' - 0" FLOOR 3 25' - 0" FLOOR 4 35' - 3 1/2" FLOOR 5 45' - 7" FLOOR 6 55' - 10 1/2" ROOF 77' - 7 1/2" FLOOR 7 66' - 2" PARAPET 82' - 7 1/2" UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 5' - 0"11' - 5 1/2"10' - 3 1/2"10' - 3 1/2"10' - 3 1/2"10' - 3 1/2"10' - 0"15' - 0"CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT LEVEL 2 GARAGE LEVEL 1 GARAGE UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ACTIVITYACTIVITYCOURTYARD A COURTYARD B UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT CORRIDOR TRUE0'40'80' All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1" = 40' - 0" SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.20 10/12/2022 SECTIONS 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 158 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.30SE RENDERING 7 SOUTH LINDEN 10/12/202201/14/202301/13/2023 159 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.31SW RENDERING 7 SOUTH LINDEN 10/12/202201/14/202301/13/2023 160 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.32SOUTH RENDERING 7 SOUTH LINDEN 10/12/202201/14/202301/13/2023 161 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.33NW RENDERING 7 SOUTH LINDEN 10/12/202201/14/202301/13/2023 162 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.34NE RENDERING 7 SOUTH LINDEN 10/12/202201/14/202301/13/2023 163 8 AM 10 AM 12 PM 2 PM 4 PM 8 AM 10 AM 12 PM 2 PM 4 PM 8 AM 10 AM 12 PM 2 PM 4 PM All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP3.35 10/12/2022 SHADOW STUDIES 7 SOUTH LINDEN 1WINTER SOLSTICE 2SUMMER SOLSTICE 3EQUINOX 01/14/202301/13/2023 164 0'4'8' All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1/4" = 1' - 0"AP4.00 10/12/2022 UNIT PLAN -STUDIO, TYP. 7 SOUTH LINDEN NET RENTABLE IS MEASURED FROM: CENTERLINE OF DEMISING WALL EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD ON EXTERIOR WALL FACE OF STUD ON CORRIDOR SIDE 01/14/202301/13/2023 165 0'4'8' All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1/4" = 1' - 0"AP4.01 10/12/2022 UNIT PLAN -1 BEDROOM, TYP. 7 SOUTH LINDEN NET RENTABLE IS MEASURED FROM: CENTERLINE OF DEMISING WALL EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD ON EXTERIOR WALL FACE OF STUD ON CORRIDOR SIDE 01/14/202301/13/2023 166 0'4'8' All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1/4" = 1' - 0"AP4.02UNIT PLAN -1 BEDROOM, INSIDE CORNER 7 SOUTH LINDEN NET RENTABLE IS MEASURED FROM: CENTERLINE OF DEMISING WALL EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD ON EXTERIOR WALL FACE OF STUD ON CORRIDOR SIDE 10/12/202201/14/202301/13/2023 167 0'4'8' All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1/4" = 1' - 0"AP4.03 10/12/2022 UNIT PLAN -2 BEDROOM, TYP. 7 SOUTH LINDEN NET RENTABLE IS MEASURED FROM: CENTERLINE OF DEMISING WALL EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD ON EXTERIOR WALL FACE OF STUD ON CORRIDOR SIDE 01/14/202301/13/2023 168 0'4'8' All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1/4" = 1' - 0"AP4.04 10/12/2022 UNIT PLAN -2 BEDROOM, CORNER 7 SOUTH LINDEN NET RENTABLE IS MEASURED FROM: CENTERLINE OF DEMISING WALL EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD ON EXTERIOR WALL FACE OF STUD ON CORRIDOR SIDE 01/14/202301/13/2023 STORAGE CLOSET 224 CUBIC FEET6'-5"4'-0" 169 2' - 1"4'-0" MIN - 10'-0" MAXDOORYARD DEPTH= 6' - 7"6'-0" MIN DOORYARD WIDTH = 11' - 6" FINISH FLOOR 0'-10 3/4" SIDEWALK 0' -0" PL FLOOR 1 +0'-10 3/4" FLOOR 2 +15'-0" 6'-0" MAX PROJECTION DEPTH = 5' - 9"8'-0" MIN.CLEAR HEIGHT = 10' - 9"(3'-0" MAX) All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. AP4.05 10/12/2022 GROUND FLOOR UNIT -DOORYARD 7 SOUTH LINDEN 3/16" = 1'-0" 1DOORYARD PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0" 2DOORYARD SECTION 3/16" = 1'-0" 3DOORYARD ELEVATION 01/14/202301/13/2023 170 WOOD FRAMING PLYWD SHEATHING GYP SHEATHING WRB, SEE BE DRWGS STOCKTON #5 DRIP BEAD GSM HEAD FLASHING, SET IN SEALANT, PAINTED TO MATCH WINDOW SEALANT JOINT AND BACKER ROD 1/4" SEALANT JOINT VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOW WALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPE J MOLDING FULLY EMBED WINDOW NAIL FIN IN SEALANT OVER PENETRATION FLASHING (3) COAT CEMENT PLASTER O/ WIRE MESH 3/8"VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOW J-BEAD & 1/4" SEALANT JOINT SEALANT JOINT AND BACKER ROD 3/8" SEALANT JOINT AND BACKER ROD J MOLDING CORNER BEAD WRB, SEE BE DRWGS (3) COAT CEMENT PLASTER O/ WIRE MESH GYP SHEATHING PLYWD SHEATHING WOOD FRAMING FULLY EMBED WINDOW NAIL FIN IN SEALANT OVER PENETRATION FLASHING WALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPE VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOW 3/4" MDF WINDOW SILL, PAINTED OR AS SPECIFIED IN INTERIOR DRAWINGS -GC TO BLOCK SILL WITHOUT ANY BENDING AT SILLGSM SILL PAN W/ END DAMS, SET IN BED OF SEALANT 3/8" SEALANT JOINT AND BACKER ROD J MOLDING CORNER BEAD WRB, SEE BE DRWGS (3) COAT CEMENT PLASTER O/ WIRE MESH GYP SHEATHING PLYWD SHEATHING WOOD FRAMING DO NOT SEAL BACK OF WINDOW FIN @ SILL - PROVIDE SHIM BEHIND WINDOW FIN WALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPE 1 3 FULL BEAD OF SEALANT BETWEEN WINDOW FRAME & BACK DAM OF SILL PAN All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP5.00 10/12/2022 WINDOW DETAILS -PLASTER, RECESSED 7 SOUTH LINDEN 3" = 1'-0" 3WINDOW HEAD 3" = 1'-0" 2WINDOW JAMB 3" = 1'-0" 1WINDOW SILL 01/14/202301/13/2023 171 WOOD FRAMING PLYWD SHEATHING GYP SHEATHING WRB, SEE BE DRWGS (3) COAT CEMENT PLASTER O/ WIRE MESH PLASTER SCREEDFLASHING W/ WEEPHOLES (STOCKTON SSF #3), SET IN SEALANT SEALANT JOINT AND BACKER ROD J-BEAD & 1/4" SEALANT JOINT VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOW WALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPE FULLY EMBED WINDOW NAIL FIN IN SEALANT OVER PENETRATION FLASHING VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOW J-BEAD & 1/4" SEALANT JOINT SEALANT JOINT AND BACKER ROD 3/8" SEALANT JOINT AND BACKER ROD J MOLDING (3) COAT CEMENT PLASTER O/ WIRE MESH WRB, SEE BE DRWGS GYP SHEATHING PLYWD SHEATHING WOOD FRAMING WALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPE FULLY EMBED WINDOW NAIL FIN IN SEALANT OVER PENETRATION FLASHING VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOW 3/4" MDF SILL, PAINTED SHIM FLAT AND LEVEL SEALANT JOINT FULL BEAD OF SEALANT BETWEEN WINDOW FRAME & BACK DAM OF SILL PAN GSM SILL PAN W/END DAMS, SET IN BED OF SEALANT 3/8" SEALANT JOINT AND BACKER ROD J MOLDING (3) COAT CEMENT PLASTER O/ WIRE MESH WRB, SEE BE DRWGS GYP SHEATHING PLYWD. SHEATHING WOOD FRAMING WALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPE DO NOT SEAL BACK OF WINDOW FIN @ SILL -PROVIDE SHIM BEHIND WINDOW FIN All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. AP5.01 10/12/2022 WINDOW DETAILS -PLASTER, NON-RECESSED 7 SOUTH LINDEN 3" = 1'-0" 3WINDOW HEAD 3" = 1'-0" 2WINDOW JAMB 3" = 1'-0" 1WINDOW SILL 01/14/202301/13/2023 172 WALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPE WRB, SEE BE DRWGS FIBER CEM. SIDING GSM HEAD FLASHING W/ HEMMED EDGE FULLY EMBEDDED IN SEALANT O/ TRIM FIBER CEMENT TRIM GSM HEAD FLASHING, SET IN SEALANT PAINTED TO MATCH WINDOW SEALANT AND BACKER ROD SEALANT JOINT & J MOLDING VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOW FIRE-RETARDANT WOOD STARTER SHIM FULLY EMBED WINDOW NAIL FIN IN SEALANT OVER PENETRATION FLASHING VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOW J-BEAD & 1/4" SEALANT JOINT SEALANT JOINT AND J MOLDING 3/8" SEALANT ANDBACKER ROD FIBER CEM. TRIM SEALANT JOINT FIBER CEM. SIDING WRB, SEE BE DRWGS GYP SHEATHING PLYWOOD SHEATHING WOOD FRAMING WALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPE FULLY EMBED WINDOW NAIL FIN IN SEALANT OVER PENETRATION FLASHING VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOW 3/4" MDF WINDOW SILL, PTD OR AS SPECIFIED IN INTERIOR DRAWINGS - GC TO BLOCK SILL WITHOUT ANY BENDING AT SILLSEALANT JOINT 1/4" SEALANT JOINT GSM SILL PAN W/ END DAMS, SET IN BED OF SEALANT 3/8" SEALANT JOINT FIBER CEMENT TRIM SEALANT JOINT FIBER CEMENT SIDING WRB, SEE BE DRWGS GYP SHEATHING PLYWOOD SHEATHING WOOD FRAMING WALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPE DO NOT SEAL BACK OF WINDOW FIN @ SILL -PROVIDE SHIM BEHIND WINDOW FIN All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. AP5.02 10/12/2022 WINDOW DETAILS -SIDING 7 SOUTH LINDEN 3" = 1'-0" 3WINDOW HEAD 3" = 1'-0" 2WINDOW JAMB 3" = 1'-0" 1WINDOW SILL 01/14/202301/13/2023 173 8" RECESSED STOREFRONT PLASTER - VINYL RECESSED PLASTER - VINYL NON-RECESSED HARDIE T&G - VINYL W/ HARDIE TRIM PHENOLIC WOOD - VINYL All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AP5.03 10/12/2022 WINDOW EXHIBIT 7 SOUTH LINDEN 01/14/202301/13/2023 174 RRGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBU TUTTUT UT UTT T DN Tm hpts615 T TPSEbox5S T5C2C2 C2 T5UP LOADING ZONE SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE BIKE PATHPEDESTRIAN PATH 0'0'25'50'TRUE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1" = 50' - 0"AP5.04 01/13/2023 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN DIAGRAM SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO7 SOUTH LINDEN 175 176 177 178 OCTOBER 12, 2022 179 180 181 SOUTH LINDENAVENUE (A PUBLIC STREET)RAILROADAVENUEN. CANALSTREETAll drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JANUARY, 20237 SOUTH LINDEN 10395 Old Placerville Road, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone: (916) 970-5784www.kierwright.com EXISTING SITE & LANDSCAPE PLAN C1NORTHLEGEND 183 SOUTH LINDENAVENUE (A PUBLIC STREET)RAILROADAVENUEN. CANALSTREETLEGEND All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JANUARY, 20237 SOUTH LINDEN 10395 Old Placerville Road, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone: (916) 970-5784www.kierwright.com PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C2NORTH 184 SOUTH LINDENAVENUE (A PUBLIC STREET)RAILROADAVENUEN. CANALSTREETAll drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JANUARY, 20237 SOUTH LINDEN 10395 Old Placerville Road, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone: (916) 970-5784www.kierwright.com LEGEND PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C3NORTH 185 SOUTH LINDENAVENUE (A PUBLIC STREET)RAILROADAVENUEN. CANALSTREETAll drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JANUARY, 20237 SOUTH LINDEN 10395 Old Placerville Road, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone: (916) 970-5784www.kierwright.com PRELIMINARY STORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN C4 LEGEND DMA 06fDMA 05b SR 01 DMA SR NORTHDMA 05a DMA 06a DMA 06b DMA 06c DMA 01 DMA 02 DMA 04 DMA 03 DMA 07DMA 06d DMA 06e 186 October 12, 2022 Ms. Deanna Chalfant Essex Property Trust, Inc. 1100 Park Pl, #200 San Mateo, CA 94403 Subject: Residential TDM Certification Checklist for 7. S Linden Avenue Dear Ms. Chalfant: Hexagon Transportation Consultants has prepared the following TDM Certification Checklist for 7 S. Linden Avenue residential development project. The proposed project consists of 543 dwelling units that would be built in a seven-story podium building. Based on the City’s draft TDM Ordinance update, the project falls under Tier 1 land use projects and is subject to implementing a list of TDM measures. The project shall complete and submit an annual self-certification form to the City for the first five years after occupancy. Since the project is located within ½ mile of the Caltrain station, the total required points are 20. As shown in the checklist below, the project will commit to implementing TDM measures that will add up to a total of 46 points. Residential TDM Certification Checklist for 7 S. Linden Avenue Residential Development TDM Measure Points ✓ Unbundled parking 10 ✓ Free transit passes to residents for first year of tenant’s residency 10 ✓ Sidewalk/bikeway facility improvement* 8 ✓ Affordable Housing 6 ✓ Transit facility improvement* 6 X TDM coordinator/point of contact for commute assistance 5 ✓ Onsite Carshare 3 X Sidewalk-oriented pedestrian entrance 2 ✓ Bicycle storage per City Code 2 ✓ Mixed-use development with ground-floor retail 2 X Bicycle repair station 1 ✓ Pedestrian-oriented street lighting 1 ✓ Promotional programs & materials 1 ✓ Total Required if Located within ½ Mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor or Low-VMT Residential Area 20 46 Total Required for Other Locations with Potential VMT Impact 30 187 188 189 1100 Park Place, Suite 200 San Mateo California 94403 telephone 650 655 7800 facsimile 650 655 7810 www.essexpropertytrust.com February 16, 2023 RE: 7 S. Linden Project: Parking Management Plan Dear Planning Commission, Essex Property Trust, Inc. is pleased to outline our parking management plan for the 7 S Linden project. The 7 S. Linden project will be developed and operated by Essex Property Trust, Inc. Currently, Essex owns and manages over 200 apartment communities, comprised of over 60,000 apartment homes. The operational elements of this project, including the parking management, will all be handled by the exceptional on-site Essex Operations staff. The proposed project consists of 543 apartment homes and 563 parking spaces. Essex will unbundle parking for all 461 market rate units. Unbundling parking will allow for residents to lease their home for true market rate rent. Plus, should a resident not own a vehicle they are not obligated to take on a parking space. The project does have a 15% Affordable component; therefore the 82 affordable deed restricted units will include bundled parking. Unbundled and bundled parking will be offered at a minimum of 1 parking space per unit. The maximum number of parking spaces allowed for a unit will be set at 2, upon availability. Every parking space within the project will be numbered for safety and security purposes. 555 of the spaces will be assigned to property residents (543 traditional spaces plus 12 accessible spaces). We will have 7 traditional unassigned spaces and 1 accessible unassigned space that can be utilized for perspective tenants, on site operations staff, and short-term visiting guests. All parking is consolidated behind secure garage gates. The implementation of such a parking management plan is familiar to Essex and one that we use on the vast majority of our projects. Should there be any questions please feel free to reach out. We will gladly answer. Thank You, Deanna Chalfant Deanna Chalfant Vice President, Development Essex Property Trust, Inc. 190 Memorandum Date: March 1, 2023 To: City of South San Francisco From: Eric Tse, P.E., PTOE Trisha Dudala, P.E. Subject: 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, California Introduction This report presents the results of the transportation study for the proposed residential development at 7 South Linden Avenue in South San Francisco, California. 7 South Linden is a 4.22-acre site located approximately 0.5 miles south of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and six blocks from the Grand Avenue restaurant row (see Figure 1). The site is currently designated as “High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood” in the city’s 2040 General Plan. Consistent with the General Plan land use, the proposed project consists of 543 dwelling units, including 62 studios, 252 one- bedroom units, and 229 two-bedroom units that would be built in a seven-story podium building. A total of 563 vehicular parking spaces would be provided at a rate of 1.04 stalls per dwelling unit including 110 parking spaces that would be provided via a mechanical parking system. The mechanical parking system would increase the capacity of onsite parking by stacking the parked vehicles vertically and would allow independent access to vehicles on the lift so that they could be shared by different residential users. Parking will be assigned to residents. It is noted that the traffic operations analysis that is summarized in this report is based on a previous project description that included 587 dwelling units. Thus, the proposed project would generate less traffic than what is presented in this report. Access to the project would be provided via two driveways on South Linden Avenue. The north driveway to the project site would be located approximately 70 feet south of the South Linden Avenue/Railroad Avenue intersection, and the south driveway would form the east leg of the South Linden Avenue/North Canal Street intersection. Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis Pursuant to SB 743, the CEQA 2019 Update Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) states that vehicle miles travelled (VMT) will be the metric in analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes. The City of South San Francisco has adopted thresholds of significance to guide in determining when a project will have a significant transportation impact. The City of South San Francisco provides screening criteria for development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and/or location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in less-than-significant impacts, and a detailed CEQA VMT analysis is not required. The City’s policy states that projects within half mile of an existing or planned high-quality transit corridor or major transit station should be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. The project site is located within one-half mile of the South 191 South San Francisco 101 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave Park W y Park Wy Poletti Wy Poletti W yRailroa d A v e Railroad Ave N Cana l S t N Canal St Airport BlvdLux Ave Park W y Poletti Wy Railroa d A v e N Cana l S t 3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Maple AveLinden AveGrand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n Gateway BlvdDubuque AveCypress AveS Canal S t S Linden AveHarbor WayS Airport BlvdS Maple AveS Spruce AveMitchell Ave Ar m o u r A v e Utah Ave C o r p o r a t e D r E Grand Ave San Mateo AveHill s i d e B l v d 1 2 3 4 5 X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study - South San Francisco, CA Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections 192 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 3 San Francisco Caltrain Station and the high-quality transit service provided by SamTrans routes 130 and 141. Therefore, the project is expected to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact. Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) Scope of Study A local transportation analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the project would create any adverse effects and to identify improvements that would be triggered by the project at key intersections located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The adverse effects of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of South San Francisco. Traffic operations for the following five intersections were analyzed. Study Intersections 1. South Linden Avenue and North Canal Street 2. South Linden Avenue and Railroad Avenue 3. Linden Avenue and Baden Avenue 4. Airport Boulevard and Baden Avenue 5. Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue Traffic conditions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average weekday. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: 1. Existing Conditions. Since traffic conditions have not returned to pre-pandemic levels, the existing conditions analysis was based on traffic volumes that occurred prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. AM and PM peak hour volumes at intersections 3, 4 and 5 were based on historical counts from January 2020. No historical counts were available at intersections 1 and 2. New AM and PM peak hour counts were conducted in December 2021 at intersections 1, 2, and 3. The 2021 counts at intersections 1 and 2 were then adjusted to reflect pre-pandemic traffic levels by applying a growth factor of 1.302 during the AM peak hour and 1.142 during the PM peak hour. The growth factor was based on comparing January 2020 and December 2021 AM and PM peak hour volumes at intersection 3. 2. Existing Plus Project Conditions. Project generated traffic was estimated using the vehicular trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 11th Edition. Traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding trips generated by the proposed project to existing volumes. Intersection deficiencies associated with the development of the proposed project were evaluated relative to existing conditions. 3. Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes represent future traffic volumes and roadway conditions projected for the year 2040. The cumulative no project traffic volumes used for this study were taken from the the recently completed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report for the 580 Dubuque Avenue residential development, which were based on the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Regional 193 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 4 Travel Demand Model. For intersections not included in the C/CAG model, volumes were estimated based on the closest intersections. 4. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to cumulative traffic volumes the trips associated with the project. Cumulative plus project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative conditions in order to determine potential adverse effects at study intersections. Methodology Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. This study utilizes Synchro software to determine intersection level of service. The Synchro software implements the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The HCM method evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time (measured in seconds per vehicle) for all vehicles at the intersection. This average delay can then be correlated to a level of service as shown in Table 1 for signalized intersections. LOS for the study intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th edition methodology to maintain consistency with previous studies. For intersections where the existing lane configuration/signal phasing is not supported by the HCM 6th edition, HCM 2000 was used. Table 1 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay 194 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 5 The City’s General Plan Shape SSF 2040 does not have LOS standards as LOS is no longer used to evaluate project impacts on transportation. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project study area is provided by US 101. US 101 is a north-south major freeway through eastern San Mateo County between San Francisco and San Jose. It is the primary north/south route connection to I-280 and I-80 north of South San Francisco. US-101 consists of eight lanes in the study area and is typically congested in both directions during both peak periods as people commute to and from San Francisco and the Silicon Valley. Access to the freeway from the project site is provided via interchanges at Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Miller Avenue. The following roadways provide local access to the site: Airport Boulevard is a major north/south four- to six-lane arterial through South San Francisco parallel to US-101 that transitions into Bayshore Boulevard in the north and to Produce Avenue in the south. The posted speed limit on Airport Boulevard is 35 MPH near the project site. Airport Boulevard provides access to the site via Baden Avenue and Linden Avenue. On-street metered parking is provided on the westside of Airport Boulevard to the north of Grand Avenue. Sidewalks are generally present on both sides of the street, south of Grand Avenue. North of Grand Avenue, a sidewalk is provided only on the west side of the street. Dedicated bicycle lanes are provided in both directions, north of Miller Avenue. Grand Avenue is a two- to six-lane street that extends from Mission Road in the west to its termination point at Point San Bruno Park in the Genentech campus. West of Airport Boulevard, Grand Avenue has one travel lane in each direction with sidewalks and on-street angled parking on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit on Grand Avenue is 25 MPH in the project vicinity. Grand Avenue provides access to the site via Linden Avenue. Baden Avenue is a collector street that extends west from Airport Boulevard and terminates at Chestnut Avenue. Baden Avenue has one travel lane in each direction, except between Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard where it has two travel lanes in each direction. Sidewalk is provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is provided on both sides of the street, except between Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard. The posted speed limit on Baden Avenue is 25 MPH in the project vicinity. Baden Avenue provides access to the site via Linden Avenue. Linden Avenue is a two-lane local street that extends north from San Mateo Avenue at the city limits and terminates at Airport Boulevard. There are traffic signals at most major intersections with the remainder of its intersections controlled by stop signs. Linden Avenue is a designated bike route with sharrow lane markings for bicycles and has sidewalks on both sides of the street in the project vicinity. Along the project frontage, on-street parking is permitted on the west side of the street. The posted speed limit on Linden Avenue is 25 MPH in the project vicinity. Linden Avenue would provide direct access to the project site via two full access driveways. Railroad Avenue is a two-lane local street that extends from Linden Avenue to Orange Avenue to the west. Railroad Avenue is a designated bike route with sharrow lane markings for bicycles and has sidewalks and on-street parking on the north side of the street. The speed limit on Railroad Avenue is 30 MPH. Railroad Avenue provides access to the site via Linden Avenue. North Canal Street is a two-lane local street that extends from Linden Avenue to Orange Avenue to the west. North Canal Street has sidewalks on the north side of the street. On-street parking is allowed on the north side of the street between Linden Avenue and Spruce Avenue. The speed limit 195 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 6 on North Canal Street is 30 MPH. North Canal Street provides access to the site via Linden Avenue. Existing Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are pathways, separate from roadways, which are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III) are existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Bike routes are typically designated only with signs. Separated bikeways (Class IV) are on-street bicycle facilities that are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical element or barrier such as a curb, bollard, or parking aisle. Existing bikeways cover 31% of the city’s roadways (154 total roadway miles). Transit stations, schools, parks and retail centers are all accessible by these bikeways. The following bicycle facilities exist in the project study area (see Figure 2). Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) • Airport Boulevard has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin north of Miller Avenue and connect to Class III bicycle routes on Miller Avenue and Linden Avenue. • Gateway Boulevard has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin south of Grand Avenue and extend to South Airport Boulevard. • Grand Avenue has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin west of Spruce Avenue and connect to the Class III bicycle route on Spruce Avenue. • Railroad Avenue has a Class II bike lane in the eastbound direction that extends east from Spruce Avenue to Maple Avenue, after which it becomes a Class III bicycle route with sharrows. This lane connects to the Class III bicycle route on Spruce Avenue. Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) • San Mateo Avenue is a Class III bicycle route without sharrow markings. The route extends from Airport Boulevard past South Linden Avenue, connecting to the Class III bicycle route on Linden Avenue. • Linden Avenue is a Class III bicycle route with sharrow markings between Baden Avenue and Dollar Avenue. • Spruce Avenue is a Class III bicycle route with sharrow markings between Grand Avenue and Victory Way. The route connects to Class II bicycle lanes on Grand Avenue. Class II Bike Lane on Airport Boulevard 196 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 7 The City of South San Francisco adopted the Active South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in 2022, the goal of which is to expand the bicycle network to make it easier and safer for people to bicycle through the city. In the project vicinity, the following bicycle facilities are planned. • Separated bikeways (Class IV) on Airport Boulevard between San Mateo Avenue/South Airport Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard. • Class IV bikeways on South Airport Boulevard between Belle Aire Drive and Airport Boulevard. • Class IV bikeways on Railroad Avenue between Linden Avenue and Orange Avenue • Class IV bikeways on South Spruce Avenue between Centennial Way and North Canal Street. • Class II bike lanes on Linden Avenue between Grand Avenue and Tanforan Avenue. As part of the Caltrain Station reconstruction, a new ped/bike rail crossing tunnel has been constructed at the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection that directly connects to the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The new ped/bike tunnel also provides a good bicycle connection between the downtown and the employment zone to the east of US 101. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are provided on most streets in the immediate vicinity of the project. On South Linden Avenue, sidewalks exist on both sides of the street in the project vicinity except between South Canal Street and Victory Avenue, where there is existing perpendicular parking along the street frontages and no sidewalk. Sidewalks exist in both directions on Baden Avenue, the north side of Railroad Avenue and North Canal Street, Grand Avenue, and the west side of Airport Boulevard. In the immediate vicinity of the project, crosswalks exist at the north and west legs of the Linden Avenue/Railroad Avenue and Linden Avenue/North Canal Street intersections. Crosswalks exist across the west and south legs of the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue intersections for pedestrians to access the Caltrain Station. The new South San Francisco Station, located directly south of its previous location, is now accessible from Downtown and Poletti Way in South San Francisco. The station now features a 700-foot center-boarding platform and pedestrian underpass. Passengers no longer have to cross the tracks to board the train. The improvements also make the station fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Overall, the existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other points of interest in the downtown area. 197 South San Francisco101Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave P a r k W y P ark W y Poletti WyPoletti WyAirport BlvdLux Ave P a r k W y Poletti Wy3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Grand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n S Linden AveS A i rpo r t B lvdS Maple AveLinden AveMaple AveGateway BlvdS Spruce AveSan Mateo AveCypress AveDubuque AveUtah Ave Mitchell Ave E Gr a n d A v e N Cana l S t S Canal St Comm e r c i a l A v e CaltrainStation = Site Location LEGEND = Proposed Class II Bike Lanes = Proposed Class III Bike Routes = Proposed Class I Bike Paths = Existing Class II Bike Lanes = Existing Class III Bike Routes = Existing Class I Bike Paths = Ped/Bike Rail Crossing/Tunnel at Station = Proposed Class IV Separated Bikeway 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Figure 2 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 198 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 9 Transit Services Existing transit services in the study area include local buses, express buses, shuttles, BART, and Caltrain,. A majority of the public transit trips through the area are commuters who use the Caltrain station or connect from BART to Downtown and East of US-101 employers via employer shuttles. Employer sponsored shuttles connect to employment destinations east of the Caltrain station and other commuter connections in the area. Caltrain Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project is located within 0.5 miles of the new South San Francisco Caltrain station. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local trains, with 23 northbound and 23 southbound weekday trains. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station provides weekday service from 5:10 AM to 12:35 AM, with 60-minute headways. Previously, the only access to the South San Francisco Downtown used to be from the west side of the train tracks, via the Grand Avenue overpass. This overpass requires a long and circuitous detour for people walking and bicycling, who have to cross Grand Avenue and descend either a tall metal staircase or use Dubuque Avenue. The city in partnership with Caltrain recently completed the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Reconstruction project to improve safety and connectivity to nearby businesses. Caltrain passengers are now able to get to the east of Caltrain Station from the station’s center platform via ramps that connect to a tunnel underneath the tracks. The tunnel connects to a pedestrian plaza at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard on the west side of the tracks and a transit plaza at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Poletti Way on the east side of the tracks. Buses and shuttles pick up and drop off Caltrain passengers from the new east-side plaza instead of the parking lot on the west side of the station, which makes it easier for residents commuting to the City’s biotech job center on the east side of the tracks. SamTrans Existing bus service to the study area is provided by San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). Bus services to the study area are described in Table 2. Rendering of the New Widened Central Platform at the South San Francisco 199 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 10 Table 2 SamTrans Services Route1 Route Description Weekday Hours of Operation2 Headways2 (minutes) Express, SFO and Multi-City Route 397 San Francisco – Palo Alto Transit Center (Limited Overnight Service) - Serves SF Airport 12:45 AM - 6:30 AM 60 Express, SFO and Multi-City Route 292 San Francisco – Hillsdale Mall - Serves SF Airport 3:55 AM - 2:45 AM 10 to 30 North County Route 37 Alta Loma School - Hillside/Grove (School-day only) 8:10 AM - 8:30 AM 2:30 PM - 4:00 PM North County Route 130 Daly City BART - Airport/Linden 5:00 AM - 12:00 AM 15 North County Route 141 Airport/Linden – Shelter Creek 6:10 AM - 8:00 PM 30 South City Shuttle Provides access to SSF schools, parks, Municipal Services Building, downton SSF, Kaiser Hospital, senior centers, and provide connecting transportation to Santrans stops and the SSF BART station 7:15 AM - 7:00 PM 40 to 50 Notes: Source: SamTrans Service Schedule and Map, September 2021 1. Closest bus stop to bus routes 397 and 292 is located at Airport Boulevard and Baden Avenue (350 feet from the project location) and bus stop for routes 37, 130, and 141 are at Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue (800 feet from the project location). 2. Approximate weekday operation hours and headways during peak periods in the project area, as of September 2021. SamTrans provides bus service on the west side of US 101. The closest bus stop to the project site is approximately 1,200 feet to the north at the intersection of Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue and is served by Routes 37, 130 and 141. The closest bus stop for Routes 292 and 397 is located at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Baden Avenue, which is approximately 1,400 ft northeast of the project site. BART Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates regional rail service in the Bay Area, connecting between San Francisco International Airport and the Millbrae Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco to the north, and cities in the East Bay. The BART stations closest to the project area are the San Bruno Station, located near Huntington Avenue east of El Camino Real, and the South San Francisco Station, located on Mission Road and McLellan Drive. Both stations are located about 2.6 miles from the project site. BART trains operate on 15-minute headways during peak hours. SamTrans Route 130 provides a connection between the project site and the South San Francisco BART station, and SamTrans Route 141 provides a connection between the project site and the San Bruno BART station. 200 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 11 Commuter Shuttles Commuter shuttle service is provided in the East of 101 area by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org). The shuttles provide weekday commute period first/last mile connections between BART and the Caltrain stations, and local employers in the East of 101 Area. These shuttles are free for all passengers and are open to the general public. All shuttles are wheelchair-accessible and equipped with a bicycle rack on the front of the vehicle. Service is provided from Monday through Friday during morning and afternoon commute hours. The following shuttle services can be accessed near the South San Francisco Caltrain station, approximately 0.5 mile from the project site. As part of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station Reconstruction project, shuttle stops have been relocated to a new pedestrian plaza located near the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Poletti Way on the east side of the tracks. Residents of the project would access the new shuttle stops via the new bicycle/pedestrian underpass at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection. • The Genesis One Tower Place (OTP) Shuttle connects the South San Francisco Caltrain and South San Francisco BART stations and provides service to the Genesis Towers (a bio tech hub located on the west side of Airport Boulevard approximately 1,000 feet north of Sister Cities Boulevard) and the Dubuque Innovation Center in South San Francisco. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between 6:50 AM and 10:10 AM, and between 4:00 PM and 6:35 PM with 60-minute headways during the AM peak hour and 30-to-60-minute headways during the PM peak hour. • The Oyster Point Caltrain shuttle (OPC) operates from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and provides service to offices and businesses along Oyster Point Boulevard. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between 6:30 AM and 9:45 AM, and between 2:50 PM and 6:15 PM with 20 to 40-minute headways during the AM peak and the PM peak hour. • The Utah-Grand Caltrain shuttle (UGC) operates from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and provides service to businesses along E. Grand Avenue on the east side of Highway 101 in South San Francisco. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between 6:30 AM and 9:45 AM, and between 2:45 PM and 6:10 PM with 20-to-40-minute headways. • The Oyster Point Ferry shuttle (OPF) connects riders from the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal to the South San Francisco Caltrain station and provides service to Oyster Point Boulevard, Genesis Towers, and the Dubuque Innovation Center. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between 6:50 AM and 9:30 AM, and between 2:45 PM and 5:20 PM with 60-minute headways. 201 292 397 292 397 292 397 South San Francisco101 85 87 17 237 37 130 141 141 141 130 37 37 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave P a r k W y P ark Wy Poletti WyPoletti WyAirport BlvdLux Ave P a r k W y Poletti Wy3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Grand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n S Linden AveS A i rpo r t B lvdS Maple AveLinden AveGateway BlvdS Spruce AveSan Mateo AveCypress AveDubuque AveUtah Ave Mitchell Ave E Gr a n d A v e S Canal S t N Cana l S t Commer c i a l A v e Maple AveProposedCaltrainStation 292,397 37,130,141 37,130,141 = Site Location LEGEND = Oyster Point Ferry Shuttle (OPF) = SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART and Caltrain Stations = Bus Stop = Oyster Point Caltrain Shuttle (OPC) = Utah Grand Caltrain Shuttle (OGC) = Genesis Towers Shuttle (OTP) XXX = SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART StationsXXX = SamTrans School-day Only RoutesXX 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Figure 3 Existing Transit Services 202 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 13 Existing Intersection Operations This section describes existing traffic operations based on existing lane configurations at study intersections and existing weekday AM (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak hour traffic volumes. Since traffic conditions have not returned to pre-pandemic levels, the existing conditions analysis was based on traffic volumes prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. AM and PM peak hour volumes at intersections 3, 4 and 5 were based on historical counts from January 2020. No historical counts were available at intersections 1 and 2. New AM and PM peak hour counts were conducted in December 2021 at intersections 1 and 2. The 2021 counts at intersections 1 and 2 were adjusted to reflect pre-pandemic traffic levels by applying a growth factor of 1.302 during the AM peak hour and 1.142 during the PM peak hour. The growth factor was based on comparing January 2020 and December 2021 AM and PM peak hour volumes at intersection 3. The existing lane configurations at the study intersections are shown on Figure 4 and the existing traffic volumes are shown on Figure 5. Intersection turning movement counts are included in Appendix A. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results of the analysis show that all five study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 3 Existing Conditions Intersection LOS Analysis StudyNumber Intersection Control AM 12/14/21 4.7 A PM 12/14/21 4.4 A AM 12/14/21 14.9 B PM 12/14/21 14.3 B AM 01/30/20 17.2 B PM 01/30/20 16.8 B AM 01/30/20 45.6 D PM 01/30/20 36.4 D AM 01/30/20 38.1 D PM 01/30/20 37.8 D Note: 5 1 Delay reported as seconds per vehicle. The delay shown is the weighted average delay for all movements. LOS based on the methodology in Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Intersections 1 and 2 are based on HCM 6th Edition methodology. The remaining intersections are based on HCM 2000 methodology. 2 Existing traffic counts were adjusted to reflect pre-COVID conditions. 3 4 1 2 South Linden Avenue & North Canal Street 2 South Linden Avenue & Railroad Avenue 2 Linden Avenue & Baden Avenue Airport Boulevard & Baden Avenue Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue Signal1 Signal1 Signal1 Signal1 Signal1 Existing Conditions Avg. Delay (sec) Peak Hour Count Date LOS 203 South San Francisco 101 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave Pa r k W y Park W y Poletti Wy Poletti W yAirport BlvdLux Ave Pa r k W y Poletti Wy 1 3 2 4 5 3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Maple AveLinden AveGrand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n Gateway BlvdDubuque AveCypress AveS Cana l S t S Linden AveHarbor WayS Airport BlvdS Maple AveS Spruce AveMitchell Ave Ar m o u r A v e Utah Ave C o r p o r a t e D r E Grand Ave San Mateo AveRailroa d Ave Railroad Ave N Cana l S t N Canal St Railroa d Ave N Cana l S t X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Figure 4 Existing Lane Configurations 5 1234 AveLindenAveLindenStN Canal AveRailroad AveBaden AveBaden BlvdAirportAveGrand BlvdAirportAveLinden204 South San Francisco 101 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave Pa r k W y Park W y Poletti Wy Poletti W yAirport BlvdLux Ave Pa r k W y Poletti Wy 1 3 2 4 5 3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Maple AveLinden AveGrand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n Gateway BlvdDubuque AveCypress AveS Canal St S Linden AveHarbor WayS Airport BlvdS Maple AveS Spruce AveMitchell Ave Ar m o u r A v e Utah Ave C o r p o r a t e D r E Grand Ave San Mateo AveRailroa d Ave Railroad Ave N Cana l S t N Canal St Railroa d Ave N Cana l S t X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Figure 5 Existing Trafffic Volumes 5 1234 AveLindenBlvdAirportStN Canal AveRailroad AveBaden AveBaden AveGrand BlvdAirportAveLindenAveLinden16(29)337(431)333(297)91(62)108(91) 34(23)20(24)411(451)12(19)20(46)394(327)55(75)0(13) 4(18) 9(48) 137(118) 7(24) 53(26)7(22)153(219)440(379)35(34)229(196)15(58)199(399) 77(244) 11(0) 18(24) 392(180) 33(24)123(334)199(452)10(9)448(625)177(383)536(296) 294(218)40(41)349(256)368(429)409(96)362(412)69(103)174(567) 147(208) 156(561) 182(166) 223(60) 84(77) 205 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 16 Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described further in the following sections. Project Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by many types of land uses. The research is compiled in the manual entitled Trip Generation, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE). The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development. The proposed project would replace the existing warehouse with a seven-story residential building. To reflect a conservative analysis, no trip credit was taken for existing uses on the site as traffic generated from existing uses is very minimal based on recent driveway counts. The ITE trip generation rates for Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (Land Use 221) located close to Rail Transit was used for this study. Based on the ITE trip generation manual, mid-rise multifamily housing includes apartments and condominiums located in a building that has between four and 10 floors of living space. A site is considered close to rail transit if the walking distance between the residential site entrance and the closest rail transit station entrance is a half mile or less. As shown in Table 4, the project is estimated to generate 2,788 daily vehicle trips, with 188 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 170 trips during the PM peak hour. It is noted that the proposed project consists of 543 dwelling units, including 62 studios, 252 one-bedroom units, and 229 two-bedroom units. However, the traffic operations analysis that is summarized in this report is based on a previous project description that included 587 dwelling units. Thus, the proposed project would generate less traffic than what is presented in Table 4. Table 4 Project Trip Generation ITE Land Use Code Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Land Use Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)221 587 d.u.4.75 2,788 0.32 105 83 188 0.29 73 97 170 Notes: d.u. = Dwelling Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size All rates are from Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. Average rates are used General Urban/Suburban Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) located close to Rail Transit. Trip Distribution Pattern and Trip Assignment The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated consistent with the trip distribution assumptions presented in the DSASP EIR for the West area (west of US 101). These distribution 206 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 17 estimates were developed based on the location of complementary land uses, existing travel patterns in the area, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) regional travel demand model. The project trip distribution and trips assigned to the study intersections are shown on Figure 6. Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Volumes Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7. Conceptual Intersection Improvements under Existing Plus Project Conditions The following conceptual intersection operational improvements were assumed under the Existing plus Project conditions. Intersection at South Linden Avenue and Railroad Avenue Currently, the traffic signal at the intersection of South Linden Avenue and Railroad Avenue is operating with split signal phasing on the northbound and southbound South Linden Avenue approaches due to the lack of left turn storage lanes on South Linden Avenue. Split signal phasing is less efficient operationally compared to concurrent opposing left turn signal phasing. Exhibit 2 in Appendix C illustrates a conceptual layout of traffic signal modifications at the South Linden Avenue/Railroad Avenue that includes added left turn lanes and implementation of concurrent left turn signal phasing on the northbound and southbound Linden Avenue approaches. In addition, under existing conditions, the stop bar for the northbound approach is located 50 feet south of the intersection due to the previous UPRR at-grade crossing, which was removed several years ago. Relocating the stop bar closer to the intersection would improve safety and intersection operations. See Exhibit 2 in Appendix C for details. With the relocation of the stop bar for the northbound approach on South Linden Avenue 50 feet to the north, the project’s north driveway would be located 70 feet south of the intersection. The northbound vehicle queue from the signal at Railroad Avenue could extend past the driveway. The vehicle queue would block inbound left turns from southbound Linden Avenue, which in turn could impact the traffic operations at the intersection of South Linden Avenue and Railroad Avenue. Sight distance for the outbound left turn movement from the north site driveway could also be blocked by the northbound vehicle queue. Therefore, the project’s north driveway was assumed to be restricted to right-turn movements only. Channelizers will be installed along the centerline double-yellow pavement stripes in front of the driveway in order to prohibit left turns at the north driveway. Left-turn movements into and out of the project site would be facilitated at the project’s south driveway at the signalized intersection of South Linden Avenue and North Canal Street. 207 South San Francisco 101 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave Pa r k W y Park W y Poletti Wy Poletti W yAirport BlvdLux Ave Pa r k W y Poletti Wy 1 3 2 4 5 3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Maple AveLinden AveGrand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n Gateway BlvdDubuque AveCypress AveS Canal S t S Linden AveHarbor WayS Airport BlvdS Maple AveS Spruce AveMitchell Ave Ar m o u r A v e Utah Ave C o r p o r a t e D r E Grand Ave San Mateo AveRailroa d A v e Railroad Ave N Cana l S t N Canal St Railroa d A v e North S i t e D w y South Site Dwy N Cana l S t 10% 16% 2% 2%30%5%35%X = Trip Distribution = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND XX% = AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsXX(XX) 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Figure 6 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 5 1234 AveLindenBlvdAirportStN Canal AveRailroad AveBaden AveBaden AveGrand BlvdAirportAveLindenAveLinden3(2)3(2)95(66)2(2)4(4) 2(2) 37(44) 2(2)2(2)75(88)95(66)2(2)29(34)46(54)39(26)56(40)37(26)19(14)17(20) 29(34)13(15)4(5)16(11)15(11)5(3) 5(4) 12(14) 4(5) North Driveway DwyNorth AveLinden3(2)40(46) SouthDwy 208 South San Francisco 101 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave Pa r k W y Park W y Poletti Wy Poletti W yAirport BlvdLux Ave Pa r k W y Poletti Wy 1 3 2 4 5 3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Maple AveLinden AveGrand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n Gateway BlvdDubuque AveCypress AveS Canal St S Linden AveHarbor WayS Airport BlvdS Maple AveS Spruce AveMitchell Ave Ar m o u r A v e Utah Ave C o r p o r a t e D r E Grand Ave San Mateo AveRailroa d Ave Railroad Ave N Cana l S t N Canal St Railroa d Ave N Cana l S t X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Figure 7 Existing Plus Project Trafffic Volumes 5 1234 AveLindenBlvdAirportStN Canal AveRailroad AveBaden AveBaden AveGrand BlvdAirportAveLindenAveLinden16(29)340(433)3(2)95(66)335(299)91(62)4(4) 2(2) 37(44) 108(91) 2(2) 34(23)22(26)486(539)12(19)20(46)489(393)55(75)0(13) 4(18) 9(48) 137(118) 7(24) 55(28)7(22)182(253)486(433)35(34)268(222)15(58)255(439) 77(244) 11(0) 18(24) 392(180) 33(24)160(360)199(452)5(4)448(625)196(397)553(316) 323(252)40(41)362(271)372(434)409(96)378(423)84(114)179(570) 152(212) 156(561) 194(180) 227(65) 84(77) South Dwy 209 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 20 Intersection at South Linden Avenue and Canal Street The south driveway would form the east leg of the South Linden Avenue/North Canal Street intersection but would be offset by approximately 50 feet to the north as access to the Lindenville Storm Water Pump Station 6 is located directly on the opposite side of North Canal Street and adjacent to the project driveway. Currently, the southbound left turn movement is prohibited at the intersection of South Linden Avenue and North Canal Street due to the lack of a left turn pocket for the southbound approach and the restricted sight distance for the turning movement. In order to provide safe southbound left turn access for the south site driveway, left turn lanes can be added on the northbound and southbound approaches on South Linden Avenue to allow implementation of concurrent left turn signal phasing. The project will install separate signal heads and phasing for the project’s southern driveway and the City’s water pump station. Due to the proximity of the two driveways, directional traffic signal heads would be required to limit signal visibility to specific target areas to avoid motorist confusion. The project’s property line fence would be extended to the back of the sidewalk on South Linden Avenue to separate the two driveways. See Exhibit 1 in Appendix C for a conceptual layout of this signal modification at the South Linde Avenue/North Canal Street intersection. Existing Plus Project Level of Service The results of the signalized intersection level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 5. The results show that, measured against the City of South San Francisco level of service standards, all signalized study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. At the intersection of South Linden Avenue and Railroad Avenue, the addition of project traffic would cause the overall average intersection delays to improve slightly. This is due to the improved traffic signal operations under project conditions, which consists of protected left turn phasing on northbound and southbound South Linden Avenue that would allow the northbound and southbound through phases to operate concurrently. The intersection levels of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service AM 4.7 A 13.0 BPM4.4 A 12.0 B AM 14.9 B 8.9 APM14.3 B 9.1 A AM 17.2 B 20.1 CPM16.8 B 20.5 CAM45.6 D 55.0 D PM 36.4 D 39.2 DAM38.1 D 39.4 D PM 37.8 D 39.6 D Note: Peak Hour 5 Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue South Linden Avenue & Railroad Avenue 3 Study Number Intersection Linden Avenue & Baden Avenue South Linden Avenue & North Canal Street Airport Boulevard & Baden Avenue Signal1 Signal1 Signal1 Signal1 Signal1 Control Existing Conditions Avg. Delay (sec) Avg. Delay (sec) No Project With Project LOS LOS 2 4 1 1 Delay reported as seconds per vehicle. The delay shown is the weighted average delay for all movements. LOS based on the methodology in Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Intersections 1 and 2 are based on HCM 6th Edition methodology. The remaining intersections are based on HCM 2000 methodology. 210 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 21 Cumulative Conditions Road Network and Traffic Volumes Cumulative conditions represent future traffic conditions with expected growth in the area through Year 2040. It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under cumulative conditions, including all study roadways and intersection lane configurations, would be the same as that described under existing conditions, with the following exception. • Intersection at South Linden Avenue & Baden Avenue – An intersection improvement to add a southbound left turn pocket by removing existing parking and to optimize the signal timing at the intersection was identified in the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR. • Intersection at Airport Boulevard and Baden Avenue – This intersection would operate as a four-legged intersection. The east leg would provide access to the residential development (150 & 200 Airport Boulevard) on the east side of Airport Boulevard that is currently under construction. The cumulative traffic volumes used in this report were derived from the C/CAG model and the cumulative volumes presented in the 580 Dubuque Avenue TIA, which was the most recently completed traffic study at the time the traffic operations analysis was being conducted for the 7 South Linden Avenue project. For intersections not included in the C/CAG model, volumes were estimated based on the closest intersections. Cumulative plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to cumulative traffic volumes the trips associated with the project. Cumulative plus project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions. The cumulative no project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 8. Figure 9 shows the traffic volumes under cumulative plus project conditions. The conceptual intersection operational improvements for intersections at South Linden Avenue/Railroad Avenue and South Linden Avenue/Canal Street assumed under the Existing plus Project conditions also apply to the Cumulative plus Project conditions. Cumulative Plus Project Level of Service The results of the level of service analysis under cumulative conditions show that three of the study intersections would operate at level of service D or better without the project (see Table 6). The Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue and Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersections would operate at LOS E and F without the project and would continue to operate at LOS E or F with the project. The intersection levels of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Because the intersection at Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue has been built to capacity, no physical improvements are feasible at this intersection. In the future, the city will adjust signal timings at these intersections to better serve the increased traffic levels. The city will primarily rely on investments in infrastructure that will support and encourage alternative modes of transportation to address traffic congestion. As in the Existing plus Project conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause the overall average intersection delays to improve slightly at the intersection of South Linden Avenue and Railroad Avenue due to the proposed protected left turn phasing on South Linden Avenue that would allow the northbound and southbound through phases on South Linden Avenue to operate concurrently. 211 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 22 Table 6 Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Peak Delay % IncreaseIntersectionHourLOSIncrease (Sec)in Volume AM 4.9 A 12.7 B 7.8 6.0%PM 4.4 A 11.8 B 7.4 5.5%AM 18.1 B 10.4 B -7.7 8.7%PM 17.2 B 9.9 A -7.3 7.8%AM 19.9 B 23.4 C 3.5 5.9%PM 20.0 B 23.6 C 3.6 4.9%AM 71.2 E 79.1 E 7.9 3.2% PM 52.3 D 60.7 E 8.4 2.3% AM 142.5 F 148.2 F 5.7 1.6%PM 159.5 F 176.7 F 17.2 1.3% Note: Bold indicates LOS E or LOS F. Cumulative Conditions 1 Delay reported as seconds per vehicle. The delay shown is the weighted average delay for all movements. LOS based on the methodology in Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Intersections 1 and 2 are based on HCM 6th Edition methodology. The remaining intersections are based on HCM 2000 methodology. 5 Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue 4 Airport Boulevard & Baden Avenue 3 Linden Avenue & Baden Avenue 2 South Linden Avenue & Railroad Avenue LOS Signal1 No Project With Project 1 South Linden Avenue & North Canal Street Control Signal1 Study Number Avg. Delay (sec) Avg. Delay (sec) Signal1 Signal1 Signal1 212 South San Francisco 101 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave Pa r k W y Park W y Poletti Wy Poletti W yAirport BlvdLux Ave Pa r k W y Poletti Wy 1 3 2 4 5 3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Maple AveLinden AveGrand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n Gateway BlvdDubuque AveCypress AveS Canal St S Linden AveHarbor WayS Airport BlvdS Maple AveS Spruce AveMitchell Ave Ar m o u r A v e Utah Ave C o r p o r a t e D r E Grand Ave San Mateo AveRailroa d Ave Railroad Ave N Cana l S t N Canal St Railroa d Ave N Cana l S t X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Figure 8 Cumulative Traffic Volumes 5 1234 AveLindenBlvdAirportStN Canal AveRailroad AveBaden AveBaden AveGrand BlvdAirportAveLindenAveLinden18(33)380(489)376(337)103(70)122(103) 38(26)23(27)463(512)14(22)23(52)444(371)62(85)0(15) 5(20) 10(54) 154(134) 8(27) 60(29)8(26)182(257)523(445)42(40)272(230)18(68)237(468) 92(286) 13(36) 21(28) 466(211) 39(28)146(392)237(530)4(17)11(27)533(733)211(449)14(10) 4(3) 17(13) 638(347) 1(4) 350(256)71(71)623(446)657(748)730(167)646(718)123(180)310(989) 262(363) 278(978) 325(289) 398(105) 150(134) 213 South San Francisco 101 Airport BlvdAirport BlvdLux AveLux Ave Pa r k W y Park W y Poletti Wy Poletti W yAirport BlvdLux Ave Pa r k W y Poletti Wy 1 3 2 4 5 3rd Ln 1st Ln Miller A v e Maple AveLinden AveGrand A v e Baden A v e Tamara c k L n Gateway BlvdDubuque AveCypress AveS Canal St S Linden AveHarbor WayS Airport BlvdS Maple AveS Spruce AveMitchell Ave Ar m o u r A v e Utah Ave C o r p o r a t e D r E Grand Ave San Mateo AveRailroa d Ave Railroad Ave N Cana l S t N Canal St Railroa d Ave N Cana l S t X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Figure 9 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes 5 1234 AveLindenBlvdAirportStN Canal AveRailroad AveBaden AveBaden AveGrand BlvdAirportAveLindenAveLinden18(33)383(491)3(2)47(33)378(339)103(70)2(3) 2(2) 37(44) 122(103) 2(2) 38(26)25(29)538(600)14(22)23(52)539(437)62(85)0(15) 5(20) 10(54) 154(134) 8(27) 62(31)8(26)211(291)569(499)42(40)311(256)18(68)293(508) 92(286) 13(36) 21(28) 466(211) 39(28)183(418)237(530)4(17)11(27)533(733)230(463)14(10) 4(3) 17(13) 655(367) 1(4) 379(290)71(71)636(461)661(753)730(167)662(729)138(191)315(992) 267(367) 278(978) 337(303) 402(110) 150(134) SouthDwy 214 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 25 Site Access and On-Site Circulation The site access and on-site circulation evaluation is based on the site plans (dated April 25, 2022) prepared by BDE Architecture (see Figures 10 and 11). Site Access Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on South Linden Avenue, which are located at the north and south ends of the site property at approximately 600 feet apart. The north driveway would be located approximately 70 feet south of the South Linden Avenue/Railroad Avenue intersection and would need to be restricted to right turn only movements due its proximity to the traffic signal at South Linden Avenue and Railroad Avenue. The northern and the southern project driveways would be interconnected via an internal perimeter access road that runs along the east and south property lines at the back of project building. The driveways are connected for EVA access and recreational purposes only (no private vehicle traffic). The number of AM and PM peak hour vehicular trips entering and exiting the project through the site driveways are shown in Figure 10. With the implementation of left turn restrictions at the north site driveway, all left turn movements to and from South Linden Avenue would use the south driveway to access the project site. Based on the LOS and queuing calculations, the outbound movements from the north site driveway would operate at LOS A with a maximum 95th percentile queue of one vehicle during the AM and PM peak hours. At the intersection of South Linden Avenue and North Canal Street where the south driveway would form the east leg of the intersection, the driveway outbound movement would operate at LOS B with a maximum 95th percentile queue of two vehicles during the AM and PM peak hours. The inbound left turn movement from southbound Linden Avenue would operate at LOS C with a maximum 95th percentile queue of four vehicles during the AM and PM peak hours. Access to the parking garage would be provided via north and south gated entrances located along the perimeter road at approximately 125 feet and 50 feet from the north and south driveways, respectively. The gates would typically be open during the day and closed at night. Residents would need to use a remote or keypad to enter the garage during the hours when the gate is closed. The site plan shows the site driveways and perimeter access road would measure approximately 28 feet in width which would be adequate for two-way traffic flow. The width of the garage entrances would measure approximately 24 feet which would be adequate for vehicles to enter and exit the parking garage. Both garage entrances would be connected internally via the parking drive aisles. The project would widen the sidewalk along its frontage on South Linden Avenue and add two new pedestrian access points. Pedestrian access to the project site would be provided at locations along the frontage on South Linden Avenue. Primary pedestrian access would be provided via a main entry connected to the widened sidewalk on South Linden Avenue. There would be an access door connected to the ground level parking on the west side of the project site adjacent to the north driveway. There also would be access door connected to the ground level bike room adjacent to the sidewalk on South Linden Avenue. 215 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Figure 10 Project Site Plan (Floor 1) ;:;::;:;: ;::: 25+HU^9 :: 6)/2%%<6)(/(&52206) %,.(5220 6) *$5$*(67$//6 6) (/(&5220 6) (/(&5220 6)),5(3803 %,.(5220 6) :$7(5+($7(5 5220 % 6) (/(&5220 6)6725$*(6) 75$6+7(50,1$7,21 6) *$5$*( (;+$867 6) 75$6+7(50,1$7,21 6) *$5$*((;+$867 6) 029(,1/2%%<7<3 [ 7<3 6)3(763$ $3 $3 $3 $3 (9$ /2$',1*=21( *$5$*( $&&(66 *$5$*($&&(666287+/,1'(1$9(18( % 6)032(5220 % % % $$%66%%666%%$$$ 6) (/(&5220 38==/(67$&.(5123,767$//6'28%/(+738==/(67$&.(5123,7 67$//6'28%/(+7 38==/(67$&.(5123,7 67$//6'28%/(+7 38==/(67$&.(5123,7 67$//6'28%/(+738==/(67$&.(5123,767$//6'28%/(+7 "38==/(67$&.(5123,767$//6'28%/(+7 758( 3 %,.(5220 3(2) 95(66)40(46)3(2)2(2)4(3)2(2)37(44)NorthDwy SouthDwyLEGEND = AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsXX(XX) 216 7 South Linden Avenue Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Figure 11 Project Site Plan (Floor 2) :5 :5 $ $ $6% 6) 0$,17(1$1&(6)6725$*(6) *$5$*( 67$//6 23(172%(/2: 6) 322/ 9$8/7 6) 322/(48,3 6) *$5$*( (;+$867 6) 75$6+ 5220 6) *$5$*( (;+$867 6) 75$6+ 5220 % %% 7<3 7<3 7<3 $ 6)6725$*( $3 $3 $3 $3 6287+/,1'(1$9(18( % % % % $ % $ 6 66 6 $ % % % % 6) (/(9$725 &21752/ 5220 % 758( 217 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 28 On-Site Circulation On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. The project site plan includes a two-level parking garage, which would be accessed by the two interconnected garage entrances. The parking garage follows a standard 90-degree parking layout. The parking aisles are shown to be 24 feet wide, which does not meet the City’s standard for 90-degree parking. The City’s municipal code requires the parking aisles to be 25 feet wide for 90- degree parking layout. Based on generally accepted traffic engineering standards, a two-way drive aisle that is 24 feet wide would be adequate for vehicles to maneuver in and out of the 90-degree parking stalls. Other neighboring cities have allowed two-way drive aisles less than 25 feet. Since the City of South San Francisco evaluates each project design on a case-by-case basis, the project applicant should coordinate with City staff to determine whether the proposed drive aisle widths are acceptable to serve the project. The dimensions of the regular parking spaces are shown to be 8.5 feet by 18 feet, which meets the minimum City standards for enclosed parking spaces. Mechanical stacker vehicular parking would be provided on the first level on the south side of the parking garage. The mechanical stacker would increase the capacity of onsite parking by stacking the parked vehicles vertically and would allow independent access to vehicles on the lift so that they could be shared by different residential users. A total of 133 parking spaces would be provided within the mechanical parking system. The spec sheets for the parking stackers are included in Appendix D. Besides the stacker parking units, 18 tandem parking spaces are shown located on the east side of the 1st level parking garage. The site plan shows a slope of 20% for the ramp that connects the two parking levels with a transition slope of 10% for the first and last 10 feet of the ramp so that vehicles do not “bottom out”. Both parking levels would have drive aisles on the east side of the garage that terminate at a dead end with no turnarounds. In general, dead-end aisles can be problematic if they contain unassigned parking spaces, since drivers can enter the aisle and upon discovering that there is no available parking must either back out or conduct three-point maneuvers. Dead-end aisles typically are less problematic and would not create any on-site circulation issues as long as the parking spaces are assigned to residents. All on-site parking will be assigned to residents. Pedestrian circulation within the site appears to provide adequate connectivity between the multiple residential units, vehicle parking, bicycle storage, off-site pedestrian facilities, and on-site amenities. There would be four staircases and six elevators located at various locations inside the building, with access to the front lobby and parking garage. The first level would also accommodate a leasing/lobby area, two trash rooms, a mail package room, and two bike storage rooms. Truck Access The site plan shows a designated loading area for delivery and moving trucks along the perimeter access road near the move-in lobby. A move-in lobby would be located on the east side of the parking garage with a door that provides access to the perimeter access road. A trash collection room is shown located at the ground level. Because garbage trucks would not be able to enter the parking garage, trash bins would need to be wheeled out to the perimeter access road where garbage trucks would perform their operations outside of the building. 218 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 29 Parking Calculation of Vehicular Parking Requirement Parking requirements for the project were evaluated based on the parking requirements presented in Table 20.330.004 of the new zoning code as described below. Multi-family Residential • Studio and one-bedroom (up to 1,100 sq ft) – 1 space minimum and 1 space maximum per unit. • Two-bedroom (up to 1,100 sq ft) - 1 space minimum and 1.5 space maximum per unit. • Three or more bedrooms and 1,101 sq ft or larger – 1.5 space minimum and 2 spaces maximum The proposed project has a total of 543 dwelling units including 314 studios and one-bedroom units, 202 two-bed room units less than 1,100 sq ft and 27 two-bedroom units larger than 1,101 sq ft. Based on these requirements, the project would be required to provide a minimum of 557 parking spaces and a maximum of 671 parking spaces. The project would provide a total of 563 parking spaces and would satisfy the requirements of the new parking ordinance. Calculation of Bicycle Parking Spaces According to the City’s bicycle parking standards, for multi-unit residential developments with eight or more units, short-term bicycle parking should be provided at a rate of 5% of the number of required automobile parking spaces. The code also requires that long-term bicycle parking be provided at a minimum of one bicycle parking space for every four units for multi-unit residential projects. This calculates to a minimum of 28 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 136 long-term bicycle parking spaces. The site plan shows that the project will provide long-term bicycle parking for 147 bicycles within two bike rooms on the first floor of the building and at least 28 short-term bicycle parking spaces along the project frontage on Linden Avenue and would satisfy the bicycle parking requirement of the City’s zoning code. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts The project is well situated to take advantage of the existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit services in the immediate vicinity. These services would allow project residents to access employment and many services without a car. The new Caltrain station connections will allow easy access to transit services and will also provide a good bicycle connection to the employment zone to the east. Pedestrians can access the project site to/from other parts of the downtown via existing sidewalks and crosswalks at signalized intersections. The proposed project would generate pedestrian trips to and from transit stops and commercial areas in the project vicinity. Most of the streets in the project vicinity have sidewalks and crosswalks at intersections. The existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities provide adequate access to the project site. The project would install new sidewalks along the project frontage on South Linden Avenue, new crosswalks, and ADA-compliant wheelchair ramps at the adjacent intersections that would improve pedestrian access and enhance pedestrian connectivity in the area. The development of the project would not remove any existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities, nor would it preclude any future planned improvements. Therefore, the proposed project would not create an adverse impact to bicycle/pedestrian circulation in the area. 219 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 30 Existing transit service in the project vicinity is provided by Caltrain, SamTrans, and the commute.org shuttles. According to the U.S. Census data for South San Francisco, approximately 15 percent of the mode share for residential uses could be expected to use transit to and from the project site. For the proposed project, this would equate to a maximum of 28 new transit trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This volume of riders that could be generated by the project would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing transit services near the project site. Conclusions The project site is located within half mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and the high-quality transit service provided by SamTrans route 130. Therefore, the project is expected to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact. Site access and on-site circulation were also evaluated based on the site plans (dated April 25, 2022) prepared by BDE Architecture. In order to provide adequate access to the project site, intersection operational improvements would be required at the signalized intersections of South Linden Avenue/Railroad Avenue and South Linden Avenue/North Canal Street. The conceptual improvements at these locations are shown in Appendix C. Due to the proximity of the project’s north driveway to the signalized intersecion of South Linden Avenue and Railroad Avenue, the project’s north driveway would need to be restricted to right-turn movements only. Left-turns into and out of the project site would occur at the project’s south driveway. In order to provide safe southbound left turn access for the south site driveway, left turn lanes can be added on the northbound and southbound approaches on South Linden Avenue to allow implementation of concurrent left turn signal phasing. The project will install separate signal heads and phasing for the project’s southern driveway and the City’s water pump station. Due to the proximity of the two driveways, directional traffic signal heads would be required to limit signal visibility to specific target areas in order to avoid motorist confusion. The project’s property line fence would be extended to the back of the sidewalk on South Linden Avenue in order to separate the two driveways. 220 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Study – South San Francisco, CA March 1, 2023 Page | 31 The potential adverse effects of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with the procedures and guidelines specified by the City of South San Francisco. The analysis resulted in the following key findings: • All study intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing and existing plus project conditions. • According to the City of South San Francisco intersection LOS adverse effect criteria, the proposed project would cause an adverse effect at the Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue intersection under cumulative plus project conditions. Because the Airport Boulevard and Baden Avenue intersection has been built to capacity, no physical improvements are feasible at this intersection. In the future, the city will adjust signal timings at this intersections to better serve the increased traffic levels. The city will primarily rely on investments in infrastructure that will support and encourage alternative modes of transportation to address traffic congestion in the study area. • The project would not create any significant adverse impacts to pedestrian, bike, or transit facilities. 221 7 South Linden Avenue Transportation Analysis Appendices 222 Appendix A Intersection Traffic Counts 223 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 2 2 9 0 2 7 4 4 30 170123674 5 0 Peak Hour 3 1 40 30 74 0 0 0 1 7 8 11 14Count Total 5 2 86 47 140 0 2 1 00000018:45 AM 2 0 15 12 29 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 3 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 8:15 AM 0 1 11 9 21 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 8:00 AM 1 0 11 3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 9 3 12 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 16 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 0 0 11 10 21 3 3 5 -0%13%HV%-3%0%0%- 0 0 7:15 AM 1 0 13 3 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 West North South 7:00 AM 1 1 13 0 15 316 9 0 15 3034100370 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 0%-0%10%2%9%-0%14% Peak Hour All 0 105 5 13 0 24 570 15 0 0 0 29 1 74 00100400 42 861 0 HV 0 3 0 0 0 Count Total 0 206 10 79 0 0 5 25 573 63 1,583 0 232 86187205839000404 3 68 10 198 846 8:45 AM 0 27 1 10 2 0 2 73 3 0 221 833 8:30 AM 0 27 0 8 0 0 2 85 1 0 5 70 10001106 2 82 13 210 773 8:15 AM 0 27 2 13 0 0 3 71 3 0 217 722 8:00 AM 0 24 2 10 0 0 0 75 3 0 4 71 5000205 3 75 3 185 0 7:45 AM 0 36 4 12 2 0 2 63 2 0 161 0 7:30 AM 0 25 0 10 0 0 0 66 1 0 1 55 5001100 2 69 8 159 0 7:15 AM 0 22 0 9 1 0 2 50 0 07:00 AM 0 18 1 7 0 0 1 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Railroad Ave Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 12-14-2021 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 8.3%0.93 TOTAL 8.6%0.93 TH RT WB 10.0%0.63 NB 11.8%0.91 Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM HV %:PHF EB 2.0%0.90 0 0 0 0200100 0 0 4 07 6N Linden Ave Railroad Ave Driveway Linden AveRailroad Ave Linden Ave861TEV: 0.93PHF:423031536042807 3 0 10 290 931615340344041 5 105 151 60 0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 224 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 3002001 8 00010 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 7Count Total 0 300000000 0 3 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 6 8:30 AM 0000000 3 8 8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:00 AM 0000 3 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 20020007:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM RT 74 0 Interval Start Railroad Ave Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 40 0 0 0 29 1000100 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 1 44 2 140 0 Peak Hour 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 86 0 0Count Total 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 29 7415000120000000 0 6 0 9 66 8:45 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 21 69 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 9 0000100 0 2 1 15 65 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 21 66 8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 9 1000000 0 3 0 12 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 17 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 3 0000000 1 0 0 16 0 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Railroad Ave Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 225 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 3 3 6 3 3 1 5 0 24 1202020102 2 0 Peak Hour 3 2 10 15 30 0 0 0 4 2 6 4 18Count Total 8 4 28 46 86 0 0 0 00000005:45 PM 1 0 2 5 8 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 5:30 PM 1 0 4 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5:15 PM 0 1 2 4 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 5:00 PM 1 0 2 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4:30 PM 2 0 8 10 20 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 8 16 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 1 1 2 5 9 1 2 2 -5%2%HV%-1%5%4%- 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 4 8 12 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 West North South 4:00 PM 2 2 4 0 21 395 17 0 40 2862301116420 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 0%-0%4%5%3%0%0%5% Peak Hour All 0 103 21 65 0 40 821 29 0 0 0 12 3 30 0020190 66 1,041 0 HV 0 1 1 1 0 Count Total 0 189 30 52 0 18 26 63 558 116 2,007 0 218 997832047313025702 9 72 8 242 1,041 5:45 PM 0 18 3 6 8 0 9 95 3 0 270 1,040 5:30 PM 0 27 2 2 0 4 3 89 11 0 18 69 230361203 8 66 24 267 1,009 5:15 PM 0 20 12 4 10 0 7 114 1 0 262 1,010 5:00 PM 0 22 2 8 0 3 2 97 2 0 5 79 110151202 7 53 13 241 0 4:45 PM 0 34 5 9 5 0 7 124 3 0 239 0 4:30 PM 0 17 2 8 0 0 2 108 5 0 6 67 11021404 6 79 13 268 0 4:15 PM 0 21 1 9 7 0 6 111 2 04:00 PM 0 30 3 6 0 3 2 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Railroad Ave Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 12-14-2021 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 3.8%0.89 TOTAL 2.9%0.96 TH RT WB 2.9%0.82 NB 2.3%0.89 Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM HV %:PHF EB 2.0%0.77 0 0 0 0000200 0 0 2 010 0N Linden Ave Railroad Ave Driveway Linden AveRailroad Ave Linden Ave1,041TEV: 0.96PHF:6628640392540042 16 11 69 780 1739521433320023 21 103 147 103 0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 226 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00001000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 2000002 6 00040 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 2Count Total 0 200000000 0 2 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 4 5:30 PM 1000001 1 4 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5:00 PM 0000 2 0 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 4:30 PM 10010004:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:00 PM RT 30 0 Interval Start Railroad Ave Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 9 0 0 0 12 3000201 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 0 41 5 86 0 Peak Hour 0 1 1 1 3 0 3 24 1 0Count Total 0 4 1 3 0 1 0 8 29200050000000 0 1 0 6 30 5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 44 5:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1000100 0 4 1 8 49 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 57 5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 1000101 0 10 0 20 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 12 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 1000001 0 7 1 16 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Railroad Ave Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 227 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 2 1 8 4 2 3 2 2 24 110012452 4 0 Peak Hour 12 0 26 25 63 1 0 0 0 6 7 9 11Count Total 17 0 73 40 130 1 1 0 00000018:45 AM 2 0 13 10 25 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8:30 AM 2 0 5 5 12 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8:15 AM 5 0 4 10 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 8:00 AM 3 0 7 4 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 7:30 AM 1 0 8 3 12 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 13 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 2 0 10 6 18 4 4 2 -0%10%HV%-10%-15%- 0 0 7:15 AM 2 0 13 2 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 West North South 7:00 AM 0 0 13 0 12 259 0 0 0 2562600000 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total ---9%4%9%--- Peak Hour All 0 83 0 0 0 24 475 0 0 0 0 22 3 63 00000260 70 706 0 HV 0 8 0 4 0 Count Total 1 140 0 43 0 0 0 0 485 126 1,294 0 184 704750006416000005 0 62 15 173 706 8:45 AM 1 15 0 8 0 0 1 60 0 0 185 678 8:30 AM 0 28 0 7 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 66 17000004 0 66 15 162 637 8:15 AM 0 23 0 6 0 0 3 57 0 0 186 590 8:00 AM 0 14 0 7 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 62 23000004 0 57 15 145 0 7:45 AM 0 18 0 6 0 0 3 50 0 0 144 0 7:30 AM 0 16 0 4 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 52 16000003 0 56 9 115 0 7:15 AM 0 16 0 3 0 0 1 37 0 07:00 AM 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start N Canal St Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 12-14-2021 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 7.7%0.96 TOTAL 8.9%0.95 TH RT WB -- NB 9.6%0.88 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 11.0%0.78 0 0 1 0100000 0 0 2 05 4N Linden Ave N Canal St Driveway Linden AveN Canal St Linden Ave706TEV: 0.95PHF:70256032634200 0 0 0 00 025912271282026 0 83 109 82 0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 228 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001 0 0 0 001 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 2001000 7 02000 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 4Count Total 0 200000000 0 2 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 6 8:30 AM 1001000 1 6 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:00 AM 0000 4 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 10010007:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM RT 63 0 Interval Start N Canal St Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 26 0 0 0 22 3000000 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 0 33 7 130 0 Peak Hour 0 8 0 4 0 0 3 70 0 0Count Total 0 11 0 6 0 0 0 25 701300073000000 0 4 1 12 63 8:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 19 63 8:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 1000000 0 3 1 14 61 8:15 AM 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 18 60 8:00 AM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 6 0000000 0 3 0 12 0 7:45 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 17 0 7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 1000002 0 0 0 13 0 7:15 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start N Canal St Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 229 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 14 71235240 1 1 Peak Hour 7 0 17 28 52 0 0 0 4 3 7 3 9Count Total 7 0 23 41 71 0 1 1 00000015:45 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 1 6 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 5:00 PM 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 4:30 PM 3 0 5 8 16 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 5 9 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 1 0 2 8 11 1 2 1 -12%4%HV%-3%-25%- 0 0 4:15 PM 2 0 7 7 16 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 West North South 4:00 PM 1 0 3 0 25 377 0 0 0 2602000000 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total ---10%4%6%--- Peak Hour All 0 80 0 0 0 40 731 0 0 0 0 26 2 52 00003140 54 816 0 HV 0 2 0 5 0 Count Total 0 144 0 38 0 0 0 0 499 125 1,577 0 180 761860006017000004 0 57 17 181 771 5:45 PM 0 12 0 1 0 0 2 82 0 0 201 792 5:30 PM 0 18 0 5 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 59 20000005 0 63 17 199 805 5:15 PM 0 16 0 6 0 0 4 91 0 0 190 816 5:00 PM 0 18 0 6 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 75 9000007 0 48 14 202 0 4:45 PM 0 16 0 4 0 0 4 106 0 0 214 0 4:30 PM 0 25 0 5 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 66 13000006 0 71 18 210 0 4:15 PM 0 16 0 5 0 0 8 84 0 04:00 PM 0 23 0 6 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start N Canal St Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 12-14-2021 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 8.9%0.88 TOTAL 6.4%0.95 TH RT WB -- NB 4.2%0.88 Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM HV %:PHF EB 7.0%0.83 0 0 0 1200200 0 0 0 14 2N Linden Ave N Canal St Driveway Linden AveN Canal St Linden Ave816TEV: 0.95PHF:54260031445700 0 0 0 00 037725402280020 0 80 100 79 0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 230 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 01000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 5002102 7 01040 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 2Count Total 0 200000000 0 3 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 5 5:30 PM 1000001 1 5 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5:00 PM 1000 2 0 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 4:30 PM 10000014:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:00 PM RT 52 0 Interval Start N Canal St Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 14 0 0 0 26 2000003 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 0 37 4 71 0 Peak Hour 0 2 0 5 0 0 3 20 0 0Count Total 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 3 19000030000000 0 1 0 4 27 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 39 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2000000 0 3 0 5 48 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 52 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 1000001 0 7 1 16 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 16 0 4:30 PM 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0000001 0 5 0 9 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start N Canal St Driveway Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 231 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 2 7 10 4 7 7 6 9 52 2931245174 5 7 Peak Hour 7 28 45 12 92 1 0 1 1 5 8 10 30Count Total 10 43 93 19 165 1 6 0 10000028:45 AM 2 10 18 4 34 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 8:30 AM 1 7 5 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 1 1 8:15 AM 3 5 12 5 25 1 0 0 1 2 3 1 4 3 0 1 8:00 AM 1 6 10 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 1 7:30 AM 0 3 9 0 12 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 3 1 1 16 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 2 7 11 4 24 1 2 2 -0%5%HV%-5%2%5%- 0 0 7:15 AM 0 4 15 2 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 West North South 7:00 AM 1 1 13 21 6 117 297 0 34 16639021549320 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 13%-6%6%0%7%10%2%19% Peak Hour All 0 19 240 46 0 11 194 598 0 0 2 10 0 92 01600639 22 1,236 0 HV 0 1 4 2 0 Count Total 0 34 471 56 0 386 98 64 297 28 2,283 0 336 1,23634830839506213401 6 41 6 301 1,201 8:45 AM 0 5 74 8 10 0 2 29 70 0 297 1,160 8:30 AM 0 3 58 6 0 54 16 28 74 0 7 43 604071201 13 43 5 302 1,106 8:15 AM 0 5 60 14 6 0 2 26 70 0 301 1,047 8:00 AM 0 6 48 11 0 59 13 30 86 0 8 37 304515601 10 30 1 260 0 7:45 AM 0 2 63 5 0 0 1 21 72 0 243 0 7:30 AM 0 3 58 6 0 44 14 19 73 0 5 26 00397202 7 38 2 243 0 7:15 AM 0 6 59 5 6 0 1 7 70 07:00 AM 0 4 51 1 0 43 13 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 12-14-2021 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 5.4%0.91 TOTAL 7.4%0.92 TH RT WB 9.5%0.93 NB 10.7%0.89 Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM HV %:PHF EB 2.3%0.86 0 1 0 0110100 0 0 4 317 5N Linden Ave Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden AveBaden Ave Linden Ave1,236TEV: 0.92PHF:2216634222168032 49 215 296 5710 2971176420420039 240 19 298 77 0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 232 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 010 1 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 THLT 4011001 8 00010 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 1 4Count Total 0 400000000 0 4 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 6 8:30 AM 1000000 3 7 8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8:00 AM 0000 2 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 20020007:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM RT 92 0 Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 6 39 0 2 10 00211600 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 3 15 1 165 0 Peak Hour 0 1 4 2 7 0 2 8 83 0Count Total 0 1 6 3 0 33 3 34 923150130090100 0 1 0 14 82 8:45 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 25 80 8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 11 0 0 5 0041000 1 1 0 19 76 8:15 AM 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 9 0 24 73 8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 9 0 1 2 1060101 0 0 0 12 0 7:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 21 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 13 0 0 2 0031001 0 1 0 16 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 233 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 13 7 11 13 3 6 11 16 80 3331032226 14 13 Peak Hour 3 9 11 6 29 0 2 3 3 2 8 10 43Count Total 4 36 35 15 90 0 9 3 00000045:45 PM 0 4 6 2 12 0 1 0 9 1 1 1 5:30 PM 0 0 4 1 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 5:15 PM 0 4 2 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 7 3 1 5:00 PM 2 2 2 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 3 3 4:30 PM 0 8 6 3 17 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 17 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 1 3 3 2 9 1 2 0 -0%1%HV%-4%1%0%- 4 4 4:15 PM 0 7 6 2 15 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 West North South 4:00 PM 1 8 6 8 20 172 322 1 52 189310297183400 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 3%0%0%3%0%2%3%0%3% Peak Hour All 0 24 202 75 0 38 335 686 1 0 0 6 0 29 00100110 52 1,585 0 HV 0 1 2 0 0 Count Total 0 42 408 50 0 571 373 86 350 104 3,119 0 370 1,56436780103418071491304 16 48 13 390 1,585 5:45 PM 0 1 52 4 9 0 4 44 70 0 417 1,565 5:30 PM 0 5 53 11 0 70 47 45 91 0 13 43 18079461107 9 44 15 387 1,540 5:15 PM 0 3 52 9 10 0 3 49 82 1 391 1,555 5:00 PM 0 3 45 3 0 76 47 34 79 0 14 54 6072431006 9 38 12 370 0 4:45 PM 0 13 52 8 10 0 6 36 91 0 392 0 4:30 PM 0 6 52 4 0 63 43 52 92 0 6 40 906154706 9 49 13 402 0 4:15 PM 0 5 53 7 5 0 2 39 103 04:00 PM 0 6 49 4 0 79 44 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 12-14-2021 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 2.0%0.95 TOTAL 1.8%0.95 TH RT WB 1.7%0.96 NB 2.1%0.90 Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM HV %:PHF EB 1.2%0.88 0 0 0 0001000 2 0 6 322 2N Linden Ave Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden AveBaden Ave Linden Ave1,585TEV: 0.95PHF:5218952294237140 183 297 520 5760 32217220514517031 202 24 257 255 0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 234 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 000 0 2 0 000 0 3 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000001 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 3100000 8 00021 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 2Count Total 0 300000000 1 3 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 4 5:30 PM 1100000 1 5 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5:00 PM 0000 2 0 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 4:30 PM 20010014:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:00 PM RT 29 0 Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 1 10 0 0 6 0080100 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 1 13 1 90 0 Peak Hour 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 3 32 0Count Total 0 1 3 0 0 34 1 12 32150110040000 0 1 0 5 29 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 41 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0040000 0 3 0 9 50 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 58 5:00 PM 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 0020100 0 2 1 17 0 4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 15 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 2 0070000 0 2 0 17 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 7 1 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 235 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 4 10 11 10 3 12 9 4 63 3452365186 6 13 Peak Hour 7 30 48 9 94 0 1 1 5 7 14 7 37Count Total 11 46 111 17 185 1 4 0 00000008:45 AM 1 5 13 2 21 0 1 1 6 2 0 3 8:30 AM 1 4 16 1 22 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 3 3 1 0 8:15 AM 0 7 16 2 25 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 8 0 2 8:00 AM 3 9 9 4 25 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 6 0 4 4 7:30 AM 0 5 18 3 26 0 0 0 2 2 5 1 5 0 3 18 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 3 10 7 2 22 1 1 1 -0%3%HV%-11%1%0%- 0 0 7:15 AM 2 5 19 0 26 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 4 West North South 7:00 AM 1 1 13 27 7 153 440 0 35 22933019977110 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 10%-0%4%0%6%14%4%0% Peak Hour All 0 18 392 26 0 9 250 835 0 0 0 9 0 94 03000543 15 1,609 0 HV 0 2 5 0 0 Count Total 0 39 684 72 0 371 130 77 392 34 2,919 0 397 1,599341150447805317800 9 49 4 383 1,609 8:45 AM 0 7 94 10 1 0 1 33 119 0 418 1,561 8:30 AM 0 3 102 7 0 37 18 35 99 0 10 56 505820403 8 52 3 401 1,443 8:15 AM 0 4 118 6 3 0 3 49 113 0 407 1,320 8:00 AM 0 8 83 10 0 50 19 36 109 0 8 72 305420300 12 45 6 335 0 7:45 AM 0 3 89 10 4 0 0 24 101 0 300 0 7:30 AM 0 8 73 9 0 41 12 27 94 0 11 36 103713101 15 35 4 278 0 7:15 AM 0 4 63 12 2 0 1 12 85 07:00 AM 0 2 62 8 0 41 11 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 01-30-2020 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 3.2%0.84 TOTAL 5.8%0.96 TH RT WB 10.5%0.88 NB 8.0%0.91 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 1.6%0.87 0 0 0 0301100 0 1 6 518 5N Linden Ave Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden AveBaden Ave Linden Ave1,609TEV: 0.96PHF:1522935279182011 77 199 287 8670 4401537600461033 392 18 443 99 0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 236 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 1 0 0 010 1 0 0 0000 0 0 0 01 0 THLT 01001000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 6103001 14 01032 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 6Count Total 0 300000000 1 6 8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 6 8:30 AM 1000001 1 10 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8:00 AM 3000 1 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 51020017:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 07:00 AM RT 94 0 Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 5 43 0 0 9 00273000 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 4 12 1 185 0 Peak Hour 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 10 101 0Count Total 0 2 7 2 0 40 6 21 932110101041000 0 1 0 22 94 8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 15 0 25 98 8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 2 14 0 0 2 0061000 0 4 0 25 99 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 22 92 8:00 AM 0 0 3 0 0 9 0 0 7 0 0 2 0082000 2 1 0 26 0 7:45 AM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 26 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 18 0 0 0 0041000 1 2 0 18 0 7:15 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 237 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 9 10 19 14 14 13 16 12 107 57921410308 19 21 Peak Hour 0 22 19 4 45 0 1 2 6 5 13 20 47Count Total 2 45 41 6 94 0 6 3 10111325:45 PM 0 2 2 0 4 0 1 4 5 3 4 2 5:30 PM 0 4 2 1 7 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 10 0 0 1 5:15 PM 0 7 3 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 13 2 5 2 5:00 PM 0 6 5 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 5 3 4 4:30 PM 2 6 5 1 14 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 19 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 0 5 9 3 17 1 4 5 -0%2%HV%-0%0%0%- 2 4 4:15 PM 0 6 5 1 12 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 West North South 4:00 PM 0 9 10 22 22 219 379 0 34 196240399244310 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 4%-3%1%2%2%6%0%0% Peak Hour All 0 24 180 60 0 45 405 706 0 0 1 2 1 45 00000514 58 1,810 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 47 341 48 0 752 473 63 362 101 3,403 0 410 1,785486404461909170505 7 51 15 445 1,810 5:45 PM 0 9 43 6 7 0 8 57 95 0 446 1,741 5:30 PM 0 4 42 7 0 94 58 53 80 0 8 55 10010168805 12 43 14 484 1,683 5:15 PM 0 8 45 5 7 0 6 55 113 0 435 1,618 5:00 PM 0 7 49 6 0 108 64 54 91 0 7 47 1909654903 10 29 9 376 0 4:45 PM 0 5 44 6 11 0 2 42 89 0 388 0 4:30 PM 0 5 49 4 0 80 46 48 77 0 8 42 9091519010 7 49 6 419 0 4:15 PM 0 7 31 5 4 0 6 48 97 04:00 PM 0 2 38 9 0 91 62 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 01-30-2020 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 1.4%0.99 TOTAL 2.5%0.93 TH RT WB 3.3%0.94 NB 3.1%0.89 Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM HV %:PHF EB 0.0%0.92 0 0 0 0101100 0 1 8 930 10N Linden Ave Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden AveBaden Ave Linden Ave1,810TEV: 0.93PHF:5819634288274031 244 399 674 5930 37921922620619024 180 24 228 324 0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 238 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 000 1 0 0 000 2 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 01000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 4101001 13 00051 0 0 0 1 Peak Hour 0 5Count Total 0 730010000 1 4 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 7 5:30 PM 2101000 1 6 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5:00 PM 0000 4 0 4:45 PM 0 3 0 0 0 4:30 PM 10010004:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:00 PM RT 45 0 Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 5 14 0 1 2 10220000 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 1 4 1 94 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 30 0Count Total 0 0 2 0 0 44 1 4 32020000020000 0 1 0 7 45 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 52 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0070000 0 0 0 11 54 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 17 62 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 5 0 1 1 1050000 0 1 0 14 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 12 0 4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 1 4 0 0 1 0060000 0 0 0 19 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave Baden Ave Linden Ave Linden Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 239 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 16 30 7 7 4 6 9 10 89 2673057120 0 26 Peak Hr 42 0 45 46 133 2 0 0 6 1 10 19 44Count Total 102 0 85 81 268 3 10 0 00011208:45 AM 12 0 11 9 32 0 4 3 2 0 4 2 8:30 AM 14 0 10 8 32 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 8:15 AM 10 0 15 11 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 8:00 AM 9 0 14 16 39 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 5 0 1 12 7:30 AM 16 0 9 7 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 11 0 6 32 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 9 0 6 11 26 0 0 1 8%5%20%HV%-5%-5%- 0 6 7:15 AM 18 0 8 13 39 1 0 0 2 0 2 4 6 West North South 7:00 AM 14 0 12 0 111 199 0 5 0 448294000012 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total -0%-5%14%7%--- Peak Hour All 0 536 0 0 34 218 386 0 7 0 0 21 25 133 00015390 177 1,782 0 HV 0 26 0 16 0 Count Total 0 942 0 537 0 0 0 0 836 327 3,287 0 434 1,77852000106400000633 0 107 39 457 1,782 8:45 AM 0 135 0 62 0 3 25 55 0 1 467 1,716 8:30 AM 0 142 0 85 0 0 0 54 0 2 0 113 490000235 0 110 49 420 1,600 8:15 AM 0 143 0 69 0 4 25 52 0 0 438 1,509 8:00 AM 0 114 0 66 0 0 0 38 0 2 0 118 400000326 0 108 39 391 0 7:45 AM 0 137 0 74 0 8 29 52 0 0 351 0 7:30 AM 0 98 0 57 0 0 0 37 0 1 0 92 450000518 0 82 26 329 0 7:15 AM 0 101 0 52 0 3 27 46 0 17:00 AM 0 72 0 72 0 0 0 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave n/a Airport Blvd Airport Blvd 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 7.3%0.96 TOTAL 7.5%0.95 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB -- NB 14.0%0.88 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 5.1%0.91 Date: 01-30-2020 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 2 00300 712 7N Airport Blvd Baden Ave Airport BlvdAirport BlvdBaden Ave 1,782TEV: 0.95PHF:177448630740519911132275412294 536830 288 0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 240 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 5 0003000Peak Hour 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 0Count Total 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6100102 4 5 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8:30 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7:15 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 133 0 Interval Start Baden Ave n/a Airport Blvd Airport Blvd 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 39 0 0 0 21 25000015 0 42 39 268 0 Peak Hour 0 26 0 16 0 1 8 76 0 0Count Total 0 72 0 30 0 0 0 32 1391100045000000 0 4 4 32 133 8:45 AM 0 8 0 4 0 0 1 9 0 0 36 133 8:30 AM 0 8 0 6 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 7 4000002 0 6 10 39 136 8:15 AM 0 7 0 3 0 0 0 14 0 0 26 129 8:00 AM 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 7000012 0 5 2 32 0 7:45 AM 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 39 0 7:30 AM 0 12 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 7 6000000 0 5 1 32 0 7:15 AM 0 16 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 10 0 4 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave n/a Airport Blvd Airport Blvd 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 241 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 7 8 13 12 13 22 21 15 111 712314524240 0 34 Peak Hr 11 0 11 34 56 0 0 0 2 5 8 37 40Count Total 30 0 36 76 142 1 5 0 20002285:45 PM 2 0 4 8 14 1 1 6 4 0 11 6 5:30 PM 2 0 2 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 0 4 5:15 PM 3 0 3 10 16 0 0 0 1 1 2 6 3 7 0 2 5:00 PM 4 0 2 10 16 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 5 0 4 5 4:30 PM 6 0 7 8 21 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 10 27 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 6 0 5 12 23 0 0 4 5%0%2%HV%-3%-1%- 0 0 4:15 PM 2 0 1 12 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 West North South 4:00 PM 5 0 12 0 313 452 0 4 0 625218000021 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total -0%-2%5%2%--- Peak Hour All 0 296 0 0 39 600 686 0 10 0 0 14 20 56 0001190 383 2,312 0 HV 0 8 0 3 0 Count Total 0 588 0 425 0 0 0 0 1,321 701 4,370 0 565 2,312123020160980000476 0 111 81 533 2,305 5:45 PM 0 56 0 46 0 5 78 126 0 1 610 2,286 5:30 PM 0 80 0 51 0 0 0 107 0 1 0 183 1030000481 0 171 101 604 2,159 5:15 PM 0 76 0 55 0 8 78 96 0 0 558 2,058 5:00 PM 0 84 0 66 0 0 0 70 0 1 0 194 890000667 0 158 71 514 0 4:45 PM 0 80 0 51 0 2 74 72 0 0 483 0 4:30 PM 0 84 0 53 0 0 0 35 0 2 0 193 830000564 0 151 75 503 0 4:15 PM 0 55 0 46 0 5 82 57 0 34:00 PM 0 73 0 57 0 0 0 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave n/a Airport Blvd Airport Blvd 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 3.4%0.88 TOTAL 2.4%0.95 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB -- NB 1.4%0.94 Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM HV %:PHF EB 2.1%0.86 Date: 01-30-2020 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 0 0 13100 2324 24N Airport Blvd Baden Ave Airport BlvdAirport BlvdBaden Ave 2,312TEV: 0.95PHF:3836251,012752445231378686421218 296514 696 0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 242 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 1 5 0001003Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 8 0Count Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5000112 1 5 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 3 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 56 0 Interval Start Baden Ave n/a Airport Blvd Airport Blvd 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 9 0 0 0 14 20000011 0 40 36 142 0 Peak Hour 0 8 0 3 0 1 11 24 0 0Count Total 0 18 0 12 0 0 0 14 56300053000001 0 3 3 10 65 5:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 16 76 5:30 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 7000000 0 3 7 16 75 5:15 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 23 86 5:00 PM 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 8 4000001 0 4 4 21 0 4:45 PM 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 15 0 4:30 PM 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 3000000 0 5 5 27 0 4:15 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 5 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Baden Ave n/a Airport Blvd Airport Blvd 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 243 www.idaxdata.com HV %:PHF EB 2.0%0.87 to 9:00 AM Date: 09-24-2019 SB 4.3%0.89 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM SWB WB 15.7%0.87 NB 8.9%0.95 TOTAL 7.3%0.95 Peak Hour -- Peak Hour: 8:00 AMAirport Blvd7N 2,563TEV: 0.95PHF: Airport Blvd Grand Ave 11 Grand Ave 75762467 4363681022471Airport Blvd0 Grand Ave 477 1,0000 0 82 65 156 17484018500693624090489 187 120 18 84 223 164 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 244 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries 0 0 0 2,172 2,320 2,499 2,554 2,563 0 0 0 0 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Grand Ave Grand Ave Airport Blvd Airport Blvd UT LT THUTLTBLTHRTUTLTTHRT US-101 NB On-ramp 15-min Total Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Southwestbound One HR Hour 17 0 29 18 RT UT HL BL BR HRBRRTUTHLLTTH 35 7:15 AM 0 4 50 31 15 0 0 0 0 0 46641005669121336071858 0 0 493 7:00 AM 0 2 55 52 43 17 0 63 86 19 0 0 07177640000251313331 0 572 7:45 AM 0 3 44 64 22 0 50 103 16 0 0 0 016645200832818224428 641 7:30 AM 0 4 28 0 41 26 14 0 0 0 0 0817301771022317332728 8:15 AM 0 6 49 66 20 0 0 0 0 0 6147900969391835182764 0 0 672 8:00 AM 0 6 41 42 35 53 20 0 84 97 13 0 0 06286898000552516410 0 627 8:45 AM 0 1 39 62 16 0 45 83 21 0 0 0 03058970010733131840113 650 8:30 AM 0 5 26 0 0 0 0 0579400122891813402917 0 2,563 HV 0 0 3 Count Total 0 31 365 396 155 0 306 154 0 0 0 0 0 4,73557401688722130130302965181526 0 409 362 69 0 043610224736808401748265156 188HV%-0%2%2%4%- 10 25 1 0 0 00104313000324336143 -7% Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) 7%1%----10%17%4%--2%18%5%5%23%25%0% Peak Hour All 0 18 164 223 0 0 0 0 Total 7:00 AM 2 19 14 8 0 43 1 0 Total East West North South NortheastTotalEBWBNBSBSWBStartEBWBNBSBSWB 2 1 5 0 28 03420000 0 10 0 7:15 AM 3 12 15 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 7:45 AM 5 15 22 10 0 1 3 0 7 0 57:30 AM 6 12 17 10 0 45 2 1 0 56 5 0 3 0 7 0 14 05220100 0 8 0 3 0 1 0 15 04710200 0 23 0 8:15 AM 2 21 18 6 0 2 0 0 7 0 48:00 AM 1 22 19 14 8:45 AM 3 18 18 9 0 0 1 0 3 0 28:30 AM 4 14 12 7 0 37 2 0 6 0 5 0 13 04830300 0 16 0 0 362 18 1 19 0 12 0 67 0188110710 0 127 0 Peak Hr 10 75 67 36 0 9 4 0 32 1 32Count Total 26 133 135 68 160 79 13 34 13 21 27 16 18 18 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 245 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 174 187 200 192 188 0 0 Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes 0 0 0 13 19 20 16 19 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound Southwestbound One UT LT BL TH RT Interval Start Grand Ave Grand Ave Airport Blvd Airport Blvd US-101 NB On-ramp 15-min Total RollingEastbound BR HR Hour 0 1 1 0 LT TH RT UT HL BLLTTHBRRTUTHLUTLTTHRTHRUT 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 43 1 2 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 02930025021200 34 7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 01020013015003 7:45 AM 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 454004600601210 0 0 52 7:30 AM 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 01019200053160 0 56 8:15 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 11 10 0 0 0 0 031060049111100 47 8:00 AM 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 01330032019002 8:45 AM 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 37200070190037 0 0 48 8:30 AM 0 0 1 1 3 6 0 0 0 002132000101071 Count Total 0 0 9 8 9 0 36 1 0 10 0 362 Peak Hour 0 0 3 4 3 0 32 46 1 0 0 0 0179124002153876512 TH Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Southwestbound One 188 Interval Start Grand Ave Grand Ave Airport Blvd Airport Blvd US-101 NB On-ramp 15-min TotalUTLT 1 0 0 0 0 0431300102543 7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 UT HL BL BR HR HourRTUTHLLTTHRTRTHRUTLTTHBR 0 0 1 BL TH RT UT LT 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 0 2 7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 7 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000003100001 8:00 AM 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3000000000010 0 0 7 7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0020000000000 0 3 8:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0200000000000 3 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000010000000 0 0 0 0 0 62000000000108:45 AM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0070 0 0 32 Peak Hour 0 1 0 10 0 0 1 3 0001000Count Total 0 2 0 15 1 2 0 0 0 19000000502001000000 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 246 www.idaxdata.com HV %:PHF EB 1.0%0.95 to 5:45 PM Date: 09-24-2019 SB 4.6%0.90 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM SWB WB 1.6%0.96 NB 3.2%0.99 TOTAL 2.6%0.96 Peak Hour -- Peak Hour: 4:45 PMAirport Blvd2N 2,976TEV: 0.96PHF: Airport Blvd Grand Ave 0 Grand Ave 7261,06060 4371462562832Airport Blvd9 Grand Ave 1,336 3010 0 208 199 362 56761148100103412951303 348 170 26 77 60 140 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 247 www.idaxdata.com Three-Hour Count Summaries 0 0 0 2,781 2,831 2,900 2,976 2,968 2,853 2,731 2,531 2,312 0 0 0 0 Note: Three-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Grand Ave Grand Ave Airport Blvd Airport Blvd UT LT THUTLTBLTHRTUTLTTHRT US-101 NB On-ramp 15-min Total Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Southwestbound One HR Hour 24 0 148 39 RT UT HL BL BR HRBRRTUTHLLTTH 14 4:15 PM 0 8 29 11 16 0 0 0 0 0 6873000191022449103082375 0 0 675 4:00 PM 0 4 25 21 7 19 0 28 84 20 0 0 01130682800012749541120 0 698 4:45 PM 0 8 27 16 22 0 137 101 17 0 0 0 05246200030154526295115 721 4:30 PM 0 6 21 0 151 55 21 0 0 0 0 06834002091475310131360 5:15 PM 0 6 40 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 7374201301022643680106069 0 0 744 5:00 PM 0 5 35 19 38 15 14 0 21 104 26 0 0 097178260001335153960 0 774 5:45 PM 0 10 26 15 23 0 119 115 30 0 0 0 0656844002414655509715 713 5:30 PM 0 7 20 0 109 41 21 0 0 0 0 08942001911138537901157 6:15 PM 0 10 20 7 22 0 0 0 0 0 62238012497163458037465 0 0 622 6:00 PM 0 6 27 9 27 12 21 0 18 102 25 0 0 018786617010904531720 0 574 6:45 PM 0 6 21 15 18 0 57 98 28 0 0 0 0615616002587393750013 494 6:30 PM 0 4 21 0 0 0 0 0529101810032374401251 0 2,976 HV 0 0 0 Count Total 0 80 336 150 240 0 1,458 543 0 0 0 0 0 8,061346132761,207 2755569755128682800 1 95 412 103 0 04372562831460770567208199362 76 HV%-0%0%0%4%- 5 22 1 0 0 0079700010066003 -3% Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) 5%1%----3%3%5%-0%5%2%0%3%2%0%0% Peak Hour All 0 26 140 60 0 0 0 0 Total 4:00 PM 2 8 10 8 0 28 0 0 Total East West North South NortheastTotalEBWBNBSBSWBStartEBWBNBSBSWB 2 0 1 0 12 02300200 0 12 0 4:15 PM 1 5 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:45 PM 1 12 8 5 0 1 0 0 4 0 64:30 PM 0 3 6 8 0 17 1 2 0 21 0 4 2 0 4 0 9 02601010 0 17 0 5 0 6 0 19 01904100 0 23 0 5:15 PM 1 4 7 7 0 1 0 0 5 0 15:00 PM 0 3 7 11 5:45 PM 1 3 6 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 65:30 PM 1 3 1 5 0 10 0 0 0 20 1 2 3 0 5 0 28 01503000 0 9 0 3 0 4 0 16 02401020 1 11 0 6:15 PM 2 6 6 10 0 0 1 0 4 0 66:00 PM 1 5 7 7 6:45 PM 2 3 6 7 0 2 2 0 5 0 16:30 PM 0 1 4 6 0 11 0 1 2 0 2 0 18 01801100 0 8 0 0 232 2 19 13 0 17 0 60 07609220 1 182 0 Peak Hr 3 22 23 28 0 8 7 0 36 0 45Count Total 12 56 75 89 228 77 15 13 23 13 24 25 15 33 18 20 9 20 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 248 www.idaxdata.com Three-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 94 87 83 76 65 64 69 70 73 0 0 Three-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes 0 0 0 8 13 16 13 14 13 11 15 14 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound Southwestbound One UT LT BL TH RT Interval Start Grand Ave Grand Ave Airport Blvd Airport Blvd US-101 NB On-ramp 15-min Total RollingEastbound BR HR Hour 0 1 0 0 LT TH RT UT HL BLLTTHBRRTUTHLUTLTTHRTHRUT 4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 28 0 0 0 2 7 1 0 0 0 0334000310400 23 4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0410016102002 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 17200170120013 0 0 26 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0013400050430 0 21 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 1 0 0 0 0142002200100 19 5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0210016012004 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10000050100010 0 0 15 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0122100020010 0 20 6:15 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 0322000201200 24 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0030019002003 6:45 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11200240010011 0 0 18 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0022200030000 Count Total 0 2 3 3 4 0 6 0 0 7 0 232 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 72 5 0 0 0 0242624001226282001 TH Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Southwestbound One 76 Interval Start Grand Ave Grand Ave Airport Blvd Airport Blvd US-101 NB On-ramp 15-min TotalUTLT 1 0 0 0 0 0970052206 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 UT HL BL BR HR HourRTUTHLLTTHRTRTHRUTLTTHBR 0 0 0 BL TH RT UT LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 0 2 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0200000000000 4 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0000000200001 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000001000000 0 0 5 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0010000011200 0 5 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0100000112000 1 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0000001000000 6:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3000000000000 0 0 4 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0000000002000 0 3 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0000000001000 5 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0010001100001 0 0 0 0 0 20000000000106:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0070 0 0 36 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 20212500Count Total 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 13110000200000234000 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com 249 Appendix B Level Of Service Calculations 250 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 1: Linden Ave. & North Canal St 01/27/2022 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 108 0 34 0 0 0 16 337 0 0 333 91 Future Volume (veh/h) 108 0 34 0 0 0 16 337 0 0 333 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 117 0 37 0 0 0 17 366 0 0 362 99 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 Cap, veh/h 158 0 50 0 10 0 243 1452 0 0 608 166 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1307 0 413 0 1870 0 57 3458 0 0 1412 386 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 154 0 0 0 0 0 206 177 0 0 0 461 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1720 0 0 0 1870 0 1813 1617 0 0 0 1798 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 Prop In Lane 0.76 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.21 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 207 0 0 0 10 0 999 696 0 0 0 774 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2027 0 0 0 1155 0 2774 2359 0 0 0 2624 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 154 0 383 461 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.5 0.0 3.3 4.2 Approach LOS A A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.7 6.1 11.7 0.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 21.0 26.0 11.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 3.5 5.5 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 0.5 2.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.7 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 251 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 2: Linden Ave. & Railroad Ave 01/27/2022 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 137 7 53 0 4 9 20 411 12 20 394 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 137 7 53 0 4 9 20 411 12 20 394 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 149 8 58 0 4 10 22 447 13 22 428 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 324 21 75 0 89 224 35 738 22 28 537 75 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 959 110 395 0 471 1178 162 3445 105 79 1532 215 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 215 0 0 0 0 14 253 0 229 510 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1464 0 0 0 0 1649 1862 0 1849 1825 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.3 0.0 4.8 10.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.3 0.0 4.8 10.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.69 0.27 0.00 0.71 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 420 0 0 0 0 313 399 0 396 640 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.80 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1043 0 0 0 0 1022 1153 0 1145 1770 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 15.3 0.0 15.1 12.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.0 1.8 3.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 15.9 0.0 15.6 13.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A B B A B B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 215 14 482 510 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.8 14.2 15.8 13.4 Approach LOS B B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.7 11.6 18.5 11.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 26.5 41.5 26.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 7.9 12.8 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.9 0.7 2.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.9 HCM 6th LOS B 252 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 3: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 392 33 199 77 11 7 153 440 35 229 15 Future Volume (vph) 18 392 33 199 77 11 7 153 440 35 229 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2780 1413 1452 1484 2182 1463 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 2780 1413 1452 1465 2182 1400 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 19 422 35 214 83 12 8 165 473 38 246 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 114 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 470 0 214 90 0 0 173 359 0 298 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 9 9 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pm+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.9 16.9 16.9 19.2 36.1 19.2 Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 16.9 16.9 19.2 36.1 19.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.30 0.57 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 745 379 389 446 1371 426 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.15 0.06 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.09 c0.21 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.56 0.23 0.39 0.26 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 20.3 19.9 18.0 17.3 6.8 19.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 4.0 Delay (s) 21.6 21.0 18.1 17.5 6.8 23.4 Level of Service C C B B A C Approach Delay (s) 21.6 20.1 9.7 23.4 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 253 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 536 0 294 0 0 0 123 199 0 5 5 448 Future Volume (vph) 536 0 294 0 0 0 123 199 0 5 5 448 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1342 1221 2740 2825 1497 2825 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1342 1221 2740 2825 1497 2825 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 553 0 303 0 0 0 127 205 0 5 5 462 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 448 309 0 0 0 0 127 205 0 0 10 462 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 2% 15% 2% 2% 2% 15% 15% 2% 15% 2% 15% Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.5 34.5 12.6 56.5 1.4 45.3 Effective Green, g (s) 34.5 34.5 12.6 56.5 1.4 45.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.54 0.01 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 440 401 328 1520 19 1218 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.25 c0.05 0.07 0.01 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.02 0.77 0.39 0.13 0.53 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 35.2 31.7 42.6 12.1 51.5 20.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.21 1.06 Incremental Delay, d2 47.6 7.8 0.3 0.2 9.3 0.7 Delay (s) 82.8 39.5 42.9 12.3 71.3 22.2 Level of Service F D D B E C Approach Delay (s) 62.2 0.0 24.0 34.8 Approach LOS E A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 254 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 5 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 177 Future Volume (vph) 177 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1227 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1227 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 182 RTOR Reduction (vph) 103 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.3 Effective Green, g (s) 45.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 529 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 18.1 Progression Factor 3.55 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 Delay (s) 64.9 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 255 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 5: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.01/27/2022 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 182 223 84 174 147 156 40 349 368 409 362 69 Future Volume (vph) 182 223 84 174 147 156 40 349 368 409 362 69 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3006 2717 1474 1253 1490 2981 1333 1421 2947 1317 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3006 2717 1474 1253 1490 2981 1333 1421 2947 1317 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 192 235 88 183 155 164 42 367 387 431 381 73 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 55 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 497 0 183 155 28 42 367 387 263 549 18 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 67 12 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 11 7 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 16% 16% 16% 9% 9% 9% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8! 7 7 6 6 6 7 8! 2 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.4 17.7 17.7 17.7 20.7 20.7 70.8 26.2 26.2 26.2 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 17.7 17.7 17.7 20.7 20.7 70.8 26.2 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.67 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 698 458 248 211 293 587 898 354 735 328 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.07 c0.11 0.03 c0.12 0.29 0.19 c0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.40 0.62 0.13 0.14 0.63 0.43 0.74 0.75 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 37.1 38.9 40.6 37.1 34.8 38.6 7.9 36.3 36.3 30.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.44 1.31 0.29 0.96 0.96 2.05 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.6 4.8 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.2 12.4 6.4 0.3 Delay (s) 40.3 39.5 45.4 37.4 50.3 51.9 2.5 47.2 41.3 61.7 Level of Service D D D D D D A D D E Approach Delay (s) 40.3 40.6 27.8 44.8 Approach LOS D D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 256 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 1: Linden Ave. & North Canal St 01/27/2022 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 91 0 23 0 0 0 29 431 0 0 297 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 91 0 23 0 0 0 29 431 0 0 297 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 0 25 0 0 0 32 468 0 0 323 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 Cap, veh/h 128 0 32 0 12 0 296 1323 0 0 600 125 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1384 0 349 0 1870 0 103 3379 0 0 1495 310 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 0 0 0 0 0 268 232 0 0 0 390 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1733 0 0 0 1870 0 1779 1617 0 0 0 1805 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Prop In Lane 0.80 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 160 0 0 0 12 0 970 649 0 0 0 725 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2302 0 0 0 1301 0 3072 2659 0 0 0 2968 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 124 0 500 390 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.0 0.0 3.4 3.8 Approach LOS B A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 5.5 10.3 0.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 21.0 26.0 11.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 3.1 4.6 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.4 1.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.4 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 257 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 2: Linden Ave. & Railroad Ave 01/27/2022 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 118 24 26 13 18 48 24 451 19 46 327 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 118 24 26 13 18 48 24 451 19 46 327 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 128 26 28 14 20 52 26 490 21 50 355 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 317 44 39 126 86 168 40 789 35 64 456 105 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1020 270 234 146 520 1019 171 3378 152 185 1313 303 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 182 0 0 86 0 0 282 0 255 487 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1524 0 0 1685 0 0 1862 0 1839 1801 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 5.1 10.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 5.1 10.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.70 0.15 0.16 0.60 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 400 0 0 379 0 0 435 0 430 625 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.59 0.78 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1077 0 0 1139 0 0 1196 0 1181 1812 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 14.1 12.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.8 3.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.4 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 14.5 12.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A B A A B A B B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 182 86 537 487 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.4 15.3 14.7 12.9 Approach LOS B B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.1 10.3 17.8 10.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 26.5 41.5 26.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 6.5 12.0 3.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.6 2.3 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.3 HCM 6th LOS B 258 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 3: Linden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 24 180 24 399 244 0 22 219 379 34 196 58 Future Volume (vph) 24 180 24 399 244 0 22 219 379 34 196 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1830 1770 1863 1854 2787 1801 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1830 1770 1863 1797 2787 1708 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 26 196 26 434 265 0 24 238 412 37 213 63 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 216 0 434 265 0 0 262 262 0 304 0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pm+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 13.0 22.9 22.9 17.1 40.0 17.1 Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 13.0 22.9 22.9 17.1 40.0 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.27 0.63 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 365 377 643 677 487 1924 463 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.12 c0.25 0.14 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.04 c0.18 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.57 0.67 0.39 0.54 0.14 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 22.5 16.9 14.9 19.6 4.6 20.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.3 2.2 0.1 0.6 0.0 2.5 Delay (s) 20.2 23.8 19.1 15.0 20.2 4.6 22.9 Level of Service C C B B C A C Approach Delay (s) 23.4 17.6 10.7 22.9 Approach LOS C B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 259 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 296 0 218 0 0 0 334 452 0 5 4 625 Future Volume (vph) 296 0 218 0 0 0 334 452 0 5 4 625 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1342 1197 2740 2825 1487 2825 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1342 1197 2740 2825 1487 2825 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 305 0 225 0 0 0 344 466 0 5 4 644 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 81 0 0 0 0 344 466 0 0 9 644 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 2% 15% 2% 2% 2% 15% 15% 2% 15% 2% 15% Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.7 26.7 23.1 79.3 1.4 57.6 Effective Green, g (s) 26.7 26.7 23.1 79.3 1.4 57.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.66 0.01 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 298 266 527 1866 17 1356 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.07 c0.13 0.16 0.01 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.92 0.30 0.65 0.25 0.53 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 45.6 38.9 44.7 8.3 59.0 21.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.32 1.47 1.19 0.64 Incremental Delay, d2 31.1 0.2 1.5 0.2 10.2 0.9 Delay (s) 76.7 39.1 60.4 12.3 80.4 14.4 Level of Service E D E B F B Approach Delay (s) 58.6 0.0 32.7 28.0 Approach LOS E A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 260 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 5 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 383 Future Volume (vph) 383 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1224 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1224 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 395 RTOR Reduction (vph) 205 Lane Group Flow (vph) 190 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 57.6 Effective Green, g (s) 57.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 587 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.32 Uniform Delay, d1 19.2 Progression Factor 2.49 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 Delay (s) 49.0 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 261 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 5: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.01/27/2022 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 166 60 77 567 208 561 41 256 429 96 412 103 Future Volume (vph) 166 60 77 567 208 561 41 256 429 96 412 103 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2958 3090 1676 1425 1577 3154 1411 1408 2961 1270 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2958 3090 1676 1425 1577 3154 1411 1408 2961 1270 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 173 62 80 591 217 584 43 267 447 100 429 107 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 32 0 0 0 277 0 0 0 0 0 89 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 284 0 591 217 307 43 267 447 90 439 18 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 60 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8! 7 7 6 6 6 7 8! 2 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.7 45.1 45.1 45.1 20.7 20.7 91.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 Effective Green, g (s) 17.7 45.1 45.1 45.1 20.7 20.7 91.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.17 0.17 0.76 0.17 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 436 1161 629 535 272 544 1075 240 505 216 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.19 0.13 0.03 c0.08 0.32 0.06 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.51 0.34 0.57 0.16 0.49 0.42 0.38 0.87 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 48.2 28.9 26.9 29.8 42.2 44.9 5.0 44.1 48.4 41.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.21 1.25 0.42 1.07 1.07 1.41 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.4 0.3 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 4.2 17.4 0.7 Delay (s) 51.2 29.3 27.2 31.3 51.5 56.6 2.2 51.2 69.2 59.8 Level of Service D C C C D E A D E E Approach Delay (s) 51.2 29.8 24.2 65.1 Approach LOS D C C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 262 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 1: Linden Ave. & North Canal St 02/01/2022 Existing + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 108 2 34 4 2 37 16 340 3 95 335 91 Future Volume (veh/h) 108 2 34 4 2 37 16 340 3 95 335 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 117 2 37 4 2 40 17 370 3 103 364 99 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 162 3 51 6 3 60 31 1040 8 132 487 132 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1296 22 410 139 70 1395 1781 3612 29 1781 1413 384 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 156 0 0 46 0 0 17 182 191 103 0 463 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 0 1604 0 0 1781 1777 1865 1781 0 1798 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.8 2.8 1.9 0.0 7.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.8 2.8 1.9 0.0 7.7 Prop In Lane 0.75 0.24 0.09 0.87 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.21 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 216 0 0 69 0 0 31 511 537 132 0 619 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.36 0.36 0.78 0.00 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1524 0 0 283 0 0 209 836 877 524 0 1163 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.3 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 9.6 9.6 15.5 0.0 9.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 14.1 0.2 0.1 9.7 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 30.7 9.8 9.8 25.2 0.0 10.5 LnGrp LOS B A A C A A C A A C A B Approach Vol, veh/h 156 46 390 566 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.0 20.2 10.7 13.2 Approach LOS B C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.5 13.8 8.3 4.6 15.7 5.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 16.0 30.0 4.0 22.0 6.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 4.8 5.0 2.3 9.7 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.1 0.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 263 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 2: Linden Ave. & Railroad Ave 02/01/2022 Existing + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 137 7 55 0 4 9 22 486 12 20 489 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 137 7 55 0 4 9 22 486 12 20 489 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 149 8 60 0 4 10 24 528 13 22 532 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 367 21 80 0 93 232 128 1614 40 39 694 78 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.02 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 951 109 405 0 471 1178 1781 3544 87 1781 1649 186 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 217 0 0 0 0 14 24 265 276 22 0 592 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1465 0 0 0 0 1650 1781 1777 1854 1781 0 1835 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 3.2 3.2 0.4 0.0 9.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 3.2 3.2 0.4 0.0 9.3 Prop In Lane 0.69 0.28 0.00 0.71 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 468 0 0 0 0 325 128 809 844 39 0 772 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.19 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.00 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1450 0 0 0 0 1441 290 3131 3267 264 0 3233 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 14.7 5.9 5.9 16.3 0.0 8.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 11.8 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.0 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 28.2 0.0 9.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A B B A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 217 14 565 614 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.0 11.0 6.4 9.7 Approach LOS B B A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 18.9 10.1 5.9 17.7 10.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 59.5 29.5 5.5 59.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 5.2 6.7 2.4 11.3 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 0.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.9 HCM 6th LOS A 264 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 3: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 392 33 255 77 11 7 182 486 35 268 15 Future Volume (vph) 18 392 33 255 77 11 7 182 486 35 268 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2780 1413 1452 1484 2180 1465 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 2780 1413 1452 1467 2180 1405 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 19 422 35 274 83 12 8 196 523 38 288 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 104 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 470 0 274 90 0 0 204 419 0 340 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 9 9 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pm+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.1 20.5 20.5 23.0 43.5 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.1 20.5 20.5 23.0 43.5 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.32 0.61 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 702 404 415 471 1431 451 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.19 0.06 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.11 c0.24 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.68 0.22 0.43 0.29 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 22.6 19.4 19.2 6.7 21.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 3.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 6.2 Delay (s) 25.9 26.2 19.5 19.4 6.7 28.0 Level of Service C C B B A C Approach Delay (s) 25.9 24.5 10.3 28.0 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.6 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 265 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 553 0 323 0 0 0 160 199 0 5 5 448 Future Volume (vph) 553 0 323 0 0 0 160 199 0 5 5 448 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1342 1216 2740 2825 1497 2825 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1342 1216 2740 2825 1497 2825 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 570 0 333 0 0 0 165 205 0 5 5 462 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 473 316 0 0 0 0 165 205 0 0 10 462 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 2% 15% 2% 2% 2% 15% 15% 2% 15% 2% 15% Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.4 33.4 15.2 57.6 1.4 43.8 Effective Green, g (s) 33.4 33.4 15.2 57.6 1.4 43.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.14 0.55 0.01 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 426 386 396 1549 19 1178 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.26 c0.06 0.07 0.01 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.11 0.82 0.42 0.13 0.53 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 35.8 33.0 40.9 11.5 51.5 21.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.21 1.05 Incremental Delay, d2 77.0 12.1 0.3 0.2 9.0 0.8 Delay (s) 112.8 45.1 41.1 11.7 71.4 23.2 Level of Service F D D B E C Approach Delay (s) 80.6 0.0 24.8 37.3 Approach LOS F A C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 55.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 266 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 5 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 196 Future Volume (vph) 196 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1227 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1227 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 202 RTOR Reduction (vph) 118 Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.8 Effective Green, g (s) 43.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 511 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 19.2 Progression Factor 3.51 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 Delay (s) 67.8 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 267 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 5: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.01/27/2022 Existing + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 194 227 84 179 152 156 40 362 372 409 378 84 Future Volume (vph) 194 227 84 179 152 156 40 362 372 409 378 84 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3008 2717 1474 1253 1490 2981 1333 1421 2950 1317 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3008 2717 1474 1253 1490 2981 1333 1421 2950 1317 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 204 239 88 188 160 164 42 381 392 431 398 88 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 67 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 513 0 188 160 28 42 381 392 272 557 21 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 67 12 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 11 7 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 16% 16% 16% 9% 9% 9% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8! 7 7 6 6 6 7 8! 2 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.1 17.7 17.7 17.7 20.7 20.7 71.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Effective Green, g (s) 25.1 17.7 17.7 17.7 20.7 20.7 71.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.68 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 719 458 248 211 293 587 907 345 716 319 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.07 c0.11 0.03 c0.13 0.29 c0.19 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.41 0.65 0.13 0.14 0.65 0.43 0.79 0.78 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 36.7 39.0 40.7 37.1 34.8 38.8 7.6 37.2 37.1 30.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.42 0.30 0.96 0.96 1.61 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.6 5.7 0.3 0.1 1.3 0.1 15.7 7.7 0.4 Delay (s) 39.8 39.6 46.4 37.4 52.2 56.4 2.4 51.5 43.5 49.7 Level of Service D D D D D E A D D D Approach Delay (s) 39.8 41.0 30.2 46.5 Approach LOS D D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 268 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 1: Linden Ave. & North Canal St 02/01/2022 Existing + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 91 2 23 4 2 44 29 433 2 66 299 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 91 2 23 4 2 44 29 433 2 66 299 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 2 25 4 2 48 32 471 2 72 325 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 135 3 34 6 3 69 55 1027 4 106 466 96 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1366 28 345 119 59 1426 1781 3629 15 1781 1496 308 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 126 0 0 54 0 0 32 231 242 72 0 392 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1738 0 0 1604 0 0 1781 1777 1867 1781 0 1805 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.4 3.4 1.2 0.0 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.4 3.4 1.2 0.0 6.0 Prop In Lane 0.79 0.20 0.07 0.89 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 171 0 0 78 0 0 55 503 528 106 0 562 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.46 0.46 0.68 0.00 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1608 0 0 307 0 0 227 1077 1132 455 0 1324 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.7 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 15.0 9.3 9.3 14.4 0.0 9.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.2 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 24.2 9.5 9.5 21.9 0.0 10.1 LnGrp LOS B A A B A A C A A C A B Approach Vol, veh/h 126 54 505 464 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.0 18.8 10.4 11.9 Approach LOS B B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.9 12.9 7.1 5.0 13.8 5.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 19.0 29.0 4.0 23.0 6.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 5.4 4.2 2.6 8.0 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.6 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 269 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 2: Linden Ave. & Railroad Ave 02/01/2022 Existing + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 118 24 28 13 18 48 26 539 19 46 393 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 118 24 28 13 18 48 26 539 19 46 393 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 128 26 30 14 20 52 28 586 21 50 427 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 361 46 43 154 89 177 216 1562 56 79 586 112 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1007 264 248 152 512 1016 1781 3498 125 1781 1521 292 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 184 0 0 86 0 0 28 297 310 50 0 509 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1518 0 0 1680 0 0 1781 1777 1846 1781 0 1813 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.7 3.7 0.9 0.0 7.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.7 3.7 0.9 0.0 7.9 Prop In Lane 0.70 0.16 0.16 0.60 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 451 0 0 421 0 0 216 793 824 79 0 698 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.37 0.38 0.63 0.00 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1476 0 0 1570 0 0 406 2997 3114 487 0 3169 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.6 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 12.9 6.1 6.1 15.5 0.0 8.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.0 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.8 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 13.0 6.2 6.2 23.4 0.0 9.2 LnGrp LOS B A A B A A B A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 184 86 635 559 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.8 11.9 6.5 10.5 Approach LOS B B A B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.5 18.2 9.2 7.5 16.2 9.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 55.5 29.5 7.5 57.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 5.7 5.6 2.5 9.9 3.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.7 0.0 2.5 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.1 HCM 6th LOS A 270 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 3: Linden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 24 180 24 439 244 0 22 253 433 34 222 58 Future Volume (vph) 24 180 24 439 244 0 22 253 433 34 222 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1830 1770 1863 1855 2787 1806 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1830 1770 1863 1798 2787 1702 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 26 196 26 477 265 0 24 275 471 37 241 63 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 292 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 216 0 477 265 0 0 299 179 0 332 0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA Over Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 26.1 26.1 19.4 26.1 19.4 Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 13.3 26.1 26.1 19.4 26.1 19.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.38 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 342 353 671 706 506 1057 479 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.12 c0.27 0.14 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 c0.20 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.61 0.71 0.38 0.59 0.17 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 22.7 25.4 18.1 15.5 21.3 14.2 22.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 2.2 3.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 3.5 Delay (s) 22.8 27.6 21.1 15.6 22.5 14.2 25.6 Level of Service C C C B C B C Approach Delay (s) 27.1 19.1 17.4 25.6 Approach LOS C B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.8 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 271 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 316 0 252 0 0 0 360 452 0 5 4 625 Future Volume (vph) 316 0 252 0 0 0 360 452 0 5 4 625 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1342 1196 2740 2825 1487 2825 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1342 1196 2740 2825 1487 2825 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 326 0 260 0 0 0 371 466 0 5 4 644 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 293 93 0 0 0 0 371 466 0 0 9 644 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 2% 15% 2% 2% 2% 15% 15% 2% 15% 2% 15% Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.8 27.8 23.6 78.2 1.4 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.8 27.8 23.6 78.2 1.4 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.65 0.01 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 310 277 538 1840 17 1318 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.08 c0.14 0.16 0.01 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.95 0.34 0.69 0.25 0.53 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 45.4 38.4 44.8 8.7 59.0 22.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.32 1.49 1.24 0.64 Incremental Delay, d2 36.2 0.3 2.0 0.2 9.9 1.0 Delay (s) 81.5 38.7 61.0 13.3 83.2 15.1 Level of Service F D E B F B Approach Delay (s) 60.1 0.0 34.4 31.4 Approach LOS E A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 272 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Existing + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 5 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 397 Future Volume (vph) 397 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1224 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1224 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 409 RTOR Reduction (vph) 218 Lane Group Flow (vph) 191 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 571 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 Progression Factor 2.71 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 Delay (s) 55.9 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 273 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 5: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.01/27/2022 Existing + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 180 65 77 570 212 561 41 271 434 96 423 114 Future Volume (vph) 180 65 77 570 212 561 41 271 434 96 423 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2967 3090 1676 1425 1577 3154 1411 1408 2961 1269 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2967 3090 1676 1425 1577 3154 1411 1408 2961 1269 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 188 68 80 594 221 584 43 282 452 100 441 119 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 0 264 0 0 0 0 0 99 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 308 0 594 221 320 43 282 452 90 451 20 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 60 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8! 7 7 6 6 6 7 8! 2 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 44.3 44.3 44.3 20.7 20.7 92.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 44.3 44.3 44.3 20.7 20.7 92.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.17 0.17 0.77 0.17 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 469 1140 618 526 272 544 1081 234 493 211 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.19 0.13 0.03 c0.09 0.32 0.06 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.52 0.36 0.61 0.16 0.52 0.42 0.38 0.91 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 47.4 29.6 27.5 30.8 42.2 45.1 4.8 44.5 49.2 42.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.22 1.25 0.40 1.07 1.07 1.45 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.4 0.4 2.0 0.2 0.5 0.2 4.5 23.3 0.8 Delay (s) 50.4 30.0 27.9 32.8 51.9 56.8 2.1 52.0 75.7 62.1 Level of Service D C C C D E A D E E Approach Delay (s) 50.4 30.8 24.7 70.0 Approach LOS D C C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 274 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 1: Linden Ave. & North Canal St 01/27/2022 Cumulative AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 122 0 38 0 0 0 18 380 0 0 376 103 Future Volume (veh/h) 122 0 38 0 0 0 18 380 0 0 376 103 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 133 0 41 0 0 0 20 413 0 0 409 112 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 Cap, veh/h 183 0 57 0 10 0 225 1528 0 0 641 175 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 1316 0 406 0 1870 0 57 3451 0 0 1412 387 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 0 0 0 0 0 232 201 0 0 0 521 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1722 0 0 0 1870 0 1806 1617 0 0 0 1798 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 Prop In Lane 0.76 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.21 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240 0 0 0 10 0 1019 734 0 0 0 816 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1839 0 0 0 1046 0 2498 2137 0 0 0 2377 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 174 0 433 521 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.7 0.0 3.4 4.4 Approach LOS A A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.9 6.7 12.9 0.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 21.0 26.0 11.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 3.9 6.4 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.8 0.6 2.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.9 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 275 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 2: Linden Ave. & Railroad Ave 01/27/2022 Cumulative AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 154 8 60 0 5 10 23 463 14 23 444 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 154 8 60 0 5 10 23 463 14 23 444 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 167 9 65 0 5 11 25 503 15 25 483 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 313 20 80 0 106 232 36 756 24 30 576 80 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 965 98 393 0 518 1139 163 3440 108 79 1534 213 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 241 0 0 0 0 16 285 0 258 575 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1456 0 0 0 0 1657 1862 0 1849 1826 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 7.4 0.0 6.6 15.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 7.4 0.0 6.6 15.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.69 0.27 0.00 0.69 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 413 0 0 0 0 338 409 0 406 686 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.70 0.00 0.64 0.84 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 712 0 0 0 0 680 942 0 936 1621 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 18.8 0.0 18.5 14.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 2.7 5.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 19.6 0.0 19.1 16.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A A A B B A B B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 241 16 543 575 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.3 16.8 19.4 16.0 Approach LOS C B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 14.2 23.2 14.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 21.5 46.5 21.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 10.3 17.0 2.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.7 2.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.1 HCM 6th LOS B 276 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 3: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 21 466 39 237 92 13 8 182 523 42 272 18 Future Volume (vph) 21 466 39 237 92 13 8 182 523 42 272 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2779 1413 1453 1484 2182 1413 1468 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.52 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2779 1413 1453 1464 2182 777 1468 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 23 501 42 255 99 14 9 196 562 45 292 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 98 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 560 0 255 108 0 0 205 464 45 309 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 9 9 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pm+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.6 19.6 19.6 20.4 40.0 20.4 20.4 Effective Green, g (s) 20.6 19.6 19.6 20.4 40.0 20.4 20.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.57 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 810 392 403 423 1344 224 424 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.18 0.07 0.10 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.12 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.65 0.27 0.48 0.35 0.20 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 22.2 22.5 19.9 20.8 8.2 18.9 22.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 2.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 5.2 Delay (s) 24.2 25.4 20.0 21.1 8.3 19.1 27.8 Level of Service C C C C A B C Approach Delay (s) 24.2 23.8 11.7 26.7 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.6 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 277 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 638 1 350 14 4 17 146 237 4 5 11 533 Future Volume (vph) 638 1 350 14 4 17 146 237 4 5 11 533 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1342 1222 1535 2740 2824 1535 2825 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.66 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1342 1222 1028 2740 2824 1535 2825 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 658 1 361 15 4 18 151 244 4 5 12 549 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 86 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 533 401 0 0 20 0 151 247 0 0 17 549 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 2% 15% 2% 2% 2% 15% 15% 2% 15% 2% 15% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.0 40.0 7.2 11.4 52.7 3.2 44.5 Effective Green, g (s) 40.0 40.0 7.2 11.4 52.7 3.2 44.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.03 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 447 407 61 260 1240 40 1047 v/s Ratio Prot c0.40 0.33 c0.06 0.09 0.01 c0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 v/c Ratio 1.19 0.99 0.33 0.58 0.20 0.42 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 40.0 39.7 54.1 52.0 20.7 57.5 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.30 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 106.8 40.3 1.2 2.1 0.3 2.6 1.9 Delay (s) 146.8 80.0 55.2 63.2 27.3 60.1 31.4 Level of Service F E E E C E C Approach Delay (s) 114.9 55.2 40.9 30.6 Approach LOS F E D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 71.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 278 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 5 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 211 Future Volume (vph) 211 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1224 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1224 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 218 RTOR Reduction (vph) 137 Lane Group Flow (vph) 81 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.5 Effective Green, g (s) 44.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 453 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 25.4 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 Delay (s) 26.3 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 279 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 5: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 325 398 150 310 262 278 71 623 657 730 646 123 Future Volume (vph) 325 398 150 310 262 278 71 623 657 730 646 123 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3007 2717 1474 1253 1490 2981 1333 1421 2947 1317 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3007 2717 1474 1253 1490 2981 1333 1421 2947 1317 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 342 419 158 326 276 293 75 656 692 768 680 129 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 0 259 0 0 0 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 902 0 326 276 34 75 656 692 468 980 39 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 67 12 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 11 7 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 16% 16% 16% 9% 9% 9% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8! 7 7 6 6 6 7 8! 2 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.1 12.0 12.0 12.0 14.0 14.0 69.1 27.0 27.0 27.0 Effective Green, g (s) 35.1 12.0 12.0 12.0 14.0 14.0 69.1 27.0 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.66 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1013 313 169 144 200 400 884 368 764 341 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.12 c0.19 0.05 c0.22 0.52 0.33 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.89 1.04 1.63 0.23 0.38 1.64 0.78 1.27 1.28 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 32.7 46.0 46.0 41.9 41.1 45.0 12.2 38.5 38.5 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.9 62.1 310.1 0.8 0.9 299.1 4.4 142.0 137.1 0.1 Delay (s) 42.6 108.1 356.2 42.7 41.9 344.2 16.7 180.5 175.7 29.5 Level of Service D F F D D F B F F C Approach Delay (s) 42.6 163.2 169.0 165.2 Approach LOS D F F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 142.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 104.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.0% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 280 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 1: Linden Ave. & North Canal St 01/27/2022 Cumulative PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 103 0 26 0 0 0 33 489 0 0 337 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 103 0 26 0 0 0 33 489 0 0 337 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 112 0 28 0 0 0 36 532 0 0 366 76 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 Cap, veh/h 149 0 37 0 11 0 277 1399 0 0 635 132 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1387 0 347 0 1870 0 98 3378 0 0 1495 310 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 140 0 0 0 0 0 303 265 0 0 0 442 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1733 0 0 0 1870 0 1774 1617 0 0 0 1805 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Prop In Lane 0.80 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 186 0 0 0 11 0 989 687 0 0 0 767 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2129 0 0 0 1203 0 2826 2459 0 0 0 2745 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 140 0 568 442 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.7 0.0 3.5 4.0 Approach LOS A A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 5.8 11.3 0.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 21.0 26.0 11.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 3.3 5.2 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 0.4 1.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.4 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 281 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 2: Linden Ave. & Railroad Ave 01/27/2022 Cumulative PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 134 27 29 15 20 54 27 512 22 52 371 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 134 27 29 15 20 54 27 512 22 52 371 85 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 146 29 32 16 22 59 29 557 24 57 403 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 304 45 41 109 91 181 41 818 37 69 490 112 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.37 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1031 256 235 144 520 1030 168 3380 153 186 1316 300 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 207 0 0 97 0 0 321 0 289 552 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1523 0 0 1694 0 0 1862 0 1839 1802 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 7.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 7.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.71 0.15 0.16 0.61 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 390 0 0 381 0 0 451 0 445 671 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.65 0.82 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 749 0 0 785 0 0 950 0 938 1712 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.4 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 17.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.7 5.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.8 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 17.6 15.2 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A B A A B A B B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 207 97 610 552 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.8 18.2 17.9 15.2 Approach LOS B B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.6 12.3 22.1 12.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.5 21.5 47.5 21.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.9 8.3 15.9 4.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 0.6 2.8 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.2 HCM 6th LOS B 282 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 3: Linden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 28 211 28 468 286 36 26 257 445 40 230 68 Future Volume (vph) 28 211 28 468 286 36 26 257 445 40 230 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1830 1770 1832 1854 2787 1770 1799 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.33 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1830 1770 1832 1663 2787 622 1799 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 229 30 509 311 39 28 279 484 43 250 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 168 0 12 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 254 0 509 346 0 0 307 316 43 312 0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pm+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 28.2 28.2 19.0 47.2 19.0 19.0 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 15.0 28.2 28.2 19.0 47.2 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.39 0.39 0.26 0.65 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 380 691 715 437 1957 163 473 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.14 c0.29 0.19 0.06 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.05 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.67 0.74 0.48 0.70 0.16 0.26 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 23.0 26.3 18.8 16.5 24.0 4.8 21.1 23.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 3.4 3.5 0.2 4.2 0.0 0.3 2.7 Delay (s) 23.1 29.8 22.4 16.7 28.2 4.9 21.4 26.4 Level of Service C C C B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 29.1 20.1 13.9 25.8 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.2 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 283 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 347 4 256 10 3 13 392 530 17 5 27 733 Future Volume (vph) 347 4 256 10 3 13 392 530 17 5 27 733 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1342 1201 1533 2740 2822 1563 2825 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.73 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1342 1201 1148 2740 2822 1563 2825 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 358 4 264 11 3 14 404 546 18 5 29 756 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 182 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 322 122 0 0 14 0 404 563 0 0 34 756 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 2% 15% 2% 2% 2% 15% 15% 2% 15% 2% 15% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.0 32.0 4.5 16.6 71.7 5.2 60.3 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 32.0 4.5 16.6 71.7 5.2 60.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.13 0.55 0.04 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 330 295 39 349 1556 62 1310 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.10 c0.15 0.20 0.02 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.01 v/c Ratio 0.98 0.41 0.37 1.16 0.36 0.55 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 48.6 41.1 61.4 56.7 16.3 61.2 25.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 42.5 0.3 2.2 98.3 0.7 5.2 1.9 Delay (s) 91.1 41.5 63.5 155.0 17.0 66.5 27.4 Level of Service F D E F B E C Approach Delay (s) 67.0 63.5 74.6 27.4 Approach LOS E E E C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 52.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 284 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 5 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 449 Future Volume (vph) 449 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1222 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1222 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 463 RTOR Reduction (vph) 248 Lane Group Flow (vph) 215 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 60.3 Effective Green, g (s) 60.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 566 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 22.7 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 Delay (s) 24.6 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 285 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 5: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 289 105 134 989 363 978 71 446 748 167 718 180 Future Volume (vph) 289 105 134 989 363 978 71 446 748 167 718 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2957 3090 1676 1425 1577 3154 1411 1408 2961 1271 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2957 3090 1676 1425 1577 3154 1411 1408 2961 1271 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 301 109 140 1030 378 1019 74 465 779 174 748 188 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 0 392 0 0 0 0 0 146 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 521 0 1030 378 627 74 465 779 157 765 42 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 60 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8! 7 7 6 6 6 7 8! 2 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.1 30.9 30.9 30.9 13.0 13.0 85.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Effective Green, g (s) 33.1 30.9 30.9 30.9 13.0 13.0 85.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.71 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 815 795 431 366 170 341 999 316 666 285 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 0.33 0.23 0.05 c0.15 c0.55 0.11 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.44 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.64 1.30 0.88 1.71 0.44 1.36 0.78 0.50 1.15 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 38.2 44.6 42.7 44.6 50.1 53.5 11.4 40.6 46.5 37.3 Progression Factor 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.44 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 142.3 17.8 332.3 1.3 181.5 3.8 5.4 83.4 1.1 Delay (s) 39.0 186.8 60.6 376.8 51.4 235.0 15.2 47.5 131.6 54.8 Level of Service D F E F D F B D F D Approach Delay (s) 39.0 246.9 94.8 106.7 Approach LOS D F F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 159.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 119.4% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 286 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 1: Linden Ave. & North Canal St 02/01/2022 Cumulative + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 122 2 38 2 2 37 18 383 3 47 378 103 Future Volume (veh/h) 122 2 38 2 2 37 18 383 3 47 378 103 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 133 2 41 2 2 40 20 416 3 51 411 112 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 182 3 56 3 3 61 36 1260 9 78 526 143 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1307 20 403 73 73 1451 1781 3616 26 1781 1413 385 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 176 0 0 44 0 0 20 204 215 51 0 523 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1729 0 0 1596 0 0 1781 1777 1865 1781 0 1798 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.2 3.2 1.1 0.0 9.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.2 3.2 1.1 0.0 9.7 Prop In Lane 0.76 0.23 0.05 0.91 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.21 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240 0 0 67 0 0 36 619 650 78 0 669 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.65 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 968 0 0 468 0 0 190 1232 1294 190 0 1247 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.5 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 18.2 9.0 9.0 17.6 0.0 10.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.1 0.1 8.8 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.1 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0 31.2 9.1 9.1 26.4 0.0 11.2 LnGrp LOS B A A C A A C A A C A B Approach Vol, veh/h 176 44 439 574 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.1 21.7 10.1 12.5 Approach LOS B C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 17.1 9.2 4.8 18.0 5.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 26.0 21.0 4.0 26.0 11.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 5.2 5.7 2.4 11.7 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.6 0.5 0.0 2.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 287 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 2: Linden Ave. & Railroad Ave 02/01/2022 Cumulative + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 154 8 62 0 5 10 25 538 14 23 539 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 154 8 62 0 5 10 25 538 14 23 539 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 167 9 67 0 5 11 27 585 15 25 586 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 349 24 87 0 111 244 171 1759 45 43 720 82 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 948 113 404 0 518 1140 1781 3539 91 1781 1646 188 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 243 0 0 0 0 16 27 293 307 25 0 653 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1465 0 0 0 0 1658 1781 1777 1853 1781 0 1835 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 4.1 4.1 0.6 0.0 12.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 4.1 4.1 0.6 0.0 12.9 Prop In Lane 0.69 0.28 0.00 0.69 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 460 0 0 0 0 355 171 883 921 43 0 802 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.33 0.33 0.58 0.00 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1212 0 0 0 0 1216 236 2500 2607 214 0 2581 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 17.2 6.3 6.3 20.1 0.0 10.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 11.8 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.1 1.2 0.4 0.0 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 17.4 6.4 6.4 31.9 0.0 11.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A B B A A C A B Approach Vol, veh/h 243 16 627 678 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.7 13.0 6.9 11.8 Approach LOS B B A B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.0 24.2 12.4 7.5 21.7 12.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 58.5 30.5 5.5 58.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 6.1 8.5 2.6 14.9 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.4 HCM 6th LOS B 288 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 3: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 21 466 39 293 92 13 8 211 569 42 311 18 Future Volume (vph) 21 466 39 293 92 13 8 211 569 42 311 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2779 1413 1452 1484 2180 1413 1470 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.48 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2779 1413 1452 1466 2180 710 1470 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 23 501 42 315 99 14 9 227 612 45 334 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 70 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 560 0 315 108 0 0 236 542 45 351 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 9 9 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pm+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.4 23.4 23.4 24.0 47.4 24.0 24.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.4 23.4 23.4 24.0 47.4 24.0 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 754 419 431 446 1408 216 447 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.22 0.07 0.11 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.13 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.75 0.25 0.53 0.38 0.21 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 26.2 25.1 21.0 22.7 8.1 20.3 25.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 6.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 8.1 Delay (s) 29.7 31.7 21.2 23.2 8.2 20.5 33.2 Level of Service C C C C A C C Approach Delay (s) 29.7 28.9 12.4 31.7 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.8 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 289 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 655 1 379 14 4 17 183 237 4 5 11 533 Future Volume (vph) 655 1 379 14 4 17 183 237 4 5 11 533 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1342 1217 1535 2740 2824 1535 2825 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.65 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1342 1217 1015 2740 2824 1535 2825 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 675 1 391 15 4 18 189 244 4 5 12 549 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 101 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 560 406 0 0 20 0 189 247 0 0 17 549 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 2% 15% 2% 2% 2% 15% 15% 2% 15% 2% 15% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.0 40.0 7.2 11.4 52.7 3.2 44.5 Effective Green, g (s) 40.0 40.0 7.2 11.4 52.7 3.2 44.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.03 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 447 405 60 260 1240 40 1047 v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 0.33 c0.07 0.09 0.01 c0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 v/c Ratio 1.25 1.00 0.33 0.73 0.20 0.42 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 40.0 40.0 54.1 52.8 20.7 57.5 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.16 1.28 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 131.1 45.1 1.2 8.1 0.4 2.6 1.9 Delay (s) 171.1 85.1 55.3 69.5 26.8 60.1 31.4 Level of Service F F E E C E C Approach Delay (s) 130.2 55.3 45.3 30.6 Approach LOS F E D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 79.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 290 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 5 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 230 Future Volume (vph) 230 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1224 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1224 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 237 RTOR Reduction (vph) 149 Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.5 Effective Green, g (s) 44.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 453 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 25.6 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 Delay (s) 26.5 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 291 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 5: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative + Project AM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 337 402 150 315 267 278 71 636 661 730 662 138 Future Volume (vph) 337 402 150 315 267 278 71 636 661 730 662 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3008 2717 1474 1253 1490 2981 1333 1421 2949 1317 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3008 2717 1474 1253 1490 2981 1333 1421 2949 1317 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 355 423 158 332 281 293 75 669 696 768 697 145 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 0 259 0 0 0 0 0 101 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 919 0 332 281 34 75 669 696 476 989 44 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 67 12 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 11 7 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 16% 16% 16% 9% 9% 9% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8! 7 7 6 6 6 7 8! 2 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.3 12.0 12.0 12.0 14.0 14.0 69.3 27.0 27.0 27.0 Effective Green, g (s) 35.3 12.0 12.0 12.0 14.0 14.0 69.3 27.0 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.66 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1018 312 169 144 200 400 885 367 763 340 v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 0.12 c0.19 0.05 c0.22 0.52 0.33 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.90 1.06 1.66 0.23 0.38 1.67 0.79 1.30 1.30 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 32.9 46.1 46.1 42.0 41.2 45.1 12.3 38.6 38.6 29.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 68.9 322.9 0.8 0.9 313.4 4.5 152.4 142.9 0.1 Delay (s) 43.9 115.1 369.1 42.8 42.0 358.6 16.8 191.1 181.6 29.7 Level of Service D F F D D F B F F C Approach Delay (s) 43.9 170.5 176.9 170.7 Approach LOS D F F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 148.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 104.3 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 292 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 1: Linden Ave. & North Canal St 02/01/2022 Cumulative + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 103 2 26 3 2 44 33 491 2 33 339 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 103 2 26 3 2 44 33 491 2 33 339 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 112 2 28 3 2 48 36 534 2 36 368 76 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 152 3 38 4 3 69 60 1220 5 60 503 104 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.03 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1371 24 343 91 60 1450 1781 3631 14 1781 1496 309 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 142 0 0 53 0 0 36 261 275 36 0 444 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1738 0 0 1601 0 0 1781 1777 1868 1781 0 1805 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.9 3.9 0.7 0.0 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.9 3.9 0.7 0.0 7.4 Prop In Lane 0.79 0.20 0.06 0.91 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 193 0 0 76 0 0 60 597 628 60 0 606 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.44 0.44 0.60 0.00 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1076 0 0 519 0 0 210 1361 1431 210 0 1382 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.6 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 16.2 8.8 8.8 16.2 0.0 9.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.2 0.2 9.0 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.0 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.7 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.0 25.2 9.0 9.0 25.2 0.0 10.6 LnGrp LOS B A A C A A C A A C A B Approach Vol, veh/h 142 53 572 480 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.7 20.1 10.0 11.7 Approach LOS B C A B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.2 15.4 7.8 5.2 15.4 5.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 26.0 21.0 4.0 26.0 11.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 5.9 4.7 2.7 9.4 3.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 293 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7 South Linden Ave 2: Linden Ave. & Railroad Ave 02/01/2022 Cumulative + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 134 27 31 15 20 54 29 600 22 52 437 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 134 27 31 15 20 54 29 600 22 52 437 85 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 146 29 34 16 22 59 32 652 24 57 475 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 361 52 47 144 99 197 197 1591 59 86 618 120 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.46 0.46 0.05 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 996 270 246 145 512 1021 1781 3494 129 1781 1519 294 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 209 0 0 97 0 0 32 331 345 57 0 567 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1512 0 0 1678 0 0 1781 1777 1846 1781 0 1813 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.5 4.5 1.1 0.0 9.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.5 4.5 1.1 0.0 9.8 Prop In Lane 0.70 0.16 0.16 0.61 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 460 0 0 439 0 0 197 809 840 86 0 738 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.41 0.41 0.66 0.00 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1377 0 0 1471 0 0 271 2578 2677 541 0 2931 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.5 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 14.6 6.6 6.6 16.9 0.0 9.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 8.5 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.0 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.7 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 14.7 6.7 6.7 25.4 0.0 9.9 LnGrp LOS B A A B A A B A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 209 97 708 624 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.7 12.6 7.1 11.3 Approach LOS B B A B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 20.0 10.5 7.5 18.2 10.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 52.5 30.5 5.5 58.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 6.5 6.5 2.6 11.8 3.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.9 0.8 0.0 2.9 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.9 HCM 6th LOS A 294 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 3: Linden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 28 211 28 508 286 36 26 291 499 40 256 68 Future Volume (vph) 28 211 28 508 286 36 26 291 499 40 256 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1830 1770 1832 1855 2787 1770 1804 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.34 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1830 1770 1832 1781 2787 635 1804 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 229 30 552 311 39 28 316 542 43 278 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 150 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 254 0 552 346 0 0 344 392 43 343 0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pm+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.2 16.2 31.6 31.6 27.7 59.3 27.7 27.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.2 16.2 31.6 31.6 27.7 59.3 27.7 27.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.37 0.37 0.32 0.69 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 335 346 654 677 577 2047 205 584 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.14 c0.31 0.19 0.07 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.07 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.73 0.84 0.51 0.60 0.19 0.21 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 28.6 32.6 24.7 20.9 24.2 4.6 21.0 24.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 6.8 9.4 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.2 1.0 Delay (s) 28.6 39.4 34.0 21.2 25.3 4.6 21.1 25.1 Level of Service C D C C C A C C Approach Delay (s) 38.3 29.1 12.7 24.7 Approach LOS D C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.5 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 295 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 367 4 290 10 3 13 418 530 17 5 27 733 Future Volume (vph) 367 4 290 10 3 13 418 530 17 5 27 733 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1342 1200 1533 2740 2822 1563 2825 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.74 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1342 1200 1151 2740 2822 1563 2825 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 378 4 299 11 3 14 431 546 18 5 29 756 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 198 0 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 340 143 0 0 15 0 431 563 0 0 34 756 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 2% 15% 2% 2% 2% 15% 15% 2% 15% 2% 15% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.0 32.0 7.2 16.6 68.5 5.4 57.3 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 32.0 7.2 16.6 68.5 5.4 57.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.13 0.53 0.04 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 330 295 63 349 1486 64 1245 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.12 c0.16 0.20 0.02 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.01 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.49 0.23 1.23 0.38 0.53 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 49.0 42.0 58.8 56.7 18.2 61.1 27.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 57.6 0.5 0.7 128.1 0.7 4.2 2.2 Delay (s) 106.6 42.4 59.5 184.8 18.9 65.2 30.0 Level of Service F D E F B E C Approach Delay (s) 74.4 59.5 90.8 29.7 Approach LOS E E F C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 296 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 4: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 5 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 463 Future Volume (vph) 463 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1222 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1222 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 477 RTOR Reduction (vph) 267 Lane Group Flow (vph) 210 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 57.3 Effective Green, g (s) 57.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 538 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 24.6 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 Delay (s) 26.7 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 297 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 South Linden Ave 5: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.01/27/2022 Cumulative + Project PM Synchro 10 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 303 110 134 992 367 978 71 461 753 167 729 191 Future Volume (vph) 303 110 134 992 367 978 71 461 753 167 729 191 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2964 3090 1676 1425 1577 3154 1411 1408 2961 1273 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2964 3090 1676 1425 1577 3154 1411 1408 2961 1273 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 316 115 140 1033 382 1019 74 480 784 174 759 199 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 27 0 0 0 395 0 0 0 0 0 153 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 544 0 1033 382 624 74 480 784 157 776 46 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 60 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8! 7 7 6 6 6 7 8! 2 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.1 28.1 28.1 28.1 13.0 13.0 82.2 27.1 27.1 27.1 Effective Green, g (s) 33.1 28.1 28.1 28.1 13.0 13.0 82.2 27.1 27.1 27.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.70 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 836 740 401 341 174 349 988 325 684 294 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 0.33 0.23 0.05 c0.15 c0.56 0.11 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.44 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.65 1.40 0.95 1.83 0.43 1.38 0.79 0.48 1.13 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 37.0 44.6 43.9 44.6 48.7 52.1 11.8 39.0 45.1 36.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 186.4 32.7 385.2 1.2 186.1 4.3 0.4 77.8 0.1 Delay (s) 38.7 231.0 76.7 429.8 49.9 238.2 16.1 39.5 122.9 36.1 Level of Service D F E F D F B D F D Approach Delay (s) 38.7 290.0 97.7 96.1 Approach LOS D F F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 176.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 117.3 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 120.0% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 298 Appendix C Conceptual Signal Modification Plans 299 S LINDEN AVEN CANAL STSOUTH SITE DRIVEWAY PROPOSED PHASE DIAGRAMC I T Y O F SOUTH SAN FRANCISCODRA:ING NOSHEETO)R E 9 I S I O N S NODATE%<D E S & R I P T I O NAPPRDATES&A/E&ONTRA&T NODESIGNEDDRA:NDATE&HE&.EDAPPRO9EDENGINEERDATEPREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOHH[DJRQTUDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RQVXOWDQWV IQF5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 175Pleasanton, California 94588Ph: (925) 225-1439&ON&EPT8A/ TRA))I& SIGNA/ MODI)I&ATIONAT1SO8TH /INDEN A9EN8E NORTH &ANA/ STREETEX-12&ON&EPTP/ANNOT )OR &ONSTR8&TIONEXISTING PHASE DIAGRAM300 S LINDEN AVENORTH SITE DRIVEWAY RAILROAD AVE C I T Y O F SOUTH SAN FRANCISCODRAWING NO.SHEETOFR E V I S I O N S NO.DATEBYD E S C R I P T I O NAPPR.DATESCALECONTRACT NO.DESIGNEDDRAWNDATECHECKEDAPPROVEDENGINEERDATEPREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOHexagonTransportationConsultants, Inc.5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 175Pleasanton, California 94588Ph: (925) 225-1439CONCEPTUAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONATSOUTH LINDEN AVENUE & RAILROAD AVENUEE;CONCEPTPLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPROPOSED PHASE DIAGRAME;ISTING PHASE DIAGRAM301 Appendix D Parking Stackers Spec Sheets 302 D2 1 DE-61data sheet Digital Parking System on two levels with a Semi-Automatic Control DE-61 is our independent parking-system without a pit. Our semi-automatic system offers a high standard of comfort from the ahead of time control panel, through the easy access to the parking space. EASY TO PLAN with space saving construction. EASY TO INSTALL with minimized parts construction. EASY TO USE due to barrier free construction. THE NEW EASE OF PARKING 303 >>1 3 2 4 5 1 2 4 3 5 1 2 4 3 5 sliding lifting 2 Parking System System System System System System System System System width A width D width D width D width D width D width D width D width D width D 2 seg. 3 seg. 4 seg. 5 seg. 6 seg. 7 seg. 8 seg. 9 seg. 10 seg. 3 cars 5 cars 7 cars 9 cars 11 cars 13 cars 15 cars 17 cars 19 cars 230 520 770 1020 1270 1520 1770 2020 2270 2520 240 540 800 1060 1320 1580 1840 2100 2360 2620 250 560 830 1100 1370 1640 1910 2180 2450 2720 260 580 860 1140 1420 1700 1980 2260 2540 2820 270 600 890 1180 1470 1760 2050 2340 2630 2920 2. WIDTH OF PARKING SPACE / SYSTEM (IN CM) A = parking width B = segment width C = additional Space D = system width 1* 1* Tolerance of dimensions on the construction site = 0 to + 3 cm Parking Segment Additional width width space A B C 230 250 10 240 260 10 250 270 10 260 280 10 270 290 10 DE-61 data sheet © DE-PARK GmbH | Subject to dimensional and design changes without notice | DE-61_V02_2019_01_11 1. THE FUNCTIONALITY OF DE-PARK DIGITAL Our Digital Series have a combination of lifting and sliding platforms. There is one sliding platform less than lifting platforms per system. A system with up to 10 segments and 19 parking spaces is possible. You can choose your parking space with one touch at the control panel. The example shows 3 grids with 5 parking places: 1 empty space is needed for the movement. A) To get your parking space № 1 to the ground floor parking space № 5 lifts to the top position ... B) A horizontal movement to the right by the sliding places № 2 and № 4 is followed ... C) After the platforms reach their defined positions your lifting platform № 1 is lowered to the entrance level. DC A A A B B B C 304 3 DE-61 data sheet © DE-PARK GmbH | Subject to dimensional and design changes without notice | DE-61_V02_2019_01_11 3. PILLARS IN FRONT OF THE PARKING AREA outer inner A seg, seg. 230 250 230 240 260 240 250 270 250 260 280 260 270 290 270 min.20 outer inner inner inner A seg. seg. seg. seg. 230 500 480 240 520 500 250 540 520 260 560 540 270 580 560 min.20 outer inner inner inner inner inner A seg. seg. seg. seg. seg. seg. 230 750 730 240 780 760 250 810 790 260 840 820 270 870 840 min.20 4. DIMENSIONS (IN CM) H = clear height C1/C2 = vehicle height bottom / top 2* H C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 330 150 150 – – 340 160 150 – – 350 170 150 or 160 160 – 360 180 150 or 170 160 – 370 190 150 or 180 160 or 170 17o 380 200 150 or 190 160 or 180 170 2* The vehicle height with roof rails, antenna and other height increases must not exceed the listed max. vehicle heights. 5. TECHNICAL DATA Height In areas with higher ceilings, taller vehicles can be parked on the top platform accordingly. System length For a 500 cm car length a 545 cm system length is necessary. A system length of 560 cm is re- commended. This enables larger safety distances, if newer, longer vehicles are purchased. Dimensions • All dimensions are minimum finished dimensions in cm. • Allow for tolerances to VOB Part C (DIN 18330, 18331) and additionally DIN 18202 (+ 30 mm / 0 mm). • In case of partition walls 15x15 cm opening for hydraulik pipes are necessary in the walls. Do not close the opening after the installation. Maximum vehicle weight • 2000kg / 500kg wheel load • 2600kg / 650kg wheel load 40 170 50 150+x 22 3890 500 60 27,5 50 120 max.29014 H C2 C1 system lenght max. vehicle lenght 305 F1F3F3 F2 F2 F2F2F2F2F2 F1 F1 F1 F1F1F1 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3F3 F3 F3 F3 F3F3F3 The force F2 can also be absorbed via the ceiling (ceiling fixation available upon request). 4 DE-61 data sheet © DE-PARK GmbH | Subject to dimensional and design changes without notice | DE-61_V02_2019_01_11 6. ACCESS CONDITIONS With our innovative design the access to the parking place is very easy. Our flat profile over the complete platform provides higher comfort and driving safety. The light rise of the entrance to the parking place and the reduced side beam of the lifting platform allow an easy maneuvering and reduce the risk of wheel collision. Maximum slope / rise • Max. 3% slope 3* • Max. 10% rise 3* Drainage • 1-2 % slope on the pit floor 3* In case of higher values, safe access of the vehicle cannot be guaranteed by DE-PARK. 7. ANCHORING • Systems are anchored into the floor and rear wall. The hole depth is approximately 13 cm. • The quality of the concrete in the structure (for the parking system) must be at least C20/25. • The precise position of the load application points depends on the selected system. For precise values, please contact DE-PARK. 8. FORCES TO THE STRUCTURE 2000 kg 2600 kg F1 20 kN 25 kN F2 20 kN 25 kN F3 8 kN 10 kN max. 3% slope max. 10% rise 1-2% slope 2 -3 m from the rear wall 306 16 or 22 cm 6* H 4*HG 5* 40 5 9. TYPE OF CONTROL Interactive control unit: Our system DE-61 is controlled digitally. With one touch you can choose your parking place by using this control unit. You can view the progress of the provision on the screen. If the optional gate is not chosen, then the system works with a dead man‘s control. 10. ELECTRICAL ELEMENTS Connected load of unit: 3 kW / 400 V / 50 Hz • The control cabinet must be placed outside the moving range of the system. We recommend positioning the cabinet near the system for a better overview of the system. The space in front of the cabinet must be minimum 1,00 m for opening the door and the operator. Services provided in the system: • Operator terminal including operator presence control with raising and lowering. • Emergency stop placed outside of the system’s range of movement. 11. GATES (OPTIONAL) With our new innovative gates, we provide up to 50 cm wider entrance space than the requested parking space. DE-61 data sheet © DE-PARK GmbH | Subject to dimensional and design changes without notice | DE-61_V02_2019_01_11 H 4* = Clear height: 225 cm HG 5* = Entrance height: 200 cm 4* Other dimensions are available on request5* Car height = HG - 5 cm tolerance6* 16 cm – if gates are for 2 segments / 22 cm – if gates are for 3 segments To be provided from customer: Item Description 1 Electric meter 2 Fuse or automatic circuit breaker according to DIN VDE 0100 part 430, max. 16 A 3 According to local power supply regulations 3 PH + N + PE 4 Main switch lockable 5 Connection for the protective potential equalization DIN 60204 6 Protective bonding all 10m Operation of the gate: Option A – manually operated. Option B – electrical drive per touch screen at the control unit. Additional operation with a remote control is optional. 307 6 12. SYSTEM-RELATED REQUIREMENTS Maintenance, cleaning & prevention • The systems must be serviced and cleaned regularly. This applies more so if the systems and the platforms are exposed to aggressive substances such as salt, water, dirt, operating supplies, sand, etc. • Adequate drainage must be ensured. Ventilation The garage must be adequately ventilated. 13. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Separating elements / Barriers According to EN IS0 13857, separating elements or barriers must be installed in the pedestrian area / accessible areas around the parking system, including during installation. Fire safety The garage design must fulfil the regional fire safety provisions. The requirements can vary. Therefore the situation must be clarified and information obtained in advance by the customer and then agreed and coordinated. Noise emissions According to the noise insulation regulations for buildings to DIN 4109, a value of 30dB (A) must be complied with in occupied rooms and spaces. You receive a sound insulation package with the system for the required 30dB (A) insulation of the structure is also necessary. Sound reduction index min. Rw = 57dB. 14. REQUIREMENTS ON SITE Ambient conditions Temperature range from -5 to +40 °C. Relative humidity max. 80%. Please contact DE-PARK in case of different conditions. Lighting The parking spaces must be adequately illuminated on site as specified. 15. CE AND CONFORMITY The systems conform to … • EN 14010-2009-12 Safety of Machinery - Equipment for power driven parking of motor vehicles • Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC Design changes We reserve the right to continuously develop our product on the basis of technical progress and to make changes and/or modifications to parts, assemblies or overall, to processes and to standards with no advance notice. DE-61 data sheet © DE-PARK GmbH | Subject to dimensional and design changes without notice | DE-61_V02_2019_01_11 308 7 DE-PARK GmbH Brühl 6 04109 Leipzig Germany Phone: 0049 (0)341 - 24700 131 Fax: 0049 (0)341 - 24700 132 Email: info@de-park.com Web: www.de-park.com DE-PARK IS MAKING YOUR LIFE EASY: GERMAN MADE WITH A SLIM & MODULAR DESIGN EASY PLANNING AND SETUP LOW MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION EASY TO USE WITH LOW NOISE EMISSIONS NO PILLARS IN THE ENTRY AND PEDESTRIAN AREA EASY MANOEUVERING AND SENSORLESS POSITIONING FLAT & CONTINUOUS PLATFORM EASY TO CLEAN AND COMFORTABLE TO WALK ON 309 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-160 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:4. Report regarding the 2022 Housing Element and General Plan Annual Progress Report.(Tony Rozzi,Chief Planner and Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION This is an informational item only and no Planning Commission action is required. BACKGROUND California Government Code Section 65400 requires that an Annual Progress Report (APR)be prepared on the status and progress of implementation of the current Housing Element and General Plan.The APR must be submitted to the City Council,the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR),and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)by April 1st of each year (with a 60-day grace period).The City intends to file the APR before the April 1st deadline. The APR is included as Attachments 1 and 2. Housing Element Compliance with HCD Guidelines The South San Francisco Housing Element covers the period of 2015-2023,and this APR represents the yearly update on housing production.The formatting for the report continues to evolve to match the state’s high priority for new housing units.This APR provides a comprehensive view of entitlement and building permitting activity.The Annual Housing Element Progress Report (Attachment 1 in PDF and Attachment 2 in Excel) includes the following tables: ·Table A - Housing Development Applications Submitted ·Table A2 -Annual Building Activity Report Summary,including completed entitlements,issued building permits, and issued Certificates of Occupancy ·Table B - Summary of Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Progress ·Table C -Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law - Not Applicable to SSF ·Table D - Program Implementation Status ·Table E - Commercial Development Bonus Approved - None ·Table F - Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites for RHNA - None ·Table F2 - Above Moderate Income Units Converted to Moderate Income - None ·Table G -Locally Owned Lands included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of - None ·Table H -Locally Owned Surplus Sites -None at the moment.All locally owned properties are subject to the Disposition Plan approved by the Successor Agency and reviewed by the Oversight Board through December 31, 2022. ·Table I - SB 9 Units Constructed and Applications for Lot Splits - None ·Table J - Student housing development for lower income students with Density Bonus - None ·Summary Tab of Entitled Units, Submitted Applications, and SB 35 Streamlining Provisions ·Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grant Reporting - None City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™310 File #:23-160 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:4. The Housing Element Progress Report is informational only and does not change adopted policies or authorize any action or expenditure of funds. Housing Element and Regional Planning California requires each jurisdiction to prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan in order to ensure that all jurisdictions are planning for the projected housing demand throughout the State.Unlike other elements of a General Plan,the Housing Element must be updated by deadlines set by the State.The process begins with the State advising a region of their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA),which is the estimated number of housing units that will be needed over the planning period.A total of 1,864 units are needed for South San Francisco during the 2015-2023 cycle.The Housing Element does not require that these units are built during the allocation cycle.The Housing Element only requires that a city have zoning in place to ensure that the RHNA allocation can be constructed on adequate sites with permissible zoning regulations. Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Summary For 2022,the City is reporting building permit issuance for 336 new residential units,which includes five (5) single-family homes,279 multi-family units (195 for Cadence Phase II;and 84 for the ROEM projects,which were technically issued building permits in the 2021 reporting year but did not get reported through the permitting software correctly),and 52 accessory dwelling units (ADUs).New units that receive building permit issuance during the reporting year are counted towards the current RHNA allocation. In addition to the new units issued a building permit above,a total of 207 new residential units were finaled or issued a certificate of occupancy.This includes one (1)single-family home,four (4)small multi-family units (located within two-to-four unit structures), 172 multi-family units (for 988 El Camino Real), and 30 ADUs. The City also approved Planning entitlements for 583 new residential units,consisting of one (1)single-family home,eight (8)small multi-family units (located within two-to-four unit structures),and 574 multi-family units (99 for the Bertolucci’s Redevelopment Project;183 for 180 El Camino Real;and 292 for Airport Boulevard). Three Planning applications for new housing construction,totaling 547 potential units,were received in 2022, as well, and are currently under review. At the close of 2022,the City had issued building permits for 81%of the expected housing units for the City for a total of 1,511 units out of the 1,864 units allocated through RHNA. This is the reporting year for 2022, the eighth, and last, year of the eight-year reporting cycle: 1.The City has fulfilled expectations for the Above Moderate housing category,issuing a building permit for 1,142 units (RHNA allocation is 705 units). 2.The City has not fulfilled expectations for the Very Low,Low,and Moderate housing categories,issuing building permits for 147 Very Low units,71 Low units,and 151 Moderate units,for a total of 369 units. (RHNA allocation is 565 Very Low units,281 Low units,and 313 Moderate units,for a total of 1,159 units). 3.Understanding the City’s pipeline,it is unlikely that the remainder of very-low-,low-,and moderate- income units will be produced during the RHNA cycle.Issuance of building permits for the L37/KASA project would produce 158 units in these categories and boost City production of lower income units, but that issuance date could happen at the very end of the current RHNA cycle or occur in the next City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™311 File #:23-160 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:4. but that issuance date could happen at the very end of the current RHNA cycle or occur in the next cycle, Cycle 6 covering the years 2023-2031. 4.There are no penalties for not providing lower income units;however,state legislation SB 35 does create streamlining requirements for cities that do not produce housing.If the latest production report submitted by the agency reflects that fewer units of below moderate housing (80%of median income and below)were issued building permits than required by the RHNA during the reporting period,then any proposed project that provides 50%of the proposed units as affordable will be given streamlined and limited review by state law.South San Francisco falls within this category since building permits have been issued for only 31.8% of lower income categories through 2022. Program Implementation Status Table D of the Housing Element Progress Report provides the status of implementing the current Housing Element programs.Most programs are implemented and monitored on an ongoing basis;however,some programs have deliverable dates prior to the end of the Housing Element cycle of 2023 and those have been completed. General Plan Compliance with Adopted OPR Guidelines The City Council approved and adopted the South San Francisco 2040 General Plan on October 26,2022.The new General Plan contains the following elements:Land Use and Community Design;Planning Sub-Areas;A Prosperous Economy for All;Mobility and Access;Abundant and Accessible Parks and Recreation;Equitable Community Services;Community Health and Environmental Justice;Community Resilience;Climate Protection;Environmental and Cultural Stewardship;and Noise.The previous General Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1999 and contained the State mandated Land Use;Transportation (Circulation);Open Space and Conservation;Noise;and Health and Safety Elements.Additional local elements included Planning Sub- Areas;Parks,Public Facilities and Services;and Economic Development.The respective elements were revised intermittently since the 1999 adoption. OPR adopted General Plan Guidelines in 2003,updated in 2017,for use by local jurisdictions in the preparation of their general plans.The Guidelines are permissive,not mandatory and are quite extensive.For this year’s required reporting on General Plan compliance with OPR Guidelines,the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan was analyzed by staff,as this plan was effective for the majority of the 2022 calendar year.For the 2023 reporting year, and subsequent years, the 2040 General Plan will be analyzed for OPR Compliance. Staff has determined that the 1999 General Plan was in compliance with the adopted OPR Guidelines in most respects;however,it was in partial and non-compliance in several instances.Attachment 2 includes a checklist indicating the degree of compliance of the previous South San Francisco General Plan with each Guideline requirement.The 2040 General Plan update,to be analyzed next year,has brought the City’s General Plan into full compliance with the Guidelines. FUNDING Submittal of the Annual Progress Report to OPR and HCD will have no financial impact on the City but does continue to make the City eligible for regional grant funding. CONCLUSION Staff will share this item with the City Council for acceptance at their March 22,2023 meeting and is sharing City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™312 File #:23-160 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:4. this item with the Planning Commission as an information item only. No further action is required. Attachment 1.Annual Housing Element Progress Report for 2022 in PDF format 2.Annual Housing Element Progress Report for 2022 in Excel - tabbed sheets 3.Analysis of South San Francisco General Plan with Adopted Office of Planning and Research Guidelines (PDF format) City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™313 Jurisidiction Name Reporting Calendar Year First Name Last Name Title Click here to download APR Instructions Email Phone Street Address City Zipcode 1_23_23 Optional: Click here to import last year's data. This is best used when the workbook is new and empty. You will be prompted to pick an old workbook to import from. Project and program data will be copied exactly how it was entered in last year's form and must be updated. If a project is no longer has any reportable activity, you may delete the project by selecting a cell in the row and typing ctrl + d. 315 MAPLE AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 94080 Please Start Here General Information 2022 South San Francisco Contact Information STEPHANIE SKANGOS ASSOCIATE PLANNER STEPHANIE.SKANGOS@SSF.NET 6508778535 Mailing Address Annual Progress Report January 2020 314 Optional: This runs a macro which checks to ensure all required fields are filled out. The macro will create two files saved in the same directory this APR file is saved in. One file will be a copy of the APR with highlighted cells which require information. The other file will be list of the problematic cells, along with a description of the nature of the error. Optional: Save before running. This copies data on Table A2, and creates another workbook with the table split across 4 tabs, each of which can fit onto a single page for easier printing. Running this macro will remove the comments on the column headers, which contain the instructions. Do not save the APR file after running in order to preserve comments once it is reopened. Optional: This macro identifies dates entered that occurred outside of the reporting year. RHNA credit is only given for building permits issued during the reporting year. Link to the online system:https://apr.hcd.ca.gov/APR/login.do Submittal Instructions Please save your file as Jurisdictionname2022 (no spaces). Example: the city of San Luis Obispo would save their file as SanLuisObispo2022 Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) forms and tables must be submitted to HCD and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on or before April 1 of each year for the prior calendar year; submit separate reports directly to both HCD and OPR pursuant to Government Code section 65400. There are two options for submitting APRs: 1. Online Annual Progress Reporting System - Please see the link to the online system to the left. This allows you to upload the completed APR form into directly into HCD’s database limiting the risk of errors. If you would like to use the online system, email APR@hcd.ca.gov and HCD will send you the login information for your jurisdiction. Please note: Using the online system only provides the information to HCD. The APR must still be submitted to OPR. Their email address is opr.apr@opr.ca.gov. 2. Email - If you prefer to submit via email, you can complete the excel Annual Progress Report forms and submit to HCD at APR@hcd.ca.gov and to OPR at opr.apr@opr.ca.gov. Please send the Excel workbook, not a scanned or PDF copy of the tables. 315 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Date Application Submitted Total Approved Units by Project Total Disapproved Units by Project Streamlining 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 Prior APN+Current APN Street Address Project Name+Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Unit Category (SFA,SFD,2 to 4,5+,ADU,MH) Tenure R=Renter O=Owner Date Application Submitted+ (see instructions) Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low-Income Deed Restricted Low-Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Total PROPOSED Units by Project Total APPROVED Units by project Total DISAPPROVED Units by Project Was APPLICATION SUBMITTED Pursuant to GC 65913.4(b)? (SB 35 Streamlining) Ddi the housing development application seek incentives or concessions pursuant to Government Code section 65915? Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 37 0 72 0 0 1 624 734 187 0 012311440 012312440 304 GRAND AVE P21-0002 2 to 4 R 7/1/2022 4 4 4 No No 012231200 012231200 613 COMMERCIAL AVE P22-0013 2 to 4 O 6/9/2022 1 2 3 No No 014074010 014074010 7 S LINDEN AVE P22-0024 5+R 11/10/2022 28 54 461 543 No No 012211090 012211090 747 MILLER AVE P22-0073 SFD O 9/6/2022 1 1 No No 014183110 014183110 180 EL CAMINO REAL P21-0126 5+R 4/1/2022 9 18 156 183 183 No No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 Table A Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas 51 Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes Density Bo Applica 10 Housing Development Applications Submitted 316 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Table A2 Streamlining Infill Housing without Financial Assistance or Deed Restrictions Term of Affordability or Deed Restriction Notes 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Prior APN+Current APN Street Address Project Name+Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Unit Category (SFA,SFD,2 to 4,5+,ADU,MH) Tenure R=Renter O=Owner Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low- Income Deed Restricted Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Entitlement Date Approved # of Units issued Entitlements Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low- Income Deed Restricted Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Building Permits Date Issued # of Units Issued Building Permits Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low- Income Deed Restricted Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Certificates of Occupancy or other forms of readiness (see instructions) Date Issued # of Units issued Certificates of Occupancy or other forms of readiness How many of the units were Extremely Low Income?+ Was Project APPROVED using GC 65913.4(b)? (SB 35 Streamlining) Y/N Infill Units? Y/N+ Assistance Programs for Each Development (may select multiple - see instructions) Deed Restriction Type (may select multiple - see instructions) For units affordable without financial assistance or deed restrictions, explain how the locality determined the units were affordable (see instructions) Term of Affordability or Deed Restriction (years) (if affordable in perpetuity enter 1000)+ Number of Demolished/Des troyed Units Demolished or Destroyed Units Demolished/De stroyed Units Owner or Renter Total Density Bonus Applied to the Project (Percentage Increase in Total Allowable Units or Total Maximum Allowable Residential Gross Floor Area) Number of Other Incentives, Concessions, Waivers, or Other Modifications Given to the Project (Excluding Parking Waivers or Parking Reductions) List the incentives, concessions, waivers, and modifications (Excluding Parking Waivers or Parking Modifications) Did the project receive a reduction or waiver of parking standards? (Y/N) Notes+ Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 34 0 52 0 0 0 497 583 43 15 39 16 0 17 206 336 0 10 0 9 0 9 179 207 0 0 0 0 015126010 015126010 40 AIRPORT BLVD P20-0082 5+R 15 29 248 8/10/2022 292 0 0 N Y INC 55 012312440 012312440 304 GRAND AVE P21-0002 2 to 4 R 4 12/15/2022 4 0 0 N Y012314070 012314080 012314090 012314070 012314080 012314090 421 CYPRESS AVE, 209 & 213 LUX AVE BERTOLUCCI'S REDEVELOPMENT P21-0009 5+R 10 5 84 12/15/2022 99 0 0 N Y INC 55 No 012333450 012333450 306 RAILROAD AVE P21-0040 2 to 4 R 4 3/15/2022 4 0 0 N Y 013215250 013215250 201 ROCKWOOD DR P21-0130 SFD O 1 3/1/2022 1 0 0 N Y 012135070 012135070 701 OLIVE AVE DUPLEX P19-0054 B20-1613 2 to 4 R 0 0 2 10/11/2022 2 012024200 012024200 633 LARCH AVE B19-1875 ADU R 0 0 1 8/22/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012336080 012336080 220 VILLAGE WAY B20-0134 ADU R 0 0 1 9/1/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 091061190 091061190 2685 TIPPERARY AVE B20-0937 ADU R 0 0 1 3/7/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012166100 012166100 407 LUX AVE B20-1115 ADU R 0 0 1 9/1/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012043290 012043290 110 DRAKE AVE B20-1477 ADU R 0 0 1 3/8/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010321010 010321010 127 ESCANYO DR B20-1830 ADU R 0 0 1 5/4/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 011192020 011192020 406 DELLBROOK AVE B21-0198 ADU R 0 0 1 4/26/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 014036030 014036030 320 C ST B21-0323 ADU R 0 0 1 3/3/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012247150 012247150 619 PALM AVE B21-0361 ADU R 0 0 2 10/28/2022 2 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012272040 012272040 563 BADEN AVE B21-0653 ADU R 0 0 1 4/15/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 014021350 014021350 779 CIRCLE CT B21-0761 ADU R 0 0 1 6/20/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012185080 012185080 817 MILLER AVE B21-0811 ADU R 0 0 1 5/4/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 011243280 011243280 321 FOREST VIEW DR B21-0813 ADU R 0 0 1 8/1/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 013222050 013222050 111 MANOR DR B21-1049 ADU R 0 0 1 6/17/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 091072120 091072120 2226 KENRY WAY B21-1217 ADU R 0 0 1 5/5/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 013223030 013223030 109 ROCKWOOD DR B21-1038 ADU R 0 1 1/3/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012247160 012247160 615 PALM AVE B21-1306 ADU R 0 1 1/4/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010202020 010202020 777 MCDONELL DR B21-1094 ADU R 0 1 1/4/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012061160 012061160 410 HEMLOCK AVE B21-1249 ADU R 0 1 1/7/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010323100 010323100 213 LOMITAS AVE B21-1334 ADU R 0 1 1/31/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 014033170 014033170 245 A ST P20-0071 B21-0735 SFD O 0 1 2/4/2022 1 0 012080330 012080330 104 PECKS LN B21-1906 ADU R 0 1 2/10/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012135070 012135070 701 OLIVE AVE B21-1850 ADU R 0 1 2/14/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012023060 012023060 741 HEMLOCK AVE B21-1050 ADU R 0 1 2/15/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 091561020 091561020 3732 CALLAN BLVD B21-1087 ADU R 0 1 2/24/2022 1 1 8/30/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012245060 012245060 628 MILLER AVE B21-0143 SFA O 0 1 1 3/1/2022 2 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 1 new single-family residence and 1 new ADU012164080012164080443 LUX AVE B22-0033 ADU R 0 1 3/3/2022 1 1 9/23/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012201290 012201290 718 COMMERCIAL AVE B21-0577 ADU R 0 1 3/16/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 091033060 091033060 2350 ERIN PL B22-0049 ADU R 0 1 4/18/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 014021070 014021070 813 COMMERCIAL AVE B20-1678 ADU R 0 1 5/2/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 091623380 091623380 18 VISTA CT B21-1054 ADU R 0 1 5/17/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010125230 010125230 53 CALVERT AVE B21-2151 ADU R 0 1 5/20/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012182090 012182090 201 LAUREL AVE B22-0313 SFD O 0 1 6/1/2022 1 0 012134010 012134010 869 OLIVE AVE B21-2190 ADU R 0 1 6/6/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 013171240 013171240 113 ROSEWOOD WAY B22-0289 ADU R 0 1 6/8/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012211190 012211190 794 GRAND AVE B21-2245 ADU R 0 1 6/10/2022 1 1 11/28/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012134400 012134400 856 MAPLE AVE B22-0288 ADU R 0 1 6/14/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012211180 012211180 792 GRAND AVE B21-2167 ADU R 0 1 6/17/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012314100 012314100 405 CYPRESS AVE CADENCE PHASE II B20-0804 5+R 0 195 6/23/2022 195 0 010125080 010125080 83 CALVERT AVE B22-0655 ADU R 0 1 6/24/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010354050 010354050 355 ARROYO DR B22-0194 ADU R 0 1 6/28/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012273090 012273090 546 BADEN AVE B21-0923 ADU R 0 1 7/5/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012133070 012133070 833 MAPLE AVE B19-1222 ADU R 0 1 7/8/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012046160 012046160 108 ARDEN AVE B22-0394 ADU R 0 1 7/21/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012323500 012323500 464 RAILROAD AVE B22-0040 ADU R 0 1 7/26/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 014133140 014133140 143 MANZANITA AVE B22-1076 ADU R 0 1 8/2/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012201130 012201130 743 BADEN AVE B22-0802 ADU R 0 1 8/3/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010194040 010194040 863 BYRON DR B22-0848 ADU R 0 1 8/10/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010275340 010275340 180 SAN FELIPE AVE B21-2073 ADU R 0 1 8/12/2022 1 1 12/9/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012086090 012086090 111 GREEN AVE B21-1708 ADU R 0 1 8/30/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 091014240 091014240 2545 TARA LN B21-0797 ADU R 0 1 9/6/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 091632230 091632230 528 AVALON DR B17-1282 SFD O 0 1 9/9/2022 1 0012321190012321190421 3RD LANE B22-0130 ADU R 0 1 9/21/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010351050 010351050 113 CASEY DR B22-0568 ADU R 0 1 9/23/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012311280 012311280 328 MILLER AVE B22-0900 ADU R 0 1 9/28/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 091023220 091023220 2411 BANTRY LN B22-1590 ADU R 0 1 9/30/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 013215160 013215160 219 ROCKWOOD DR B22-1083 ADU R 0 1 10/12/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012133450 012133450 732 SPRUCE AVE B21-0997 ADU R 0 1 10/13/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012141430 012141430 837 LINDEN AVE B22-1069 ADU R 0 1 10/17/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 011201330 011201330 1212 BAYWOOD AVE B22-1328 ADU R 0 1 11/3/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010355030 010355030 371 ARROYO DR B22-1050 ADU R 0 1 11/7/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 013031120 013031120 616 LASSEN ST B22-1735 ADU R 0 1 11/14/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012061210 012061210 860 OLIVE AVE B21-2125 ADU R 0 1 11/15/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012282120 012282120 548 4TH LANE B21-2114 SFD O 0 1 11/21/2022 1 0 013075240 013075240 436 ZAMORA DR B22-1535 ADU R 0 1 11/29/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010078040 010078040 106 DUNMAN WAY B20-1942 ADU R 0 1 11/30/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012201440 012201440 766 COMMERCIAL AVE B22-0914 ADU R 0 1 12/15/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012044160 012044160 105 BELMONT AVE B21-1150 ADU R 0 0 1 7/11/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012061140 012061140 406 HEMLOCK AVE B21-1183 ADU R 0 0 1 6/1/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012231250 012231250 606 RAILROAD AVE B13-1795 2 to 4 O 0 0 2 9/15/2022 2 012211120 012211120 757 4TH LANE B19-2180 SFD O 0 0 1 9/29/2022 1010334270010334270110 VERANO DR B18-1701 ADU R 0 0 1 4/15/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 011325080 011325080 988 EL CAMINO REAL B18-1836 5+R 0 0 172 9/8/2022 172 013172040 013172040 347 ROCKWOOD DR B20-0675 ADU R 0 0 1 9/30/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010323060 010323060 251 ALTA MESA DR B20-1749 ADU R 0 0 1 1/20/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 014112290 014112290 604 MAYFAIR AVE B20-0727 ADU R 0 0 1 1/31/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010312010 010312010 329 ALTA MESA DR B21-0457 ADU R 0 0 1 11/7/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 013034100 013034100 10 CARLSBAD CT B21-0339 ADU R 0 0 1 6/10/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012202120 012202120 201 ACACIA AVE B21-0721 ADU R 0 0 1 4/29/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012314010 012314010 418 LINDEN AVE ROEM B18-1007 5+R 0 19 17 1 1/1/2022 37 0 LIHTC Other 55 Yes Building permit issued in 2021 but not included in 2021 APR012316080 012316090 012316100 012316110 012316080 012316090 012316100 012316110 217-219 GRAND AVE ROEM B18-1005 5+R 0 24 22 1 1/1/2022 47 0 LIHTC Other 55 Yes Building permit issued in 2021 but not included in 2021 APR 014183110 014183110 180 EL CAMINO REAL P21-0126 5+R 9 18 156 9/14/2022 183 0 0 N INC 55 Yes 010162100 010162100 17 CONRAD CT B21-1241 ADU R 0 1 2/24/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 013024170 013024170 211 FAIRWAY B21-1613 ADU R 0 1 1/14/2022 1 1 10/21/2022 1 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 012360160 012360160 4 VIEWMONT TER B21-1495 ADU R 0 1 3/25/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 010083280 010083280 139 ADRIAN AVE B21-1746 ADU R 0 1 4/5/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 014034150 014034150 317 A ST B21-2098 ADU R 0 1 6/10/2022 1 0 UC Berkeley Survey/ABAG Affordability Analysis 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: "+" indicates an optional field Housing with Financial Assistance and/or Deed Restrictions Demolished/Destroyed UnitsProject Identifier Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Density Bonus 1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 4 7 10 317 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Note: "+" indicates an optional field 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Note: "+" indicates an optional field 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Note: "+" indicates an optional field 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 320 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Note: "+" indicates an optional field 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 321 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 1 Projection Period 3 4 RHNA Allocation by Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to Date (all years) Total Remaining RHNA by Income Level Deed Restricted - - - 80 - - - - 43 - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - 9 15 - Deed Restricted - 3 1 - - 1 - - 39 - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - 11 16 - Deed Restricted - - - - 2 21 - 11 - - Non-Deed Restricted - 10 13 5 3 4 47 18 17 - Above Moderate 705 - 28 92 283 162 269 3 99 206 - 1,142 - 1,864 - 41 106 368 167 295 50 148 336 - 1,511 790 5 6 7Extremely low-Income Need 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to Date Total Units Remaining 283 - - 9 - - - - - - 9 274 210 Please note: For the last year of the 5th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted during the portion of the year that was in the 5th cycle. For the first year of the 6th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted since the start of the planning period. Projection Period units are in a separate column. Total RHNA Total Units Income Level Very Low Low Extremely Low-Income Units* Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income RHNA progress and must be reported as very low-income units in section 7 of Table A2. They must also be reported in the extremely low-income category (section 13) in Table A2 to be counted as progress toward meeting the extremely low-income housing need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). *Extremely low-income houisng need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). Value in Section 5 is default value, assumed to be half of the very low-income RHNA. May be overwritten. Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at apr@hcd.ca.gov. 162 147 This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs. 151 Moderate 565 281 313 Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 71 2 Table B Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Permitted Units Issued by Affordability 418 322 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Date of Rezone Rezone Type 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Date of Rezone Very Low- Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate- Income Rezone Type Parcel Size (Acres) General Plan Designation Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Realistic Capacity Vacant/Nonvacant Description of Existing Uses Note: "+" indicates an optional field Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 83 Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C 323 Jurisdiction South San Francisco Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) 1 2 3 4 Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation 1-1A - Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory The City shall periodically update its inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels identified in this Housing Element. The City shall also conduct a periodic review of the composition of the housing stock, the types of dwelling units under construction or expected to be constructed during the following year, and the anticipated mix, based on development proposals approved or under review by the City, of the housing to be developed during the remainder of the period covered by the Housing Element. This analysis will be compared to the City's remaining 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to determine if any changes in land use policy are warranted. Annual The City adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) in February, 2015 and the DSASP implements new zoning regulations that increase height and density to permit the City to construct appropriate units to meet the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2014-2022. Additionally, the City revised and updated the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan to reflect a new Community Civic Campus project. This project required the City to update the list of housing opportunity sites in the Adopted Housing Element. This revision has been submitted for review and approval by the Department of Housing and Community Development. ONGOING Housing Programs Progress Report Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Table D Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation 324 1-2A Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, in accordance with State law, requiring new for sale residential development over four units to provide a minimum of twenty (20) percent low- and moderate- income housing. 2023 The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance regulations (SSFMC Chapter 20.380)are and continue to be, implemented by the City in accordance with State law. The Planning Commission and City Council voted to amend SSFMC Chapter 20.380 (Inclusionary Housing Regulations)in 2018 to require a 15% contribution to affordable housing for residential rental projects, reduce the requirement from 20% to 15% for residential for sale projects, and adopted an inclusionary impact fee for commercial, office, and hotel development to bolster the City's affordable housing fund. COMPLETE 1-2B - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Review The City shall periodically review the success of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, SSFMC 20.380, to determine if the objectives of the ordinance are being met. Consideration shall be made to revising provisions of the ordinance to ensure that a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including households of low-and moderate incomes, are provided. 2023 The Planning Commission and City Council voted to amend SSFMC Chapter 20.380 (Inclusionary Housing Regulations) in 2018 to require a 15% contribution to affordable housing for residential rental projects, reduce the requirement from 20% to 15% for residential for sale projects, and adopted an inclusionary impact fee for commercial, office, and hotel development to bolster the City's affordable housing fund. The City Council has provided direction to review the current ordinance, and this is currently underway with consultant assistance. ONGOING 1-3A - Investigate Commercial and Housing Linkage Fee Through participation in the 21 Elements group, the City will investigate the feasibility of commercial and housing linkage fees to support affordable housing. 2015 The Planning Commission and City Council voted to adopt an inclusionary impact fee for commercial, office, and hotel development to bolster the City's affordable housing fund. The City Council has provided direction to review the current ordinance, and this is currently underway with consultant assistance. ONGOING 325 1-4A - Site Acquisition The City shall work with for-profit and nonprofit housing developers to acquire sites that are either vacant or developed with underutilized, blighted, and/or nonconforming uses for the development of affordable housing. As needed, the City will meet with developers to discuss and identify development opportunities and potential funding sources. 2023 With adoption of the Successor Agency's Long Range Property Management Plan by the State Department of Finance in late 2015, the City is positioned to help coordinate the disposition of underutilized properties for development. To date, City staff has met with several development representatives and made six (6) properties in the Downtown area available through a Request for Qualifications. One (1) site is complete with construction for 100% affordable senior housing units. Two (2) sites will be developed with rental housing and up to 100% affordable units due to the inclusion of City funding and affordable housing competitive grant applications. One (1) site is entitled and has completed construction for-sale high density housing with 20% inclusionary housing required. A former firehouse has an entitlement application for a mixed use development that will include 100% affordable for-sale housing and the City. The City completed a Development Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement for a 4+ acre property that will be developed with 800 rental housing units and include a 20% affordable housing component. ONGOING 1-4B - Support and Pursue Funding Applications for Affordable Housing Consistent with existing practice, the City shall continue to support funding applications for federal and state funds to promote the development of affordable housing. 2023 The City has applied each year for state funding through the Cap & Trade grant programs for monies to construct complete streets in support of pending affordable housing projects within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. To date, no grant monies have been awarded to the City. Additionally, a 100% affordable rental project for very-low income seniors was issued construction permits in 2017 and was completed in early 2019. This project successfully received affordable housing financing with the City's support of the project application. Two other projects involving City funding (ROEM) have applied for grant and TIF monies to help fund their affordable projects and the City supported those applications. ONGOING 326 1-4C - Consider Waivers or Deferrals of Planning, Building and Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Development Consistent with SSFMC section 20.310.004, the City shall continue to consider the waiver of application and development fees for affordable housing development in order to support the financial viability of affordable housing development. Waiver of such fees will be on a case-by-case basis at the City Council's discretion and will balance the goal of affordable housing production with the need to collect fee revenues to support other City goals. 2023 The City continues to consider permitting or impact fee waivers for affordable housing projects requiring financial assistance. ONGOING 1-4D - Review New Development Requirements for Condominiums, SSFMC 19.36 The City shall review SSFMC 19.36, which requires a minimum of 5 units in order to construct new condominiums, to look at the possibility of reducing unit requirements with the intent of promoting home ownership. 2023 This item is being reviewed as part of the General Plan 2040 update and companion zoning and should be complete by 2023. ONGOING 1-5A - Increased Residential Densities in the Downtown Area Through implementation of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, support increased residential densities and modified development standards for parcels in the downtown area to realize the objectives of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and General Plan policies. 2023 Adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan has accomplished this program. Expanded increases in densities within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, or within surrounding residential zoning districts near the Downtown has also been analyzed. In 2018, the Planning Commission and City Council adopted a new maximum density for the Downtown Transit Core zoning district, which is located within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, of 180 units per acre with approval of a community benefits plan. COMPLETE 327 1-5B - Support Grand Boulevard Initiative Policies Continue to support the guiding principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, which encourages the provision of medium- and high-density housing along El Camino Real in Peninsula communities, in order to create an environment that is supportive of transit, walkable, and mixed-use. The City shall reference this policy direction when considering future land use and zoning changes along El Camino Real, and assess the opportunity for housing development along this key corridor as development proposals arise. 2023 The City continues to support the Grand Boulevard Initiative, in its twelfth year, by providing senior level planning staff at all meetings. The adopted El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan, as well as the zoning update adopted in 2010, implement the guiding principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative. The City has completed master planning for a new community civic center within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan that will foster new private housing development in the surrounding plan area. Additionally, the City has entitled 800 units adjacent to SSF BART, ECR and the Centennial Trail as a multi-modal mixed used development that will conform to the Grand Boulevard Initiative policies. Finally, the Engineering Divison is managing a Grand Boulevard Improvement Project for a portion of El Camino Real between Chestnut Avenue and Hickey Boulevard that will implement the vision of the initiative. COMPLETE 1-6A - Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units and educate the community about this program Actively promote community education on second units, as permitted in SSFMC 20.350.035, by posting information regarding second units on the City website and providing brochures at the public counter in the Centralized Permit Center. 2023 Brochures are provided at the Permit Center Counter; in addition staff explores second unit options during counter discussions and during building permit plan checks. Additionally, changes at the State level to encourage the production of second units led the City to modify the current zoning regulations to be more permissive. No parking, reduced setbacks, larger second units, and units with multiple bedrooms are now permitted with approval of a Building Division permit only. ONGOING 1-7A - Continue to identify opportunities for residential development through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites Through completion and implementation of the Downtown Specific Area Plan and ongoing implementation of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific Plan, the BART Transit Village Plan, and the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zoning Districts, the City will maintain an inventory of residential development opportunities on infill and underutilized sites with proper zoning to support both affordable and market rate housing development. 2023 The Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division maintains a list of potential development sites. Disposition of Successor Agency properties will be complete by December 2022. ONGOING 328 1-7B - Evaluate Downtown residential lot standards Evaluate the feasibility of reduced lot development standards for Downtown residential zoning districts to encourage the development of new housing and ownership opportunities. 2023 Staff has hired a consultant and conducted an indepth analysis of reduced lot standards within the downtown area to promote subdivision and additional ownership opportunities. A zoning text amendment was adopted in 2019 to reduce required lot dimensions and facilitate new housing and ownership opportunities. COMPLETE 2-1A - Expedite Permit Review To support affordable and market rate housing construction, the City shall work with property owners, project sponsors, and developers to expedite the permit review process; promote housing design and projects that meet the goals, objectives and policies of this Housing Element; provide timely assistance and advice on permits, fees, environmental review requirements, and affordable housing agreements to avoid costly delays in project approval; and interface with community groups and local residents to ensure public support of major new housing developments. 2023 The City continues to provide prompt customer service, and use project planner liaisons for large developments, to facilitate expedited entitlement review and processing. The One Stop Permit center provides accessible services by Planning, Building and Public Works in one building. The One Stop Permit Center hours are from 7am- 5pm. Permit processing is efficient and timely, with accessible staff. The City's Planning Commission meets twice a month and the Design Review Board meets once a month to ensure the timely processing of applications. ONGOING 2-2A - Ensure coordination among departments Early in the development application process, the Planning Division shall work with the applicant and consult with other departments and divisions to ensure that necessary infrastructure is planned or is in place to support the proposed project. 2023 The Community Development Department relies on a Technical Advisory Group and pre-submittal meetings with potential applicants to ensure a smooth application process. Representatives from Public Works, Fire Safety, Police, Water Quality and Building ensure that adequate infrastructure is planned or available to support the proposed project. Additionally, applicants of large development projects are invited to attend the Technical Advisory Group meetings to present their pre-development projects and discuss any questions or concerns with City staff. ONGOING 329 2-3A - Support regional funding programs The City shall continue to participate with other government agencies to support regional funding programs, such as participating with San Mateo County in its Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs. 2023 The City continues to participate in the 21 Elements TAC meetings. The City also collaborates with HEART (Housing Endowment and Regional Trust) of San Mateo County as well as the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County. The Housing Rehab Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate Programs were not utilized for any City financed construction projects in 2022. ONGOING 2-4A - Continue to implement adopted design guidelines Implementation of design guidelines applies to rehabilitation and renovation of existing structures as well as to new construction. 2023 The Residential Design Guide was adopted by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 2471. In addition, the adopted El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan includes Design Standards and Guidelines. All new projects are evaluated for consistency with applicable design guidelines. City staff will adopt a form based code for new Residential Design Guidelines consistent with objective standards as part of the General Plan 2040 process currently underway. ONGOING 2-5A - Disseminate Information on Affordable Housing Programs To widen the availability of information to interested residents, the City will continue to update its website and other promotional/informational materials to include information on affordable housing, housing programs, and inclusionary units. 2023 The Housing Division maintains online resources for general affordable housing programs and for specific inclusionary units related to new development. Outreach related to the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly ramped up in 2020 and continued through 2022, as well. ONGOING 3-1A - Minor Home Repair The City will provide funds to non-profit organizations providing free minor home repairs to assist extremely low- to low-income homeowners to bring houses into a good state of repair and maintain them as viable units in the local housing stock. 2023 Minor Home Repair Programs Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID): The City used CDBG funds to support CID Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Program which provides accessibility modifications. Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP): The City used CDBG funds to support two RTP programs, National Rebuilding Day and Safe at Home. El Concilio: The City used CDBG funds to support El Concilio's Peninsula Minor Home Repair Program. ONGOING 330 3-1B - Funding Prioritization The City shall continue to give housing rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Funds shall be targeted towards older housing stock and to families earning less than 80 percent of AMI. 2023 Minor Home Repair Programs Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID): The City used $10,0000 in CDBG funds to support CID Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Program which provides accessibility modifications. Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP): The City used $70,500 in CDBG funds to support two RTP programs, National Rebuilding Day and Safe at Home. El Concilio: The City used$27,500 in CDBG funds to support El Concilio's Peninsula Minor Home Repair Program. ONGOING 3-1C - Low Interest Loans for Housing Rehabilitation The City shall provide low-interest loans for rehabilitation of single-family and multi-family housing by supporting the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued CDBG funding. 2023 Minor Home Repair Programs Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID): The City used CDBG funds to support CID Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Program which provides accessibility modifications. Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP): The City used CDBG funds to support two RTP programs, National Rebuilding Day and Safe at Home. El Concilio: The City used CDBG funds to support El Concilio's Peninsula Minor Home Repair Program. The City issued one loan for the rehabilitation of a single family home for a very- low-income family using CDBG funds. ONGOING 3-1D - Financial Assistance for SROs The City shall provide financial assistance, when feasible, for physical improvements to existing boarding rooms and Single Room Occupancies in the Downtown area. 2023 The City did not provide any financial assistance to Single Room Occupancies in the Downtown area in 2022. ONGOING 3-2A - Enforce Housing, Building and Safety Codes The City shall continue to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes as well as eliminate incompatible uses or blighting influences from residential neighborhoods through targeted code enforcement and other available regulatory measures. 2023 The City operates a Code Enforcement Division through the Public Works Department. For 2022, there were up to three enforcement officers on staff that enforce housing, building and safety codes. Additionally, Building Division staff enforces these codes when they are out on inspections. Incompatible uses are addressed in zoning code section 20.320. ONGOING 331 3-3A - Capital Improvement Program for Older Neighborhoods The City shall maintain its capital improvement program to upgrade infrastructure in older neighborhoods such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck's Lots. 2023 The Engineering Division continues to manage and administer the Capital Improvement Program budget to upgrade essential infrastructure throughout the City. ONGOING 3-4A - Support SSF Public Housing Authority (PHA) The City shall support the South San Francisco PHA in its continued operation and rental of 80 units of public housing. 2023 The SSF PHA continues to receive HUD funding support and operates independently of the City; however, the City is coordinating to pursue federal funding sources to improve the public housing. ONGOING 3-4B - Examine Displacement of Affordable Housing and Lower-Income Households The City shall coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, under the umbrella of work to be undertaken by 21 Elements, to quantify, develop and evaluate potential strategies to address displacement of lower income residents. The City will use this analysis, in addition to other analysis, to develop potential measures and programs and the City will implement those programs, as it considers and deems appropriate, to address the risk of displacement of existing lower income residents. Displacement might be direct, caused by the redevelopment of sites with existing residential properties, or indirect, caused by increased market rents as an area becomes more desirable. The City shall monitor any such implemented programs annually for effectiveness and make adjustments as necessary. 2015 The City continues to participate in the 21 Elements Technical Advisory Group, which analyzed displacement concerns for San Mateo County in 2018 as part of their work plan. The draft report was submitted to the City in February, 2018 and has been reviewed for recommendations and implementation measures. Staff conducted one study session with City Council in 2018, a second in 2019 to discuss tenant protections for SSF residents, and adopted interim measures to protect tenants during the window between adoption of State Legistlation for Rental Protection and the effective date. COMPLETE 332 3-5A - Condominium Conversion Limitations The City shall continue to enforce limits on the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. As specified in Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code, condominium conversions are allowed only if they meet the following general criteria: a. A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least five percent exists; b. The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City's available housing stock; c. Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting condominium projects; d. The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force at the time of conversion; e. The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan; and f. The conversion creates at least five (5) condominium units. 2023 No requests or preliminary requests for consideration of a Condominium Conversion of apartment units were submitted to the City in 2022. ONGOING 3-6A - Monitor At-Risk Units The City shall monitor its supply of subsidized affordable housing to know of possible conversions to market rate, including taking the following actions: a. Publicize existing State and federal notice requirements to nonprofit developers and property owners of at- risk housing. b. Respond to any federal and/or State notices including Notice of Intent to Pre- Pay, owner Plans of Action, or Opt-Out Notices filed on local projects. 2023 No subsidized units monitored by the City of SSF were at-risk of conversion to market rate in 2022. ONGOING 333 3-6B - Assist Tenants The City shall assist tenants displaced by the conversion of at risk units by providing information about tenants' rights, providing referrals to relevant social service providers, endeavoring to establish a funding source to assist nonprofit organizations that support tenants, and facilitating other support as appropriate. 2023 In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic created many risks for tenants that continued into 2022. The City maintains online resources and brochures in the Economic and Community Development Department that detail information about tenants' rights, social service providers, and other support institutions. Additionally, programs were created to offset rent challenges of tenants and rent loss of property owners with success. ONGOING 4-1A - Review Projects for Major Environmental Hazards during the Environmental Review Process The City shall review residential projects for major environmental hazards during the environmental review process. The City shall not approve the projects unless the hazards are adequately mitigated. 2023 All projects reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and/or City Council have been reviewed for consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act. ONGOING 4-2A - Administer Minimum Building Security Standards The City shall continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Building Security Standards, of the Municipal Code by continuing to route all new development applications and additions to both the Police and Fire Deparments to ensure compliance with the code and to ensure that security measures are considered during the design process. 2023 The Economic and Community Development Department's project review, entitlement, and building permit processes ensure that Chapter 15.48 is administered and applied to all new development applications and additions. ONGOING 4-3A - Ensure that applications for new residential land uses proposed within the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study The City shall require that the acoustical study be prepared by a professional acoustic engineer and specify the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of the new units, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, based on measured aircraft noise events at the land use location. 2023 All new applications for residential development are reviewed for consistency with the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and adopted Municipal Code regulations. New residential projects within the 70+ dB CNEL areas are not currently permitted without an override process by the local agency, and new residential projects within the 65 to 69 dB CNEL noise contours require acoustic studies. ONGOING 334 5-1A - Density Bonus for Senior Housing The City shall include density bonus incentives specifically targeted for senior housing projects and permit reduced parking standards. 2023 No senior housing projects were processed in 2022. ONGOING 5-1B - Reduced Parking Requirement for Board and Care Facilities Encourage development of residential board and care facilities for seniors by continuing to allow reduced parking requirements for these types of facilities. 2023 The City's Municipal Code SSFMC 20.330.004 reduces parking requirements for residential care facilities as part of the 2010 Zoning Ordinance Update. The requirement is: 1 space for every 7 residents plus 1 space for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more than 15 residents shall also provide 1 space for each caregiver, employee, and doctor on-site at any one time. ONGOING 5-2A - Ensure Consistency with State Accessibility Laws The City shall review development plans to ensure consistency with state handicap and accessibility laws and require modifications for accessibility as needed. 2023 During the review of all new development projects and applications for modifications to existing buildings, the Building Division staff plan checks projects to ensure that all State Accessibly Laws are met in accordance with California Building Code Section 1134B. ONGOING 5-2B - Promote Disabled Housing Resources and Programs The City shall ensure that its website and handout materials regarding housing resources, requirements, and services for the disabled are updated regularly and made available to the public. 2023 The City maintains online resources and materials regarding housing and services for the disabled and has staff in the Economic and Community Development Department who are trained to assist with housing issues. ONGOING 5-3A - Accessibility Modification Programs The City shall continue to support programs that provide modifications that make housing units accessible to the disabled. 2023 The City provides annual grant funding to the Center of Independent of Individual with Disabilities (CID) who has a Housing Accessibly Modification (HAM) Program that provides financial assistance to people that need to made modifications to their home to allow for disabled access. Additionally, the zoning ordinance includes SSFMC section 20.510, Waivers and Modifications, that provides provisions for reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to housing by allowing the Chief Planner authority to grant relief from zoning requirements. ONGOING 5-4A - Reasonable Accommodations The City shall create a public information brochure on reasonable accommodation for disabled persons and provide that information on the City's website. 2023 The City provides information consistent with the program. Additionally, the zoning ordinance includes SSFMC section 20.510, Waivers and Modifications, that provides provisions for reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to housing by allowing the Chief Planner authority to grant relief from zoning requirements. ONGOING 335 5-4B - Resources for the developmentally disabled The City shall support the Golden Gate Regional Center in its mission to serve those with developmental disabilities, disseminate information about the Center and its services, and make referrals as appropriate. 2023 The City's Zoning regulations permit Adult Day Care uses in many areas of the City by-right. These uses are typically funded in some part by the Golden Gate Regional Center to serve developmentally disabled infants, children, youth and adults. ONGOING 5-5A - Support a variety of housing unit designs, including larger housing units that can accommodate large families The City shall seek to broaden the diversity of its housing stock that is affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households to include more units that are suitable to large families. Currently, much of the City's affordable housing consists of single- room occupancy units and one- and two- bedroom units. The City shall work with housing developers during the entitlement process and encourage them to provide a unit mix with at least 10 percent of units having three or more bedrooms. 2023 At pre-application meetings staff discusses providing a range of housing sizes with developers during the planning stages of residential development projects prior to the submittal of a formal application. In the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, family sized housing is recognized as a community benefit eligible for a density bonus. ONGOING 5-6A - Support Continuum of Care Planning The City shall continue to be an active participant in the Continuum of Care planning process and support its efforts to address the needs of South San Francisco residents in need of emergency shelter or temporary housing. 2023 The City continues to provide referrals to families and individuals for social services including case management and referrals for housing and homeless prevention, as appropriate. ONGOING 5-6B - Support non-profits that offer housing solutions and services for homeless The City shall continue to support non- profit organizations that offer solutions to solving homelessness and/or provide housing related services for the homeless or at-risk homeless. 2023 There is a County run homeless shelter located in the City on North Access Road. The former Redevelopment Agency regularly provided funding to the County for the operation of the shelter. As part of the 2015-2023 Housing Element update, the City conducted a capacity analysis for new emergency shelter construction within approved zoning districts. ONGOING 5-6C - Support Ongoing Operation of 90-Bed Emergency Shelter in South San Francisco The City shall continue to support the operation of a 90-bed year round homeless shelter within the city limits. 2023 Funding for homeless services and housing was provided to Samaritan House and CORA (Communities Overcoming Relationship Abuse). ONGOING 336 5-6D - Social Services for Housing and Homeless Prevention The City shall continue to provide referrals to organizations helping families with social services for housing and homeless prevention. 2023 The City's Housing Division maintains online and handout resources for residents with housing challenges. Consistent with COVID-19 pandemic outreach, this effort was ramped up in 2020 and continued through 2022 to prevent homelessness. ONGOING 5-7A - Support and Promote Home Sharing The City shall support the efforts and services of the HIP Home Sharing Program to provide an alternative housing solution for extremely low and very low income individuals and families; female-headed households; those at risk of homelessness; and others in need. The Economic Development and Housing Division will provide information about the HIP program, provide referrals, and support residents of South San Francisco who are interested in participating. 2023 The City's Housing Division maintains online and handout resources for residents with housing challenges. ONGOING 5-8A - Provide referrals to Veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness The City shall provide referrals to Veterans and their immediate families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Resources for referrals include the Veteran's Administration (VA) National Call Center of Homeless Veterans at 1-877-4AID-VET and to the HUD-VASH program that is a joint effort between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program to move Veterans and their families out of homelessness and into permanent housing through a voucher program that allows homeless Veterans to rent privately owned housing. 2023 Many of these resources are shared with applicable residents through the funded Samaritan House and CORA shelter systems. The City provides an annual grant to a fair housing service provider using its HOME Administrative funds. Project Sentinel, provides comprehensive fair housing services including complaint investigation, community outreach and education to San Mateo County residents. ONGOING 337 5-9A - Amend the Zoning Code to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow employee housing in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5, to permit and encourage the development and use of sufficient numbers and types of employee housing facilities as are commensurate with local needs. 2016 This item has been included in a recent zoning text amendment update reviewed by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council. COMPLETE 6-1A - Support Equal Housing Opportunity Laws The City shall require that all recipients of locally-administered housing assistance funds and other means of support from the City acknowledge their understanding of fair housing law and affirm their commitment to the law. The City shall provide materials to help with the understanding of and compliance with fair housing law. 2023 The City provides an annual grant to a fair housing service provider using its HOME Administrative funds. Project Sentinel, provides comprehensive fair housing services including complaint investigation, community outreach and education to San Mateo County residents. ONGOING 6-1B - Regional Cooperation The City shall participate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County to periodically update the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing in San Mateo County, a report that helps jurisdictions identify impediments to fair housing and develop solutions. 2023 The City is a member of the 21 Elements Technical Advisory Committee, which is working to address housing shortage and displacement concerns. ONGOING 338 6-2A - Legal Counsel and Advocacy Assistance The City shall support nonprofits providing legal counseling and advocacy assistance concerning fair housing laws, rights, and remedies to those who believe they have been discriminated against. Persons requesting informatio or assistance related to housing discrimination are referred to one or more fair housing groups for legal services. Consistent with exisitng practice, brochures providing information on fair housing and tenants' rights are available at City Hall, public libraries and on the City's website. The brochures are also available at nonprofit organizations serving low-income residents. The brochures are available in English and Spanish. As funding allows, the City shall provide funding assistance to organizations that provide fair housing, tenant/landlord, and habitability counseling and other general housing assistance. 2023 The City provides an annual grant to a fair housing service provider using its HOME Administrative funds. Project Sentinel, provides comprehensive fair housing services including complaint investigation, community outreach and education to San Mateo County residents. ONGOING 7-1A - Assist with energy/weatherization and water conserving modifications/features in existing residential rehabilitation projects The City will continue to provide funds to non-profit organizations that provide energy efficiency upgrades and/or weatherization improvements for very low- and low-income households. 2023 Through the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program and CDBG subrecipient grants, the City encourages weatherization and energy efficiency upgrades. The City continues to provide funding and technical assistance to energy efficiency upgrade programs, including the Home Energy Renovation Opportunity (HERO) program. ONGOING 339 7-2A - Continue to provide information on energy efficient standards for residential buildings The City shall promote the use of passive and active solar systems in new and existing residential buildings to ensure that State residential energy conservation building standards are met. The City's Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in February 2014, also includes measures to promote energy efficiency, which are actively implemented. 2023 Building Division staff implements and enforces the California Green Building Code for all new residential and commercial projects. During residential rehabilitation projects, like Rebuilding Together, replacement of appliances/utilities includes energy and water conserving models. The City promotes the use of solar panels with reduced permitting fees and streamlined review and inspections. In addition, the City Council adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in February 2014, that sets forth reduction measures that apply to residential development. Measure 3-5 in the CAP promotes energy information and sharing, and educating the community about energy-efficiency behaviors and construction. ONGOING 7-3A - Title 24 The City shall continue to enforce State requirements, including Title 24 requirements, for energy conservation in residential development and encourage residential developers to consider employing additional energy conservation measures with respect to the following: 1. Street and driveway design 2. Lot pattern and configuration 3. Siting of builings 4. Landscaping 5. Solar access 2023 The CAP includes measures that encourage the integration of higher-density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities and community faculties, and to reduce the dependence on autos through smart parking practices. In addition, the City continues to implement Title 24 requirements through the Building Division. ONGOING 340 7-3B - Promote Green Building Features The City will utilize the following tools to promote green building and energy conserving features in new and existing residential construction. In 2009, the City completed the Green X- Ray House, transforming an existing single-family home into an energy efficient model home. The City will use the Green X-Ray House as a public outreach tool to disseminate information regarding energy-saving opportunities, offering regular tours to homeowners and homebuilders as well as for promotional events. This home features an array of products including solar panels, radiant floor heating and recycled glass tiles. Staff has adopted the a Green Building Ordinance (2014). 2023 Building Division staff implements and enforces the California Green Building Code for all new residential and commercial projects. During residential rehabilitation projects, like Rebuilding Together, replacement of appliances/utilities includes energy and water conserving models. The Green X- Ray house is no longer in operation. ONGOING 341 General Comments 342 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Description of Commercial Development Bonus Commercial Development Bonus Date Approved 3 4 APN Street Address Project Name+Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Description of Commercial Development Bonus Commercial Development Bonus Date Approved Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below Units Constructed as Part of Agreement Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 Table E Note: "+" indicates an optional field Project Identifier 1 2 Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas (CCR Title 25 §6202) Annual Progress Report January 2020 343 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 The description should adequately document how each unit complies with subsection (c) of Government Code Section 65583.1+. For detailed reporting requirements, see the chcklist here: Extremely Low- Income+Very Low-Income+Low-Income+TOTAL UNITS+ Extremely Low- Income+ Very Low- Income+Low-Income+TOTAL UNITS+ https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/docs/adequate-sites-checklist.pdf Rehabilitation Activity Preservation of Units At-Risk Acquisition of Units Mobilehome Park Preservation Total Units by Income Table F Please note this table is optional: The jurisdiction can use this table to report units that have been substantially rehabilitated, converted from non-affordable to affordable by acquisition, and preserved, including mobilehome park preservation, consistent with the standards set forth in Government Code section 65583.1, subdivision (c). Please note, motel, hotel, hostel rooms or other structures that are converted from non-residential to residential units pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)(1)(D) are considered net-new housing units and must be reported in Table A2 and not reported in Table F. Activity Type Units that Do Not Count Towards RHNA+ Listed for Informational Purposes Only Units that Count Towards RHNA + Note - Because the statutory requirements severely limit what can be counted, please contact HCD to receive the password that will enable you to populate these fields. Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c) Annual Progress Report January 2020 344 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Notes 2 3 6 Prior APN+Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Unit Category (2 to 4,5+) Tenure R=Renter Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low- Income Deed Restricted Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Total Moderate Income Units Converted from Above Moderate Date Converted Notes Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below Table F2 Above Moderate Income Units Converted to Moderate Income Pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2 For up to 25 percent of a jurisdiction’s moderate-income regional housing need allocation, the planning agency may include the number of units in an existing multifamily building that were converted to deed-restricted rental housing for moderate-income households by the imposition of affordability covenants and restrictions for the unit. Before adding information to this table, please ensure housing developments meet the requirements described in Government Code 65400.2(b). 5 Project Identifier Unit Types 1 4 Affordability by Household Incomes After Conversion Units credited toward Above Moderate RHNA 345 Jurisdiction South San Francisco Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation 2 3 4 APN Street Address Project Name+Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Realistic Capacity Identified in the Housing Element Entity to whom the site transferred Intended Use for Site 1 Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below Note: "+" indicates an optional field Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Table G Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of Project Identifier NOTE: This table must only be filled out if the housing element sites inventory contains a site which is or was owned by the reporting jurisdiction, and has been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of during the reporting year. 346 Jurisdiction South San Francisco Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Designation Size Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 APN Street Address/Intersection Existing Use Number of Units Surplus Designation Parcel Size (in acres)Notes NOTE: This table is meant to contain an invenory of ALL surplus/excess lands the reporting jurisdiction owns Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below Parcel Identifier ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation Table H Locally Owned Surplus Sites For San Mateo County jurisdictions, please format the APN's as follows:999-999-999 347 348 349 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: + indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Project Type Date 2 3 APN Street Address Project Name+Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+Activity Date Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Table IUnits Constructed Pursuant to Government Code 65852.21 and Applications for Lot Splits Pursuant to Government Code 66411.7 (SB9) NOTE: SB 9 PROJECTS ONLY. This table only needs to be completed if there were lot splits applied for pursuant to Government Code 66411.7 OR units constructed pursuant to 65852.21. Units entitled/permitted/constructed must also be reported in Table A2. Applications for these units must be reported in Table A. Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below Project Identifier Unit Constructed 1 4 Annual Progress Report January 2020 350 Jurisdiction South San Francisco ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Project Type Date 2 3 APN Street Address Project Name+Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Unit Category (SH - Student Housing)Date Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low- Income Deed Restricted Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below Note Cells in g Table J Student housing development for lower income students for which was granted a density bonus pursuant to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65915 Project Identifier Units (Beds/Student Capacity) Approved 1 4 NOTE: STUDENT HOUSING WITH DENSITY BONUS ONLY. This table only needs to be completed if there were student housing projects WITH a density bonus approved pursuant to Government Code65915(b)(1)(F) Annual Progress Report January 2020 351 Jurisdiction South San Francisco Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Current Year Deed Restricted 43 Non-Deed Restricted 15 Deed Restricted 39 Non-Deed Restricted 16 Deed Restricted 0 Non-Deed Restricted 17 206 336 Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed SFA 0 2 0 SFD 1 4 1 2 to 4 8 0 4 5+574 279 172 ADU 0 51 30 MH 0 0 0 Total 583 336 207 5 734 187 0 0 0 0 0 Income Rental Ownership Total Very Low 0 0 0 Low 0 0 0 Moderate 0 0 0 Above Moderate 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Total Units Constructed with Streamlining Total Housing Applications Submitted: Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received: Total Housing Units Approved: Total Housing Units Disapproved: Total Units Housing Applications Summary Use of SB 35 Streamlining Provisions Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Number of Applications for Streamlining Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Units Constructed - SB 35 Streamlining Permits Number of Streamlining Applications Approved Total Developments Approved with Streamlining 352 Jurisdiction South San Francisco Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Total Award Amount Total award amount is auto-populated based on amounts entered in rows 15-26. Task $ Amount Awarded $ Cumulative Reimbursement Requested Other Funding Notes Summary of entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy (auto-populated from Table A2) Current Year Deed Restricted 34 Non-Deed Restricted 0 Deed Restricted 52 Non-Deed Restricted 0 Deed Restricted 0 Non-Deed Restricted 0 497 583 Current Year Deed Restricted 43 Non-Deed Restricted 15 Deed Restricted 39 Non-Deed Restricted 16 Deed Restricted 0 Non-Deed Restricted 17 206 336 Current Year Deed Restricted 0 Non-Deed Restricted 10 Deed Restricted 0 Non-Deed Restricted 9 Deed Restricted 0 Non-Deed Restricted 9 179 207 Moderate Above Moderate Total Units Completed Entitlement Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Units Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level Very Low Low Total Units Certificate of Occupancy Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Reporting (CCR Title 25 §6202) Please update the status of the proposed uses listed in the entity’s application for funding and the corresponding impact on housing within the region or jurisdiction, as applicable, categorized based on the eligible uses specified in Section 50515.02 or 50515.03, as applicable. -$ Task Status 353 1 Analysis of South San Francisco General Plan (GP) with Adopted Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines – 2017 Version OPR Guideline Requirement (to the extent that it is relevant)1 Reference or Comment Degree of Compliance Contains all 7 mandatory elements GP contains Land Use, Transportation (Circulation), Housing, Open Space and Conservation, Noise, and Health and Safety Elements. Additional local elements include: Planning Sub-Areas; Parks, Public Facilities and Services; and Economic Development. Full Plan is integrated and internally consistent An independent review of the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and the 2015-2023 Housing Element found that the plan is integrated and internally consistent. Full Land Use Element Contains a Land Use Diagram in sufficient detail to describe land use proposals GP contains a Land Use Diagram with sufficient detail to describe land use proposals, pg. 2-6. Full Shows distribution of housing, business and industry GP Land Use Diagram shows areas for residential (housing), commercial, office, industrial, public, parks and recreation, open spaces, mixed uses, transportation center, school uses, and several sub-categories of uses, pg. 2-6. Full Distribution of open space including agriculture GP Land Use Diagram shows proposed open space uses. There are no agricultural lands in South San Francisco, pg. 2-6. Full Distribution of natural resources Natural Resources are not addressed in the Land Use Element. However, they are addressed in the Open Space and Conservation Element. Partial – Recommend inclusion in future update Distribution of recreation facilities and opportunities GP Land Use Diagram, pg. 2-6, the Land Use Element text, pg. 2-21 thru 2-25, and the Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element, pg. 5-1 thru 5-21 describe the distribution of recreation facilities and opportunities. Full Location of educational facilities GP Land Use Diagram, pg. 2-6, the Land Use Element text, pg. 2-21 thru 2-24, and the Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element text pg. 5-1, -23, -25 & -26 describe the location of educational facilities. Full Location of public buildings and grounds GP Land Use Diagram, pg. 2-6, the Land Use Element text, pg. 2-5, -16, -19 thru -23, -25, -33 & -46, and throughout the Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element text, describe the location of public buildings and grounds. Full 1 Language from the OPR Guidelines. 354 2 Location of solid and liquid waste facilities The Land Use Element text does not describe the location of solid and liquid waste facilities. Non-compliance Identification of areas subject to flooding The Land Use Element text, pg. 2-25 and the Health and Safety Element text, pg. 8-10 & -11 and map on pg. 8-13 identifies areas subject to flooding. Partial – Recommend Map inclusion in updated Land Use Elem. Identification of Timber Preserve Zone lands There are no Timber Preserve Zone lands in South San Francisco. N/A Military land use compatibility There are no military land uses in or adjacent to South San Francisco. N/A – Recommend topic be addressed in future update Contains standards for population intensity and building intensity The Land Use Element text and tables, pg. 2-7, -9 and -13 thru -25 contains standards for population intensity and building intensity. Full Transportation (Circulation) Element Contains definitions and descriptions of: Major thoroughfares The Transportation Element maps, pg. 4-7 & 4-15 and the Circulation Element text, pg. 4-5, 4-10 thru -12, define and describe major thoroughfares; freeways, arterials, collectors, local streets and street standards. Full Transportation routes The Transportation Element maps and text, pg. 4-1, -4, -19, -22, -25, -27, -28, -29, -36, -37, & -39 defines and describes transportation routes. Full Terminals The Transportation Element maps pg. 4-26, -36, & -37 and text, pg. 4-14, -40 thru -42, defines and describes the rail, ferry and airport terminals. Full Military airports and ports There are no military airports or ports in South San Francisco. N/A Plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network The Transportation Element maps pg. 4-26, -36, & -37, text and policies, pg. 4-1, -2, -14, -21, -23, -24, -27 describe a balanced, multimodal transportation network including complete streets, vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, bus and rail facilities. Full Other local public utilities and facilities including railroads, airports and parking. The Transportation Element text, defines and describes transit and rail traffic, pg. 4-1, -4, & -40; airports, pg. 4-1 & -40; and parking, pg. 4-5, -21, -24, -25, -29, -32, -35, & -38. Full Housing Element (CA HCD found “In Compliance” (4/12/2018) Review of previous element The Housing Element includes discussions of public participation, pg. 5, review of past performance, progress in implementation, Full 355 3 effectiveness, and appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies, pg. 5-10 and Appendix A. Housing needs assessment The Housing Element includes a housing needs assessment as described in the Guidelines, pg. 11-34. Full Inventory and analysis of adequate sites The Housing Element includes an inventory and analysis of adequate sites as described in the Guidelines, pg. 77-93. Full Analysis of potential governmental and non-governmental constraints The Housing Element includes analyses of potential governmental and non-governmental constraints as described in the Guidelines, pg. 47-75. Full Housing policies and programs The Housing Element includes goals, policies and programs as described in the Guidelines, pg. 96-118. Full Quantified objectives The Housing Element includes quantified objectives as described in the Guidelines, pg. 119. Full Integrate community health, climate change, and other considerations affecting and affected by housing The Housing Element includes references to community health, pg. 9, 15, 18, 30, 43, &127; and climate action plan and change, pg. 10, 76, 117, &129. Full Open Space and Conservation Element The Conservation Element must address the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including: The Open Space and Conservation Element includes discussion and policies relating to habitat and biological resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and historic and cultural resources conservation. Each of the required topics is discussed below. Water and its hydraulic force Discussion and polices related to surface and groundwater quality, pg. 7-1, -10, -11, & -12; however, it does not address the hydraulic force of water. Partial Forests There are no forests in South San Francisco N/A Soils The topic of soil conservation is not addressed in the Element. Non-compliance Rivers and other waters The topic of Colma Creek, the only major waterway in South San Francisco is addressed, pg. 7-2, -4, -5, -6, -10, & -11. Full Harbors and fisheries The topics of harbors and fisheries is not addressed in the Element. Non-compliance Wildlife The topic of wildlife and biological resources is addressed, pg. 7-1 thru 7-8 & 7-10. Full Minerals and other natural resources The topic of minerals is not addressed in the Element.2 Non-compliance The Open Space Element must address: Open space for the preservation of natural resources The Open Space and Conservation Element includes a discussion and maps of habitat conservation areas, pg. 7-3 thru 7-9. Full 2 USGS identifies a silver, zinc, lead resource in close proximity to the City. 356 4 Open space for the managed production of resources The Open Space and Conservation Element does not include a discussion of managed production of resources. Non-compliance Open space for outdoor recreation The Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element includes a discussion and maps of outdoor recreation, pg. 5-2 thru 5-22. Partial -Recommend inclusion in updated Open Space and Conservation Element Open space for public health and safety The Open Space and Conservation Element does not include a discussion of public health and safety. While health and safety are discussed in the Health and Safety Element, those topics are not discussed in the context of open space. Non-compliance Open space for military support There are no military installations in or adjacent to South San Francisco. N/A – Recommend topic be addressed in future update Open space for tribal resources The Open Space and Conservation Element does not include a discussion tribal resources. Non-compliance The Open Space Element should contain an open space action program The Open Space and Conservation Element does not include an open space action program. Non-compliance Noise Element Issues to be addressed include: Major noise sources, both mobile and stationary; including roadway, rail, air, commercial and industrial sources The Noise Element text and maps, pg. 9-2 thru 9-11 describes existing and projected major community noise sources, including roadway, rail, air, and industrial sources. Full Existing and projected levels of noise and noise contours for major noise sources The Noise Element describes existing noise levels but does not include a map of existing noise contours for roadway, rail and industrial sources. An existing and projected noise contour map is included for air sources, pg. 9-5 and a projected noise contour map is included for roadway and rail sources, pgl 9-9. Partial Existing and projected land uses and locational relationship to existing and projected noise sources The Noise Element text, pg. 9-3 thru 9-7 describes the existing and projected land uses and locational relationship to existing and projected noise sources Full Existing and proposed sensitive receptors, including hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, churches and sensitive wildlife habitat The Noise Element, pg. 9-1, -2, -7, -12, -13, & -15 describes policies for sensitive receptors, including hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, churches and sensitive wildlife habitat Full Mitigation measures The Noise Element text, pg. 9-8, 9-11 thru 9-13 describes noise mitigation measures. Full 357 5 Implementation measures The Noise Element text, pg. 9-11 thru 9-13 & 9-15 describes implementing policies and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems. Full Health and Safety Element Issues to be addressed include: Seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, The Health and Safety Element text addresses seismically induced ground (surface) rupture, ground shaking, and ground failure pg. 8-4 thru 8-6. Full Tsunami, seiche, and dam failure The Health and Safety Element text addresses seismically induced tsunami, and water waves (seiche), pg. 8-5 thru 8-7. There are no dams in or near South San Francisco, therefore the topic of dam failure is not addressed. Full Slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides The Health and Safety Element text addresses slope instability leading to landslides pg. 8-2, 8-4 thru 8-6. The element does not address mudslides. Partial Subsidence, liquefaction, and other seismic hazards identified on seismic hazard maps The Health and Safety Element text addresses liquefaction, pg. 8-2, 8-4 thru 8-6. The element does not address subsidence nor does it contain seismic hazard maps. Partial Flooding The Health and Safety Element text addresses flooding, pg. 8-10 thru 8-12 including a map on pg. 8-13. Full Wildland and urban fires The Health and Safety Element text addresses wildland and urban fires, pg. 8-20 thru 8-23. Full Evacuation routes The Health and Safety Element does not address evacuation routes. Non-compliance Peak load water supply requirements The Health and Safety Element does not address peak load water supply requirements, although the subject of emergency water supply is addressed in general. Non-compliance Climate change The Health and Safety Element does not address climate change although that topic is discussed in the Housing Element Non-compliance Minimum road widths and turnouts The Health and Safety Element does not address minimum road widths. Non-compliance Clearances around structures The Health and Safety Element text addresses clearances around structures, including defensible spaces and buffers between vegetation and structures, pg. 8-20 and 8-22. Full 358 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-215 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:5. Report regarding an informational update on a proposed ordinance to adopt an all-electric Reach Code for new nonresidential construction and Electric Vehicle Charging infrastructure reach code for new residential and nonresidential construction.(Christina Fernandez, Chief Sustainability Officer; Leila Silver, City Consultant- ID 360; and Philip Perry, Chief Building Official) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive report and provide feedback on the proposed adoption of an ordinance amending the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code to 1) require newly constructed nonresidential buildings to be all-electric, with limited exceptions and 2) establish electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure requirements for residential and nonresidential new construction that are more stringent than statewide standards. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City of South San Francisco (the City) is committed and uniquely positioned to become a regional climate leader and has taken the initiative to update its original 2014 Climate Action Plan (CAP) to align with new State regulations and targets to combat climate change. The CAP update sets targets to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 which aligns with the States targets and exceeds goals set by the original 2014 CAP. The City joined Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) in 2016, a public, locally controlled electricity provider, that provides the City with access to carbon free electricity generated 100% by renewable sources. As a strategy to support the CAP, on June 9, 2021, City Council adopted the City’s first local building electrification “reach code” (local amendments that impose more stringent standards than state building code requirements) that required all new appliances in single-family and multi-family buildings to be electric (all-electric required). Additionally, new single-family and multi-family buildings were subject to increased electric vehicle (EV) charging requirements. The local amendments impacted residential projects that submitted for building permit under the 2019 code cycle and exempted all new nonresidential construction. The 2019 requirements were carried over to the 2022 code cycle and adopted as an amendment to the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) by Council on December 14, 2022. In October 2022, City staff provided an update to Council on the additional outreach conducted to the local business and development community regarding building electrification and EV reach codes. During the study session, staff also presented the potential building electrification and EV reach code options available for local adoption under the 2022 building code cycle. Staff requested direction from Council on the preferred reach code options related to building electrification and EV charging stations for new construction. Per the direction of City Council, staff has included the following in the proposed ordinance amending 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11): 1) all-electric requirements for nonresidential new construction (with limited exemptions) and 2) enhanced EV charging infrastructure requirements for new single-family, multi-family, and nonresidential buildings using the PCE model code. Reach Code Adoption Process The State of California adopts new building standards, organized in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also referred to the California Building Standards Code, every three years. The triennial timeframe is known as a code cycle, and the current code cycle (2022 code) went into effect on January 1, 2023. Local jurisdictions may adopt local reach codes that go beyond the minimum state requirements by amending the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11), Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6), or the municipal Health and Safety Code. Local amendments that mandate energy efficiency or conservation measures, such as a higher performance standard or battery storage, require California Energy Commission (CEC) approval, and must be supported by a cost-effectiveness study and filed as an amendment to the Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6). Local amendments that do not require efficiency or conservation, such as requiring City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™359 File #:23-215 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:5. electric-only construction or electric vehicle charging stations, can amend the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11) and do not require CEC approval or cost-effectiveness analyses . However, cost-effectiveness analyses can demonstrate to the community that amendments to the code are financially responsible and do not represent an unreasonable burden to the residential and nonresidential building owners and occupants. The proposed ordinance to the City Council is included as Attachment 1 to this staff report. The section below provides background and summary information regarding the two sets of reach codes proposed. Building Electrification Reach Codes Staff researched the opportunities and limitations of the potential reach code policy options that prioritize electric end uses over natural gas or require enhanced efficiency above the statewide Energy Code. The following options were presented to Council for consideration for a nonresidential reach code: ·OPTION 1 - Efficiency: All new construction exceeds minimum energy code (via Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6). ·OPTION 2 - All-Electric Preferred: Allows mixed-fuel buildings with high energy performance, requiring additional energy efficiency measures, battery storage, and/or pre-wiring for buildings to be electric-ready (via Energy Code, Title 24 Part 6). ·OPTION 3 - All-Electric Required: Appliances must be electric (via Green Building Code, Title 24 Part 11). ·OPTION 4 - All-Electric Municipal Ordinance: No gas hookup allowed (via municipal ordinance). ·OPTION 5- Electric Only Plus Efficiency: All new construction is electric only and exceeds minimum energy code (via Green Building Code, Title 24 Part 11 and Energy Code, Title 24 Part 6). Staff considered the benefits and challenges of each available adoption mechanism during the development process and shared these findings with Council during the October 2022 study session. Ultimately, the decision to proceed with the electric only amendment via the CALGreen Code (Option 3) provides the City with opportunity to establish electric only requirements for nonresidential new construction without triggering the CEC review process. The CALGreen amendment allows the City to file for approval directly with the Building Standards Commission (BSC) and provides the opportunity to house the electrification and EV charging requirements in one green building reach code ordinance (e.g., one chapter of the municipal code). Electric Vehicle Charging Reach Codes It is widely known that availability of EV charging infrastructure is a critical component to EV adoption. Meanwhile, it is significantly more expensive to install charging infrastructure as a retrofit than it is during new construction. As such, ensuring that newly constructed residential and non-residential parking has ample EV charging capability will reduce long-term retrofit costs of EV infrastructure installation, while helping to increase EV adoption and decrease transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Council approved enhanced EV charging infrastructure requirements for new single-family and multi-family buildings during the 2019 code cycle. Staff presented the new 2022 EV reach code provisions for Council’s consideration during the previous study session. The proposed requirements are based on the PCE model EV reach code and enhances charging accessibility while meeting driver needs, minimizing costs, and allowing for limited exceptions. Electric Vehicle (EV) charging requirements in California can generally be broken into three categories: ·EV Charging Station: All supply equipment is installed at a parking space, such that an EV can charge without additional equipment. ·EV Ready: Parking space is provided with all power supply and associated outlet, such that a driver-provided supply equipment can be plugged in, and a vehicle can charge. ·EV Capable: Conduit is installed to the parking space and building electrical panel and transformers have reserved capacity to serve future load. An electrician would be required to complete the circuit and/or increase the gauge of upstream wiring before charging is possible. EV charging capacity can be summarized as three categories: ·Level 1: Capable of charging at 110/120V,16A. This is equivalent to a standard home outlet. ·Level 2: Installation of a 208/240V, 40A circuit or 208/240V, 20A circuit for low power. This is the service capacity typically used for larger appliance loads in homes. ·Level 3 (DC Fast Charging): Capable of charging at 20-400kW. This is the type of charger used for Tesla Superchargers and DC Fast Chargers at some supermarkets. City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™360 File #:23-215 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:5. The 2022 California Green Building Code update (Title 24, Part 11) increased requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new construction; including: ·New one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages: must be Level 2 EV-capable. ·Multi-family dwellings: o 5% must be Level 2 EV Charging Stations o 25% must be Low Power Level 2 EV Ready, and o 10% of parking spaces must be Level 2 EV Capable. ·Non-residential: o 5% must have Level 2 EV Charging Stations, and o 15% of parking spaces must be Level 2 EV Capable. Community and Stakeholder Feedback Over the course of two years, staff conducted extensive community and stakeholder outreach to inform the policy direction and limited exemptions to incorporate into the proposed reach code policy. Detailed summaries of local stakeholder and business owner comments of building electrification and EV charging infrastructure can be found in the City Council Study Session staff reports included as Attachments B and C. As a result of the feedback from the business and development community, staff heard the following preferences for a potential all-electric and EV reach code policy: ·The first iteration of nonresidential all-electric codes should apply to new construction only. ·Provide a “grace period” or exception for projects that received entitlement prior to the ordinance effective date. ·Rollout requirements under the 2022 building code cycle (effective January 1, 2023). ·Validation of energy infrastructure and capacity due to grid reliability concerns, consider backup power exemptions. ·Remain business friendly to the biotech lab/medical/restaurant community via exemptions. Proposed Policy Components The proposed reach code ordinance requires all-electric new buildings and enhanced EV charging infrastructure via local amendment to the 2022 CALGreen Code and amends Title 15 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The proposed requirements would be triggered on building permit application for new construction. The policy components of the ordinance are described below. As mentioned above, the full text of the recommended ordinance is available as Attachment A to this staff report. Policy Component #1: Building Electrification for Nonresidential New Construction The residential all-electric provisions carried over from the 2019 reach code will continue to impact all newly constructed residential buildings and alterations that include replacement or addition of over 50 percent of the existing foundation for purposes other than a repair or reinforcement as defined in California Existing Building Code Section 202; or where over 50 percent of the existing framing above the sill plate is removed or replaced for purposes other than repair. The main change is to the mechanism for adoption. The 2019 reach code amended the Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6). To align with the latest decision from the CEC regarding energy conservation and efficiency standards only require CEC approval, the previous requirements have been organized as an amendment to the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11). Staff is proposing to remove the previous exemption for nonresidential buildings and include all-electric City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™361 File #:23-215 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:5. requirements for new nonresidential buildings. The 50/50 alterations rule will continue to impact residential buildings only. The ordinance recommends that newly constructed nonresidential buildings be designed and constructed as all-electric, with limited exemptions as described below. The proposed ordinance includes limited exemptions for buildings subject to the full electrification requirements. Staff presented potential reach code exemptions during the October 2022 study session based on previous development efforts and the additional stakeholder feedback received in 2022. The proposed ordinance includes the following exemptions: ·Specialized equipment for Industrial processes, laboratories, and medical uses. ·Commercial Food Heat-Processing Equipment. ·Back-up power for Critical Facilities necessary to protect public health or safety in the event of an electric grid outage. ·Nonresidential building projects that receive valid entitlements from the City of South San Francisco within six (6) months of the effective date of the enabling ordinance are not required to be designed and constructed as all-electric. ·If there is not an all-electric prescriptive pathway for a building under the state Energy Code, and the building is unable to achieve the Energy Code’s performance compliance pathway using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the building official may grant a modification. It is common practice to include electric-readiness requirements for projects that receive approval to install combustion equipment (equipment or appliance that uses fuel gas). The proposed ordinance suggests language that requires electrical infrastructure and physical space to accommodate future installation of any electrical heating appliance that receives approval for an exemption by the Community Development Director or designee. The proposed ordinance also specifies when fuel gas infrastructure no longer serves one of the exemptions outlined above, that the fuel gas infrastructure must be capped (otherwise terminated or removed) by the entity previously entitled to the exception. The intent of this language is to ensure that the lifecycle for approved fuel gas infrastructure applies only to the end use associated with the approved building permit and is not utilized for other end uses in the future. Policy Component #2: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure for New Construction The reach code ordinance also includes increased electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure requirements beyond 2022 CALGreen standards. To evaluate the financial impact on first costs, Peninsula Clean Energy commissioned an analysis of the total cost of implementing various EV infrastructure measures. Staff have worked closely with PCE to establish new construction EV requirements which are more in-line with local EV adoption trends, while providing flexibility for the builder and keeping construction costs as low as possible. The recommended requirements for EV infrastructure include: New Single-Family Dwelling: ·One dedicated EV ready Level 2 circuit, and ·One dedicated EV ready Level 1 circuit if there is a second parking space. City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™362 File #:23-215 Agenda Date:3/16/2023 Version:1 Item #:5. New Multi-family Dwelling: ·15% of units with parking spaces, Level 2 EV Charging Stations. ·85% of units with parking spaces, Low Power Level 2 EV Ready. New Nonresidential Office Building: ·20 % of the parking spaces, Level 2 EV Charging Stations installed. ·30% of the parking spaces, Level 2 EV Capable. New Hotel and Motel Building: ·5% of the parking spaces, Level 2 EV Charging Stations installed. ·25% of the parking spaces, Low Power Level 2 EV Ready ·10% of the parking spaces, Level 2 EV Capable. Other New Nonresidential Building: ·10% of the parking spaces, Level 2 EV Charging Stations installed. ·10% of the parking spaces, Level 2 EV Capable. The proposed EV reach code provisions outline specific exemptions for new buildings. The exemptions are based on the current 2022 CALGreen Code exemptions for EV charging and Council direction during the previous study session. The exemptions extend to 1) when the local enforcing agency has determined EV charging infrastructure are not feasible, 2) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) without additional parking facilities and without electrical panel upgrade or new panel installation, and 3) multi-family residential R-2 building projects with approved entitlements before the effective date of the proposed ordinance. The EV reach code requirements also align with the statewide code by allowing Automatic Load Management Systems (ALMS) to be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. CONCLUSION At this time, staff is presenting this report to the Planning Commission for information purposes only, and also seeking further public comment and feedback from the Planning Commission. The next step will be bringing the proposed Reach Codes to the Council for introduction and adoption of the proposed ordinance. Attachments: 1.Proposed All-Electric and EV Charging Ordinance 2.City Council Study Session Staff Report 22-718 3.City Council Study Session Staff Report 21-791 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/10/2023Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™363 ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Reach Code Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.22 “GREEN BUILDING CODE” OF TITLE 15 “BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION” OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT LOCAL “REACH CODES” FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO INCREASE BUILDING EFFICIENCY AND INCREASE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS. WHEREAS, in 2019, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted by reference the 2019 California Building Standards Code, including the Green Building Standards Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards, and as amended and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission, pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 50020 et seq.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to sections 17922,17958,17958.5 and 17958.7 and 18941.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the City may make certain amendments to the California Building Standards Code, including provisions of the Green Building Standards Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards, based upon express findings that such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, the California Energy Code is a part of the California Building Standards which implements minimum energy efficiency standards in buildings through mandatory requirements, prescriptive standards, and performances standards; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2021, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to adopt certain modifications and additions to the California Energy Code/Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code which serve as “Reach Codes” providing more stringent requirements than State codes and applicable to residential developments to increase building efficiency and increase requirements related to electric vehicle charging stations; and WHEREAS, in October 2022, the City Council conducted a study session during a public meeting regarding potential building electrification and electric vehicle Reach Codes applicable to non-residential construction and the additional outreach conducted to the local business and development community regarding such proposal, and considered various local adoption options presented by City staff; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the foregoing consideration and outreach, and because of the City's unique local climatic, geologic and topographic conditions, the City Council now desires to amend portions of the California Energy Code/Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code relating to all-electric buildings and electric vehicles, for residential and non-residential developments; and WHEREAS, these proposed local amendments are to adopt a set of Reach Codes for residential and non-residential developments to better address local conditions, and establish energy Page 1 of 20 364 Page 2 of 20 standards that are more stringent than the statewide standards, based on express findings that such local amendments are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions as set forth in this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the proposed All-Electric Building Reach Code is intended to require buildings to achieve increased energy reductions and energy efficiency, and the proposed Electric Vehicle Reach Code is intended to ensure that new buildings can charge a greater number of electric vehicles beyond state code requirements and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing analyses and as described in the accompanying staff report, the City Council finds that local amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code contained in this ordinance are cost effective and will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that each of the amendments, additions and deletions to the California Energy Code/Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code contained in this ordinance are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions described in Section 1 below. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I. Findings and Determinations 1. The foregoing Recitals and true and correct and are made a part of this ordinance. 2. The following local climatic, geologic and topographic conditions justify modifications to the California Energy Code/Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code. A. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco finds that in order to best protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of South San Francisco, the standards of building within the City must conform to state law except where local climatic, geological, and topographic conditions warrant more restrictive regulations. B. Pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 (a) of the State of California Health and Safety Code, the governing body of the City of South San Francisco determines and finds that all the proposed modifications to the California Energy Code/Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological and topographic conditions as discussed below. I. Climatic: The City is located in Climate Zone 3 as established in the 2022 California Energy Code. Climate Zone 3 incorporates mostly coastal communities from Marin County to southern Monterey County including San Francisco. The City experiences precipitation averages 18.83 inches/year eighty percent (80%) falls during the months of November through April, and twenty percent (20%) from May 365 Page 3 of 20 through October. This is a dry period of at least five months each year. Humidity generally ranges from sixty two percent (62%) during daytime and eighty-six percent (86%) at night. It occasionally drops lower during the months of September through November. Temperatures have been recorded as high as 106 degrees Fahrenheit. Average summer highs are in the 70-73 degree range. Summer prevailing winds are from the North-West direction. However, winds are experienced from virtually every direction at one time or another. Velocities are generally in the 5-10 mph range, gusting to 23 mph, particularly during the summer months. Extreme winds, up to 50 mph, have been known to occur. These local climatic conditions affect the acceleration intensity, and size of fires in the community. Times of little or no rainfall, of low humidity and high temperatures create extremely hazardous conditions, particularly as they relate to wood shake and shingle roof fires and conflagrations. Climate change is causing historic draughts, devastating wildfires, torrential storms, extreme heat, property damage, and threats to human health and food supplies. The State of California has outlined specific steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent these negative impacts of changing climate including moving the State to 100 percent clean energy by 2045. This gives local governments the opportunity to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions with a climate-positive impact by powering buildings from clean electricity. These climatic conditions along with the greenhouse emissions generated from structures in both the residential and nonresidential sectors requires exceeding the energy standards for building construction established in the 2022 California Buildings Standards Code. The City Council also adopted a Climate Action Plan that has a goal of achieving carbon neutrality by the year 2045. In order to achieve and maintain this goal, the City needs to adopt policies and regulations that reduce the use of fossil fuels that contribute to climate change, such as natural gas in buildings, in new development. Human activities, such as burning natural gas to heat buildings, releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and causes an overall increase in global average temperature. This causes sea levels to rise, affecting the City’s shoreline and infrastructure. II. Geologic: The City of South San Francisco is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. III. Topographic: The City of South San Francisco is made up of open terrain with scattered obstructions having heights and widths generally less than 30 feet, including flat open country, grasslands, hillsides and bay exposure. Significant elevation changes are also present in this setting; highly combustible dry grass, 366 Page 4 of 20 weeds and brush are common in the hilly and open space areas adjacent to built-up locations six to eight months of each year. When these areas experience wildland fires, they immediately threaten nearby buildings. This condition is especially significant in developed areas of the City that interface and intermix with adjoining open space such as Sign Hill. The threat of wildland fires could be compounded by above-ground electrical power transmission lines suspended on poles and towers exist throughout the City. Additionally, South San Francisco’s downtown and surrounding areas contain numerous historic and older buildings that are located very close together, which exacerbates the fire danger from dry conditions, wind, and shake/shingle roofs. The topography of the City also challenged by major development patterns, where major employment areas adjacent to major thoroughfares within the City have created added traffic congestion thereby reducing the response time capabilities of the various fire agencies. The conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which modifications to adopt stricter standards than prescribed in the California Green Building Standards Code and Energy Code are warranted. 3. Amendments to the California Building Standard Codes have been adopted in the past by the City Council based on specific findings of local geographic, topographic and climatic conditions; and the Council hereby reaffirms such findings and confirms that the facts on which such findings were based continue to exist. 4. The City Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA,” and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”) under the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and in this case it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)). Adoption of the proposed ordinance would not be an activity with potential to cause significant effect on the environment because the proposed changes made to the California Green Building Standards Code and Energy Code herein are enacted to provide more protection to the environment, and do not directly facilitate new development, or changes in the type and intensity of land use. SECTION II. AMENDMENT OF CODE. Chapter 15.22 [Green Building Standards Code Code] and Chapter 15.26 [California Energy Code] of Title 15 [Buildings and Construction] are hereby repealed and a new Chapter 15.22 is hereby added to read as follows: A. Section 15.22.020 Amendments to the CALGreen Code. The California Green Building Code (Cal. Code Regs. Title 24, Part 11) is amended as follows, with additions in underline and deletions in strikethrough. Chapter, section and table numbers used herein are those of the California Green Building Code. Sections and subsections not amended are not included below and shall remain in full force and effect. Section 202 DEFINITIONS … 367 Page 5 of 20 AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Residential buildings that entirely consist of units below market rate and whose rents or sales prices are governed by local agencies to be affordable based on area median income. … AUTOMATIC LOAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ALMS). A control system designed to manage load across one or more electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), circuits, panels and to share electrical capacity and/or automatically manage power at each connection point. ALMS systems shall be designed to deliver no less than 3.3 kVa (208/240 volt, 16-ampere) to each EV Capable, EV Ready or EVCS space served by the ALMS, and meet the requirements of California Electrical Code Article 625. The connected amperage to the building site for the EV charging infrastructure shall not be lower than the required connected amperage per California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24 Part 11. DIRECT CURRENT FAST CHARGING (DCFC). A parking space provided with electrical infrastructure that meets the following conditions: i. A minimum of 48 kVa (480 volt, 100-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) located within three (3) feet of the parking space providing a minimum capacity of 80-ampere. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION (EVCS). One or more electric vehicle charging spaces served by electric vehicle charger(s) or other charging equipment allowing charging of electric vehicles. Electric vehicle charging stations are not considered parking spaces. A parking space that includes installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) at an EV Ready space. An EVCS space may be used to satisfy EV Ready space requirements. EVSE shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) READY SPACE. [HCD] A vehicle space which is provided with a branch circuit; any necessary raceways, both underground and/or surface mounted; to accommodate EV charging, terminating in a receptacle or a charger. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CAPABLE SPACE. A vehicle space with electrical panel space and load capacity to support a branch circuit and necessary raceways, both underground and/or surface mounted, to support EV charging. ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT (EVSE). The conductors, including the ungrounded, grounded and equipment grounding conductors and the electric vehicle connectors, attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices, power outlets, or apparatus installed specifically for the purpose of transferring energy between the premises wiring and the electric vehicle. … LEVEL 2 ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT (EVSE). [HCD] The 208/240 Volt 40-ampere branch circuit, and the electric vehicle charging connectors, attachment plugs, and all 368 Page 6 of 20 other fittings, devices, power outlets, or apparatus installed specifically for the purpose of transferring energy between the premises wiring and the electric vehicle. LEVEL 2 EV CAPABLE. A parking space provided with electrical infrastructure that meets the following requirements: i. Conduit that links a listed electrical panel with sufficient capacity to a junction box or receptacle located within three (3) feet of the parking space. ii. The conduit shall be designed to accommodate at least 8.3 kVa (208/240 volt, 40-ampere) per parking space. Conduit shall have a minimum nominal trade size of 1 inch inside diameter and may be sized for multiple circuits as allowed by the California Electrical Code. Conduit shall be installed at a minimum in spaces that will be inaccessible after construction, either trenched underground or where penetrations to walls, floors, or other partitions would otherwise be required for future installation of branch circuits, and such additional elements deemed necessary by the Building Official. Construction documents shall indicate future completion of conduit from the panel to the parking space, via the installed inaccessible conduit. iii. The electrical panel shall reserve a space for a 40-ampere overcurrent protective device space(s) for EV charging, labeled in the panel directory as “EV CAPABLE.” iv. Electrical load calculations shall demonstrate that the electrical panel service capacity and electrical system, including any on-site distribution transformer(s), have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all EVs at all required EV spaces at a minimum of 40 amperes. v. The parking space shall contain signage with at least a 12” font adjacent to the parking space indicating the space is EV Capable. LEVEL 1 EV READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements: i. A minimum of 2.2 kVa (110/120 volt, 20-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 16-ampere. iii. Conduit oversized to accommodate future Level 2 EV Ready (208/240 volt, 40-ampere) at each parking space. LEVEL 2 EV READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements: i. A minimum of 8.3 kVa (208/240 volt, 40-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 30-ampere. … 369 Page 7 of 20 LOW POWER LEVEL 2 EV READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements: i. A minimum of 4.1 kVA (208/240 Volt, 20-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 16-ampere. iii. Conduit oversized to accommodate future Level 2 EV Ready (208/240 volt, 40-ampere) at each parking space. LOW POWER LEVEL 2 ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING RECEPTACLE. [HCD] A 208/240 Volt 20- ampere minimum branch circuit and a receptacle for use by an EV driver to charge their electric vehicle or hybrid electric vehicle. OFF-STREET LOADING SPACES. [BSC-CG, DSA-SS] An area, other than a public street, public way, or other property (and exclusive of off-street parking spaces), permanently reserved or set aside for the loading or unloading of motor vehicles, including ways of ingress and egress and maneuvering areas. Whenever the term "loading space" is used, it shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, be construed as meaning off-street loading space. This excludes designated passenger loading/unloading. CHAPTER 3 GREEN BUILDING SECTION 301 GENERAL 301.1 Scope. . . . 301.1.1 Additions and alterations. [HCD] The mandatory provisions of Chapter 4 shall be applied to additions or alterations of existing residential buildings where the addition or alteration increases the building’s conditioned area, volume, or size. The requirements shall apply only to and/or within the specific area of the addition or alteration. (No change to existing California amendment.) The mandatory provisions of Section 4.106.4.2 may apply to additions or alterations of existing parking facilities or the addition of new parking facilities serving existing multifamily buildings. See Section 4.106.4.3 for application. NOTE: Repairs including, but not limited to, resurfacing, restriping, and repairing or maintaining existing lighting fixtures are not considered alterations for the purpose of this section. CHAPTER 4 RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES DIVISION 4.1, PLANNING AND DESIGN 370 Page 8 of 20 SECTION 4.106 SITE DEVELOPMENT 4.106.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. Residential construction shall comply with Section 4.106.4.1 or 4.106.4.2, and 4.106.4.3, to facilitate future installation and use of EV chargers. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625. For EVCS signs, refer to Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s). Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Exceptions: 1. On a case-by-case basis, where the local enforcing agency has determined EV charging and infrastructure are not feasible based upon one or more of the following conditions: 1. Where there is no local utility power supply or the local utility is unable to supply adequate power. 2. Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcing agency substantiating that additional local utility infrastructure design requirements, directly related to the implementation of Section 4.106.4, may increase construction cost by an average of $4,500 per parking space for market rate housing or $400 per parking space for affordable housing. EV infrastructure shall be provided up to the level that would not exceed this cost for utility service..adversely impact the construction cost of the project. 2. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) without additional parking facilities and without electrical panel upgrade or new panel installation. Detached ADUs, attached ADUs, and JADUs without additional parking but with electrical panel upgrades or new panels must have reserved breakers and electrical capacity according to the requirements of 4.106.4.1. 3. Multifamily residential R-2 building projects that receive valid entitlements from the City of South San Francisco within six (6) months of the effective date of the enabling ordinance shall provide, based on the total number of parking spaces, at least five percent (5%) with EVCS Level 2 EV Ready, twenty-five percent (25%) with Low Power Level 2 EV Ready, and ten percent (10%) with Level 2 EV Capable according to 2022 California Green Building Standards Code requirements. 4.106.4.1 New oOne- and two-family dwellings and town-houses with private garages. 4.106.4.1.1 New Construction. One parking space provided shall be a Level 2 EV Ready space. If a second parking space is provided, it shall be provided with a Level 1 EV Ready space. For each dwelling unit, install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208-240-volt branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1-inch inside diameter). The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and shall terminate into a listed cabinet, box or other enclosure in close proximity to the proposed location of an EV charger. Raceways are required to be continuous at enclosed, inaccessible or concealed areas and spaces. The service panel and/or subpanel shall provide capacity to install a 40-ampere 208/240-volt minimum dedicated branch circuit and space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch circuit overcurrent protective device. 371 Page 9 of 20 Exception: A raceway is not required if a minimum 40-ampere 208/240-volt dedicated EV branch circuit is installed in close proximity to the proposed location of an EV charger at the time of original construction in accordance with the California Electrical Code. 4.106.4.1.1 Identification. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging as “EV CAPABLE”. The raceway termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as “EV CAPABLE”. … 4.106.4.2 New mMultifamily dwellings, hotels and motels and with new residential parking facilities. Requirements apply to parking spaces that are assigned or leased to individual dwelling units, as well as unassigned residential parking. Visitor or common area parking is not included. 4.106.4.2.1 New Construction. Fifteen percent (15%) of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Eighty-five percent (85%) of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be provided with a Low Power Level 2 EV Ready space. EV ready spaces and EVCS in multifamily developments shall comply with California Building Code, Chapter 11A, Section 1109A. EVCS shall comply with the accessibility provisions for EV chargers in the California Building Code, Chapter 11B. Note: The total number of EV spaces should be one-hundred percent (100%) of dwelling units or one-hundred percent (100%) of parking spaces, whichever is less. When parking is provided, parking spaces for new multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels shall meet the requirements of Sections 4.106.4.2.1 and 4.106.4.2.2. Calculations for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. A parking space served by electric vehicle supply equipment or designed as a future EV charging space shall count as at least one standard automobile parking space only for the purpose of complying with any applicable minimum parking space requirements established by a local jurisdiction. See Vehicle Code Section 22511.2 for further details. 4.106.4.2.1 Multifamily development projects with less than 20 dwelling units; and hotels and motels with less than 20 sleeping units or guest rooms. The number of dwelling units, sleeping units or guest rooms shall be based on all buildings on a project site subject to this section. 1. EV Capable. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site, provided for all types of parking facilities, shall be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future Level 2 EVSE. Electrical load calculations shall demonstrate that the electrical panel service capacity and electrical system, including any on- site distribution transformer(s), have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all EVs at all required EV spaces at a minimum of 40 amperes. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging purposes as “EV CAPABLE” in accordance with the California Electrical Code. Exceptions: 1. When EV chargers (Level 2 EVSE) are installed in a number equal to or greater than the required number of EV capable spaces. 372 Page 10 of 20 2. When EV chargers (Level 2 EVSE) are installed in a number less than the required number of EV capable spaces, the number of EV capable spaces required may be reduced by a number equal to the number of EV chargers installed. Notes: a. Construction documents are intended to demonstrate the project’s capability and capacity for facilitating future EV charging. b.There is no requirement for EV spaces to be constructed or available until receptacles for EV charging or EV chargers are installed for use. 2. EV Ready. Twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. For multifamily parking facilities, no more than one receptacle is required per dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided for use by a single dwelling unit. Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts. 4.106.4.2.2 Multifamily development projects with 20 or more dwelling units, hotels and motels with 20 or more sleeping units or guest rooms. The number of dwelling units, sleeping units or guest rooms shall be based on all buildings on a project site subject to this section. 1. EV Capable. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site, provided for all types of parking facilities, shall be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future Level 2 EVSE. Electrical load calculations shall demonstrate that the electrical panel service capacity and electrical system, including any on- site distribution transformer(s), have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all EVs at all required EV spaces at a minimum of 40 amperes. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging purposes as “EV CAPABLE” in accordance with the California Electrical Code. Exception: When EV chargers (Level 2 EVSE) are installed in a number greater than five (5) percent of parking spaces required by Section 4.106.4.2.2, Item 3, the number of EV capable spaces required may be reduced by a number equal to the number of EV chargers installed over the five (5) percent required. Notes: a. Construction documents shall show locations of future EV spaces. b. There is no requirement for EV spaces to be constructed or available until receptacles for EV charging or EV chargers are installed for use. 2. EV Ready. Twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. For multifamily parking facilities, no more than one receptacle is required per dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided for use by a single dwelling unit. Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts. 3. EV Chargers. Five (5) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EVSE. Where common use parking is provided, at least one EV charger shall be 373 Page 11 of 20 located in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents or guests. When low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles or Level 2 EVSE are installed beyond the minimum required, an automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes and installed EVSE shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. ALMS shall not be used to reduce the minimum required electrical capacity to the required EV capable spaces. 4.106.4.32.2.1 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). Electric vehicle charging stations required by Section 4.106.4.2.2, Item 3, shall comply with Section 4.106.4.32.2.1. Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations serving public accommodations, public housing, motels, and hotels shall not be required to comply with this section. See California Building Code, Chapter 11B, for applicable requirements. 4.106.4.3.12.2.1.1 Location. EVCS shall comply with at least one of the following options: 1. The charging space shall be located adjacent to an accessible parking space meeting the requirements of the California Building Code, Chapter 11A, to allow use of the EV charger from the accessible parking space. 2. The charging space shall be located on an accessible route, as defined in the California Building Code, Chapter 2, to the building. Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations designed and constructed in compliance with the California Building Code, Chapter 11B, are not required to comply with Section 4.106.4.3.12.2.1.1 and Section 4.106.4.3.22.2.1.2, Item 3. 4.106.4.3.22.2.1.2 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) dDimensions. The charging spaces shall be designed to comply with the following: 1. The minimum length of each EV space shall be 18 feet (5486 mm). 2. The minimum width of each EV space shall be 9 feet (2743 mm). 3. One in every 25 charging spaces, but not less than one, shall also have an 8- foot (2438 mm) wide minimum aisle. A 5-foot (1524 mm) wide minimum aisle shall be permitted provided the minimum width of the EV space is 12 feet (3658 mm). a. Surface slope for this EV space and the aisle shall not exceed 1 unit vertical in 48 units horizontal (2.083 percent slope) in any direction. Exception: Where the City’s Municipal or Zoning Code permits parking space dimensions that are less than the minimum requirements stated in this section 4.106.4.3.2, and the compliance with which would be infeasible due to particular circumstances of a project, an exception may be granted while remaining in compliance with California Building Code Section Table 11B-228.3.2.1 and 11B-812, as applicable. 374 Page 12 of 20 4.106.4.2.2.1.3 Accessible EV spaces. In addition to the requirements in Sections 4.106.4.2.2.1.1 and 4.106.4.2.2.1.2, all EVSE, when installed, shall comply with the accessibility provisions for EV chargers in the California Building Code, Chapter 11B. EV ready spaces and EVCS in multifamily developments shall comply with California Building Code, Chapter 11A, Section 1109A. 4.106.4.4 Direct current fast charging stations. One DCFC may be substituted for up to five (5) EVCS to meet the requirements of 4.106.4.1 and 4.106.4.2. Where ALMS serve DCFC stations, the power demand from the DCFC shall be prioritized above Level 1 and Level 2 spaces. 4.106.4.2.3 EV space requirements. 1. Single EV space required. Install a listed raceway capable of accommodating a 208/240- volt dedicated branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1-inch inside diameter). The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and shall terminate into a listed cabinet, box or enclosure in close proximity to the location or the proposed location of the EV space. Construction documents shall identify the raceway termination point, receptacle or charger location, as applicable. The service panel and/or subpanel shall have a 40-ampere minimum dedicated branch circuit, including branch circuit overcurrent protective device installed, or space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch circuit overcurrent protective device. Exception: A raceway is not required if a minimum 40-ampere 208/240-volt dedicated EV branch circuit is installed in close proximity to the location or the proposed location of the EV space, at the time of original construction in accordance with the California Electrical Code. 2. Multiple EV spaces required. Construction documents shall indicate the raceway termination point and the location of installed or future EV spaces, receptacles, or EV chargers. Construction documents shall also provide information on amperage of installed or future receptacles or EVSE, raceway method(s), wiring schematics and electrical load calculations. Plan design shall be based upon a 40-ampere minimum branch circuit. Required raceways and related components that are planned to be installed underground, enclosed, inaccessible or in concealed areas and spaces shall be installed at the time of original construction. Exception: A raceway is not required if a minimum 40-ampere 208/240-volt dedicated EV branch circuit is installed in close proximity to the location or the proposed location of the EV space at the time of original construction in accordance with the California Electrical Code. 4.106.4.2.4 Identification. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging purposes as “EV CAPABLE” in accordance with the California Electrical Code. 4.106.4.2.5 Electric Vehicle Ready Space Signage. Electric vehicle ready spaces shall be identified by signage or pavement markings, in compliance with Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s). 375 Page 13 of 20 4.106.4.3 Electric vehicle charging for additions and alterations of parking facilities serving existing multifamily buildings. When new parking facilities are added, or electrical systems or lighting of existing parking facilities are added or altered and the work requires a building permit, ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces added or altered, shall be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future Level 2 EVSE. Notes: 1. Construction documents are intended to demonstrate the project’s capability and capacity for facilitating future EV charging. 2. There is no requirement for EV spaces to be constructed or available until EV chargers are installed for use. SECTION 5.106 SITE DEVELOPMENT 5.106.5.3 Electric vehicle (EV) charging. [N] Construction to provide electric vehicle infrastructure and facilitate electric vehicle charging shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3.1 and shall be provided in accordance with regulations in the California Building Code and the California Electrical Code. Accessible EVCS shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 11B Section 11B-228.3. For EVCS signs, refer to Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s). Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Exceptions: 1. On a case-by-case basis where the local enforcing agency has determined compliance with this section is not feasible based upon one of the following conditions: a. Where there is no local utility power supply. b. Where the local utility is unable to supply adequate power. c. Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcement agency substantiating that additional local utility infrastructure design requirements, directly related to the implementation of Section 5.106.5.3, may increase construction cost by an average of $4,500 per parking space. EV infrastructure shall be provided up to the level that would not exceed this cost for utility service. adversely impact the construction cost of the project. 1. Parking spaces accessible only by automated mechanical car parking systems are not required to comply with this code section. 2. Projects that receive valid entitlements from the City of South San Francisco within six (6) months of the effective date of the enabling ordinance shall provide, based on the total number of parking spaces shown below in Table 5.106.5.3.1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count toward the total number of required EV capable spaces shown in column 2. TABLE 5.106.5.3.1 376 Page 14 of 20 TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL PARKING SPACES NUMBER OF REQUIRED EV CAPABLE SPACES NUMBER OF EVCS (EV CAPABLE SPACES PROVIDED WITH EVSE) 2 0-9 0 0 10-25 4 0 26-50 8 2 51-75 13 3 76-100 17 4 101-150 25 6 151-200 35 9 201 and over 20 percent of total1 25 percent of EV capable spaces 1 5.106.5.3.1 Nonresidential Occupancy Class B Offices – Shared Parking Space. 5.106.5.3.1.1 New Construction. Twenty percent (20%) of parking spaces shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Thirty percent (30%) of parking spaces provided shall be Level 2 EV Capable. 5.106.5.3.1 EV capable spaces. [N] EV capable spaces shall be provided in accordance with Table 5.106.5.3.1 and the following requirements: 1. Raceways complying with the California Electrical Code and no less than 1-inch (25 mm) diameter shall be provided and shall originate at a service panel or a subpanel(s) serving the area, and shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the EV capable space and into a suitable listed cabinet, box, enclosure or equivalent. A common raceway may be used to serve multiple EV capable spaces. 2. A service panel or subpanel(s) shall be provided with panel space and electrical load capacity for a dedicated 208/240 volts, 40-ampere minimum branch circuits for each EV capable space, with delivery of 30-ampere minimum to an installed EVSE at each EVCS. 3 The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each EV capable space. 4.The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the reserved overcurrent protective device space(s) as “EV CAPABLE”. The raceway termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as “EV CAPABLE”. Note: A parking space served by electric vehicle supply equipment or designed as a future EV charging space shall count as at least one standard automobile parking space only for the purpose of complying with any applicable minimum parking space requirements established by an enforcement agency. See Vehicle Code Section 22511.2 for further details. 377 Page 15 of 20 TABLE 5.106.5.3.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL PARKING SPACES NUMBER OF REQUIRED EV CAPABLE SPACES NUMBER OF EVCS (EV CAPABLE SPACES PROVIDED WITH EVSE) 2 0-9 0 0 10-25 4 0 26-50 8 2 51-75 13 3 76-100 17 4 101-150 25 6 151-200 35 9 201 and over 20 percent of total1 25 percent of EV capable spaces 1 1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 2. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count toward the total number of required EV capable spaces shown in column 2. … 5.106.5.3.2 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). EV capable spaces shall be provided with EVSE to create EVCS in the number indicated in Table 5.106.5.3.1. The EVCS required by Table 5.106.5.3.1 may be provided with EVSE in any combination of Level 2 and Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC), except that at least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. One EV charger with multiple connectors capable of charging multiple EVs simultaneously shall be permitted if the electrical load capacity required by Section 5.106.5.3.1 for each EV capable space is accumulatively supplied to the EV charger. The installation of each DCFC EVSE shall be permitted to reduce the minimum number of required EV capable spaces without EVSE by five and reduce proportionally the required electrical load capacity to the service panel or subpanel. 5.106.5.3.2 Hotel and Motel Occupancies – Shared Parking Facilities. 5.106.5.3.2.1 New Construction. Five percent (5%) of parking spaces provided shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Twenty-five percent (25%) of parking spaces provided shall be Low Power Level 2 EV Ready space. Ten percent (10%) of parking spaces provided shall be Level 2 EV Capable. 5.106.5.3.3 All Other Nonresidential Occupancies – Shared Parking Facilities. 378 Page 16 of 20 5.106.5.3.3.1 New Construction. Ten percent (10%) of parking spaces provided shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Ten percent (10%) of parking spaces provided shall be Level 2 EV Capable. 5.106.5.3.3 Use of automatic load management systems (ALMS). ALMS shall be permitted for EVCS. When ALMS is installed, the required electrical load capacity specified in Section 5.106.5.3.1 for each EVCS may be reduced when serviced by an EVSE controlled by an ALMS. Each EVSE controlled by an ALMS shall deliver a minimum 30 amperes to an EV when charging one vehicle and shall deliver a minimum 3.3 kW while simultaneously charging multiple EVs. 5.106.5.3.4 Direct current fast charging stations. One DCFC may be substituted for up to five (5) EVCS to meet the requirements of 5.106.5.3.1, 5.106.5.3.2, and 5.106.5.3.3. Where ALMS serve DCFC stations, the power demand from the DCFC shall be prioritized above Level 1 and Level 2 spaces. 5.106.5.3.4 Accessible EVCS. When EVSE is installed, accessible EVCS shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 11B Section 11B-228.3. Note: For EVCS signs, refer to Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s). 5.106.5.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging readiness: medium-duty and heavy-duty. [N] Construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.4.1 to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Construction for warehouses, grocery stores and retail stores with planned off-street loading spaces shall also comply with Section 5.106.5.4.1 for future installation of medium- and heavy-duty EVSE. Accessible EVCS shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 11B Section 11B-228.3. For EVCS signs, refer to Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s). Exceptions: 1. On a case-by-case basis where the local enforcing agency has determined compliance with this section is not feasible based upon one of the following conditions: a. Where there is no local utility power supply. b. Where the local utility is unable to supply adequate power. c. Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcing agency substantiating that additional local utility infrastructure design requirements, directly related to the implementation of Section 5.106.5.3, may increase construction cost by an average of $4,500 per parking space. EV infrastructure shall be provided up to the level that would not exceed this cost for utility service. adversely impact the construction cost of the project. When EVCS(s) are installed, it shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the California Electrical Code as follows: 379 Page 17 of 20 5.106.5.4.1 Electric vehicle charging readiness requirements for wWarehouses, grocery stores and retail stores with planned off-street loading spaces. [N] In order to avoid future demolition when adding EV supply and distribution equipment, spare raceway(s) or busway(s) and adequate capacity for transformer(s), service panel(s) or subpanel(s) shall be installed at the time of construction in accordance with the California Electrical Code. Construction plans and specifications shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 2. The transformer, main service equipment and subpanels shall meet the minimum power requirement in Table 5.106.5.4.1 to accommodate the dedicated branch circuits for the future installation of EVSE. 3. The construction documents shall indicate one or more location(s) convenient to the planned off-street loading space(s) reserved for medium- and heavy-duty ZEV charging cabinets and charging dispensers, and a pathway reserved for routing of conduit from the termination of the raceway(s) or busway(s) to the charging cabinet(s) and dispenser(s), as shown in Table 5.106.5.4.1. 4. Raceway(s) or busway(s) originating at a main service panel or a subpanel(s) serving the area where potential future medium- and heavy-duty EVSE will be located and shall terminate in close proximity to the potential future location of the charging equipment for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. 5. The raceway(s) or busway(s) shall be of sufficient size to carry the minimum additional system load to the future location of the charging for medium- and heavy-duty EVs as shown in Table 5.106.5.4.1. TABLE 5.106.5.4.1, Raceway Conduit and Panel power Requirements for Medium-and-Heavy-Duty EVSE [N] Building type Building Size (sq. ft.) Number of Off-street loading spaces Additional capacity Required (kVa) for Raceway & Busway and Transformer & Panel Grocery 10,000 to 90,000 1 or 2 200 Grocery Greater than 90,000 3 or Greater 400 Grocery Greater than 90,000 1 or Greater 400 Retail 10,000 to 135,000 1 or 2 200 Retail 10,000 to 135,000 3 or Greater 400 Retail Greater than 135,000 1 or Greater 400 Warehouse Warehouse Warehouse 20,000 to 256,000 20,000 to 256,000 1 or 2 200 3 or Greater 400 Greater than 256,000 1 or Greater 400 B. Section 15.22.021 Amendments to the CALGreen Code. 380 Page 18 of 20 The California Green Building Code (Cal. Code Regs. Title 24, Part 11) is amended as follows, with additions in underline and deletions in strikethrough. Chapter, section and table numbers used herein are those of the California Green Building Code. Sections and subsections not amended are not included below and shall remain in full force and effect. CHAPTER 2 – DEFINITIONS ADDITION. An extension or increase in floor area of an existing building or structure. ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDING. A building that contains no combustion equipment or plumbing for combustion equipment serving space heating (including fireplaces), water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances (including barbeques), and clothes drying, within the building or building property lines, and instead uses electric heating appliances for service. ALTERATION OR ALTER. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than repair for the purpose of maintenance or addition. COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT. Any equipment or appliance used for space heating, water heating, cooking, clothes drying and/or lighting that uses fuel gas. COMMERCIAL FOOD HEAT-PROCESSING EQUIPMENT. An equipment used in a food establishment for heat-processing food or utensils and that produces grease vapors, steam, fumes, smoke, or odors that are required to be removed through a local exhaust ventilation system, as defined in the California Mechanical Code. ELECTRIC HEATING APPLIANCE. A device that produces heat energy to create a warm environment by the application of electric power to resistance elements, refrigerant compressors, or dissimilar material junctions, as defined in the California Mechanical Code. FUEL GAS. A gas that is natural, manufactured, liquefied petroleum, or a mixture of these. NEWLY CONSTRUCTED (or NEW CONSTRUCTION). A newly constructed building (or new construction) does not include additions, alterations or repairs. PROCESS EQUIPMENT. Equipment for which sustained temperatures typically in excess of three hundred fifty degrees Fahrenheit are required and demonstrably not achievable with commercial electric equipment. CHAPTER 5 – NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES Division 5.1 PLANNING AND DESIGN SECTION 5.106 - SITE DEVELOPMENT …….. 381 Page 19 of 20 5.106.13 All-electric buildings. New construction buildings and qualifying alteration projects shall comply with Section 5.106.13.1 or 5.106.13.2 so that they do not use combustion equipment or are ready to facilitate future electrification. 5.106.13.1 New construction. All newly constructed buildings shall be all-electric buildings. Newly constructed buildings exclude alterations to existing buildings and tenant improvements. Exceptions: 1. If the applicant establishes that there is not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway for the building system under the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and that the building is not able to achieve the performance compliance standard applicable to the building under the Energy Efficiency Standards using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the local enforcing agency may grant a modification. The applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.5.2. 2. Nonresidential buildings containing kitchens located in a place of public accommodation, as defined in the California Building Code Chapter 2, may apply to the local enforcing agency for a modification to install commercial food heat-processing equipment served by fuel gas. The local enforcing agency may grant the modification if they find: A business-related need to cook with combustion equipment; and a. The need cannot be achieved equivalently with an electric heating appliance; and b. The applicant has installed energy efficient equipment based on Energy Star or California Energy Wise qualifications, as available. c. The applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.13.2. 3. Critical facilities back-up power necessary to protect public health or safety in the event of an electric grid outage. 4. Process equipment for industrial, laboratories and medical uses. 5. Nonresidential building projects that receive valid entitlements from the City of South San Francisco within six (6) months of the effective date of the enabling ordinance are not required to be designed and constructed as all-electric. If the Director of Economic & Community Development or his or her designee grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with the pre-wiring provision of Section 5.106.13.2. Inactive Fuel Gas Infrastructure may be extended to spaces that are anticipated to qualify for the exceptions contained in this chapter. The inactive Fuel Gas Infrastructure shall not be activated, have a meter installed, or otherwise used unless the exceptions specified in this chapter have been confirmed as part of the issuance of a building permit. If the Fuel Gas Infrastructure is no longer serving one of the exceptions contained in this chapter, it shall either be capped, otherwise terminated, or removed by the entity previously entitled to the exception, in a manner pursuant to all applicable Codes. South San Francisco shall have the authority to approve alternative materials, design and methods of construction or equipment per California Building Code Section 104. 5.106.13.2 Requirements for combustion equipment. 382 Page 20 of 20 Where combustion equipment is allowed per Exceptions under 5.106.13.1, the construction drawings shall indicate electrical infrastructure and physical space accommodating the future installation of an electrical heating appliance in the following ways, as certified by a registered design professional or licensed electrical contractor: 1. Branch circuit wiring, electrically isolated and designed to serve all electrical heating appliances in accordance with manufacturer requirements and the California Electrical Code, including the appropriate voltage, phase, minimum amperage, and an electrical receptacle or junction box within five feet of the appliance that is accessible with no obstructions. Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors; and 2. Labeling of both ends of the unused conductors or conduit shall be with “For Future Electrical Appliance”; and 3. Reserved circuit breakers in the electrical panel for each branch circuit, appropriately labeled (e.g. “Reserved for Future Electric Range”), and positioned on the opposite end of the panel supply conductor connection; and 4. Connected subpanels, panelboards, switchboards, busbars, and transformers shall be sized to serve the future electrical heating appliances. The electrical capacity requirements shall be adjusted for demand factors in accordance with the California Electric Code; and 5. Physical space for future electrical heating appliances, including equipment footprint, and if needed a pathway reserved for routing of ductwork to heat pump evaporator(s), shall be depicted on the construction drawings. The footprint necessary for future electrical heating appliances may overlap with non-structural partitions and with the location of currently designed combustion equipment. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance hall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall: (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall: (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. 383 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Study session regarding commercial reach codes outreach efforts.(Christina Fernandez,Chief Sustainability Officer; Phil Perry, Chief Building Official, and Melanie Jacobson, Integrative Designs 360) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive a report on commercial reach code efforts and provide staff with direction on draft commercial reach code language. The purpose of this study session is to 1.Receive a presentation regarding the 2022 building electrification and energy efficiency reach code options available for local adoption; and 2.Receive an update on the additional outreach staff conducted to the business and development community regarding a potential building electrification reach code for new nonresidential construction; and 3.Provide direction to staff on the preferred reach code approach for new residential and non-residential construction so staff may proceed with developing the proposed ordinance for new residential and new nonresidential buildings; and 4.Provide direction to staff on the type of EV reach code to adopt for the 2022 code cycle. BACKGROUND On June 9, 2021, City Council adopted a local building electrification reach code that requires all new appliances in single-family and multi-family buildings to be electric (all-electric required). The All-Electric Reach Code applies to residential projects and allows the Director of Economic & Community Development to approve modifications for projects due to technical infeasibility. The 2019 residential energy reach code also exempted multi-family residential projects with 100 units or more that received valid entitlements within six months from the effective date of the local reach code. During this time, Council also approved increased electric vehicle (EV) charging requirements for new single- family dwellings and multi-unit dwellings. The local requirements are based on the 2019 model EV reach code developed by Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE). The current local requirements reside in Section 15.22.020 of the local municipal code and include the following criteria: ·New one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages: For each dwelling unit, install a Level 2 EV Ready Space and Level 1 EV Ready Space. o Exception: For each dwelling unit with only one parking space, install a Level 2 EV Ready Space. ·New multifamily dwellings ≤ 20 units: one parking space per dwelling unit with parking shall be provided with a Level 2 EV Ready Space. File #:22-718,Version:1 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 1 of 14 powered by Legistar™384 File #:22-718,Version:1 ·New multifamily dwellings > 20 units: Install one Level 2 EV Ready Space in the first 20 dwelling units with parking spaces. o For each additional dwelling unit over 20, 25% of the dwelling units with parking space(s) shall be provided with at least one Level 2 EV Ready Space. Calculations for the required minimum number of Level 2 EV Ready spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. o In addition, each remaining dwelling unit with parking space(s) shall be provided with at least a Level 1 EV Ready Space. On January 27, 2021, Council directed staff to continue to receive input from the business community on the proposed nonresidential reach code ordinances. As a result, City staff convened multiple stakeholder outreach efforts to gain knowledge and suggestions for consideration into the upcoming local municipal code changes. Stakeholders for the nonresidential reach code development include property owners, contractors, manufacturers, architects, and commercial tenants. This staff report provides an overview of the 2022 Statewide Reach Code electrification related pathways and includes options for City Council to direct staff to proceed in the adoption of an energy reach code for new nonresidential buildings. National and Regional Legislative Context Local governments play a key role in addressing the ongoing climate crisis. The actions taken on a local level directly support climate action efforts happening at the federal level. Recent national and state legislation have shifted the role of governments in climate change mitigation. By way of Executive Order 14008, President Biden called for a “government-wide approach to climate change”. This call to action ordered climate considerations be an essential element of United States foreign policy and national security. On August 16 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act dedicating significant funding to combat the climate crisis. Example of the criteria within the Inflation Reduction Act include rebates and tax credits for efficient appliances and home upgrades, tax credits for rooftop solar systems, and tax credits for electric vehicles. It also invests in technologies like solar, wind, and clean hydrogen, with provisions that encourage domestic sourcing of materials. The law is projected to yield significant reductions to GHG emissions, with independent and official government projections agreeing it will reduce about one billion metric tons of annual emissions in 2030, with total annual emissions reaching about a 40 percent drop below 2005 levels in the year 2030. In 2021, Governor Newsom announced that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) must establish a more ambitious electricity procurement target by 2030 and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will accelerate progress and evaluate different pathways for achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. CARB is also directed through AB 32 to develop a scoping plan that details how the State of California will achieve the established GHG reduction goals. In January 2021 Executive Order N-79-20 was issued by Governor Newsom in January 2021. The order called for the phasing out of new internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035 and established that 100% of in- state sales of new passenger cars and truck to be zero-emission by 2035. Most recently, Governor Newsom signed sweeping climate measures ranging from climate legislation to City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 2 of 14 powered by Legistar™385 File #:22-718,Version:1 advance carbon neutrality, transition away from oil, increase access to clean, reliable and affordable energy, and to protect Californians from extreme effects of climate change. The California Climate Commitment is a comprehensive plan that invests $54 billion to fight climate change. Furthermore, as a part of the Commitment, the Governor codified the statewide carbon neutrality goal to dramatically reduce climate pollution (AB 1279), building upon Executive Order B-55-18, issued by Governor Brown in 2018. The package also established a pathway toward the state’s clean energy future by creating clean electricity targets of 90% by 2035 and 95% by 2040 with the intent of advancing the state’s trajectory to the existing 100% clean electricity retail sales by 2045 goal. On September 22, 2022, CARB announced a new comprehensive plan to meet federal ozone standards over the next 15 years. The plan includes the ban on new sales of natural gas heaters, water heaters, and furnaces by 2030. The vote supports meeting EPA regulations limiting ozone in the atmosphere to 70 parts per billion as much of California still exceeds the federal limit (typically experienced as smog). One of the key strategies in the 2022 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Strategy is the proposed zero-emissions space and water heaters measure. The evolving regulatory efforts are long-term goals and require local governments to actively participate in the mitigation of the climate crisis. To support climate action goals, California jurisdictions are adopting local building electrification and electric vehicle charging infrastructure reach codes. Reach Code Adoption Process Every three years, the State of California adopts new building standards that are organized in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, referred to as the California Building Standards Code. The 2019 Code became effective on January 1, 2020, and the 2022 Code will become effective on January 1, 2023. Jurisdictions can adopt reach codes that set conditions above minimum state code requirements. However, these reach codes must be filed with the California Building Standards Commission (BSC). If local amendments require energy efficiency or conservation measures, such as higher performance envelope or battery storage, the California Energy Commission (CEC) requires that the amendments be supported by a cost-effectiveness study and filed as amendments to the Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6). The City may also adopt electrification ordinances that amend different Parts of the California Building Standards Code or may amend other state or municipal codes. The type of amendment will depend on the specific requirements that must be followed for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. Ordinances that determine the fuel-type (all-electric construction) may be amended through Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) or as a municipal code amendment (Health and Safety Code) and only require the review and approval by the BSC. Requirements solely based on fuel-type (all-electric) do not require supporting cost-effectiveness analyses due to the absence of efficiency or energy conservation requirements, and therefore bypass the review and approval process with the CEC. However, jurisdictions can utilize cost-effectiveness studies as supporting documentation as the analyses can demonstrate to the public that amendments to the code are financially responsible and do not represent an unreasonable burden to the residential and nonresidential building owners and occupants. 2022 California Energy Code New Construction Highlights City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 3 of 14 powered by Legistar™386 File #:22-718,Version:1 The 2022 California Energy Code differs from the current 2019 California Energy Code, particularly as it pertains to new residential and non-residential buildings. For new construction, the 2022 Energy Code encourages electric heat pump technology, establishes electric-ready requirements when natural gas end uses are installed, expands the previous solar photovoltaic (PV) system requirements and battery storage standards, and strengthens ventilation standards to support improved indoor air quality. The CEC established heat pumps as the prescriptive baseline for new construction. This change sets energy budgets based on efficient heat pumps for space or water heating with the goal of encouraging builders to install heat pumps over gas-fueled HVAC units. A performance credit is also available for buildings that are designed as all-electric. The 2022 Energy Code is considered electric preferred because of this performance credit. New residential buildings require “electric-readiness”, where a dedicated 240-volt outlet and space (with plumbing for water heaters) is required for each installed gas-fueled appliance so electric appliances can eventually replace gas counterparts. Additionally, residential homes will be required to comply with increased minimum kitchen ventilation requirements to better exhaust pollution from gas cooking and improve indoor air quality. In addition to PV requirements, new residential buildings will be subject to battery-ready requirements or “Energy Storage System” (ESS) readiness. The 2022 Energy Code includes a substantial change that establishes combined solar PV and battery standards for specific commercial occupancy types. Select nonresidential buildings are required to install systems that are sized to maximize onsite use of solar energy and avoid electricity demand during times when the grid must use gas-powered plants. The 2022 Energy Code also includes improved building envelope efficiency standards and grid integration equipment standards like demand-responsive controls. 2022 CALGreen Electric Vehicle Charging Highlights The California BSC approved the new version of CALGreen in December 2022. CALGreen contains additional voluntary provisions that local jurisdictions can adopt. Many of the updates impact EV infrastructure to advance the state’s strategic goals of electrification as a path towards decarbonization. The changes also support Executive Order N-79-20, which mandates 100% of in-state sales of new zero-emission passenger vehicles (ZEV) by 2035. Major changes to EV charging impact multi-family, hotels/motels, and nonresidential new construction. The following tables outline the mandatory 2022 CALGreen EV charging requirements. Occupancy Type 2022 CALGreen Mandatory Provision One- and Two-Family Homes, Town- homes with Private Garages New Construction:• All EV Capable • Raceway • Service Panel and/or Subpanel Capacity and Space(s) Multi-Family Dwellings, Hotels and Motels New Construction:• 10% of parking spaces to be EV Capable • 25% of parking spaces require EV Ready w/Low Power Level 2 Receptacles • 5% of parking spaces in buildings with 20 + units require Level 2 EV Supply Equipment (EVSE) • Spaces identified on plans Existing Buildings:• 10% of new added parking spaces for existing buildings to be EV Capable Spaces • 10% of altered spaces to be EV CapableCity of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 4 of 14 powered by Legistar™387 File #:22-718,Version:1 Occupancy Type 2022 CALGreen Mandatory ProvisionOne- and Two-Family Homes,Town- homes with PrivateGarages New Construction:• All EV Capable • Raceway •Service Panel and/or Subpanel Capacity and Space(s)Multi-Family Dwellings, Hotels and Motels New Construction:• 10% of parking spaces to be EV Capable • 25% of parking spaces require EV Ready w/Low Power Level 2 Receptacles • 5% of parking spaces in buildings with 20 + units require Level 2 EV Supply Equipment (EVSE) • Spaces identified on plans Existing Buildings:• 10% of new added parking spaces for existing buildings to be EV Capable Spaces • 10% of altered spaces to be EV Capable Table I Mandatory 2022 CALGreen Requirements for Residential Construction Total Number of Parking Spaces Number of Required EV Capable Spaces Number of EVCS (EV Capable provided with EVSE) 0-9 0 0 10-25 4 0 26-50 8 2 51-75 13 3 76-100 17 4 101-150 25 6 151-200 35 9 201+20% of total 25% of EV Capable Spaces Table II Mandatory 2022 CALGreen Requirements for Nonresidential New Construction EV requirements for nonresidential new construction depend on the total number of parking spaces and require a combination of EV Capable Spaces and/or EV Capable Spaces with EVSE (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations). Additionally, 2022 CALGreen consists of mandatory electrical panel capacity requirements for future installation of medium- and heavy-duty EVSE. The building types impacted by this requirement extend to grocery stores, retail, and warehouse buildings with planned off-street loading spaces. Adopted Reach Codes in Other Cities During the 2019 code cycle, 54 California jurisdictions adopted local energy reach codes. Over 30 jurisdictions locally adopted all-electric only ordinances, and many cities included limited exceptions such as exemptions for commercial kitchens and laboratories. Additionally in the past two years, at least 10 jurisdictions have adopted a municipal code ordinance (gas moratorium) prohibiting all new natural gas hookups or infrastructure. Biotech and laboratory spaces were found to represent most of the new commercial construction permits issued by the City. Staff acknowledges that specific nonresidential exceptions are necessary to encourage new commercial construction and employment opportunities as biotech, manufacturing, and food processing sectors are key employment generators in the City. California jurisdictions with specific laboratory exceptions include Alameda, Belmont, Cupertino, Daly City, Hercules, Los Altos, Mountain View, Redwood City, San Carlos, Santa Clara County, Santa Barbara, San Mateo County, and Sunnyvale. Like California, the State of Massachusetts updates the building code every three years and allows municipalities to adopt requirements that exceed base building energy code requirements (Stretch Code). Towns like Cambridge, MA that have biomedical and manufacturing companies operating in the community have also adopted increased energy efficiency requirements for nonresidential construction with exceptions. The Town requires supermarkets, laboratories, and conditioned warehouses larger than 40,000 sq ft to meet the performance modeling requirements of the stretch code. Due to the reality that these building types often have large and unusual energy loads, supermarkets, laboratories, and conditioned warehouses less than 40,000 sq ft are exempt from the local enhanced efficiency requirements. City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 5 of 14 powered by Legistar™388 File #:22-718,Version:1 DISCUSSION Building Electrification Reach Codes for New Construction Building electrification reach codes focus on prioritizing electricity end uses over natural gas end uses and/or requiring enhanced efficiency above statewide energy code standards. Building appliance electrification options in California are generally be broken into five categories: ·OPTION 1 - Efficiency: All new construction exceeds minimum energy code (via Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6). ·OPTION 2 - Electric Preferred: Allows mixed-fuel buildings with high energy performance, requiring additional energy efficiency measures, battery storage, and/or pre-wiring for buildings to be electric- ready (via Energy Code, Title 24 Part 6). ·OPTION 3 - Electric Only: Appliances must be electric (via Green Building Code, Title 24 Part 11). ·OPTION 4 - All-Electric Municipal Ordinance: No gas hookup allowed (via municipal ordinance). ·OPTION 5- Electric Only Plus Efficiency: All new construction is electric only and exceeds minimum energy code (via Green Building Code, Title 24 Part 11 and Energy Code, Title 24 Part 6). Each option for building electrification has benefits and challenges. Considerations for each of the reach code approaches listed above is described further below. OPTION 1 - Efficiency: (All-electric and mixed-fuel buildings exceed State requirements) The Efficiency reach code amends the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) and requires all new construction of any kind (mixed-fuel and all-electric) exceed minimum energy code standards. This option achieves results higher than the base energy code while requiring enhanced efficiency for buildings constructed with either fuel type. A benefit of this option is that it preserves the choice of fuel type for the applicant, while requiring enhanced efficiency requirements. This ordinance also allows for specific measures, such as cool roof or additional PV, to be incorporated into the requirements. This type of ordinance must be approved by the CEC and re-adopted with every code cycle. The Efficiency reach code ordinance differs from the current reach code in effect, as it allows for both fuel types and requires enhanced efficiency beyond baseline energy code standards. OPTION 2 - All-Electric Preferred (Only mixed-fuel buildings have increased requirements) The all-electric preferred option encourages electrification by giving builders two options: 1) Achieving a higher energy efficiency level than the Energy Code using mixed fuels (fuel gas and electricity); or 2) Building an all-electric building at the minimum efficiency as required in the Energy Code. There are limited incremental greenhouse gas emissions reductions that can be attained by pursuing this model, compared to the All-Electric Required Municipal Ordinance or All-Electric Required Building Code Amendment. This type of ordinance must be approved by the CEC and re-adopted with every code cycle. City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 6 of 14 powered by Legistar™389 File #:22-718,Version:1 The All-Electric Preferred reach code ordinance differs from the current reach code in effect, as it allows for both fuel types and requires enhanced efficiency beyond baseline energy code standards for new mixed-fuel buildings only. All-electric buildings are not required to perform at a higher standard under this approach, which aligns with the City’s 2019 energy reach code. OPTION 3 - All-Electric Required (Appliances must be all-electric) The all-electric required model requires specific end-uses to install electric appliances, including space heating, water heating, clothes-drying, and cooking, with limited exceptions. This approach does not require the City to gain approval from the CEC or submit supporting cost-effectiveness analyses. The requirements would be locally amended under the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) and would be required to be renewed every three years. The All-Electric reach code is the option that is most like the approach the City adopted for the 2019 residential energy reach code requirements. The main difference is the mechanism for adoption used for the 2019 reach code was the Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6). However, mandating electricity as the fuel type does not constitute an energy efficiency or conservation standard and is outside the scope of PRC section 25402.1(h)(2). This approach is anticipated to achieve the same level of projected GHG reductions as the All-Electric Municipal Ordinance (natural gas ban), since it requires specific end-uses to install electric appliances, with exceptions. PCE has provided model CALGreen ordinance amendment language for new all-electric buildings and substantial remodels. OPTION 4 - All-Electric Municipal Ordinance (Natural gas “ban”) The all-electric municipal ordinance is also referred to as a gas prohibition, that is more aggressive than the all- electric and electric-preferred model reach codes. These ordinances eliminate the installation of gas infrastructure at the property with limited exceptions, and thus guarantee significant decreases in greenhouse gas emissions. This approach is the longest lasting, as it is not tied to the three-year building code cycle and instead uses jurisdictional authority to amend the Health and Safety Code. The All-Electric Municipal Ordinance option is like the City’s current reach code, in that it requires electric appliances for all new buildings. However, the mechanism used to adopt the requirements and the intent behind the mechanism differs from a typical building code amendment (i.e., Title 24, Part 6 or Title 24, Part 11). Similarly, PCE has also provided model municipal code ordinance amendment language for new all-electric buildings and substantial remodels (i.e., Health and Safety Code). OPTION 5- Electric Only Plus Efficiency (Electric only with increased requirements) The Electric Only Plus Efficiency approach requires appliances to be electric and includes a package of efficiency and solar PV), with some exceptions. This type of ordinance must be approved by the CEC and re- adopted with every code cycle. The Statewide Reach Code Team has characterized this approach as the pathway that will have the biggest impact in reducing GHG emissions. The City has the authority to adopt specific exemptions for the proposed building electrification reach code requirements. The exemptions considered for adoption are detailed in the discussion section below. City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 7 of 14 powered by Legistar™390 File #:22-718,Version:1 Potential Energy Reach Code Exceptions for New Construction The following are potential limited exceptions that can be included in the local energy reach code. ·Specialized equipment for Industrial processes, laboratories, and medical uses. ·Multifamily residential building projects that have been granted entitlements within a year of the ordinance adoption. ·Water heating or space heating in an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit in which new services are provided by existing systems from an existing mixed fuel building. ·Commercial Food Heat-Processing Equipment. ·Back-up power for Critical Facilities necessary to protect public health or safety in the event of an electric grid outage. ·Process Loads in a Newly Constructed Manufacturing and Industrial Facility. For Manufacturing and Industrial facilities with unknown tenants, exemptions may be provided pending review of initial tenant occupancy. ·Swimming pools and Spas. ·If there is not an all-electric prescriptive pathway for a building under the state Energy Code, and the building is unable to achieve the Energy Code’s performance compliance pathway using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the building official may grant a modification. When a building is granted a fuel-gas exemption, it is customary to require the location of fuel gas appliances to be prepared for future electrification to reduce future retrofit costs (electric-readiness). Nonresidential Reach Codes Community Engagement During the month of September 2021, City staff conducted multiple meetings with the biotechnology businesses and local development community to discuss proposed building electrification requirements and gather feedback. Throughout this time, City staff also held one-on-one meetings with several representatives from the business development community. During the meetings, staff shared details regarding possible nonresidential reach codes and recorded comments and concerns on particular requirements. Details of the stakeholder feedback received during this phase of the public stakeholder outreach process can be found in Staff Report 21-791. Per Council direction, staff continued outreach efforts with the business development community to support nonresidential reach code development in 2022. In March of 2022, City staff sent out an industry survey to local community stakeholders and received responses from twelve (12) stakeholder participants. The participants comprised of a range of local business owners, operators and developers. The participants work on various project types, including; office, manufacturing, warehouse, retail, biotech labs, office, laundry/dry cleaning, restaurants, and light industrial. The stakeholders were asked how they anticipated proposed electrification requirements might impact a new construction project their organization works on. The majority of participants (half) anticipate building electrification requirements will add a significant (large) impact to a project scope of work. A quarter of participants anticipate such requirements will add a minimal (small) impact to a project scope of work. City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 8 of 14 powered by Legistar™391 File #:22-718,Version:1 Within the industry survey, City staff asked stakeholders to comment on the potential to align the proposed requirements with the upcoming 2022 building code cycle. Furthermore, stakeholders were asked to assess if their new construction project could adapt to the new requirements by the January 1, 2023 effective date. Over half of participants indicated they could not adapt to requirements by that time, while a quarter of participants stated they could easily adapt to requirements by the proposed effective date. Half of the stakeholder participants confirmed that their organization currently had projects submitted for Planning review at the time of responding the survey or intended to submit an application to the City for development in the next five years. General feedback from businesses showed an openness to adapt to an electrification reach code if the requirements were phased in or a grace period was allowed for certain entitled projects. It is also worth noting that feedback from the industry suggests concerns related to the timeline requirements for PG&E in relation to development. Since requests to PG&E to bring power to a new area may take up to two years, having an adequate amount of lead time to prepare for nonresidential reach codes is critical for a project’s success. The survey also asked stakeholders how increased electric vehicle charging station requirements above the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) will impact future non-residential construction projects. The majority of participants indicated a large impact to a project scope of work. Some stakeholders commented that adding additional EV charging requirements may induce parking demand, increase traffic congestion, and charging facilities will not reduce peak-hour vehicle trips. Other considerations raised by stakeholders included considerations to increasing panel capacity demand with additional electric vehicle charging requirements. In July 2022, City staff issued an additional survey focused on local business owners in South San Francisco. Staff received submissions from forty-five (45) local business owners representing different nonresidential occupancy types, including retail, offices, restaurants, medical offices, grocery stores and restaurants. The existing businesses that participated in the survey primarily use natural gas for ovens, stovetops, and water heaters. The majority of local business owner participants indicated no interest in transitioning to an all-electric alternative, while a quarter of participants confirmed interest in transitioning to an all-electric alternative. Some participants who rent tenant spaces indicated that this decision would be determined by their landlord. A few participants commented that they find electric appliances easier to use and the current business establishment already has electric appliances installed for most or all end uses that serve business operations. A number of participants indicated a willingness to transition if the City provides incentives and/or rebates to support electrification and if the requirements were found to be cost-effective. A few local business owners also commented that some hesitation comes from being unfamiliar with the options for electric appliances and asked that the City inform the community on the environmental, health, and economic benefits of electrification through outreach. The hesitation towards electrification also stems from concern over the expense of electricity over gas. Multiple stakeholders and business owners commented that the City should consider specific exemptions from all-electric requirements for businesses, including exceptions for commercial cooking. Induction appliances minimize indoor air pollution and burn risk due as induction technology coveys less heat and directly heats the cookware (stainless steel or cast iron). However many individuals are hesitant to use induction technology due to the preference of cooking with a flame over electricity. Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) also maintains an City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 9 of 14 powered by Legistar™392 File #:22-718,Version:1 induction cooking information hub. This PCE webpage gives residential and commercial resources on induction appliances and lists additional resources for available rebates. Similar to previous outreach efforts, City staff received feedback in favor of exemptions for fuel-gas in laboratory spaces within a new building. An exception for biotech and laboratory spaces allows the City to still require electric end uses for other components of the building while giving the applicant flexibility. Laboratories pose specific challenges to all-electric construction since these buildings often contain specialized equipment that require gas. Staff also notes that PCE has recently been involved in conversations with a neighboring Bay Area city that is considering excluding exceptions for laboratories based on discussions with a design build firm that specializes in all-electric design and construction for biotech and medical lab facilities. Although there are valid concerns around space heating costs and backup power, especially for facilities that operate 24/7, there are anticipated cost savings associated with transitioning the typical central plant design using built-up water-cooled chiller and gas boilers to all-electric modular air-cooled heat pumps. The following cost savings are associated with this design change: ·Mechanical equipment (condensing boilers, cooling towers including pumps and filtration, and water-cooled chillers). ·Boiler and chiller room construction costs, and real estate value (the heat pumps are located outdoors). ·Natural gas service and piping. The savings from avoiding the boiler and chiller room construction costs and natural gas service infrastructure, can bring an all-electric plan into cost parity with the traditional fossil fueled plants. Operational cost parity and savings are found when including water utility cost savings from avoiding a traditional chiller and cooling tower. Operational cost savings are even more significant when electric loads are offset with on-site solar. The experience of industry experts involved with electrification of biotech labs continues to change as technology evolves, which may provide the City with future alternatives for nonresidential reach code policy. Numerous community and industry stakeholders expressed concern over power outages and the reliability of the electric grid. The City may consider allowing backup power by exemption for Critical Facilities, including buildings with biotech lab spaces to address this concern. Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Reach Codes Staff is also seeking Council direction on the potential EV reach code options for new nonresidential construction. There are two model code options for enhanced electric vehicle charging requirements: 1) 2022 CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 elective measures and 2) PCE EV Model Reach Code. 2022 CALGreen’s most impactful provisions focus on electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure to advance the state’s strategic goals of electrification as a main driver towards decarbonization. The upcoming statewide green building code includes voluntary requirements that jurisdictions can consider for adoption (Tier 1 and Tier 2). The voluntary tiers go above the mandatory requirements for new construction outlined in Chapter 4 (residential) and Chapter 5 (non-residential). City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 10 of 14 powered by Legistar™393 File #:22-718,Version:1 For the 2022 model EV reach code, PCE built upon the stakeholder engagement feedback from the 2019 building code cycle and created a model EV zoning amendment in addition to the typical CALGreen amendment. The EV zoning code amendment is not tied to the building code cycle and can be adopted indefinitely like the All-Electric Municipal Ordinance. California jurisdictions with EV zoning amendments include Alameda and San Luis Obispo. The City’s 2019 EV requirements for new residential buildings were amended via CALGreen. Staff asks Council to consider the potential EV reach code options and advise staff on which model code approach to pursue to create the 2022 local electric vehicle charging amendments for new nonresidential buildings. Electrification of Existing Buildings: In addition to new construction reach codes, several California cities have adopted reach codes that impact existing buildings. This section outlines considerations for existing building electrification and four approaches that the city may pursue to address existing buildings, including; an End of Flow Ordinance, a Time of Sales Disclosure Ordinance, a Burnout Ordinance, or In-Lieu Fees. The electrification of an existing building is more complex than building a new all-electric building. An existing building that has been built with both gas and electricity will typically require additional infrastructure changes to switch to an all-electric building. The process of changing appliances from gas to electric is commonly referred to as “fuel-switching”. These upgrades typically come with a higher cost and can create equity issues surrounding building electrification. Some existing building electrification requirements are considered zero cost and other measures will require programs to close the cost gap. Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) is developing existing building decarbonization resources, including strategy framework examples, model code language, and policy planning tools, to support these concerns. The type of existing building reach codes available for jurisdictions to adopt vary in approach and each have unique challenges. Since the majority of GHG emissions from the building sector are associated with the existing building stock, some jurisdictions have adopted reach codes for existing buildings to meet climate action plan goals. The four existing building approaches described below are provided for the City Council to consider and provide directional feedback to staff for the desired policy action. End of Flow Ordinance (By a certain date, fuel gas lines are capped/decommissioned in existing buildings) The “End of Flow Ordinance”, also known as a “Date Certain” approach, would require that all fuel gas lines are capped or decommissioned in existing buildings by a specific date. PCE considers this approach to be “no- cost signaling policy” that helps with individual and statewide planning around building electrification and decarbonization. The End of Flow language can be integrated into the passing of a new construction ordinance or a declaration by City Council. By the date specified, all gas-powered and mixed-fuel buildings would be required to retrofit to electric-only under this approach. This approach would require additional research on legal ramifications or liability issues that may arise from this type of policy. This approach would require an investment by the City in compliance efforts and support for the community (i.e., equity considerations). In February 2022, the Half Moon Bay City Council approved a Building Electrification Ordinance that impacts both new and existing buildings and includes an “End of Flow” requirement. No later than January 1, 2045, all City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 11 of 14 powered by Legistar™394 File #:22-718,Version:1 buildings within Half Moon Bay are required to be all-electric or all-electric conversions and all fuel gas lines will be capped and/or decommissioned. The decision to terminate gas service within the City was driven by the State’s commitment to carbon neutrality by 2045 and Council identifying electrifying buildings as a necessary strategy to achieve the City’s 2030 and 2045 GHG reduction targets. The requirements exempt commercial greenhouses, wastewater treatment facilities, and fuel gas generators until January 1, 2045. Additionally, portable propane appliances for use of outside of the building, including outdoor cooking and outdoor heating appliances, are exempt from the End of Flow Ordinance. Time of Sale Disclosure Ordinance (Requires disclosure of fossil fuel end uses at time of sale) A second approach that is considered a “no-cost signaling policy” is the “Time of Sale Disclosure”. The intent of this approach is to require a building owner to disclose which end-uses or systems in the building use fossil fuels at the time of sale. Similar to the End of Flow Ordinance, this approach could be integrated into the passing of a new construction reach code ordinance. Time of Sale approaches are triggered when a building changes ownership and some jurisdictions use this approach to require home or building energy assessments. The City of Piedmont requires each residential home sale to provide a Home Energy Score or a Home Energy Audit to prospective buyers. The report must be prepared within 5 years of the sale of the building. Since there are typically no building permits issued at time of sale, the ordinance requires a Home Energy Score Report or Home Energy Audit Report to be included in the time of sale disclosure documents. The intent is that the reports will provide the new owner valuable information on the condition of the home, as well as a roadmap for increasing the energy efficiency of the home when planning future renovations. Burnout Ordinance (Requires electric appliances to replace gas counterparts at end of life or during changeout for remodel) A “Burnout Ordinance” would allow gas or propane appliances that are currently installed to continue to be used until the end of their useful life (defined by either changeout for remodel or wearing out). At the time of replacement, those gas appliances would be required to be replaced with an electric alternative. This approach may focus on one types of gas appliance (e.g., water heating) or all types of gas appliances. A jurisdiction may consider targeting appliances that contribute the most to GHG emissions. A burnout ordinance can be effective in requiring building electrification over time and reducing emissions simultaneously. Considerations must be given to the upfront costs that the owner will accrue, particularly in older buildings. Electrical panel upgrades may also be necessary, which can increase the cost of installing electric alternatives. Additional installation timelines are typical to replacing gas appliances with electric appliance. The additional timeline can be a barrier for building owners seeking to quickly replace an appliance, such as a water heater. In-Lieu Fees (Requires owner to pay a fee to keep gas appliances installed) Another approach that the City may take for existing building electrification is to establish In-lieu fees. The approach requires that a building owner either electrify their building’s end uses or incur a fee to keep the gas appliances. In-lieu fees can be used to penalize non-compliance and discourage the use of exemptions. This approach would raise funds to support decarbonization elsewhere in the jurisdiction. The fee amount may be determined based on a societal cost of carbon, the cost of the future electrification retrofit, or a different approach. The in-lieu fee is typically aimed at commercial buildings. City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 12 of 14 powered by Legistar™395 File #:22-718,Version:1 The intent for the funds generated from the in-lieu fee is to support other electrification efforts (i.e., funding low-income electrification). As an example, a commercial building owner that is replacing an appliance is given two choices: 1) to electrify the appliance or system or 2) pay a fee to offset the installation of the gas appliance. The commercial building owner would be required to pay a fee (typically based on therms/year). The jurisdiction then can use the funds to electrify equivalent therms in low-income homes. The use of in-lieu fees to support building electrification is not a common approach amongst jurisdictions at this time. The City of San Luis Obispo performed an in-lieu fee study to supplement 2019 local reach code efforts to develop the technical framework and technical estimate for a carbon-offset fee that would apply under a local reach code for new buildings. The study expressed the in-lieu fee as a cost per therm and calculated at $27.33 per therm generated. The study found that therms generated will vary by development application, depending on the type and size of the new building(s). The San Luis Obispo City Council did not include the in -lieu fee as an option under the 2019 local energy reach code. However, their efforts may serve as a blueprint to other cities when considering this approach. NEXT STEPS If directed by City Council to adopt a particular approach for the local energy reach code and/or EV ordinance, staff will refine the proposed amendments and will utilize the resources provided by the Statewide Reach Code Program and PCE to further investigate the cost-effectiveness study results and how they impact the building types that are prevalent in the City of South San Francisco. Staff will develop an appropriate policy direction with respect to the permit data analyzed, cost-effectiveness, social equity, and the building types impacted. FISCAL IMPACT The Energy Code and Green Building Code amendments parallel the structure and terms of the State code and as such any incremental plan check and inspection time should be minimal. The electric readiness provisions will require plan checkers and inspectors to apply additional check lists to mixed-fuel buildings. These items are relatively simple and are not expected to require significant additional staff time. Any incremental costs of administering these requirements will be covered through existing permit fees. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This report meets the City’s objectives of creating and maintaining a sustainable city. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council receive a report on commercial reach code efforts and provide staff with direction on draft commercial reach code language. The purpose of this study session is to 1.Receive a presentation regarding the 2022 building electrification and energy efficiency reach code options available for local adoption; and 2.Receive an update on the additional outreach staff conducted to the business and development community regarding a potential building electrification reach code for new nonresidential construction; City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 13 of 14 powered by Legistar™396 File #:22-718,Version:1 and 3.Provide direction to staff on the preferred reach code approach for new residential and non-residential construction so staff may proceed with developing the proposed ordinance for new residential and new nonresidential buildings; and 4.Provide direction to staff on the type of EV reach code to adopt for the 2022 code cycle. City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/1/2022Page 14 of 14 powered by Legistar™397 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Report regarding a study session on new commercial and office construction reach codes.(Christina Fernandez, Chief Sustainability Officer and Melanie Jacobson, Integrated Design 360) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive an update on the outreach process relating to reach codes for new commercial and office construction. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Local reach codes are local enhancements to the state code and can be adopted at any time. Reach codes address building electrification and require the reduced use of natural gas as well as an increase in Electric Vehicle charging. The proposed reach codes improve economic and energy performance for new construction. On May 26, 2021, Council adopted reach codes for new residential buildings requiring all-electric appliances in buildings and higher standards for EV charging stations. Subsequently, Council directed staff to continue to receive input from the business community on potential nonresidential reach codes. City staff convened multiple stakeholder outreach efforts to gain knowledge and suggestions for consideration into the upcoming local municipal code changes. Stakeholders for the nonresidential reach code development include property owners, contractors, manufacturers, architects, and commercial tenants (e.g., office, retail). The City of South San Francisco hosted a meeting with local biotechnology businesses to discuss the proposed reach codes and to gather feedback on September 1, 2021. City staff held an additional Reach Codes Town Hall for the community on September 16, 2021. During these meetings, community members gathered to learn about the potential reach code requirements (building electrification and electric vehicle charging stations) the City is exploring and to provide comments for staff to consider during policy development. City staff also held one-on-one meetings with several representatives from the business development community to better understand each businesses’ individual needs. To date, staff have met with local business community leaders including representatives from Scavengers, BioCom California, California Life Sciences Association (CLSA), Amoura Restaurant, South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, HealthPeak Properties (formerly known as HCP), BioMed Realty, Kilroy Realty, and Genentech. During one-on-one meetings staff shared details on the proposed nonresidential reach codes and recorded concerns on particular requirements. Additionally, staff has surveyed local businesses to learn more about their dependence on natural gas and electricity. Interestingly, a local concrete plant, Granite Rock does not use natural gas for their operations, only propane to power their forklifts. However, all ten local restaurants surveyed depend on gas in their operations. Local restaurants surveyed include Curry Corner, Café Bunn Mi, Fil-Am 2, Hing Lung Café, Thai Satay, AC Hotel Waterfront Lounge, Café 382, Grand Palace Restaurant, Amani San, and Ben Tre. City staff is continuing outreach efforts within the business development community to support the File #:21-791,Version:1 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/11/2022Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™398 File #:21-791,Version:1 nonresidential reach code development process. Business Development Feedback Over 50 members of the community responded to the public “Commercial Reach Code Poll” on the City’s Economic & Community Development webpage. Additionally, community members that attended the biotechnology meeting and the town hall meeting were given opportunities to share questions or concerns with City staff. Concerns raised during the one-on-one business development meetings also contributed to the feedback staff encountered during the outreach process. The most common, high-level challenges raised by the business development community are summarized below. Staff received the following comments on the proposed all-electric requirements for new construction. A challenge frequently discussed during the outreach meetings and analyzed in the survey results relates to concerns about the reliability and resiliency of the grid to handle the increase in electricity demand resulting from an all-electric reach code. Property owners and developers expressed concern over PG&E’s ability to maintain predictable and adequate supply to a site. A few community members requested studies to demonstrate grid capability to handle the potential increased load. The unpredictable frequency of power outages and the increased use of diesel generators are two concerns also relayed to staff during the outreach efforts. A second main concern was on the impact to natural gas end uses commonly used in restaurants (e.g., industrial sized gas ovens) and laundromats (e.g., commercial washers and dryers). Many business community representatives stated that it is not feasible to achieve business goals using existing electric power technology. For example, a developer raised concern over the operations of heat pump systems and the need to replace heat pump systems more frequently than a boiler system. Other general concerns over the all-electric reach code include concerns on impact to cost, efficiency, and effectiveness of business operations. Staff also received feedback on the proposed electric vehicle infrastructure reach code requirements for nonresidential new construction. The most common concern relates to increased cost to business owners to provide the electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). Commercial tenants and property owners also shared concern over a decrease in regular vehicle parking capacity for customers and service parking due to increased presence of EVCS. A local manufacturer voiced concern over the burden on businesses to remove individuals who use charging stations installed on private property. Another concern raised in the public survey was over power outages and how increased installation of EVCS will impact outages. A commercial developer who participated in the survey shared one of the challenges they face is matching the predicted demand for electric vehicles, which typically exceeds code. The developer suggested that the City coordinate with the California Air Resources Board and the County to identify minimum requirements that helps meet predicted regional electric vehicle demand. Another frequent challenge conveyed during the community outreach process is clarity around the time frame of implementation and predictability of the effective date of the proposed reach codes. Numerous stakeholders indicated they require adequate time to adapt to the new regulations and suggested specific exemptions for projects that already submitted a planning application. Property developers shared concern over the cost to redesign a project that typically takes two years to plan and design prior to submitting plans to the City for review. Requests to PG&E to bring power to a new area can also take up to two years, therefore, having an adequate City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/11/2022Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™399 File #:21-791,Version:1 amount of lead time to prepare for nonresidential reach codes is critical for a project’s success. Many businesses were open to adapting to the new reach codes if the requirements were phased in over an extended period of time (e.g., two or more years). As a result of feedback received from the business community, staff learned of the following preferences for potential all-electric reach codes: ·All-electric codes to apply to only new construction ·Provide a long enough implementation period ·A “grace period” after effective date ·Align with next building code cycle (effective January 1, 2023) ·Validation of energy infrastructure and capacity Recommended Next Steps Staff and the city’s consultant continue to meet with individual businesses to better understand the potential impacts an all-electric building code may have on new commercial and office construction. Dependent on Council direction, staff may continue these conversations with local businesses to learn more about the challenges that exist in implementing an all-electric reach code. Much of the feedback provided by the business community is feasible in crafting an all-electric building code. However, “validation of energy infrastructure and capacity,” may be more difficult as it requires additional information from PG&E and further study by technical experts in the energy field. Staff recommends further study of the energy grid’s infrastructure and its ability to handle increased demands should an all-electric commercial building code be implemented. The State of California adopts new building standards every three years, also known as a “code cycle”. The current 2019 code cycle ends on December 31, 2022, and the next code cycle (2022) begins on January 1, 2023. Council may consider directing staff to align the proposed commercial reach code requirements with the adoption of the 2022 building code cycle. FISCAL IMPACT There is no known fiscal impact to continue business outreach. There may be a cost to proceed with an energy infrastructure and capacity study. Staff is working to learn more about the potential scope and receive estimates. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This update meets the strategic plan goals of building, maintaining, and planning for a sustainable city. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council receive an update on the outreach process relating to reach codes for new commercial and office construction. Attachments - 1.Matrix of Outreach City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/11/2022Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™400